Draft pick allocation by position for the entire NFL

[BuffaloHokie13]

You're comparing teams that have franchise QB's to teams that don't. Obviously when you have Brady or Rodgers, it doesn't matter if they take 2 or 0.

Right 3/7 is almost half. OAK, Philly and Washington. Call the Eagles and offer TT for Wentz straight up and you'd get laughed at.

So you're saying that your chart doesn't matter for at least 1/3 of the league?

[Kirby Jackson]

Jets are doing it right, they just haven't found the guy. They've had a much better chance of finding a guy in the last 5 years than the Bills.

 

What?

Yeah, aimlessly swinging has them headed right to the top. Win 10 games in 2015, and half as many the following year. They sure look to be heading in the right direction.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Yeah, aimlessly swinging has them headed right to the top. Win 10 games in 2015, and half as many the following year. They sure look to be heading in the right direction.

And the QB that helped them win 10 wasn't a draft pick

[FireChan]

So you're saying that your chart doesn't matter for at least 1/3 of the league?

For the point I made, no. But it is pretty.

 

I didn't make the chart, btw.

Yeah, aimlessly swinging has them headed right to the top. Win 10 games in 2015, and half as many the following year. They sure look to be heading in the right direction.

They'll stumble upon a guy sooner or later by chance. We have a worse chance, because we don't take them.

 

It's really simple.

Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan

[Kirby Jackson]

For the point I made, no. But it is pretty.

 

I didn't make the chart, btw.

They'll stumble upon a guy sooner or later by chance. We have a worse chance, because we don't take them.

 

It's really simple.

There roster is completely devoid of talent. They are squandering valuable resources by having no plan. Le'Veon Bell, Jamison Crowder and Deion Jones all went within a few picks of where they selected those trash QBs. Would the Jets be better off with Bell, Crowder and Jones or Geno, Petty and Sackenberg?

 

You need to scout, identify a guy and pull the trigger. Aimlessly selecting guys that will never help you is the worst case scenario in the draft. There is a reason that they won half as many games as the previous year. They are nowhere near contending.

[Augie]

There roster is completely devoid of talent. They are squandering valuable resources by having no plan. Le'Veon Bell, Jamison Crowder and Deion Jones all went within a few picks of where they selected those trash QBs. Would the Jets be better off with Bell, Crowder and Jones or Geno, Petty and Sackenberg?

You need to scout, identify a guy and pull the trigger. Aimlessly selecting guys that will never help you is the worst case scenario in the draft. There is a reason that they won half as many games as the previous year. They are nowhere near contending.

Does this tire you? You deserve a nap, then a good nights sleep. I find it exhausting, and I'm mostly just reading.

[Kirby Jackson]

Does this tire you? You deserve a nap, then a good nights sleep. I find it exhausting, and I'm mostly just reading.

I'm beyond tired of these conversations but I still enjoy it. It will all play out in due time one way or another. We just found someone though that said the Jets are doing it right with QBs. I don't think that the Jets think that. Edited February 8, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[FireChan]

There roster is completely devoid of talent. They are squandering valuable resources by having no plan. Le'Veon Bell, Jamison Crowder and Deion Jones all went within a few picks of where they selected those trash QBs. Would the Jets be better off with Bell, Crowder and Jones or Geno, Petty and Sackenberg?

 

You need to scout, identify a guy and pull the trigger. Aimlessly selecting guys that will never help you is the worst case scenario in the draft. There is a reason that they won half as many games as the previous year. They are nowhere near contending.

Doesn't matter. Bell, Crowder and Jones aren't carrying that team to a SB.

 

"Identify a guy" is an excuse to not take one. Dak wasn't taken because Dallas thought he was the guy. Neither was Cardale. Or Cousins. Or Carr.

Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan

[Kirby Jackson]

Doesn't matter. Bell, Crowder and Jones aren't carrying that team to a SB.

 

"Identify a guy" is an excuse to not take one. Dak wasn't taken because Dallas thought he was the guy. Neither was Cardale. Or Cousins. Or Carr.

Got it, Le'Veon Bell won't carry them to the Super Bowl but Geno Smith might.

 

Identify one is an excuse to not take one and just selecting one is a good idea? What are you even talking about at this point? Honestly, it is beyond senseless.

 

If you like one of these guys, you do what you need to do to get him. It's not that complicated. You put a value to them and take your shot. If it is Trubisky and you think he's worth 2 #1's offer 10 and your 2018 first rounder starting with Cleveland at 1. Keep doing it until he's off the board (probably 2). You don't say "we loved Trubisky and Watson but missed them. We have a 3rd round grade on Kizer but he's the next best QB on our board. We should take him now because he might end up good. Sometimes guys that teams don't expect to be good end up good." That is so stupid I don't know what else to say.

[FireChan]

Got it, Le'Veon Bell won't carry them to the Super Bowl but Geno Smith might.

 

Identify one is an excuse to not take one and just selecting one is a good idea? What are you even talking about at this point? Honestly, it is beyond senseless.

 

If you like one of these guys, you do what you need to do to get him. It's not that complicated. You put a value to them and take your shot. If it is Trubisky and you think he's worth 2 #1's offer 10 and your 2018 first rounder starting with Cleveland at 1. Keep doing it until he's off the board (probably 2). You don't say "we loved Trubisky and Watson but missed them. We have a 3rd round grade on Kizer but he's the next best QB on our board. We should take him now because he might end up good. Sometimes guys that teams don't expect to be good end up good." That is so stupid I don't know what else to say.

You're making the argument ridiculous. You don't take a guy you think will suck, but taking chances on guys is the only way to find one.

 

You think it's as easy as "Trubisky is absolutely the guy and he's worth a king's ransom to get." It's not. That's not how Carr was found. Or Cousins. Or Dak.

 

Dak easily could've been the next Geno, or EJ or whatever bust you want to name. But they took a risky QB they kinda liked (not loved, because you don't wait til the 4th to a QB you "love" as a franchise guy).

 

It's just that simple. Waiting for a prospect you "love" to fall in your lap on draft day at the exact value you want him at is how you end up only taking 2 QB's in 5 years and only 1 in the first and no viable QBs on the horizon.

 

If the Bills brass is warm on Watson and he's there at 10, I'd argue, hard, to take him. You'd say, "eh the Bills don't really have a #10 first round value on him, they should pass." That's how you end up with nobody.

 

Say what you want about the Jets but are they are they a better team in the short term with Jone and Bell and whatever? Of course they are. They have a guy with foresight calling the shots and he's saying, "we aren't gonna get a #1 overall guy who is a sure fire prospect we love at QB, let's take some guys we like and see if they work out."

 

Hackenburg vs a Ragland results in exactly no difference for us and them in 2016, except Hack has/had a shot to be a franchise QB. Ragland had a shot to be a rotational LB but his knee exploded and he was nothing.

 

You can't sit there and tout that the draft is kind of a crap shoot and then turn around and say don't take shots on young QB prospects unless you love them. It's insanity.

 

My argument is simply thus. Why do the Bills not have a good QB on the roster? Do they suck at identifying them? Should they have realized what Dak and Carr would've been? How can you ask that when nobody would've expected that? Do we need to have the best QB evaluating team in the league to get one?

 

Or, maybe, do they struggle with taking enough shots?

Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan

[Kirby Jackson]

You're making the argument ridiculous. You don't take a guy you think will suck, but taking chances on guys is the only way to find one.

 

You think it's as easy as "Trubisky is absolutely the guy and he's worth a king's ransom to get." It's not. That's not how Carr was found. Or Cousins. Or Dak.

 

Dak easily could've been the next Geno, or EJ or whatever bust you want to name. But they took a risky QB they kinda liked (not loved, because you don't wait til the 4th to a QB you "love" as a franchise guy).

 

It's just that simple. Waiting for a prospect you "love" to fall in your lap on draft day at the exact value you want him at is how you end up only taking 2 QB's in 5 years and only 1 in the first and no viable QBs on the horizon.

 

If the Bills brass is warm on Watson and he's there at 10, I'd argue, hard, to take him. You'd say, "eh the Bills don't really have a #10 first round value on him, they should pass." That's how you end up with nobody.

 

Say what you want about the Jets but are they are they a better team in the short term with Jone and Bell and whatever? Of course they are. They have a guy with foresight calling the shots and he's saying, "we aren't gonna get a #1 overall guy who is a sure fire prospect we love at QB, let's take some guys we like and see if they work out."

 

Hackenburg vs a Ragland results in exactly no difference for us and them in 2016, except Hack has/had a shot to be a franchise QB. Ragland had a shot to be a rotational LB but his knee exploded and he was nothing.

 

You can't sit there and tout that the draft is kind of a crap shoot and then turn around and say don't take shots on young QB prospects unless you love them. It's insanity.

 

My argument is simply thus. Why do the Bills not have a good QB on the roster? Do they suck at identifying them? Should they have realized what Dak and Carr would've been? How can you ask that when nobody would've expected that? Do we need to have the best QB evaluating team in the league to get one?

 

Or, maybe, do they struggle with taking enough shots?

There have been 213 QBs selected since the Brady draft. You can look through the other threads and the list and tell me how many times we missed. The answer is 7 guys are franchise caliber QBs now that we could have drafted. That includes Flacco and his numbers have been worse than TT since he took over. The math is also there in that if we drafted a QB every year for the last decade we'd be way less than 50% to have to have found one. Where you are dead wrong is that you keep remembering Dak but forgetting that for every Dak there are 10 Garrett Grayson's. We all remember Dak but forget Tyler Bray. You can go back through the numbers but they are all posted in one of these threads already.

 

Not sure where you are getting "waiting for the prospect to fall into you lap" when I just proposed trading up in the previous post? YOU GET THE GUY YOU WANT NOT THE GUY THAT'S AVAILABLE!!! Your strategy gets you EJ, my strategy gets you Wentz. QBs get bumped up some for sure, but certainly no more than a round. Everything is relative too, if think Allen is a top 3 player in the draft and Watson the 40th who do you take at 10? I am taking Allen. Good teams take BPA.

 

Taking guys for the Jets hasn't worked. You can't argue otherwise. They "needed a QB" so they took Geno and Le'Veon (maybe the best player in football) went a couple of picks later. If you think that Hackenberg is a franchise caliber QB you've never seen him play. He makes Ryan Mallett look like Peyton Manning. But they took a guy, am I right?

 

The Bills are taking shots right in line with other teams. They have a guy now that's roughly the 20th best QB. The teams worse off than them and the teams better off are taking QBs at the same rate. When there is a less than 10% hit rate on QBs (the numbers are all on the board) you can't expend those assets swinging. You can't trade 10 draft picks for 1 guy. You have to identify the guy that you believe in and go get him. Maybe it's as simple as Mahomes or Watson at 10? Maybe it involves adding a 1 in 2018 to get Rosen or Darnold? Maybe it's Nathan Peterman in the 3rd? You don't just say "this guy's here so let's take him." That is the dumbest idea ever and one employed by zero GMs in the history of sports.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[FireChan]

There have been 213 QBs selected since the Brady draft. You can look through the other threads and the list and tell me how many times we missed. The answer is 7 guys are franchise caliber QBs now that we could have drafted. That includes Flacco and his numbers have been worse than TT since he took over. The math is also there in that if we drafted a QB every year for the last decade we'd be way less than 50% to have to have found one. Where you are dead wrong is that you keep remembering Dak but forgetting that for every Dak there are 10 Garrett Grayson's. We all remember Dak but forget Tyler Bray. You can go back through the numbers but they are all posted in one of these threads already.

 

Not sure where you are getting "waiting for the prospect to fall into you lap" when I just proposed trading up in the previous post? YOU GET THE GUY YOU WANT NOT THE GUY THAT'S AVAILABLE!!! Your strategy gets you EJ, my strategy gets you Wentz. QBs get bumped up some for sure, but certainly no more than a round. Everything is relative too, if think Allen is a top 3 player in the draft and Watson the 40th who do you take at 10? I am taking Allen. Good teams take BPA.

 

Taking guys for the Jets hasn't worked. You can't argue otherwise. They "needed a QB" so they took Geno and Le'Veon (maybe the best player in football) went a couple of picks later. If you think that Hackenberg is a franchise caliber QB you've never seen him play. He makes Ryan Mallett look like Peyton Manning. But they took a guy, am I right?

 

The Bills are taking shots right in line with other teams. They have a guy now that's roughly the 20th best QB. The teams worse off than them and the teams better off are taking QBs at the same rate. When there is a less than 10% hit rate on QBs (the numbers are all on the board) you can't expend those assets swinging. You can't trade 10 draft picks for 1 guy. You have to identify the guy that you believe in and go get him. Maybe it's as simple as Mahomes or Watson at 10? Maybe it involves adding a 1 in 2018 to get Rosen or Darnold? Maybe it's Nathan Peterman in the 3rd? You don't just say "this guy's here so let's take him." That is the dumbest idea ever and one employed by zero GMs in the history of sports.

Of course there is, I've never argued otherwise. In fact, that's my argument.

 

My strategy gets EJ, yours gets Wentz? I mean, if you want to cherry pick, sure. But I could easily say my strategy gets Dak/Cousins, yours get Goff or RG3. You proposed "trading up for a guy they loved" which I already demonstrated does not happen for the Bills.

 

Apparently Hack has developed quite a bit, so I'm reserving judgement on the Jets. Your argument that it hasn't worked yet holds little water when our strategy hasn't worked either.

 

You don't have to spend "all" your assets taking QB's, just 1 per draft. Preferably in the first.

 

Here's the list of starting QBs in the NFL:

 

Palmer

Ryan

Flacco

TT

Cam

Cutler

Dalton

Kessler/RG3

Dak

Siemian

Stafford

Rodgers

Osweiler

Luck

Bortles

Smith

Goff

Tannehill

Teddy/Bradford

Brady

Brees

Manning

Fitz/Geno

Carr

Wentz

Big Ben

Rivers

Kaep

Wilson

Winston

Mariota

Cousins

 

How many of those guys were targeted as guys that were "loved" and traded up to picks #1 or #2 for? Goff, Wentz, RG3.

 

How many of those guys were targeted as guys that were "loved" with original picks #1 or #2? Mariota, Winston, Ryan, Stafford, Eli, Smith, Palmer, Cam, Luck, Bradford

 

Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending it's easy as trading up to get a guy slated to be #1 or #2 overall. It's happened 3 times in recent memory, and they are arguably the 3 worst starting QB's today to go #1 or #2. I doubt that's a coincidence.

 

And for the final piece of the puzzle, how many of those guys were "liked" but not loved and had shots taken on them? Brees, Carr, Cousins, Wilson, Big Ben, Geno, Fitz, Kaep, Teddy, Osweiler, Rodgers, Simeian, Dak, Flacco, Brady, Rivers, TT, Tanny.

 

Some of them taken in the first round and decently high. Some not.

 

Carr, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Cousins, Ben, Teddy, Dak, Flacco are all guys that their respective teams did not love when they were drafted. And yet they have 6 Super Bowls between them. They were all taken by GMs who were taking shots at the most important position in the NFL. And it worked out for them. Sometimes it does not. Hell, a huge chunk of those QB's on that list suck. But you have to try, even if you don't immediately think the player is a surefire #1 overall caliber guy.

 

Finally, you skipped my question that gets to the root of the issue. Why have the Bills not drafted a good QB? Do they suck at identifying them? Should they have realized what Dak and Carr would've been? How can you ask that when nobody would've expected that? Do we need to have the best QB evaluating team in the league to get one?

Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan

[BuffaloHokie13]

Of course there is, I've never argued otherwise. In fact, that's my argument.

 

My strategy gets EJ, yours gets Wentz? I mean, if you want to cherry pick, sure. But I could easily say my strategy gets Dak/Cousins, yours get Goff or RG3. You proposed "trading up for a guy they loved" which I already demonstrated does not happen for the Bills.

 

Apparently Hack has developed quite a bit, so I'm reserving judgement on the Jets. Your argument that it hasn't worked yet holds little water when our strategy hasn't worked either.

 

You don't have to spend "all" your assets taking QB's, just 1 per draft. Preferably in the first.

 

Here's the list of starting QBs in the NFL:

 

Palmer

Ryan

Flacco

TT

Cam

Cutler

Dalton

Kessler/RG3

Dak

Siemian

Stafford

Rodgers

Osweiler

Luck

Bortles

Smith

Goff

Tannehill

Teddy/Bradford

Brady

Brees

Manning

Fitz/Geno

Carr

Wentz

Big Ben

Rivers

Kaep

Wilson

Winston

Mariota

Cousins

 

How many of those guys were targeted as guys that were "loved" and traded up to picks #1 or #2 for? Goff, Wentz, RG3.

 

How many of those guys were targeted as guys that were "loved" with original picks #1 or #2? Mariota, Winston, Ryan, Stafford, Eli, Smith, Palmer, Cam, Luck, Bradford

 

Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending it's easy as trading up to get a guy slated to be #1 or #2 overall. It's happened 3 times in recent memory, and they are arguably the 3 worst starting QB's today to go #1 or #2. I doubt that's a coincidence.

 

And for the final piece of the puzzle, how many of those guys were "liked" but not loved and had shots taken on them? Brees, Carr, Cousins, Wilson, Big Ben, Geno, Fitz, Kaep, Teddy, Osweiler, Rodgers, Simeian, Dak, Flacco, Brady, Rivers, TT.

 

Some of them taken in the first round and decently high. Some not.

 

Carr, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Cousins, Ben, Teddy, Dak, Flacco are all guys that their respective teams did not love when they were drafted. And yet they have 6 Super Bowls between them. They were all taken by GMs who were taking shots at the most important position in the NFL. And it worked out for them. Sometimes it does not. Hell, a huge chunk of those QB's on that list suck. But you have to try, even if you don't immediately think the player is a surefire #1 overall caliber guy.

 

Finally, you skipped my question that gets to the root of the issue. Why have the Bills not drafted a good QB? Do they suck at identifying them? Should they have realized what Dak and Carr would've been? How can you ask that when nobody would've expected that? Do we need to have the best QB evaluating team in the league to get one?

Trade ups became way more viable after the rookie wage scale became a thing. Anyone Bradford's year or before it would have been incredibly cost prohibitive.

[FireChan]

Trade ups became way more viable after the rookie wage scale became a thing. Anyone Bradford's year or before it would have been incredibly cost prohibitive.

That's true, but I still contend trading up to get a Mariota/Winston is next to impossible, whereas prospects like Goff/Wentz is a different story.

[dave mcbride]

From everything I have read, Hackenberg was AWFUL in practice throughout the year. Also, stuff is out there about how the Jets are beginning to think of him as a sunk cost and are already in the process of moving on. They reportedly regard Petty as a backup at best too. He was bad this year when he played.

Edited February 8, 2017 by dave mcbride

[Alphadawg7]

I still find it hilariously funny that you made or copy and pasted a chart trying to prove the Bills don't take a QB often enough, yet only 7 teams have taken a QB more often than the Bills. You don't even understand how to read your own chart.

 

Most importantly, the reason drafting a QB often doesnt occur more is that once you take a guy, especially if you use a high draft pick, the team will invest time into that QB. Which is why when you take a high QB and MISS, you can cost the team 5 years. I know your infant mind can't comprehend simple math from the last time I said that, but for the others I will break it down.

 

1. Lets say the Bills use a first round pick on a QB this year.

2. That QB is going to get at LEAST 2 years from the team, and could get easily 3 before the team realizes it needs to draft another QB and that guy is not the guy.

3. The team then needs to find a new QB, and good franchise QB's are not usually available in FA or via trade, so the most likely place to go back and find one is the Draft.

4. You are now at least in year 3 with a new QB, could be year 4 if the first guy got 3 years (maybe he sat behind a vet the first year, or didn't quite suck enough to be clear he wasnt the guy and just never really improved).

5. That new QB will take time to develop or time to prove he isnt the guy either. Likely take at least 2 years to know if he's the franchise guy or not.

 

You see, you are already at 5 years and you may still not know if you have your guy or not. So when you invest a high pick in a QB and are WRONG, that can set the team back quite a bit. You don't just invest a first round pick on a QB every single year, so once you do then you are on at least a 2 or 3 year journey with that QB, so being wrong can be costly. The worst thing you can do is reach for a QB out of desperation. The Bill are NOT desperate at QB by any means, and we can do a LOT worse than TT. In fact, the odds are any QB we take will be worse, significantly worse than TT based on the history of the draft. When you haven't made the playoffs in 17 years, you don't risk the next 5 on a gamble, especially when offensive scoring is light years from being the worst part of this team.

[FireChan]

I still find it hilariously funny that you made or copy and pasted a chart trying to prove the Bills don't take a QB often enough, yet only 7 teams have taken a QB more often than the Bills. You don't even understand how to read your own chart.

 

Most importantly, the reason drafting a QB often doesnt occur more is that once you take a guy, especially if you use a high draft pick, the team will invest time into that QB. Which is why when you take a high QB and MISS, you can cost the team 5 years. I know your infant mind can't comprehend simple math from the last time I said that, but for the others I will break it down.

 

1. Lets say the Bills use a first round pick on a QB this year.

2. That QB is going to get at LEAST 2 years from the team, and could get easily 3 before the team realizes it needs to draft another QB and that guy is not the guy.

3. The team then needs to find a new QB, and good franchise QB's are not usually available in FA or via trade, so the most likely place to go back and find one is the Draft.

4. You are now at least in year 3 with a new QB, could be year 4 if the first guy got 3 years (maybe he sat behind a vet the first year, or didn't quite suck enough to be clear he wasnt the guy and just never really improved).

5. That new QB will take time to develop or time to prove he isnt the guy either. Likely take at least 2 years to know if he's the franchise guy or not.

 

You see, you are already at 5 years and you may still not know if you have your guy or not. So when you invest a high pick in a QB and are WRONG, that can set the team back quite a bit. You don't just invest a first round pick on a QB every single year, so once you do then you are on at least a 2 or 3 year journey with that QB, so being wrong can be costly. The worst thing you can do is reach for a QB out of desperation. The Bill are NOT desperate at QB by any means, and we can do a LOT worse than TT. In fact, the odds are any QB we take will be worse, significantly worse than TT based on the history of the draft. When you haven't made the playoffs in 17 years, you don't risk the next 5 on a gamble, especially when offensive scoring is light years from being the worst part of this team.

This argument makes no sense, no matter how many times you repoeat it.

 

2. There is no rule saying a QB requires 2-3 years. EJ didn't get 2 years. Clausen only got 1.

3. Once you draft a new QB, you reset the timer. Furthermore, your argument would say that having TT as our starter in 2015 and 2016 were 2 wasted years because we missed on EJ. I know you don't believe that.

 

The EJ-TT timeline blows this nonsense out of the water.

 

EJ got less than 2 years. TT got 2 years to see if he's the guy. That's 4 years at most, not 5. Furthermore, if the QB you find after a bust is "the guy" then his development years weren't a waste.

 

Not to mention, I'm not sure what you're arguing we're wasting or setting back. Are we setting our Super Bowl window back 5 years even though we haven't made the postseason in 17 years?

 

Yes, Alpha, you've stumbled on the fundamental truth that if you draft a QB and he turns out to suck, you have to draft another one. That's hardly groundbreaking. We all know. That doesn't mean don't take them.

Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan

[dave mcbride]

Another reason to draft qbs even if you have a good one: a lot of other teams don't. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/123914/COWBOYS-TRADE-WALSH-TO-SAINTS.html

[Alphadawg7]

This argument makes no sense, no matter how many times you repoeat it.

 

2. There is no rule saying a QB requires 2-3 years. EJ didn't get 2 years. Clausen only got 1.

3. Once you draft a new QB, you reset the timer. Furthermore, your argument would say that having TT as our starter in 2015 and 2016 were 2 wasted years because we missed on EJ. I know you don't believe that.

 

The EJ-TT timeline blows this nonsense out of the water.

 

EJ got less than 2 years. TT got 2 years to see if he's the guy. That's 4 years at most, not 5. Furthermore, if the QB you find after a bust is "the guy" then his development years weren't a waste.

 

Not to mention, I'm not sure what you're arguing we're wasting or setting back. Are we setting our Super Bowl window back 5 years even though we haven't made the postseason in 17 years?

 

Yes, Alpha, you've stumbled on the fundamental truth that if you draft a QB and he turns out to suck, you have to draft another one. That's hardly groundbreaking. We all know. That doesn't mean don't take them.

 

Let me tell you how dumb your response is. The Bills are 17 years without a QB and still looking (according to you saying TT is a Bum), so nothing you can say about the Bills blows anything out of the water.

 

1. 4 years at most? First of all you say that like 4 years is NO big deal. You also carefully neglect that there is no guarantee at year 4 the next guy is the guy which CONTINUES the pattern even longer. Second of all the "at most part" is ridiculous thing to say.

2. Its rare that a team misses so bad on a QB with a high draft pick that the team gives up on that player after 1 season. Most QB's will get 2 years, and some 3 if they were not crappy enough to all out give up on and gave the team false hope for improvement. And if they sat behind a Vet for 1 season, then they most likely get 2 as a starter making it 3 again.

3. Again, another really stupid point you made is you said we didn't give EJ 2 full seasons (we gave up on him in season of year 2). You do realize that still COSTS the team 2 years right because the draft had already happened. Man you are dense. Doesnt matter if we gave up on EJ in week 4 or week 16 of his 2nd year, we still LOST that FULL year to that QB. That is STILL 2 FULL seasons we lost on EJ in terms of drafting a QB.

 

I mean this is simple enough for a child to understand...no amount of nonsense you say can dispute it. Investing a high pick in a QB and being wrong is very costly. That does not even take into account about being wrong the next time too. It also doesnt factor in how bad you missed. If your team is still good enough to get you 7 wins then guess what, the next time you go for a QB you wont be choosing from the top prospects either as you wont have a high enough draft pick, which then also lowers your odds of finding that franchise guy and being right.

 

And yes, it does mean you don't take them unless they are the guy who you REALLY love and think can be a franchise guy. You DONT reach for them and pass up Elite prospects at other positions of need, especially positions that are a BIGGER need than QB. This team DOES NOT NEED A QB NEARLY AS BAD AS OTHER POSITIONS. No amount of crying about your stupid passing yard stat is going to change that. Everyone and their mother knows our defense was worse than our offense. You don't scrap a QB who led the team to the 5th highest PPG in the NFL to gamble on a rookie QB not worthy of that draft slot when there are BETTER players available at positions of BIGGER need. PERIOD.

PS: Still amused how you carefully ignore the point that your chart actually does not in any way support nor prove the lame argument you are trying to use it to make.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[FireChan]

 

Let me tell you how dumb your response is. The Bills are 17 years without a QB and still looking (according to you saying TT is a Bum), so nothing you can say about the Bills blows anything out of the water.

 

1. 4 years at most? First of all you say that like 4 years is NO big deal. You also carefully neglect that there is no guarantee at year 4 the next guy is the guy which CONTINUES the pattern even longer. Second of all the "at most part" is ridiculous thing to say.

2. Its rare that a team misses so bad on a QB with a high draft pick that the team gives up on that player after 1 season. Most QB's will get 2 years, and some 3 if they were not crappy enough to all out give up on and gave the team false hope for improvement. And if they sat behind a Vet for 1 season, then they most likely get 2 as a starter making it 3 again.

3. Again, another really stupid point you made is you said we didn't give EJ 2 full seasons (we gave up on him in season of year 2). You do realize that still COSTS the team 2 years right because the draft had already happened. Man you are dense. Doesnt matter if we gave up on EJ in week 4 or week 16 of his 2nd year, we still LOST that FULL year to that QB. That is STILL 2 FULL seasons we lost on EJ in terms of drafting a QB.

 

I mean this is simple enough for a child to understand...no amount of nonsense you say can dispute it. Investing a high pick in a QB and being wrong is very costly. That does not even take into account about being wrong the next time too. It also doesnt factor in how bad you missed. If your team is still good enough to get you 7 wins then guess what, the next time you go for a QB you wont be choosing from the top prospects either as you wont have a high enough draft pick, which then also lowers your odds of finding that franchise guy and being right.

 

And yes, it does mean you don't take them unless they are the guy who really think can be a franchise guy. You DONT reach for them and pass up Elite prospects at other positions of need, especially positions that are a BIGGER need than QB. This team DOES NOT NEED A QB NEARLY AS BAD AS OTHER POSITIONS. No amount of crying about your stupid passing yard stat is going to change that. Everyone and their mother knows our defense was worse than our offense. You don't scrap a QB who led the team to the 5th highest PPG in the NFL to gamble on a rookie QB not worthy of that draft slot when there are BETTER players available at positions of BIGGER need. PERIOD.

That's why you take another one, like I've said at least a thousand times.

 

There is literally zero reason to not take a QB high the year after taking one high if you're not sure he's the guy. I don't care what "most teams do." Most teams are run by morons.

 

QB matters more than any position in sports, you don't need a top 10 pick at safety to have a good defense.

 

Your argument would imply that Jimmy Clausen costs the Panthers 3 years because they drafted Cam the year after even though he was clearly the truth. It's nonsense. You continue to spout drivel.

Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan