Bucky Brooks Scout's Notebook: Stop Overdrafting Quarterbacks!

[26CornerBlitz]

SCOUT'S NOTEBOOK
Top-five QBs? Not So Fast
The draft stock of 2018's top passers -- Josh Allen, Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen -- has seemingly never been higher. Bucky Brooks explains why we may be overvaluing QBs and gives his latest top-10 ranking.

 

Former NFL player and scout Bucky Brooks knows the ins and outs of this league, providing keen insight in his notebook. The topics of this edition include:

 

-- How the Jason Pierre-Paul trade impacts the Bucs' and Giants' draft plans.

 

-- Bill Belichick's magic hand in the offseason.

 

-- Has time run out for Dez Bryant?

 

But first, a warning about passing on future stars to draft a quarterback ...

* * * * *

Reviewing my notes from the fall, I believe there are only two quarterbacks worthy of top-10 grades, and they don't rank within my top five overall prospects. Here's my top 10 right now:

1) Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn State
2) Bradley Chubb, DE, N.C. State
3) Denzel Ward, CB, Ohio State
4) Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech
5) Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame
6) Minkah Fitzpatrick, DB, Alabama
7) Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA
8) Sam Darnold, QB, USC
9) Roquan Smith, LB, Georgia
10) Derwin James, S, Florida State

[DJB]

Problem is you dont win without them. Its a QB driven league and always will be. If you need a QB you have to do whatever I to get one.

 

Teams that already have franchise QB have a much easier time sticking to their draft board and not reaching.

Edited March 24, 2018 by DJB

[Lfod]

That's like telling people to not speed when running late to work. Quarter Backs are in demand right now. The fish probably shouldn't bring in Brock. It's happening for a reason.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Lfod

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Overreacting is never good 

[White Linen]

Make sure you don't reach for the most important position in all of sports.  Especially when every player Bucky has above a QB is a guaranteed top NFL player.

Edited March 24, 2018 by White Linen

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, White Linen said:

Make sure you don't reach for the most important position in all of sports.

 

Not loving the word reach. 

[Batman1876]

Perhaps at the owners meeting they’ll all make a handshake agreement to not overdraft a QB.

[pimp on da' net]

25 minutes ago, DJB said:

Problem is you dont win without them. Its a QB driven league and always will be. If you need a QB you have to do whatever I to get one.

 

Teams that already have franchise QB have a much easier time sticking to their draft board and not reaching.

The point I take from this is don't sell the farm for a position of need if said position may not be NFL starter quality.

 

I think we all agree about the importance of the QB position and finding the "franchise QB"...all things being equal, if these top tier 4 or 5 (whatever your value) are indeed can't miss. You spend the capital needed to get one. The problem is, one maybe two fit the profile.

 

History tell us that the majority of them in this years draft will flame out...

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, pimp on da' net said:

The point I take from this is don't sell the farm for a position of need if said position may not be NFL starter quality.

 

I think we all agree about the importance of the QB position and finding the "franchise QB"...all things being equal, if these top tier 4 or 5 (whatever your value) are indeed can't miss. You spend the capital needed to get one. The problem is, one maybe two fit the profile.

 

History tell us that the majority of them in this years draft will flame out...

 

Interesting examples in the 2011 draft that Brooks referenced in the article. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[jrober38]

I agree with this premise. I'm higher on Mayfield than he is, but you can tell by watching him on the NFL Network today he doesn't think Allen has any chance of being a good pro. 

 

It's really hard to find a QB, and the vast majority of first rounders who don't go #1 overall bust. 

Teams need to be very careful with who they risk blowing picks on. Drafting guys just for the sake of it rarely works out. 

[NewEraBills]

As far as overall players, I'd put Smith ahead of both QBs.  But in any case, we need a QB.  It's not like having the worse QB situation doesn't cement the fact that we need to be looking at QB before anything else.

[BADOLBILZ]

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

[jrober38]

9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

 

This isn't really true. 

 

Over the 17 year drought, we drafted one All Pro (Marcell Dareus, 2014).

 

Over the 17 year drought, we drafted 10 Pro Bowlers out of 139 total draft picks  (Kyle Williams 5x, Marcel Dareus 2x, Jairus Byrd 3x, Aaron Schobel 2x, Terrance McGee 1x, Nate Clements 1x, Stephon GIlmore 1x, Marshawn Lynch 1x, Eric Wood 1x, Travis Henry 1x). 

 

That's an abysmal draft record. 

 

Of the 18 first round picks we had, only five of them ever made at least one Pro Bowl, and only one ever became an All Pro.

 

Just terrible. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by jrober38

[pimp on da' net]

2 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

As far as overall players, I'd put Smith ahead of both QBs.  But in any case, we need a QB.  It's not like having the worse QB situation doesn't cement the fact that we need to be looking at QB before anything else.

This is the whole gamesmanship with the draft and the valuations each team puts on a prospect.

 

The top half teams in the draft play poker by milking those desperate for a QB.  If the prospect is overvalued (due to need) and flames out, that sets an organization back in a sense. Case in point, Miami at 11 all of a sudden positions itself to look as tho they want one of the QB prospects. Now causing a team like BUF or ARI to overpay to get ahead of them... MIA laughs as we weaken are ability to fill other positional needs reaching for a risky propspect...BUF did this in the Tebow draft, Ralph Wilson spoke about how DEN winked & drafted Tebow in the 1st rd when he wasn't slotted that high on BUF board.

 

Interestingly, Bills at 12 (if they stay put) looks to be in a good position for a Mayfield for those that value his skill set.

 

Trust the process, Beane.

17 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

FYI- TT was a pro-bowler 2 yrs ago, just saying.

[SectionC3]

24 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

I agree with this premise. I'm higher on Mayfield than he is, but you can tell by watching him on the NFL Network today he doesn't think Allen has any chance of being a good pro. 

 

It's really hard to find a QB, and the vast majority of first rounders who don't go #1 overall bust. 

Teams need to be very careful with who they risk blowing picks on. Drafting guys just for the sake of it rarely works out. 

 

Im not sold on a bunch of these guys.  I love Rosen, think Darnold could be really good, and could live with Lamar Jackson.  Not sure about mayfield.  Could boom or bust.  Want no part of rudolph - can’t get past the Texas game on him.  Think Allen is EJ Manuel w a better arm and a bit more mystery about him. 

[BADOLBILZ]

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

This isn't really true. 

 

Over the 17 year drought, we drafted one All Pro (Marcell Dareus, 2014).

 

Over the 17 year drought, we drafted 10 Pro Bowlers out of 139 total draft picks  (Kyle Williams 5x, Marcel Dareus 2x, Jairus Byrd 3x, Aaron Schobel 2x, Terrance McGee 1x, Nate Clements 1x, Stephon GIlmore 1x, Marshawn Lynch 1x, Eric Wood 1x, Travis Henry 1x). 

 

That's an abysmal draft record. 

 

Of the 18 first round picks we had, only five of them ever made at least one Pro Bowl, and only one ever became an All Pro.

 

Just terrible. 

 

 

Wrong.

 

It's really true. 

 

Marshawn Lynch was an All Pro.........and 5X pro bowler not 1x.........and he's a likely HOF'er.

 

And Donte Whitner.......yes Lil' Donte.......was also a 2x time Pro Bowler.

 

Same for Willis McGahee........2x pro bowler.......10K yard RB.

 

All three were Bills first rounders.

 

Then there is Lee Evans who was basically good for around 900 yards receiving at 15 ypc clip in his first 6 seasons.

 

Sammy Watkins was also extraordinary in his first two seasons in Buffalo.

 

Lee Evans is the only one of those guys who saw a second contract in Buffalo...........some didn't even make it thru the first one.

 

NOT "abysmal" first round selections..........just the WRONG selections because the team did not have a franchise QB to put them around.

 

[SinceThe70s]

38 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

 

I agree with this, but what if a trade up to Get your QB isn't possible? Take the QB available at 12 (or even trade-up out of desperation) and hope for the best even though you don't believe in him? Take a non-QB  at 12 and then  try to use your draft capital to get the guy you don't believe in before 22?

 

This Jets trade-up is like sand in my gears.

 

Fun times though, looking forward to how it plays out. Trusting the process.

[SoTier]

40 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Not loving the word reach. 

 

Why is that?  If you draft a player in the top ten who isn't nearly as good a prospect as others still available, you've reached for him.  That's what the Bills did in 2006 when they took Donte Whitner because they needed a strong safety while DT Haloti Ngata was still on the board ... and then they traded back into the first to take bust DT John McCargo. The Bills did the same thing again in 2009 when they wasted the 11th overall pick on Aaron Maybin with Brian Orakpo still available.  If the Bills hadn't traded back into the first round to take Losman in 2004, he would have probably been available in the 2nd, and if he wasn't,  they could have taken Schaub or just pass on a QB and take one in 2005 ... and Aaron Rodgers would have been available at #18.

 

18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

 

One of the big reasons for the playoff drought was that the Bills were constantly drafting DBs, WRs, and RBs and then disposing of their first round picks when their rookie contracts were finished.  They then used first and second round picks to replace them, so they had few high draft picks to invest in other positions.  The Bills didn't draft for BPA or even for need during the playoff drought.  They drafted to improve the bottom line, which is why the two QBs they did draft sucked ... they were both reaches that the Bills drafted in the first round because first round rookie QBs guarantee better ticket sales.    

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, SoTier said:

 

Why is that?  If you draft a player in the top ten who isn't nearly as good a prospect as others still available, you've reached for him.  That's what the Bills did in 2006 when they took Donte Whitner because they needed a strong safety while DT Haloti Ngata was still on the board ... and then they traded back into the first to take bust DT John McCargo. The Bills did the same thing again in 2009 when they wasted the 11th overall pick on Aaron Maybin with Brian Orakpo still available.  If the Bills hadn't traded back into the first round to take Losman in 2004, he would have probably been available in the 2nd, and if he wasn't,  they could have taken Schaub or just pass on a QB and take one in 2005 ... and Aaron Rodgers would have been available at #18.

 

 

One of the big reasons for the playoff drought was that the Bills were constantly drafting DBs, WRs, and RBs and then disposing of their first round picks when their rookie contracts were finished.  They then used first and second round picks to replace them, so they had few high draft picks to invest in other positions.  The Bills didn't draft for BPA or even for need during the playoff drought.  They drafted to improve the bottom line, which is why the two QBs they did draft sucked ... they were both reaches that the Bills drafted in the first round because first round rookie QBs guarantee better ticket sales.    

 

  Do you really think I don't know what that means? Why are you trying to explain the obvious to me when the point is that's what I want the Bills to avoid? 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, DJB said:

Problem is you dont win without them. Its a QB driven league and always will be. If you need a QB you have to do whatever I to get one.

 

Teams that already have franchise QB have a much easier time sticking to their draft board and not reaching.

 

 

Yeah. 

 

He talks about learning this (never overdraft anyone) in the Seattle and Green Bay scouting staffs.

 

Green Bay already had their QB. Once you have your QB, yeah, don't overdraft. Seattle got lucky that nobody overdrafted Russell Wilson. If someone had been smart enough to do that, Seattle would never have won a SB.

[Tyrod's friend]

If you draft good players, and keep them, and they aren't necessarily QBs, you can do fine. 

But the Bills
* notably are poor in the draft and
* when they have a good player, they let them go.

When I think about it, since the early 90s I can't think of any franchise players we've ever drafted and truly kept outside of Kyle Williams. 

The Baltimore Ravens really haven't had a really good QB since the franchise was founded. (Don't you EVEN talk about Flacco as really good). Ozzie Newsome had an incredible record of finding talent; they kept the best and augmented as necessary, and they are competitive each and every year. They've never, ever "reached" for a QB.

It looks to me like Andy freaking Dalton averaged about 10-11 wins in his first five years of starting in Cincinnati. Bengals didn't leap up to get him. 

The Vikings have averaged nearly 11 wins in the last three years without jumping to get a QB and in fact starting three different QBs. I'm sure there are other examples over time. 

There's a lot of paths to excellence. I think Bills fans are impacted because of Brady; but don't tell me "you can get stick to your board when you already have your franchise QB". Stick the board, retain the quality players, and eventually the board will provide you with a winning culture and team. 

1 hour ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

This Jets trade-up is like sand in my gears.

 

It's the Jets. Mark Sanchez was the last guy they did this with, and they've been the freaking Israelites, wandering around the desert without a QB for literally 50 years since Namath. 

I'd say the likelihood is pretty good they screwed up again.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[Buffalo Barbarian]

When QBs become like RBs then we will stop overdrafting them.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

I only have the same 2 QBs in my top 10 too... Mayfield is 11th on my big board. But I'd take Mayfield way before pick 11. Quarterback is the only position you should overdraft. 

[H2o]

Dear, dear Bucky. Smh. A LB or a DB or a DE is not the one under center trying to lead your team down the field for the winning score with under 2 minutes remaining. Until you have your franchise QB the rest is just the rest. It's not overdrafting if that QB turns out to be the Neo of your Franchise. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by H2o

[GETTOTHE50]

Asides from the center, the QB handles the football more than anyone else.

 

therefore he has the most influence and impact in the game.

 

if you see a great one (like Aaron rodgers) or even a good one (like Kirk cousins) then you do whatever it takes to get him.

 

especially if you don’t have one. 

 

Final analysis: Bucky is a moron. 

[MrEpsYtown]

Taking the seventh or eight best player at 1-2 is really not an overdraft. It's very slight, but you are talking about a likely franchise quarterback. An overdraft is taking the 30th best player in the top 3. An overdraft is drafting the 75th best player at 12. That is a colossal reach and a huge mistake that sets your franchise back because you are passing on 60 some odd players that are better and can likely get that QB later. 

[smuvtalker]

Lol his article only makes me want a QB that much more...

[Nihilarian]

Looking back on the last thirty years of the draft, it turns out that 39% of QBs taken in the first round became “elite” QBs (4,000 season passing yards, 60% completion percentage, a certain “put-the-team-on-my-back”-itude) while 39% become “busts”; the remaining 22% become middle-of-the-pack players. In fact, the first pick is the best time to take a QB: nine out of the fifteen QBs selected first overall in the past thirty years have become elite while only two have turned into busts.

 

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/drafting-an-nfl-qb/

 

Every NFL that doesn't have a franchise QB now wants their Carson Wentz. The problem is the draft is not an exact science and it's a gamble. The only guy I'd move up to #2 to gamble on is Sam Darnold.

 

If he is gone I'd have to hope that one of the top four drops out of the first six picks for the next gamble to move up to #7. If that doesn't happen it looks like Mason Rudolph is the man at 22. That is if the Steelers don't move up to draft him before Buffalo.

[plenzmd1]

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

[boyst]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

This is a very fair point that I didn't even consider.

 

The point i first considered is that teh GM'S regarded as the best and the ones who get the kodt attention are the ones whom succeed and the common factor is that they all had quality quarterbacks. And when you take that into consideration you don't have to think about how they build the team. Even teams like New England fail miserably when it comes to drafting and that's easy for them to do when they have Tom Brady.  When you have one of the best quarterbacks it's not very difficult to succeed when you're only hitting on 1/4th of your draft picks. 

[dollars 2 donuts]

16 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Wrong.

 

It's really true. 

 

Marshawn Lynch was an All Pro.........and 5X pro bowler not 1x.........and he's a likely HOF'er.

 

And Donte Whitner.......yes Lil' Donte.......was also a 2x time Pro Bowler.

 

Same for Willis McGahee........2x pro bowler.......10K yard RB.

 

All three were Bills first rounders.

 

Then there is Lee Evans who was basically good for around 900 yards receiving at 15 ypc clip in his first 6 seasons.

 

Sammy Watkins was also extraordinary in his first two seasons in Buffalo.

 

Lee Evans is the only one of those guys who saw a second contract in Buffalo...........some didn't even make it thru the first one.

 

NOT "abysmal" first round selections..........just the WRONG selections because the team did not have a franchise QB to put them around.

 

 

 

Badol, honestly solid points.

 

however, please forgive my knit picky comments:

 

Marshawn is great but unless he busts it out in the next two years at Oakland I don't think he is a HoF.  There are 11-12 retired guys in front of him with more rushing, some with less seasons that aren't in the hall.  Yes he had a great impact, but I believe the new standard is at least 12,000 yards rushing and at little more than 10, 000 now I don't think he gets it.  Also, not a real good receiver, averaging a little more than 20 or so grabs a season.

 

Also, willis isn't 10,000 yard back.  He comes close when you add in receiving yards, but still not there.

 

was honestly surprised though...the guy had 4,537 yards rushing in his first 4 years with Buffalo and Baltimore and he only needed 10 more yards in his 3rd full season with the bills to have made it 4 straight 1,000 yard seasons.

Edited March 24, 2018 by dollars 2 donuts

[mannc]

26 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

Great post. And a great argument for taking a chance on QB near the top of the draft.  But it does not necessarily support the wisdom of trading a huge number of draft picks in order to move into the top of the draft in order to take said QB.  That’s a different discussion.

Edited March 24, 2018 by mannc

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, Tyrod's friend said:

If you draft good players, and keep them, and they aren't necessarily QBs, you can do fine. 

But the Bills
* notably are poor in the draft and
* when they have a good player, they let them go.

When I think about it, since the early 90s I can't think of any franchise players we've ever drafted and truly kept outside of Kyle Williams. 

The Baltimore Ravens really haven't had a really good QB since the franchise was founded. (Don't you EVEN talk about Flacco as really good). Ozzie Newsome had an incredible record of finding talent; they kept the best and augmented as necessary, and they are competitive each and every year. They've never, ever "reached" for a QB.

It looks to me like Andy freaking Dalton averaged about 10-11 wins in his first five years of starting in Cincinnati. Bengals didn't leap up to get him. 

The Vikings have averaged nearly 11 wins in the last three years without jumping to get a QB and in fact starting three different QBs. I'm sure there are other examples over time. 

There's a lot of paths to excellence. I think Bills fans are impacted because of Brady; but don't tell me "you can get stick to your board when you already have your franchise QB". Stick the board, retain the quality players, and eventually the board will provide you with a winning culture and team. 

It's the Jets. Mark Sanchez was the last guy they did this with, and they've been the freaking Israelites, wandering around the desert without a QB for literally 50 years since Namath. 

I'd say the likelihood is pretty good they screwed up again.

 

 

The Vikings are indeed a good example but they're an example of why you need a QB.

 

How many Super Bowl titles there? They overdrafted Bridgewater, and it might've worked if not for the injury, so now in their desperation they're wildly overpaying Cousins. And it's a good move. You've got to have a QB.

 

How many SBs have the Bengals won?

 

There are a lot of paths to very good. Very few to Super Bowl championships. Generally speaking you need one of the top ten or so best QBs.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Thurman#1

[plenzmd1]

13 minutes ago, mannc said:

Great post. And a great argument for taking a chance on QB near the top of the draft.  But it does not necessarily support the wisdom of trading a huge number of draft picks in order to move into the top of the draft in order to take said QB.  That’s a different discussion.

 

agreed!

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by plenzmd1

[Cripple Creek]

11 hours ago, DJB said:

Problem is you dont win without them. Its a QB driven league and always will be. If you need a QB you have to do whatever I to get one.

 

Teams that already have franchise QB have a much easier time sticking to their draft board and not reaching.

Yeah, stupid article for this reason. Brooks understands why QBs are "over drafted," yet he has to prove to us that he knows better. If he were ever lucky enough to be a GM with a top pick and no QB in a similar draft to this (in terms of talent) we all know what he'd do.

[peterpan]

11 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

SCOUT'S NOTEBOOK
Top-five QBs? Not So Fast
The draft stock of 2018's top passers -- Josh Allen, Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen -- has seemingly never been higher. Bucky Brooks explains why we may be overvaluing QBs and gives his latest top-10 ranking.

 

Former NFL player and scout Bucky Brooks knows the ins and outs of this league, providing keen insight in his notebook. The topics of this edition include:

 

-- How the Jason Pierre-Paul trade impacts the Bucs' and Giants' draft plans.

 

-- Bill Belichick's magic hand in the offseason.

 

-- Has time run out for Dez Bryant?

 

But first, a warning about passing on future stars to draft a quarterback ...

* * * * *

Reviewing my notes from the fall, I believe there are only two quarterbacks worthy of top-10 grades, and they don't rank within my top five overall prospects. Here's my top 10 right now:

1) Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn State
2) Bradley Chubb, DE, N.C. State
3) Denzel Ward, CB, Ohio State
4) Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech
5) Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame
6) Minkah Fitzpatrick, DB, Alabama
7) Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA
8) Sam Darnold, QB, USC
9) Roquan Smith, LB, Georgia
10) Derwin James, S, Florida State

These are pure rankings and have no position importance factor.  A freaking Guard in the top 5???

 

When the Pats traded Logan Mankins no one noticed.  How do you think their fair without Brady???

11 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Get your QB..........then you can stick to your draft board for the next 15-20 years.

 

Like it or not all other positions are basically disposable.

 

During the drought the Bills drafted plenty of All Pro and Pro Bowl non-QB's in round one and yet they usually had only 4-5 of their first rounders on their roster each year...........which was the average length of time of a first round contract during the drought.

 

When they finally made the playoffs they only had one first rounder on the active roster.    Less of those did not matter.  

 

People who think the Bills should horde draft picks and use them on non-QB's just don't understand the math...........and clearly neither does Bucky Brooks. 

 

 

EXACTLY! 

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Here is where i believe Brooks logic is flawed. As he says,  he was taught scouting and drafting philosophy by " Mike Holmgren, Ted Thompson, John Schneider and Scot McCloughan -- all of whom were mentored by Ron Wolf during their time with the Green Bay . You know what they all had in common..not having a rookie wage scale. So when you drafted a QB high back then, not only was your draft cooked, but so was your cap.

 

Teams that win now( outside NE) do so with exceptional value ( rookie contracts) at high-value positions like QB, CB, LT, and WR. That is why drafting Barkey high makes zero sense from a cap and team building perspective. His value over replacement is not as great as his value over his cap number. Barkley goes in the top 10, he will be paid like a top 5 RB in the league. Darnold, Rosen, Allen go in the top 10, they are paid like a bottom 6 QB in the league. And if they flame out, does not kill your cap number. He mentions Gabbert, Ponder, Locker in the article, every hear of any of these teams being handcuffed by the cap cause they paid the first round QB? Ever hear a Bills fan saying drafting EJ was a massive drain on our ability to sign guys?> Nope and that's why you need to take bigger swings and risks at QB, the reward those first 5 years if they hit is just too great to pass up.

 

Its a different world, and analytics will drive these decisions, and cap and cheap rookie contracts at value positions absolutely drive decsions

 

 

 

While I think you make some good points here about how contracts have changed, I think you miss on the most important issue. You seem to be saying that to win the SB you've got to have a QB who's "exceptional value" because of the new rookie wage scale.

 

OK, history doesn't back that up. The new wage scale started in 2011. Since then, how many QBs who were exceptional value were on the SB-winning teams.

 

2011 Giants - Eli was certainly not on his rookie contract

 

2012 Ravens - You can argue this one either way, it was Flacco's rookie contract but his fifth year. He was making pretty good money that year, though not what he would make after winning the SB and getting that new contract

 

2013 Seahawks - Wilson was on his rookie salary, absolutely exceptional value

 

2014 Patriots - Brady costs less than most terrific QBs but his salary isn't anywhere near rookie contract value

 

2015 Broncos - Manning was not cheap

 

2016 Pats - Brady again

 

2017 Eagles - Wentz was a terrific value

 

That's two teams since the collective bargaining agreement that have won with a QB an exceptional value, though you can make an argument for Flacco too. This isn't the slam dunk you seem to be presenting it as.

 

Yes, overall it matters. No it is certainly not crucial to have a QB on his rookie contract if you want to win the SB, even in these days. But it is crucial to have a QB playing at a very high level. Teams without that win SBs rarely, roughly 10% of all SBs.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Thurman#1

[plenzmd1]

33 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

While I think you make some good points here about how contracts have changed, I think you miss on the most important issue. You seem to be saying that to win the SB you've got to have a QB who's "exceptional value" because of the new rookie wage scale.

 

OK, history doesn't back that up. The new wage scale started in 2011. Since then, how many QBs who were exceptional value were on the SB-winning teams.

 

2011 Giants - Eli was certainly not on his rookie contract

 

2012 Ravens - You can argue this one either way, it was Flacco's rookie contract but his fifth year. He was making pretty good money that year, though not what he would make after winning the SB and getting that new contract

 

2013 Seahawks - Wilson was on his rookie salary, absolutely exceptional value

 

2014 Patriots - Brady costs less than most terrific QBs but his salary isn't anywhere near rookie contract value

 

2015 Broncos - Manning was not cheap

 

2016 Pats - Brady again

 

2017 Eagles - Wentz was a terrific value

 

That's two teams since the collective bargaining agreement that have won with a QB an exceptional value, though you can make an argument for Flacco too. This isn't the slam dunk you seem to be presenting it as.

 

Yes, overall it matters. No it is certainly not crucial to have a QB on his rookie contract if you want to win the SB, even in these days. But it is crucial to have a QB playing at a very high level. Teams without that win SBs rarely, roughly 10% of all SBs.

 

Agree it is not essential, but it it tilts the playing field in your favor. 

 

Brady is an exception , as his $15m per season puts him behind every single stinking staring QB on their 2nd contract( I think, but maybe wrong). So New England gets value way above replacement, and gets value way above cap number.  Which you just cannot expect a team friendly deal from every other QB. 

 

Eli was certainly first year under new rules, and I think as the rules come into affect, the thought process on how to build a team has as well. All of McBeanes moves point to this. 

 

Tre White over Gilmore

Dawkins over Cordy

zae/ rookie this year over Sammy

rookie QB( fingers crossed) / cheap bridge guy in McCarron

 

$46 million dead cap this year,  all things point to him building the team this way. 

 

 

[Mat68]

The draft is about value.  A solid starting Qb is more valuable to a team than another position by a wide margin.  If you redo the the 2016 draft Zeke doesnt go 1, 2,, or 3.  The draft would go Wentz, Geoff, and Preskott.  Brooks is wrong and is just trying to give the draftknicks a break because it is so hard to determine what QB will improve in the NFL and which ones cant.  Its easy to watch Barkley run and see barring an injury he will be special.  Watching Bradley Chubb dominating the LOS and wrecking havoc in the backfield that he will be good on the edge in the NFL.  Determining out of Allen, Rosen, DArnold, Mayfield, and Jackson who will have the best career?  Goodluck with that.  But whatever team gets the best one will have the most success that is why they go high.