Are teams trading too many assets to get a QB?

[Matt_In_NH]

I don't think so, if you get one you will probably be successful even without some future draft capital, if you miss you will fail and maybe you will fail more without some picks but fail is fail.  I think what is happening is teams are fully realizing that sustained success is determined by having a great QB so they are willing to do whatever it takes to get that.

[glazeduck]

My first read on this topic was one of complete disinterest. Then I started to think about it a little more and I think it's actually a really nuanced *answer* (such that you want to call the following an "answer"). Here's my take: the "answer" is yes, no, and it depends...

 

Yes, from a purely objective standpoint, factoring in bust rates, opportunity cost of the many first round players you'd be able to draft instead, and the general "OMG they paid what for who?" perspective, it's not hard to argue that prices have become exorbitant for rookie QBs. Especially when you already have your stud QB locked in.

 

No, from the perspective of a team that doesn't have a franchise QB, there's almost no price that's too much. As we've seen over the last decade, or so, championship windows, with rare exceptions, are really mainly confined to a talented QB's rookie contract. If you don't have the QB, you don't really have a chance, and when you factor in scarcity, any quality swing at getting one feels like it has to be worth it.

 

Factoring everything in, however, the answer is that it depends. If you're going to pay the current market price to trade up for a franchise QB, you darn well better make sure you're drafting the right one, putting him in the right system, giving him weapons and protection, and aligning a coaching staff that will get the most out of him -- you need a plan for him. If you've got that in place, nothing else really matters; those first round pics being traded away could quickly go from top 5 or 10 to 25 or 30, and the opportunity cost can be offset in free agency or a few solid later picks and quality player development, etc. As we're seeing currently, talented players want to paly for winners. If you can find the right guy, have the right plan and staff in place, the financial support needed to keep building on top of the QB and the balls to make all of it happen, I don't think the current prices being paid are exorbitant. There will be a day when the asking price becomes too much, but I don't think we're there yet.

[BillsfaninSB]

Unless the team is getting to the #1 slot I think it is too much.  Even that is risky. 
 

I guess time will tell but would anyone give up 3 firsts for Mayfield or Murray knowing what they know now?

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by BillsfaninSB

[Rc2catch]

You gotta have that guy or you’re destined for mediocrity. 
Of course I prefer to trade those assets for someone proven but that’s not always possible. 
My nephew is a big Carolina fan, he hates the idea of giving up 3 first rounders and possibly more picks and maybe even a player on defense to land Watson. A debate we had lots of times before all these allegations came out. Carolina could easily not get a quarterback the next three first round picks even by using a pick each year. So for proven talent I don’t think it’s a terrible deal. Good teams can still build with less draft picks. 
When you’re getting into unproven talent similar to what the 49ers have done this year, it’s a monster gamble. I think most would agree San Fran has a super bowl caliber roster minus quarterback. But if they pick a bust in this draft their window is basically destroyed. Huge gamble. 

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

Not if he turns out to be their be their QB for the next 10+ years.  
 

it’ll be too much if he flops.  
 

 

[thenorthremembers]

Absolutely not.   You can either go 7-9 and 8-8 every year and miss the playoffs with the assets, or you can give up the assets to attempt and go 13-3 and make the playoffs.   If you fail you lose the assets, but the likelihood of failing big enough to be back in the QB sweepstakes is a lot better with a young QB than it is rolling out a veteran. 

 

The worst thing you can be in the NFL is middle of the road.  

[JustWinPlease]

No price is too much for a franchise QB...as long as they pick the right guy.

[KGun12TD]

I don't think there is such a thing as giving up too much to get a franchise QB. Getting 12-15 years of stability is worth giving up 2 first round picks. How many teams can actually say they have a franchise guy?

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, DefenseWins said:

 

Unfortunately, these guys are NOT "PROVEN ANYTHING" at this point. And let's not forget that the 49ers currently have a QB on a reasonable contract though he is somewhat injury prone perhaps. Sure it's one thing to acquire a PROVEN QB like a Watson but that is not what we are talking about here. These are unproven rookies.

 

Put yourself in the position of most NFL GMs and HCs.  These guys are not winning a lot of games or keeping their jobs long if they do not find a quality QB.  So they might as well go all out trying to get that kind of player. If they succeed then no one cares that they gave up a bunch of picks because the guy is worth it.  If they don’t, then they’ve got a built in excuse for failure - we missed on our QB.

 

I remember hearing a story of an NFL GM and an MLB GM taking shop.  I’m going to get details of it, including names, wrong.  But here’s the gist:  The MLB GM thought NFL GMs were massively overvaluing QBs.  The NFL GMs response was simply, “Imagine if you could have Greg Maddox pitch every day.”  The reality is that an elite NFL QB is worth probably a lot more than they’re getting paid even these days.  And even a chance at one is worth a tremendous amount of draft capital. 

[HardyBoy]

Didn't the Bills trade up from a pick in the 20s to get up to 12? That's gotta count in the calculation no?

[fergie's ire]

I think part of the brilliance of the Josh Allen move is that the Bills had anticipated that they could get a QB with the pieces he had.  They accumulated pieces....like moving up by trading Cordy Glen to be in striking range of the top 10...and in a year that there were so many QB prospects.  Sure, Darnold has not worked out to this point (though not sure he is a complete bust YET), and Baker is iffy, but there were teams that believed in them, so there was less demand for Allen.  Even the right Josh had Arizona believing in him, so they weren't desperate to move ahead of the Bills.  Imagine what you would have to pay to pick a QB like Allen (even with all the question marks) in a year like the one where the Bills drafted EJ.  So, what is needed to move up and draft a guy who COULD be the franchise QB is not only dependent on the quality of the player, but also the quality of the other options....as well as how many teams are desperate to pick a QB.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

4 hours ago, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

Except that is not accurate.  They moved up from 22 to 12 by giving up Cordy Glenn as well.  So the Bills gave up their starting LT and the picks you outlined.  

[Ya Digg?]

For a QB no, but I think teams have given up too much to get guys other than QB. The Saints trading up to draft Davenport comes to mind. I think you do what you can to get the QB who you think gets you where you want to be, but teams need to be more prudent when they are trading for non-QB prospects 

[ganesh]

5 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Absolutely not.   You can either go 7-9 and 8-8 every year and miss the playoffs with the assets, or you can give up the assets to attempt and go 13-3 and make the playoffs.   If you fail you lose the assets, but the likelihood of failing big enough to be back in the QB sweepstakes is a lot better with a young QB than it is rolling out a veteran. 

 

The worst thing you can be in the NFL is middle of the road.  

which is what the Bills had with Greg Williams, Mularkey,  Dick jauron, Chan Gailey, Doug Marone and Rex Ryan  for over 16 years

[Buffalo03]

3 first round picks are a lot but I also feel like QBs make too much money these days. One player shouldn't be making $40 million a year and handicapping a team

[DefenseWins]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

3 first round picks are a lot but I also feel like QBs make too much money these days. One player shouldn't be making $40 million a year and handicapping a team

 

I understand your concern but keep in mind that the Bills have Allen cheap for one last year. And with the new NFL TV deals the salary cap will be going up significantly in the future. Or would you prefer to watch Mitch/Mitchell play QB?

[Sherlock Holmes]

9 hours ago, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

No, the Panthers need to send us McCaffrey in a 3 way trade for Watson.

[bobobonators]

I dont think its as clear cut as whatever it takes needs to be done to land a QB. Obviously a QB is an integral component of any SB team, but you still need a good all-around team and a little luck sprinkled in to win it all. If it was as simple as landing a great QB, Rodgers and Brees would have more than a single SB each. Rodgers and Brees are easily top 5 QBs to ever play the game - youd expect them to have multiple SB victories by now. 
 

Look at someone like Rivers - hes a compiler, sure, but still a pretty damn good QB. The guy never even sniffed a SB. How many losing seasons did the Chargers have?
 

You look at someone like Eli Manning, who was a good QB but never elite. But then in the post season the dude just had magic. The giants had a lot of average seasons with him. 
 

Someone like Matt Ryan. How many crap seasons have the Falcons had? 
 

Russel Wilson in Seattle. Hes an elite QB but that franchise has been kinda lost since the 12th man died and beast mode left. 
 

There are so many examples, I can go on. You need numerous components clicking on all cylinders to have a long-lasting winning franchise - HC, GM, QB. Some good ole fashioned luck doesnt hurt either.  
 

Im confident we are at that point now with McD, Beane and Allen. 

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, DefenseWins said:

The Bills got Josh Allen for a whole lot less. They moved up from #12 to #7 for picks #12, #53, #56 and got pick #255 back in the trade with Tampa. Is three #1 future picks too much to give up for an unproven QB? Sure, I think Allen, as he has turned out, might be worth that many top picks but you could also end up with a Sam Darnold.

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

You're understating. The Bills also traded away a very solid LT in Cordy Glenn, with a 5th rounder to move up from #21 to #12.

 

More, they were fully intending to trade up to #5 with Denver rather than #7, and that would have required quite a bit more draft capital, probably preventing them from making the 2nd trade up for Tremaine Edmunds.

 

The bottom line is that this year there are/were a few other options available, such as Stafford, Watkins, Darnold (who still might turn out to be excellent in the right situation), etc. But if you get shut out of those guys and also the draft, you're essentially resigning yourself to not being in contention for the next few years.

 

It hurts a lot to give up those picks. But it's worth doing, though the GM is essentially betting his job that the QB they get will work out. If the QB isn't good enough, it's generally a new GM who will take the next stab at picking up a QB.

 

So, yeah. Worth it. You'd better be convinced your guy will be good, though.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

11 hours ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Of course QB is important.  But getting the right QB is what matters.  And you need the pieces around the QB to be successful, including the right coaching.  The Bills have done a great job coaching up Josh Allen.  Putting a scheme together that plays to his strengths, and surrounding him w talented WR's and a solid O line.  But with all those good pieces in play, we still fell short of the Super Bowl because our defense was not good enuf front to back.  (Yes Levi Wallace for all you Levi fans is not a solid starting NFL CB.  He is not the worst, but his lack of athleticism is a problem)  So yes QB is very important.  But you sure as hell better have a defense that can bring it also.  

 

But there is far too much hype about a lot of QB's that come out every year.  Lets see what they can do when there are defenders on the field covering their receivers and trying to knock their heads off.  (Which unfortunately is not allowed any longer)  For every Josh Allen there are far more Josh Rosens.  And scouting is definitely not an exact science.  What were the Dolphins thinking drafting Tua in the top 5?  He has no arm.  Lets call him the lefty Chad Pennington.  

 

 

Chad Pennington was a likely future Hall of Famer till the arm injuries, so bad comparison. And while Tua doesn't have a gun, he's got a stronger arm than Pennington did after the injuries. Tua has a starter-quality arm.

 

The question about him is whether he can develop an NFL-quality head, as far as making the right decisions quickly.

13 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I mean even if you don't trade away those 1st round picks taking a top 10 pick QB and missing on the pick will set you back 3-4 years, unless you don't really give them to me to develop.

 

 

Wait, you're saying that giving them to you to develop is ... not a good idea?

 

Is this an autocorrect problem?