PDA

View Full Version : History tells us the NFL is terrible at evaluating quarterbacks. Here's what it means for 2018



Denver Native (Carol)
04-10-2018, 01:34 PM
Note: This is the second of a two-part series on the NFL's issues evaluating quarterbacks, and how we can use those issues to better assess the top 2018 prospects. Go here to see Part 1.

We could come close to an NFL record this year before any players take a snap. There are five quarterbacks who could come off the board on Day 1 of the draft, which would tie the 1999 draft for the second most since the merger. The only draft to post six first-rounders is the legendary Class of 1983, which delivered a trio of Hall of Famers: John Elway, Jim Kelly and Dan Marino.

As much as the league seems to be struggling to pick between the prospects in this year's class, though, the coaches and executives of 1983 weren't able to separate the wheat from the chaff until well after the fact. Elway was the No. 1 pick, but the Chiefs still managed to draft Todd Blackledge seven picks before Kelly. Blackledge threw 29 career touchdowns. Kelly topped 29 in 1991 alone. Tony Eason was taken one pick after Kelly and 12 picks before Marino, who would post the greatest passing season in league history to that point during his second campaign.

rest - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects

Tned
04-10-2018, 01:51 PM
rest - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects

Did that guy get paid by the word? That's not an article, it's longer than a James Clavell novel!

Good stuff, however.

topscribe
04-10-2018, 01:51 PM
rest - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects
Somebody show this to John Elway. Maybe he can be persuaded to forget QB and take Bradley
Chubb or whatever other stud is available. Forget the QB carousel and strengthen the team.
We had a 1960s-type season last year. I don't want a 1960s-type decade . . .

topscribe
04-10-2018, 01:52 PM
Did that guy get paid by the word? That's not an article, it's longer than a James Clavell novel!

Good stuff, however.
lol - Maybe Joel or Cugel ghost-wrote it . . .

CoachChaz
04-10-2018, 02:12 PM
lol - Maybe Joel or Cugel ghost-wrote it . . .

They aren't that smart

topscribe
04-10-2018, 02:15 PM
They aren't that smart
:lol: Well, that leaves me, and I didn't write it . . .

Freyaka
04-10-2018, 02:31 PM
lol - Maybe Joel or Cugel ghost-wrote it . . .

No that article is full of meaningful insight.

Poet
04-10-2018, 03:45 PM
Part of the reason is that the teams who suck are the ones consistently taking the QB's early. It's a great article.

BroncoJoe
04-10-2018, 03:50 PM
Part of the reason is that the teams who suck are the ones consistently taking the QB's early. It's a great article.

So, you're on board with NOT taking a QB early now?

Poet
04-10-2018, 04:01 PM
So, you're on board with NOT taking a QB early now?

No, if a legitimate QB that we like is there, we should take him. Taking someone like Nelson on a declining defense and limited offense just makes us a very average team. It then will cost us that much more to get a real QB.

I'm of the opinion that Denver isn't going to be consistently taking QB's early because we aren't the Browns. We should be able to get a real talent and develop him.

I could live with Chubb.

Shazam!
04-10-2018, 04:06 PM
Great read... but i wish i had the time to read it all. Thats like a book.

CoachChaz
04-10-2018, 04:22 PM
No, if a legitimate QB that we like is there, we should take him. Taking someone like Nelson on a declining defense and limited offense just makes us a very average team. It then will cost us that much more to get a real QB.

I'm of the opinion that Denver isn't going to be consistently taking QB's early because we aren't the Browns. We should be able to get a real talent and develop him.

I could live with Chubb.

Or...it significantly improves the run game and gives the QB a little extra time. Both of which pay immediate dividends to the offense.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-10-2018, 04:32 PM
Good article. At least the rookie scale doesn't bury a team that picks the wrong QB like it used to.

topscribe
04-10-2018, 04:37 PM
Or...it significantly improves the run game and gives the QB a little extra time. Both of which pay immediate dividends to the offense.
Games are won at the line. What a concept!

slim
04-10-2018, 04:38 PM
Or...it significantly improves the run game and gives the QB a little extra time. Both of which pay immediate dividends to the offense.

And the defense.

Poet
04-10-2018, 04:45 PM
Or...it significantly improves the run game and gives the QB a little extra time. Both of which pay immediate dividends to the offense.

And what is the result of those dividends? It's not that Nelson isn't incredible. It's the bigger picture. We're going to draft a guard, sign an average QB, and that's going to turn around a 5-11 team? I'm focusing on what happens after the draft. The worst thing that happens is a .500 team comes to fruition and we're back to a pipedream QB FA signing or trying to draft one, which is going to cost a ton of picks moving up from the middle part of the first round.

topscribe
04-10-2018, 05:03 PM
We're going to draft a guard

Considered by many as a once-in-a-generation offensive lineman and the best football player
in the draft at any position



sign an average QB

After breaking nearly all the passing records in college, was last year considered the #1 QB
in the league, according to DVOA, the #2 by QBR (I previously said #1, but apparently was
mistaken), had the highest passer rating under pressure (edging out Tom Brady), had a 98.3
passer rating overall, a 67% comp percentage, 3:1 TD/INT ratio, and quarterbacked his team
to the NFC Championship game. Yep, average.


and that's going to turn around a 5-11 team?
I'd bet on it . . . :coffee:

Poet
04-10-2018, 05:11 PM
Great - he's still a guard. Which means his impact on the field is less impactful than a borderline Pro Bowl QB.

Was a washout in the league multiple times, was a one hit wonder, and whose ratios are inflated because he was a game manager, and who tanked in the playoffs. Yeah, average. Don't fall for the outlier.

With Nelson and CK our ceiling is most contending for a WC spot. that's a pretty lousy ceiling. The floor is a top five pick again.

History tells us that you want the franchise QB, and if you want longterm success you have to have it. And finding them is difficult - kicking something difficult down the road is what we're probably going to do.

topscribe
04-10-2018, 05:33 PM
Great - he's still a guard. Which means his impact on the field is less impactful than a borderline Pro Bowl QB.

Was a washout in the league multiple times, was a one hit wonder, and whose ratios are inflated because he was a game manager, and who tanked in the playoffs. Yeah, average. Don't fall for the outlier.

With Nelson and CK our ceiling is most contending for a WC spot. that's a pretty lousy ceiling. The floor is a top five pick again.

History tells us that you want the franchise QB, and if you want longterm success you have to have it. And finding them is difficult - kicking something difficult down the road is what we're probably going to do.
Outlier? LOL!! We're talking about a full season, not a single game. I watched the man play
most of the season. Please don't try to tell me it was an outlier. And please don't try to
fish me an inaccurate history. It isn't like I don't know how to research. All the way through
this debate on Keenum, I have presented facts, and you have responded with broad,
unfounded innuendo and suppositions. Keenum was one of the best QBs in the league last
year. That is undebatable.

And Nelson would make a dynamic impact on the offense. All the sudden, it will be one of
the best O-lines in the league, with Bolles, Leary, Paradis, Nelson, and Veldheer, and
McGovern and Turner behind them. With DT and Emmanuel at WR and another receiver
picked up in the draft, and C.J. or someone such as Royce Freeman toting the ball, the
offense will be powerful. And the defense is already good.

With Nelson at guard, the Broncos will be at least 11-5 next year, IMO. You heard it here
first . . .

Poet
04-10-2018, 05:38 PM
Yes, a single season is in fact an outlier.

I hope your prediction is accurate.

topscribe
04-10-2018, 05:42 PM
Yes, a single season is in fact an outlier.

I hope your prediction is accurate.
Me, too. I realize it is optimistic. But that's just me. :rockon:

Poet
04-10-2018, 05:43 PM
Me, too. I realize it is optimistic. But that's just me. :rockon:

I'm a miserable pessimistic curmudgeonly misanthropic fellow and I won't apologize for that, nor will I ask for you to apologize for you being you.

topscribe
04-10-2018, 05:47 PM
I'm a miserable pessimistic curmudgeonly misanthropic fellow and I won't apologize for that, nor will I ask for you to apologize for you being you.
I'm glad I'm me. It must stink to be you . . . :D

Poet
04-10-2018, 05:56 PM
I'm glad I'm me. It must stink to be you . . . :D

I smell wonderful!

topscribe
04-10-2018, 06:06 PM
I smell wonderful!
Well, that expression is usually used with the word "suck," but I don't really like that word
in that context. But then, you probably would have just accused me of comparing you
with a Kirby vacuum cleaner, anyway . . .



I know . . . that's a pretty strange thing to say. I need a nap . . .

tomjonesrocks
04-10-2018, 07:16 PM
Somebody show this to John Elway. Maybe he can be persuaded to forget QB and take Bradley
Chubb or whatever other stud is available. Forget the QB carousel and strengthen the team.
We had a 1960s-type season last year. I don't want a 1960s-type decade . . .

I read the article and was reminded how good we thought Paxton would be. 50-something scout points and glowing comparisons. Jerry Jones despondent about missing out on him. And the guy simply is terrible - likely not even backup material. WTF! Definitely scary picking the QB scraps at 5 unless this is the second coming of 1983...

Am warming up to putting a new Doom/Ware piece beside Von and calling it a day.

spikerman
04-10-2018, 07:25 PM
If they pick up Chubb do they trade Ray?

topscribe
04-10-2018, 08:24 PM
I read the article and was reminded how good we thought Paxton would be. 50-something scout points and glowing comparisons. Jerry Jones despondent about missing out on him. And the guy simply is terrible - likely not even backup material. WTF! Definitely scary picking the QB scraps at 5 unless this is the second coming of 1983...

Am warming up to putting a new Doom/Ware piece beside Von and calling it a day.
Even in 1983, only have of the six QB selections in the first round were really successful
(Elway, Kelly, Marino). It's been a crap shoot virtually every single year.

On the other side of it, some have come out of the woodwork. Bart Starr (17th round), John
Unitas (17th), Kurt Warner and Tony Romo (UFAs), and Tom Brady in the 6th. Our own (now)
Case Keenum (UFA) finished last season with the best DVOA in the league.

It isn't over for Lynch, IMO. He has all of four (4) regular season games under his belt. I'm
not aware of many QBs, even great ones, who were good in their first four games. When he
was drafted, it was as a project. They said it involved 2 - 3 years of development. Injuries
have slowed that development. Truth is, we still don't know what we have.

For that matter, we don't know what we have in Chad Kelly. And if we throw in another
newly drafted QB, we will just have another about whom we know nothing on the field. It is
the most unpredictable position on the football team, regarding the success or failure of a
candidate, because so much more of the game is mental, and that can't be surely assessed
until he plays in the games.

So do we just keep throwing draft selections at QBs while holes still exist in the O-line, D-line,
LB, WR, and possibly TE? The QB is the pot at the end of the rainbow, and the rest of the
team is the job we left to go find it. Well, there's always the soup kitchen . . .

HORSEPOWER 56
04-11-2018, 12:28 AM
For everyone wanting to draft a guard or a RB at #5, I remember there was this team that had the best guard in the league and the best RB in the league at the same time (from 2007-2011)... they also had a top 10 defense. They either couldn’t make the playoffs or couldn’t win in the playoffs because they didn’t have a QB.

Can you name them?

(Hint: we signed their backup QB to be our starter)

Can we please stop screwing around and just draft a franchise QB?

Elevation inc
04-11-2018, 03:21 AM
For everyone wanting to draft a guard or a RB at #5, I remember there was this team that had the best guard in the league and the best RB in the league at the same time (from 2007-2011)... they also had a top 10 defense. They either couldn’t make the playoffs or couldn’t win in the playoffs because they didn’t have a QB.

Can you name them?

(Hint: we signed their backup QB to be our starter)



Can we please stop screwing around and just draft a franchise QB?

I gotta admit I'm not sure about the team question. Maybe Tennessee or Tampa???

HORSEPOWER 56
04-11-2018, 04:51 AM
I gotta admit I'm not sure about the team question. Maybe Tennessee or Tampa???

The Viqueens. From 2007 to 2011 they had both Steve Hutchinson (best Guard) and Adrian Peterson. Nelson has a chance to be another Hutchinson. I don’t think Barkley has a chance in hell of being another Peterson.

I guess I should’ve added “just signed” to the hint.

Elevation inc
04-11-2018, 05:23 AM
The Viqueens. From 2007 to 2011 they had both Steve Hutchinson (best Guard) and Adrian Peterson. Nelson has a chance to be another Hutchinson. I don’t think Barkley has a chance in hell of being another Peterson.

I guess I should’ve added “just signed” to the hint.


Vikings....yep, didn't think of them at all....shame on me...

Northman
04-11-2018, 05:41 AM
Great - he's still a guard. Which means his impact on the field is less impactful than a borderline Pro Bowl QB.

Was a washout in the league multiple times, was a one hit wonder, and whose ratios are inflated because he was a game manager, and who tanked in the playoffs. Yeah, average. Don't fall for the outlier.

With Nelson and CK our ceiling is most contending for a WC spot. that's a pretty lousy ceiling. The floor is a top five pick again.

History tells us that you want the franchise QB, and if you want longterm success you have to have it. And finding them is difficult - kicking something difficult down the road is what we're probably going to do.


I have my reservations about Keenum as well BUT, taking a Qb at #5 this year would be a colossal mistake. Its one thing if the team didnt sign Keenum and cut Paxton loose to the point where they were totally rebuilding from the ground up. But Elway and company have put their chips into a guy like Keenum for at least the time being to have a veteran presence as well as holding onto Lynch and Kelly. That tells me they are ok with those guys for at least a year or two. So the best option at this time is to build a team around them to give them the best chance to succeed. Taking yet another QB just doesnt make any sense at this juncture.

Poet
04-11-2018, 07:52 AM
I have my reservations about Keenum as well BUT, taking a Qb at #5 this year would be a colossal mistake. Its one thing if the team didnt sign Keenum and cut Paxton loose to the point where they were totally rebuilding from the ground up. But Elway and company have put their chips into a guy like Keenum for at least the time being to have a veteran presence as well as holding onto Lynch and Kelly. That tells me they are ok with those guys for at least a year or two. So the best option at this time is to build a team around them to give them the best chance to succeed. Taking yet another QB just doesnt make any sense at this juncture.

I think it's a mistake to go that route because Kelly is JAG and Lynch is a lost cause. CK also isn't very hard - I boil it down to we haven't addressed the QB position very well at all.

I know we're not going to take a QB.

Nomad
04-11-2018, 08:27 AM
Is this 2006 all over again? Average QBs, and the Broncos gonna pass up on an All Pro player in the name of desperation.

Poet
04-11-2018, 08:28 AM
Is this 2006 all over again? Average QBs, and the Broncos gonna pass up on an All Pro player in the name of desperation.

Those QB's aren't of average stock. Even the most ardent criticisms don't make that accusation.

CoachChaz
04-11-2018, 08:37 AM
Those QB's aren't of average stock. Even the most ardent criticisms don't make that accusation.

Really? Every one of them has serious question marks. Whether it be size, durability, turnovers, accuracy...none of them are really elite. It just so happens that 4-6 really good college QB's are available at the same time in a draft in a QB starved league. By no means should this be equated to a Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger type of QB draft.

TXBRONC
04-11-2018, 08:53 AM
If they pick up Chubb do they trade Ray?

I hope not, the more pass rushers you have the better.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-11-2018, 11:21 AM
If they pick up Chubb do they trade Ray?

No

I don’t think we could get much for Ray, not considering his price tag combined with his lack of production last year. I think we use him as third down specialist, like the year he was so productive playing behind Ware

topscribe
04-11-2018, 11:23 AM
Those QB's aren't of average stock. Even the most ardent criticisms don't make that accusation.
Yes, I remember when the entire league was all over Ryan Leaf. I can bring up a host of
failed QBs whom the entire league was slobbering over, but I'm sure you're aware of
them. That's the thing. We don't know what these QBs are, any of them, until they get
onto the playing field. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is the most unpredictable position
on the team. That's why a supremely gifted QB, such as Leaf or JaMarcus Russell, can
absolutely flop, whereas QBs with mediocre arms and limited mobility, such as Joe
Montana, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady can be numbered among the G.O.A.T.

That's why the Broncos apparently (but we don't really know yet) whiffed on Paxton
Lynch, and a number of teams wanted him at the time, and that, of the six QBs taken
in the 1983 QB bonanza, only half of them did not bust.

I am not for throwing the precious #5 selection at another untried QB. We have a proven
one and two gifted but untried QBs right now. There are still too many holes to gamble
on another one. Go with the proven one and give him a team that wins.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-11-2018, 04:55 PM
If their guy is there at 5, ya gotta take him. But don't grab any QB just to have one.

foco
04-11-2018, 06:09 PM
of the six QBs taken
in the 1983 QB bonanza, only half of them did not bust.
Ken O’Brien played for 11 years, went to two Pro Bowls, and was the AFC Offensive POY in ‘85....as the 5th to last pick of the 1st rd. If that’s your definition of a “bust” you must think 99% of all players are busts.

topscribe
04-11-2018, 07:17 PM
Ken O’Brien played for 11 years, went to two Pro Bowls, and was the AFC Offensive POY in ‘85....as the 5th to last pick of the 1st rd. If that’s your definition of a “bust” you must think 99% of all players are busts.
I just love it when I post a three-paragraph comment and someone picks out one sentence
and tries to blow it up with that. Especially someone who posts once every six months. So
you know about Ken O'Brien. Bully for you. :coffee:

BTW, I see you are a Navy veteran. Thank you for your service to our country.
.

7alpha30
04-11-2018, 09:32 PM
I think it's worthwhile to ask two questions:

1. Is Keenum, right now, better than our QBs last year? If yes, move to question 2.

2. Is Keenum, right now, better than the level of play at QB we saw in 2015?


Personally, I would contend that the answer is yes on both questions. There were things Peyton was better at in 2015 but he also was a statue and had many bad turnovers that year. It's worth keeping in mind that our current defense isn't what it was in 2015. But the draft provides the opportunity to replace Ware (Chubb) or make our team more balanced with an improved running game (Barkley, Nelson).

I saw a statistic on NFLN the other day. The success rate of first round QBs is around 30%. In subsequent rounds it's around 15% each. But what's weird is that after the first round, the "6th round and later" QBs have the higher probability of success at 18%, at least according to this graphic.

A couple of things. Most teams draft out of desperation and that leads to greater concentration of QBs being drafted in round 1 because it's driven by perception and desperation. So that skews the numbers toward round 1. But 30% isn't a reassuring number. The probability goes down 15% in later rounds but then the cost is also not as severe. What does this mean? Simian, who was in the 18% group, didn't work. But is it really smart to over react by throwing resources at something that has a 30% probablity of success? Just because Simian, a 7th round pick, didn't work out, that doesnt mean we shouldn't remain disciplined and allow the QB situation to materialize organically. Even if you believe the numbers aren't skewed and assume a first round pick doubles your chances of success, you're still talking about a probability that's very low.

And part of this is the culture of the team. Does the franchise show patience and let guys develop in a positive direction?

Cugel
04-11-2018, 10:51 PM
Somebody show this to John Elway. Maybe he can be persuaded to forget QB and take Bradley Chubb or whatever other stud is available. Forget the QB carousel and strengthen the team.

We had a 1960s-type season last year. I don't want a 1960s-type decade . . .

I think if Chubb is available they will take him. The problem will be deciding between Chubb and Barkley if both are available. I'd take either one and I think Elway will too.

Cugel
04-11-2018, 10:56 PM
I think it's worthwhile to ask two questions:

1. Is Keenum, right now, better than our QBs last year? If yes, move to question 2.

2. Is Keenum, right now, better than the level of play at QB we saw in 2015?


Personally, I would contend that the answer is yes on both questions. There were things Peyton was better at in 2015 but he also was a statue and had many bad turnovers that year. It's worth keeping in mind that our current defense isn't what it was in 2015. But the draft provides the opportunity to replace Ware (Chubb) or make our team more balanced with an improved running game (Barkley, Nelson).

I saw a statistic on NFLN the other day. The success rate of first round QBs is around 30%. In subsequent rounds it's around 15% each. But what's weird is that after the first round, the "6th round and later" QBs have the higher probability of success at 18%, at least according to this graphic.

A couple of things. Most teams draft out of desperation and that leads to greater concentration of QBs being drafted in round 1 because it's driven by perception and desperation. So that skews the numbers toward round 1. But 30% isn't a reassuring number. The probability goes down 15% in later rounds but then the cost is also not as severe. What does this mean? Simian, who was in the 18% group, didn't work. But is it really smart to over react by throwing resources at something that has a 30% probablity of success? Just because Simian, a 7th round pick, didn't work out, that doesnt mean we shouldn't remain disciplined and allow the QB situation to materialize organically. Even if you believe the numbers aren't skewed and assume a first round pick doubles your chances of success, you're still talking about a probability that's very low.

And part of this is the culture of the team. Does the franchise show patience and let guys develop in a positive direction?

The idea here is that you're not drafting statistics, but a single player. If Elway does not believe that a QB who is on the board at #5 is going to be a 10 year franchise QB in this league, then he won't draft him.

The other talent is just too extreme. You could get either best offensive or the best defensive player in the entire NFL draft. And those players are considered amazing talent. They could add an All-Pro talent on offense or defense, who would provide an immediate impact.

And that might save Vance Joseph's job and avoid the instability that haunts losing franchises like the Browns who fire their coach and GM about every 2 or 3 years.

Simple Jaded
04-11-2018, 11:11 PM
Lololololololololol at CK being better than The Corpse of PFM.

Simple Jaded
04-11-2018, 11:14 PM
Really? Every one of them has serious question marks. Whether it be size, durability, turnovers, accuracy...none of them are really elite. It just so happens that 4-6 really good college QB's are available at the same time in a draft in a QB starved league. By no means should this be equated to a Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger type of QB draft.

CK has most of those question marks and then some, having one question mark or two doesn’t make these prospects average.

Rosen is the best passer to come out in years.

Poet
04-11-2018, 11:17 PM
Really? Every one of them has serious question marks. Whether it be size, durability, turnovers, accuracy...none of them are really elite. It just so happens that 4-6 really good college QB's are available at the same time in a draft in a QB starved league. By no means should this be equated to a Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger type of QB draft.

Manning, who was a good prospect but that's it? Rivers with his issue of pedigree, competition, and arm strength? Roethlisberger, who at one point was being thought of as a second rounder and who was seen as incredibly raw, which is why he fell to Pittsburgh?

That's revisionist history that those guys didn't have flaws, and that's the point - unless you're Luck or Elway, you're flawed. So what? Flawed guys can develop into all-pros, and that's why it's such a copout to go 'well none of these guys are sure fire' when you're almost never going to get a shot to take a guy who is sure-fire. They're not of average stock in regards to being average first rounders, otherwise they wouldn't be thought of as first rounders.

Simple Jaded
04-11-2018, 11:19 PM
Yes, I remember when the entire league was all over Ryan Leaf. I can bring up a host of
failed QBs whom the entire league was slobbering over, but I'm sure you're aware of
them. That's the thing. We don't know what these QBs are, any of them, until they get
onto the playing field. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is the most unpredictable position
on the team. That's why a supremely gifted QB, such as Leaf or JaMarcus Russell, can
absolutely flop, whereas QBs with mediocre arms and limited mobility, such as Joe
Montana, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady can be numbered among the G.O.A.T.

That's why the Broncos apparently (but we don't really know yet) whiffed on Paxton
Lynch, and a number of teams wanted him at the time, and that, of the six QBs taken
in the 1983 QB bonanza, only half of them did not bust.

I am not for throwing the precious #5 selection at another untried QB. We have a proven
one and two gifted but untried QBs right now. There are still too many holes to gamble
on another one. Go with the proven one and give him a team that wins.

All college QB’s are “untried”, you deserve the CK’s of the world.

Btw, who is the “proven” QB?

topscribe
04-12-2018, 12:31 AM
All college QB’s are “untried”
Thank you for making my point . . .

Elevation inc
04-12-2018, 12:53 AM
All college QB’s are “untried”, you deserve the CK’s of the world.

Btw, who is the “proven” QB?

Chad Kelly.....:cool:

Elevation inc
04-12-2018, 01:26 AM
I think if Chubb is available they will take him. The problem will be deciding between Chubb and Barkley if both are available. I'd take either one and I think Elway will too.

I'm actually starting to think more and more we want Chubb, and if he is there at 5 we take him. Problem is I think Cleveland wants him as well, more than barkley. That drops Barkley in our lap in fans minds, but with Elway who knows what he wants to do, especially in a RB heavy draft. He himself stated if there is a franchise guy at QB in the top 10 you believe in you take him regardless. If not, then its BPA for Pass rush, OT, CB in the top ten and if that isn't there you go straight up BPA, which could be Nelson or Barkley. If you don't like your options then you obtain more draft capital. I'm not so sure we believe in Rosen at all, but who knows how his private visit went. Leads me to think outside of having chubb fall in our lap we really don't know what were going to do until the first few picks are in.....

Simple Jaded
04-13-2018, 12:17 AM
Thank you for making my point . . .

No, I was mocking your point.

According to your logic all college QB’s are off your board when you’re actually in position to get a good one, so congrats, you win a lifetime supply of Case Keenum’s.

topscribe
04-13-2018, 05:30 AM
No, I was mocking your point.

According to your logic all college QB’s are off your board when you’re actually in position to get a good one, so congrats, you win a lifetime supply of Case Keenum’s.
Whatever your intentions, you made my point. ;)

Cugel
04-13-2018, 05:36 AM
The essential dilemma of the NFL. They wrote the rules so that every team needs an elite QB and there are about 10 or so of them in a 32 team league. So, every team is desperate for great QB prospects and overreaches for them in the draft, even though there may be none available.

Draft history tells us that there might be 1 or 2 elite QB prospects in a given draft. Sometimes (Andrew Luck) they are easy to identify, and will obviously go to what ever team is bad enough to have the #1 overall pick (usually Cleveland). About 10 teams would draft such a prospect with their #1 pick if they were convinced one was available (this year the Browns, Giants, Jets, Broncos, Bills, Dolphins, Cardinals, just to mention the most obvious teams). There are another dozen teams or so who either just drafted their "future franchise QB" and haven't yet figured out that he isn't the guy (Bears?) or haven't yet given up hope but will possibly be back in the hunt next year with a new coach and GM (Winston?, Mariota?)

Often nobody has any idea who the success will be (Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Tom Brady) so that they fall to the 3rd, 4th or 6th round or even go undrafted (Kurt Warner).

The odds state that its better to draft a QB in the top 5 because more of them succeed.

Yet there are enough counter-examples to give draft evaluators fits (Blake Bortles, RGIII, Mark Sanchez, Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, etc.). And if you make a mistake and draft the wrong guy the GM and coach get fired and it sets your franchise back for at least 3 years - the time it takes to conclusively prove that the huge investment you made is a bust and will never pay off.

So, everybody asking Elway to pick a QB in the top 5 and roll with him are asking him to bet his career on the outcome.

Obviously he won't do that unless he's convinced that the guy will be a success. And he may well not feel that way about any QB available at #5.

Cugel
04-13-2018, 05:37 AM
The latest report is that the Browns and Giants don't love any of the QBs and are uncertain and might take Chubb and Barkley #1 and #2, rather than Darnold and Rosen, like everybody thought initially.

If that happens it will be because none of the QB prospects are seen as elite, and yet everybody realizes that they need an elite QB so desperate teams will do desperate things. Unfortunately, this is like throwing darts at the wall and hoping one of them sticks. Most won't and the guy whose darts bounce off that wall and fall to the ground gets fired.

So, Elway has to do more than just "pick a guy" and draft him, "because the team doesn't usually pick in the top 5 and this is a great chance." It's actually a worthless chance unless there's a QB available at #5 or a guy Elway can move up enough to get (#4) without giving up too much of his draft so that he can't strengthen the rest of the weak roster that only won 5 games.

And there might not be any next great QB available, either at all, or at #5. This is the depressing reality of the NFL today. Not enough QBs to go around and it's hard to identify which ones will succeed in advance. So some teams settle for Case Keenums of the world. That guy might not be elite, but might be good enough if you give him the right players around him.

The Vikings thought not, but then they think (without any real evidence) that Kirk Cousins (who has never taken his team to the playoffs) is the answer. We'll see on that one. Yet the Redskins didn't think highly enough of Cousins to re-sign him to a long term deal when they could (stupidity? Realization that $28m is too much to pay Cousins? We don't know yet).

If Elway isn't sure, it may be better not to throw that dart, and take a sure thing (one of the top elite prospect position players available --- Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, Fitzpatrick, etc.), then select a QB in a later round and develop him for a year or two along with Chad Kelly.

The Patriots have done this successfully several times in the past (Garoppolo) but the Broncos never (Osweiler).

sneakers
04-13-2018, 05:46 AM
roll the dice

Simple Jaded
04-13-2018, 11:40 PM
Whatever your intentions, you made my point. ;)
.

You’re welcome.

Simple Jaded
04-13-2018, 11:41 PM
The latest report is that the Browns and Giants don't love any of the QBs and are uncertain and might take Chubb and Barkley #1 and #2, rather than Darnold and Rosen, like everybody thought initially.

If that happens it will be because none of the QB prospects are seen as elite, and yet everybody realizes that they need an elite QB so desperate teams will do desperate things. Unfortunately, this is like throwing darts at the wall and hoping one of them sticks. Most won't and the guy whose darts bounce off that wall and fall to the ground gets fired.

So, Elway has to do more than just "pick a guy" and draft him, "because the team doesn't usually pick in the top 5 and this is a great chance." It's actually a worthless chance unless there's a QB available at #5 or a guy Elway can move up enough to get (#4) without giving up too much of his draft so that he can't strengthen the rest of the weak roster that only won 5 games.

And there might not be any next great QB available, either at all, or at #5. This is the depressing reality of the NFL today. Not enough QBs to go around and it's hard to identify which ones will succeed in advance. So some teams settle for Case Keenums of the world. That guy might not be elite, but might be good enough if you give him the right players around him.

The Vikings thought not, but then they think (without any real evidence) that Kirk Cousins (who has never taken his team to the playoffs) is the answer. We'll see on that one. Yet the Redskins didn't think highly enough of Cousins to re-sign him to a long term deal when they could (stupidity? Realization that $28m is too much to pay Cousins? We don't know yet).

If Elway isn't sure, it may be better not to throw that dart, and take a sure thing (one of the top elite prospect position players available --- Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, Fitzpatrick, etc.), then select a QB in a later round and develop him for a year or two along with Chad Kelly.

The Patriots have done this successfully several times in the past (Garoppolo) but the Broncos never (Osweiler).

Garaplo helped The P*triots win a SB, just like Brent.

Scoreboard.

Btw, only one team settles for CK when they’re within reach of the best QB’s in the draft, you make it sound like this is common.

Simple Jaded
04-13-2018, 11:45 PM
Btw, how in the **** is KC less established than CK?

#BizarroWorld
#CugelFoundHisTebow

SmilinAssasSin27
04-14-2018, 10:50 AM
The latest report is that the Browns and Giants don't love any of the QBs and are uncertain and might take Chubb and Barkley #1 and #2, rather than Darnold and Rosen, like everybody thought initially.

If that happens it will be because none of the QB prospects are seen as elite, and yet everybody realizes that they need an elite QB so desperate teams will do desperate things. Unfortunately, this is like throwing darts at the wall and hoping one of them sticks. Most won't and the guy whose darts bounce off that wall and fall to the ground gets fired.

So, Elway has to do more than just "pick a guy" and draft him, "because the team doesn't usually pick in the top 5 and this is a great chance." It's actually a worthless chance unless there's a QB available at #5 or a guy Elway can move up enough to get (#4) without giving up too much of his draft so that he can't strengthen the rest of the weak roster that only won 5 games.

And there might not be any next great QB available, either at all, or at #5. This is the depressing reality of the NFL today. Not enough QBs to go around and it's hard to identify which ones will succeed in advance. So some teams settle for Case Keenums of the world. That guy might not be elite, but might be good enough if you give him the right players around him.

The Vikings thought not, but then they think (without any real evidence) that Kirk Cousins (who has never taken his team to the playoffs) is the answer. We'll see on that one. Yet the Redskins didn't think highly enough of Cousins to re-sign him to a long term deal when they could (stupidity? Realization that $28m is too much to pay Cousins? We don't know yet).

If Elway isn't sure, it may be better not to throw that dart, and take a sure thing (one of the top elite prospect position players available --- Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, Fitzpatrick, etc.), then select a QB in a later round and develop him for a year or two along with Chad Kelly.

The Patriots have done this successfully several times in the past (Garoppolo) but the Broncos never (Osweiler).

Which brings us full circle to my thought a month ago...Cleveland takes Barkley at 1 and "settles" for leftover QB at 4 because they don't necessarily favor any 1 guy at the position...but WILL take a stab at one of them at 4.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-14-2018, 10:59 AM
Or what about this scenario...Cleveland doesn't love any QB this draft. They take Barkley. Then some other team's eyes get real big when NYG take Chubb. NYJ get their top QB choice, but then Cleveland is actually back in the trade business. Buffalo could get them 3 first rounders and they have plenty of cap room. They could get the QB at 12 and then their OT at 22. Or Vice versa and still have their second rounder. 4 key picks in the top 33. A scenario like this makes their Tyrod Taylor deal that much more valuable. Offense suddenly looks like:

QB...Taylor and a rookie (maybe Mayfield or Rosen do drop to 12)
RB...Barkley
WR...a clean Gordon, a newly wealthy former Dolphin and a top flight rookie to begin round 2.
OL...a very nice prospect at 12 or 22 to help with Thomas leaving.

Offense fixed in 1 offseason.

Defense gets depth the rest of the draft.

Nomad
04-14-2018, 11:07 AM
Or what about this scenario...Cleveland doesn't love any QB this draft. They take Barkley. Then some other team's eyes get real big when NYG take Chubb. NYJ get their top QB choice, but then Cleveland is actually back in the trade business. Buffalo could get them 3 first rounders and they have plenty of cap room. They could get the QB at 12 and then their OT at 22. Or Vice versa and still have their second rounder. 4 key picks in the top 33. A scenario like this makes their Tyrod Taylor deal that much more valuable. Offense suddenly looks like:

QB...Taylor and a rookie (maybe Mayfield or Rosen do drop to 12)
RB...Barkley
WR...a clean Gordon, a newly wealthy former Dolphin and a top flight rookie to begin round 2.
OL...a very nice prospect at 12 or 22 to help with Thomas leaving.

Offense fixed in 1 offseason.

Defense gets depth the rest of the draft.

You ever consider being the Browns GM for this draft? :D Browns could make bank if they play it smart in this draft.

SmilinAssasSin27
04-14-2018, 11:11 AM
Now obviously if they LOVE a certain QB, this would be dumb to do. But if not...the draft is their oyster.

foco
04-14-2018, 01:22 PM
I just love it when I post a three-paragraph comment and someone picks out one sentence
and tries to blow it up with that. Especially someone who posts once every six months. So
you know about Ken O'Brien. Bully for you. :coffee:

BTW, I see you are a Navy veteran. Thank you for your service to our country.
.

1. You’re welcome. I’m sure there are many other vets or active service on this forum, though they are often on duty for six months at a time so you probably burn them for that.

2. If you’re gonna get so upset about people not rescpecting your “three-paragraphs” because one sentence is bull****, my suggestion would be to work on not writing that one sentence of bull****. That’ll take way less time than researching someone’s post history after they point it out.

3. Let no one say that the “blue forum” isn’t at least entertaining.

topscribe
04-14-2018, 01:45 PM
1. You’re welcome. I’m sure there are many other vets or active service on this forum, though they are often on duty for six months at a time so you probably burn them for that.

2. If you’re gonna get so upset about people not rescpecting your “three-paragraphs” because one sentence is bull****, my suggestion would be to work on not writing that one sentence of bull****. That’ll take way less time than researching someone’s post history after they point it out.

3. Let no one say that the “blue forum” isn’t at least entertaining.
Did you have something meaningful to contribute, or are you here just to troll?

foco
04-14-2018, 01:56 PM
:coffee: