Aaron Rodgers: A Studied Opinion | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Aaron Rodgers: A Studied Opinion

Jaj said:
I thought the percentage for 1st round QBs was around 50. I was almost sure of that. And what do you consider a bust anyway?
No its 35. It was posted a few times last week.

Personally imo a 1st rd qb is a bust if hes not making pro bowls or at least having a 2-1 Td/INt ration and making the big throws when needed. I like to break it into 3 categories as seen below but Im pretty sure these analysts that ranked em do it differently.

For ex: McNabb = success
Dilfer = didnt live up to expectations
Akili Smith = Bust
 
Boik14 said:
Im not challenging your opinion on our current qb's. We're in total agreement there. But what we;re trying to do is open up our cap and eliminate the big contracts in large part. Sure there will always be a few but Saban's aim is depth from what I can see. The only way we're going to fill this team out the way he wants imo is trading down.

I know and in no way an i saying youre wrong you have valid points for alot of things...and i agree with opening up the cap and killing big contracts totally as you do, but unfortunatly at the QB position if you want the best you have to pay top $.
 
merlin00069 said:
Kind of reminds me of buying a car.You could buy a new Kia and after 2-3 years risk breakdown problems,have to repair it over and over and have buy another new Kia OR you could bite the bullet and buy a BMW/Mercedes that gives you a far better chance of not breaking down for years to come. Sure the BMW/Mercedes could break down...but youll always take the %. :D
Yeah but youre treating it also like Im saying wait til rd 6 when if you see my mock in my sig im saying rd 2 which means less bonus $ by a lot and only a slightly decreased chance for success.

Im not saying theres always a Brady in rd 6 or a trent green/gannon type on day 2. Im saying wait til late day 1 when the bonus money is significantly reduced so you can run a more efficient team by reducing the cost of your players and filling other needs, multiple needs, in 1 shot.
 
Boik14 said:
No its 35. It was posted a few times last week.

Personally imo a 1st rd qb is a bust if hes not making pro bowls or at least having a 2-1 Td/INt ration and making the big throws when needed. I like to break it into 3 categories as seen below but Im pretty sure these analysts that ranked em do it differently.

For ex: McNabb = success
Dilfer = didnt live up to expectations
Akili Smith = Bust

I agree with this whole heartily...

more examples

Tim Couch=bust
Peyton Manning= success
Jake Plummer= not living up to expectations...
 
Jake the Snake wasn't even a 1st rounder, was he?
 
Jaj said:
Jake the Snake wasn't even a 1st rounder, was he?

Nope #42 overall...2nd round in 1997 but that was the year of "everything but QB draft" just like 1996. Druckenmiller went in the first though.
Even though he wasnt a 1st rounder he still had maaaad expectations. Especially since he did the whole Arizona college/Pro thing. Perhaps a better one is Jeff George. Still in the league but never lived up to his expectations.
 
Boik14 said:
My biggest problem with picking a qb is the % of succes is only 35% among 1st rd qbs and the bonus money is huge. Personally I like Orton more even though Rodgers is more fundamentally sound.

Tedford runs a naturally conservative offense. Those that criticize Jason Campbell in that regard need to look at Rodgers as well cause he falls into the same category.

You critisize Rodgers for playing in Tedford's offense yet you're fine with Orton who played out of the shotgun most of the time in Tiller's short pass happy offense?

Not sure why you like a QB that doesn't throw passes over 15 yards accurately, throws behind WRs, has poor mobility, isn't nearly as intelligent, struggles under pressure, and doesn't bother keeping himself in good shape more than Rodgers.
 
19 out of 32 teams are starting a QB drafted in the 1st round. 3 other teams are starting a QB taken in the 2nd. That's the only meaningful statistic to me to take a QB (although I personally think we should get Braylon).
 
Interesting debate...but here is another reason why I think we won't take a QB #2...

Whichever QB Saban takes at #2 ( I am assuming Smith or Rodgers), will be forever linked to Saban's success or lack of success at Miami. I realize that Saban is an expert at what he does, and knows much more about these guys than you or I do, but is he going to have his legacy rest on either of those guys (you know, his first draft as an NFL HC/GM) ?? Neither are considered a sure-fire bet, both are system QBs, both have athletic deficiences for the pro level. I just don't see him going after either of these guys. Now, and please spare me the "If grandma had..." stuff, if this were 2004 draft, I'd have a completely different take on things. Manning and Rivers would have been considered ahead of Smith/Rodgers and Roth would have been even with them. I just think that Saban will look at the success rate of drafted QBs at the top of the draft and decide to go with a more "immediate impact" guy...and to Merlin0009, 1300 yds rushing for the next 5-7 years or 1000 yd receiving for the next 5-7 years is an impact and long term...So that, to me, holds no water.
 
djfresh47 said:
I would not be shocked if they took Smith, I would be surprised if they took Edwards though. I am on the QB bandwagon because I don't think Feeley is the long-term answer and that after Leinhart none of the Qb's next year are as polished as Rodgers/Smith, and that the QB class this year is underrated. For the '06 draft my Qb draft board is: 1. Leinart, 2. Vince Young, 3. Reggie McNeal, 4. Omar Jacobs, and the that's if Young and Jacobs decide to come out. I think Vince Young has the most potential of any QB I seen play in college football last season but is probably the biggest risk and will take alot of time. I don't like to say "if" but say Leinhart did declare would Rodgers/Smith be the obvious choice for Saban. I do not think next year's RB class is as good except for Maroney from Minnesota, but I think that with the depth in this year's class the drop of from Smith/Rodgers is far greater than the dropoff from Benson/Caddy/Brown to Barber/Fason/Shelton/Arrington. Someone will probably go with the "if grandma had....she'd be grandpa, but I beat ya to it, so just feedback on the "if" Leinhart declared comment.

Vince Young has absolutely no passing skills. No feel for the passing game whatsoever. All he can do is run around in the pocket, throw to his first read, and scramble. That's it. If he's the 2nd best quarterback prospect, then the crop is extremely weak. Vince Young can't touch Omar Jacobs when it comes to passing ability, and I'm not completely sold on Jacobs just yet.

There are several quarterbacks I would take over Vince Young though. Charlie Whitehurst at Clemson, Brodie Croyle at Alabama, and Kevin Kolb at Houston just to name a few that aren't great prospects.
 
LarryFinFan said:
Interesting debate...but here is another reason why I think we won't take a QB #2...

Whichever QB Saban takes at #2 ( I am assuming Smith or Rodgers), will be forever linked to Saban's success or lack of success at Miami. I realize that Saban is an expert at what he does, and knows much more about these guys than you or I do, but is he going to have his legacy rest on either of those guys (you know, his first draft as an NFL HC/GM) ?? Neither are considered a sure-fire bet, both are system QBs, both have athletic deficiences for the pro level. I just don't see him going after either of these guys. Now, and please spare me the "If grandma had..." stuff, if this were 2004 draft, I'd have a completely different take on things. Manning and Rivers would have been considered ahead of Smith/Rodgers and Roth would have been even with them. I just think that Saban will look at the success rate of drafted QBs at the top of the draft and decide to go with a more "immediate impact" guy...and to Merlin0009, 1300 yds rushing for the next 5-7 years or 1000 yd receiving for the next 5-7 years is an impact and long term...So that, to me, holds no water.

Who would you rather rest your legacy on, Aaron Rodgers/Alex Smith or AJ Feeley/Gus Frerotte? It is a fact of football that the quarterback position is the one position where, if you have bad judgement, you eventually get fired. No other position is like that. Moreso than anything, Wannstedt's decisions on his quarterback position is the reason he got fired in Chicago and Miami.
 
Hey, KB...

Didn't I see you with figures similar to the 30% First Round success for QBs and 3% in the later rounds? If that analysis holds statistically true, then those who want to gamble on later round QB's are willing to spend (statistically) between 5-20 years (optimistically), with an long term loose approximation (assuming at least 1.5 years per datum with a failure rate on average of 97%) of 45 or more, years to find the Next Great Quarterback, hoping that the die turns up in their favor early.

That makes no sense to me, either athletically, statistically, or financially - unless one wishes that the team tanks two years in a row, and maybe, just maybe, next years crop will have a winner we can reach with a first round draft pick. That being said, if either one of the two QB's are there, it would be obvious that long term we have to take the shot on the one at the #2 spot. My preference right now is Rodgers because of the accuracy figures I have seen (and at least one comparision with Joe Montana), but either one, with a couple of years tutelage, could be special, if not possibly great quarterbacks.
 
RevRick said:
Didn't I see you with figures similar to the 30% First Round success for QBs and 3% in the later rounds? If that analysis holds statistically true, then those who want to gamble on later round QB's are willing to spend (statistically) between 5-20 years (optimistically), with an long term loose approximation (assuming at least 1.5 years per datum with a failure rate on average of 97%) of 45 or more, years to find the Next Great Quarterback, hoping that the die turns up in their favor early.

That makes no sense to me, either athletically, statistically, or financially - unless one wishes that the team tanks two years in a row, and maybe, just maybe, next years crop will have a winner we can reach with a first round draft pick. That being said, if either one of the two QB's are there, it would be obvious that long term we have to take the shot on the one at the #2 spot. My preference right now is Rodgers because of the accuracy figures I have seen (and at least one comparision with Joe Montana), but either one, with a couple of years tutelage, could be special, if not possibly great quarterbacks.

I've posted those stats in the past, and I also posted a link the other day discussing this topic. Basically, if you want a starting quarterback, you have a much better chance of getting one if you draft a quarterback on the first day of the draft. The chances go up if you take one in the first round.
 
KB21 said:
I've posted those stats in the past, and I also posted a link the other day discussing this topic. Basically, if you want a starting quarterback, you have a much better chance of getting one if you draft a quarterback on the first day of the draft. The chances go up if you take one in the first round.

I too gave the stats on it a few days ago and am optimistic that well take the latter or whoever falls to us at #2 in the draft.
 
Jaj said:
His accuracy is what stands out in my mind.

IMO its the most important quality physical quality in a QB along with a quick release.The intangibles are harder to gauge.
 
Back
Top Bottom