Draft A Qb Every Single Year, Start Him Year 1 And Win

[foozool13]

I have mentioned this on other thread as have others, we need to take a stab at a QB every single year in the draft until we get the right guy. Given that we are in a "rebuild" for the foresable future, this to me is the best strategy.

Frist things first, we need to move on form TH. Cap hit bedamned. Just move on one way or another, trade or cut.

Next, the strategy is simple. Draft a QB every single year (not saying round 1, but somewhere) and throw them in the fire. The outcomes would go like this basically:

1. We found our guy and well...**** YA!
2. He sucks and we end up with a top 7 pick the following year. Thats how you technically "tank", you have a POS QB in there. Draft a top guy if it makes sense, put the two in competeiton with eachother in camp and see who wins that batterl and rinse and repeat.

WIN-WIN.

Worst case we end up with 2 competant QBs and the franchsie can actually move forward with builidn the rest of the roster.

The NFL has gotten to a point where its no longer a Coach-QB league (see Bears). Its now a QB-Coach league. You cannot spend enough resources in finding a franchise QB.

None of the other crap we do matters whatsoever unless we have the franchsie guy. I dont care what other postions we upgrade, beacuse without our franchsie QB its all a moot point. Make it happen Grier.

Whose with me!?

 

[Travis34]

People like to say this but its just not as feasible as some people want to believe.

We absolutely need to start drafting some qb's tho, regardless of where in the draft

 

[foozool13]

People like to say this but its just not as feasible as some people want to believe.

We absolutely need to start drafting some qb's tho, regardless of where in the draft

Why isn't it feasible? Why cant we draft QBs and have them compete against eachother? How is anything else we have been doing more feasible.

Seahawks paid Flynn then drafted Wilson.
Eagles got Foles and drafted Wentz.
Chiefs had Smith and drafted Mahomes.
Patriots had Brady and drafted Jimmy G.
Steelers have Big Ben, but keep drafting QBs round 2/3.
Ravens had Flacco, drafted Jackson round 1.
Browns keep drafting QBs and finally hit with Baker. The ****ING BROWNS!
Houston kept recycling QBs till they got Watson.

You know whats not fesible, patchworking our roster with a crappy QB and wondering why we are stuck in 20 years of mediocrity.

 

[TrinidadDolfan]

It’s a good strategy and a fairly obvious one

 

[fin415]

What are you not accounting for that might be significantly different team to team?
* Cap space
* Current QB contract
* Backup QB contract
* Impact of "giving up" a high round draft pick on a role that's currently "good enough" for another that's "good enough"

If figuring out who is going to be an elite QB before they play for a couple of years in the NFL was so easy, every team not named Patriots, Greenbay, Seattle, Saints would be drafting EVERY draft -- and there aren't 28 QB's in the damn draft.

 

[fin415]

It’s a good strategy and a fairly obvious one

And yet, how many teams do this "obviously good strategy"? I wonder why it's so obvious to all of us arm chair GM's and yet the guys who are paid millions of dollars a year for actually doing the GM job don't all do this so obvious strategy?

 

[jazz015]

This whole strategy is deeply flawed because of the assumption that each guy you draft will be a decent player. And sometimes yes it takes a quarterback 3 years to really feel the flow of an NFL game. This strategy would cost guys like Rosen and Darnold time because fans would simply be trying to bench them and not let them come into their own.

Our best strategy moving forward is to approach August with A mid round rookie (Stick for example), A cheap veteran who has 3-5 years experience, and a guy like rudock. You allow those three to battle it out and give them a chance to be the guy. If neither works then you approach that off-season knowing you go get the guy. This allows us to turn over stones while not handcuffing us to expensive contracts for Foles/Teddy.

And if one of those guys plays decent football and looks like a starter, anpther team will trade a lot of capital to acquire them

 

[Travis34]

Why isn't it feasible? Why cant we draft QBs and have them compete against eachother? How is anything else we have been doing more feasible.

Seahawks paid Flynn then drafted Wilson.
Eagles got Foles and drafted Wentz.
Chiefs had Smith and drafted Mahomes.
Patriots had Brady and drafted Jimmy G.
Steelers have Big Ben, but keep drafting QBs round 2/3.
Ravens had Flacco, drafted Jackson round 1.
Browns keep drafting QBs and finally hit with Baker. The ****ING BROWNS!
Houston kept recycling QBs till they got Watson.

You know whats not fesible, patchworking our roster with a crappy QB and wondering why we are stuck in 20 years of mediocrity.

@fin415 's posts cover my thoughts on this.

Also all of those teams you listed, did they draft QBs every. single. year?

@jazz015 also makes good points

 

[Daytona Fin]

We struck out at GM and now we are hiring another dud at head coach. Eventually we will get one of the three key positions right. I'm on board with this plan. Keep drafting qb's until you find a stud.

 

[foozool13]

What are you not accounting for that might be significantly different team to team?
* Cap space
* Current QB contract
* Backup QB contract
* Impact of "giving up" a high round draft pick on a role that's currently "good enough" for another that's "good enough"

If figuring out who is going to be an elite QB before they play for a couple of years in the NFL was so easy, every team not named Patriots, Greenbay, Seattle, Saints would be drafting EVERY draft -- and there aren't 28 QB's in the damn draft.

Cap space? We draft ****ing ass clowns in every round of the draft and still pay them to not even play.
Current QB contract? Its a rookie contract, not different than any other failed pick we use our 2nd and 3rd rounders on.
Backup QB contract? in this case would be a rookie contract and not an issue.
Impact of "giving up" a high round draft pick on a role that's currently "good enough" for another that's "good enough"? I said draft one every year and specifically said it doesnt need to be round 1.

 

[foozool13]

@fin415 's posts cover my thoughts on this.

Also all of those teams you listed, did they draft QBs every. single. year?

@jazz015 also makes good points

They have franchise QBs. I said you do this until we have a franchise guy. The QB position is so damn important that teams with ELITE QBs are even spending high picks on them. A team like Miami who has douche bags at QB should prolly be doing that too.

And yet, how many teams do this "obviously good strategy"? I wonder why it's so obvious to all of us arm chair GM's and yet the guys who are paid millions of dollars a year for actually doing the GM job don't all do this so obvious strategy?

Ya and those GMs who arent finding those franchise QBs are getting fired regularly as well.

 

[foozool13]

This whole strategy is deeply flawed because of the assumption that each guy you draft will be a decent player. And sometimes yes it takes a quarterback 3 years to really feel the flow of an NFL game. This strategy would cost guys like Rosen and Darnold time because fans would simply be trying to bench them and not let them come into their own......

It's actually the oppostie. This strategy assumes that the QB you have is NOT good enough and needs to be upgraded.

Also, even if you bring in another QB and those guys cant compete and beat them in camp then they arent your guy. I didnt say you simply cut them after one year. I said you bring in more competition every year until one separates themselves.

 

[fin415]

Madden is a curse on the world. Now everyone thinks they are a NFL strategist and GM.

 

[Digital]

I'm not a fan of drafting a QB every year. I'm a fan of building a team that can compete for a Super Bowl … and that requires around 30 players who play major roles when you factor in rotational DL, injury replacements along the OL, more DB's for nickel and dime situations, RB by committee, 5 wide receiver formations, kicker, punter, and other situational players. We get only 7 draft picks a year, plus compensation for FA losses.

If you are truly a fan of Best Player Available (BPA) then you don't draft a QB every year, you draft a QB when they're the BPA, even if that means all 7 of your draft picks are QB's or if you have a franchise QB and a good backup. If you're trying to build a great team, you don't draft redundant pieces unless you can trade for value, but you draft positions of need. Usually teams make it a mesh of BPA and need. Arbitrarily committing to drafting a QB is not the best strategy, IMHO. When the value is too high to ignore, you draft the guy, and then move around assets to make it work.

Draft picks are valuable resources. IMHO, you need to build a team, not just find a QB, although admittedly the QB is the most important player. Like every team we've made our share of mistakes drafting QB's and not drafting QB's. We passed over Aaron Rodgers, and we were wrong for doing so. But when we passed over Brady Quinn, while it shocked everyone, it was the right call to not draft him. When we drafted Pat White, Chad Henne, John Beck, and every other 2nd round QB we drafted … it was a bad decision. Just because they're QB's doesn't make them a good prospect.

Pick the best mix of players to form the best team you can make. Most of the time that means drafting the BPA, but regardless, its about building the best team, not just about the QB.

 

[foozool13]

I'm not a fan of drafting a QB every year. I'm a fan of building a team that can compete for a Super Bowl … and that requires around 30 players who play major roles when you factor in rotational DL, injury replacements along the OL, more DB's for nickel and dime situations, RB by committee, 5 wide receiver formations, kicker, punter, and other situational players. We get only 7 draft picks a year, plus compensation for FA losses.

If you are truly a fan of Best Player Available (BPA) then you don't draft a QB every year, you draft a QB when they're the BPA, even if that means all 7 of your draft picks are QB's or if you have a franchise QB and a good backup. If you're trying to build a great team, you don't draft redundant pieces unless you can trade for value, but you draft positions of need. Usually teams make it a mesh of BPA and need. Arbitrarily committing to drafting a QB is not the best strategy, IMHO. When the value is too high to ignore, you draft the guy, and then move around assets to make it work.

Draft picks are valuable resources. IMHO, you need to build a team, not just find a QB, although admittedly the QB is the most important player. Like every team we've made our share of mistakes drafting QB's and not drafting QB's. We passed over Aaron Rodgers, and we were wrong for doing so. But when we passed over Brady Quinn, while it shocked everyone, it was the right call to not draft him. When we drafted Pat White, Chad Henne, John Beck, and every other 2nd round QB we drafted … it was a bad decision. Just because they're QB's doesn't make them a good prospect.

Pick the best mix of players to form the best team you can make. Most of the time that means drafting the BPA, but regardless, its about building the best team, not just about the QB.

A roster full of BPA doesnt meant **** if you want consistent success and dont have a franchise QB. See Vikings who have a damn good roster. And no, Cousins isn't that dude. I've never been a fan and my old posts of Cousins will back that up. Also, wiht BPA you can run into the issue where lets say you are stacked at RB and the BPA is a RB, do you take a RB just because you believe in BPA?

You can have a roster with tons of great players and not get anywhere without a franchise QB.

But get a franchise QB and watch that shitty roster from one year ago look like world beaters.

Thanks for atleast posting a formidable and reasoned response wtih an actually concept of how to go about it. I just respecfully disagree.