To those wanting a "Top 10" quarterback...

[Harbingers]

3 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

It sounds like you have a point you want to make and are just presenting whatever random data you find that looks like it supports your point, instead of understanding what the data actually says...or what I said for that matter.

I said my point very clearly in the first post top 10 Defense > Top 10 Offense(Trenches Matter) > Top 10 Draft "Franchise" QB. 

That was the point in its entirety nothing anyone says otherwise will change that. Top 10 Draft QB > Team does not work. Like so many people want to claim.

[stbugs]

Just now, WUnderhill said:

But the argument isn’t pick 1 player vs. build a great team. It’s always pick 1 player vs. pick a different 1 player. You can only pick 1 player per pick. If you want to argue that a franchise DT or LT or DE is more important than a franchise QB, that’s one thing and that’s an opinion you can have as wrong as it is. I don’t get where the draft a whole team vs. draft a single QB argument is coming from unless I missed some talk about trading up.

Thank you again. I kept getting that in my tank for Trevor posts. It was as if people couldn’t understand that taking Trevor doesn’t mean that you build a shitty team around him and that not taking Trevor meant you were guaranteed to build a good team. It was as if they couldn’t grasp that if we somehow built a good team and had a franchise QB we would have the chance to compete for multiple SBs.

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, WUnderhill said:

But the argument isn’t pick 1 player vs. build a great team.

Its literally is. Read the OP, all the data backs that up. You can draft the "best/highest" college quarterback or even the third or fourth highest. If the team around them is poo, they still are poo.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

But the argument isn’t pick 1 player vs. build a great team. It’s always pick 1 player vs. pick a different 1 player. You can only pick 1 player per pick. If you want to argue that a franchise DT or LT or DE is more important than a franchise QB, that’s one thing and that’s an opinion you can have as wrong as it is. I don’t get where the draft a whole team vs. draft a single QB argument is coming from unless I missed some talk about trading up.

You pick one player at a time, but if you're doing it in a vacuum, you're doing it wrong. It's gotta be part of an overall approach.

Think of it in terms of an offensive game plan. You've got some guys who just call one play, then call the next play, then call another one. But the smart ones are like chess masters, thinking five or six moves ahead 

[WUnderhill]

1 minute ago, Harbingers said:

I said my point very clearly in the first post top 10 Defense > Top 10 Offense(Trenches Matter) > Top 10 Draft "Franchise" QB. 

That was the point in its entirety nothing anyone says otherwise will change that. Top 10 Draft QB > Team does not work. Like so many people want to claim.

Ok what single position on Defense is more important than a franchise QB? Or are you drafting a whole defense with 1 single top 10 pick?

[TheRumGone]

Franchise QBs are harder to find than any other position on the field. So if your team does their due diligence and selects one this draft, I’ll have faith they believe he’s the guy. It doesn’t mean you stop building the team up. 
 

that’s literally what Marty struggled with. He got his franchise qb and franchise defensive mlb and never consistently built anything around them. But you NEED those franchise players to be more consistent and have better shots at the super bowl. So if it’s this year or the next two years. We better hope we get our guy. I’m fine if they don’t pick a qb this year because they think there isn’t the guy past Lawrence or fields. But I really hope they know Teddy isn’t that dude and we need an upgrade whenever the opportunity presents itself.   

[WUnderhill]

1 minute ago, Harbingers said:

Its literally is. Read the OP, all the data backs that up. You can draft the "best/highest" college quarterback or even the third or fourth highest. If the team around them is poo, they still are poo.

You can do that with any single player. Draft the “best/highest” college DE...if the team around them is poo, they still are poo.

Draft the “best/highest” college LT...if the team around them is poo, they still are poo.

Draft the “best/highest” college WR...if the team around them is poo, they still are poo.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

26 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

Same with Luke though, and Julius Peppers, etc. etc. We’re talking about drafting just one player, not drafting whole units. Would you pass up on a franchise QB for any other single position?

That would be hard, perhaps impossible for a GM to do without fans calling for his head.   

However, if it was a choice between building a championship defense w/a mid-tier QB or building an average defense w/a 1st round QB, I'd prefer to have the former rather than the latter.

If your franchise QB goes down the season is essentially over (as Panthers fans know only too well).

A top 10 defense has many moving parts and while the loss of one or two starters may impact the level of play, it likely won't have as dramatic an impact as the loss of a franchise QB.

Again, I'd love to have both a great D and great QB, but the salary cap limits teams choices. 

[stbugs]

37 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Wait....wut? I never said that. 

I know. I thought it was the OP. Imagine you are him and re-read it. ;)

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Duh and how’s that an argument against franchise QBs. You know what happens when you get a franchise QB and build a good team around them? Multiple SB wins. There’s more of a history of finding a QB, building a team and winning SBs than their is of building an amazing D and winning with a game manager. For every McMahon and Dilfer there are multiple Aikman, Elway, Bradshaw, Brady, Mannings and Roethlisbergers.

I mean we get hung up on Brady as a 6th rounder but is there a single other 6th rounder that has done anything of note? Same with Wilson and Montana in the 3rd. All I know is that the SB winners and losers are littered with first round picks.

I'm not even sure you could get half a dozen people to agree on what the definition of a franchise quarterback is.

You've got some who would only define an athletic freak like Newton as a franchise guy. Others focus on a pocket passer. And I've seen people argue that a game manager can't be a franchise quarterback (something I disagree with entirely).

You have to be able to differentiate between style and abilities, and some people can't.

[WUnderhill]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You pick one player at a time, but if you're doing it in a vacuum, you're doing it wrong. It's gotta be part of an overall approach.

Think of it in terms of an offensive game plan. You've got some guys who just call one play, then call the next play, then call another one. But the smart ones are like chess masters, thinking five or six moves ahead 

So when somebody picks a QB top 10 they all of a sudden aren’t thinking of building a team or don’t have a game plan? Honestly this makes no sense and I don’t know where these arguments are coming from.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

So when somebody picks a QB top 10 they all of a sudden aren’t thinking of building a team or don’t have a game plan? Honestly this makes no sense and I don’t know where these arguments are coming from.

Not what I'm saying at all. Look back at my previous post where I said I don't care what position, round etc player is taken at.

I'm saying you have to take an overall team building approach. Having a franchise quarterback is great, but it's meaningless if you don't build around him.

[stbugs]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not even sure you could get half a dozen people to agree on what the definition of a franchise quarterback is.

You've got some who would only define an athletic freak like Newton as a franchise guy. Others focus on a pocket passer. And I've seen people argue that a game manager can't be a franchise quarterback (something I disagree with entirely).

You have to be able to differentiate between style and abilities, and some people can't.

I agree. That’s why this discussion is so dumb to begin with. You are talking 1 SB winning team every year. Stats can be misleading. I know that when someone is arguing stats against taking a QB early and more than half of those SBs have been won by 1st round QBs, it gets silly. Also, winning a SB takes luck and takes other spots, we know that. It also is silly when the Goat QB beats multiple top 10 picks at QB making them “unsuccessful” or saying that Cam and Luck were bad picks or saying that Murray, Allen, Jackson and Burrow haven’t won SBs when they’ve got 10+ years left.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I agree. That’s why this discussion is so dumb to begin with. You are talking 1 SB winning team every year. Stats can be misleading. I know that when someone is arguing stats against taking a QB early and more than half of those SBs have been won by 1st round QBs, it gets silly. Also, winning a SB takes luck and takes other spots, we know that. It also is silly when the Goat QB beats multiple top 10 picks at QB making them “unsuccessful” or saying that Cam and Luck were bad picks or saying that Murray, Allen, Jackson and Burrow haven’t won SBs when they’ve got 10+ years left.

There's no set formula to win a Super Bowl, for sure.