What the Duck?

[stbugs]

13 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I understand that--but how many of the QBs taken early in round 1 over the last 10 years were decent?  Taking the 4th best QB with the sixth overall pick is hardly wise in the long run.   We need to make sure that our desperation for a QB does not cause us to pass on the best LT to come out in over a decade or more--all of the early first round bust QBs looked great in college....

Go back and look at the tackles taken in the 1st as well. I’d bet that you’ll find those years where the tackle class was solid and they did well and other years where the first tackle was a bit of a reach that they weren’t good. There’s a lot of Greg Robinsons and Flowers out there as well. Let’s not act like you couldn’t do that with any position. QB is just more visible and the key position so it does have more a bit more reaching than anything else.

Also, as someone else posted before QBs usually take some time before they succeed. Many of the QBs winning/getting to SBs weren’t drafted in the last 10 years.

So, there’s a lot of QBs taken the past 5 years that we don’t really know about yet. Doing an exercise for the last 10 years is silly when half the QBs haven’t had enough time yet and there absolutely are “bad” years of QBs. This year is not one of them and maybe last year wasn’t either. Burrow and Herbert looked solid so far and we haven’t seen enough of a healthy Tua and Love.

[stbugs]

7 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

If you use the logic, "Well Matt Kalil was a LT..." Then you are selecting an isolated incident where it did not work out to make a statement about the whole.  It is a weak argument because for every Matt Kalil he can find, I can find 20 Jamarcus Russells.

Not true at all. There’s a ton of tackle busts and Russell was unique as heck. QB busts are just way more well known, there’s tons of Matt Kalil’s as well.

One other big difference is that if a QB is mediocre, he gets benched quick. If a tackle is mediocre he can be given years. Flowers sucked balls and he’s still wandering around. Remmers played for the Chiefs who have Erik Fisher a tackle taken first who was bad for many years. He’s still not a top tackle just an OK one.

QBs get taken earlier, that’s absolutely true and maybe they are harder to evaluate. Maybe we also don’t label Cam and Luck as successful but we say Fisher is.

[Pup McBarky]

Cincinnati will NOT pass on Sewell. If they collectively have a stroke and do, we have to take him. 

[BrianS]

If you are in the top 10 of a draft, and a QB you believe to be franchise quality is there, you TAKE HIM.  Doesn't matter whether some website / pundit / talking head or another thinks he's the 2nd or 4th best QB in the draft.  If your evaluation says "Franchise QB", that's the pick.  It really is that simple.

As a team, everything depends on your internal evaluation of the players.  Just as there are top 10 draft flops, there are mis-evaluations in the other direction as well.  Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Jets, Chargers, Carolina and Cincinnati all passed on Patrick Mahomes because the evaluation was wrong.  *Everyone* passed on Dak Prescott *multiple* times because the evaluation was wrong.

Offensive line evaluations can be wrong too.  Look at the Chiefs.  Sure, Eric Fisher is a high draft choice.  You know who their other tackle is?  Mike Remmers.  Yea, THAT Mike Remmers.  Dude who we crapped on is likely to get a ring.

Sure, I agree, high end offensive line evaluations are *safer* picks that QB's.  That doesn't make them the *right* pick.  It's much easier to find NFL quality lineman throughout the draft than it is to find QB's. 

QB is a weird position man.  Anyone who tells you they "know" how to pick em is wrong.  It's all a guess.  Baker Mayfield came out high, looked like a flop . . . until he didn't.  He now looks like an actual NFL QB.  The difference is that QB is by far and away the most important position on the field.  If you ain't got one, none of the rest of your roster really matters.

Look no further than our team.  I can't believe I'm saying this, but we may well have the best WR group in the league.  Unfortunately, you can't really tell because we ain't got a franchise guy pullin the strings.  What would our offense look like with Mahomes / Wilson / Rodgers under center?  I wouldn't want to play against that.  Nobody wants that.

[kungfoodude]

35 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

If you use the logic, "Well Matt Kalil was a LT..." Then you are selecting an isolated incident where it did not work out to make a statement about the whole.  It is a weak argument because for every Matt Kalil he can find, I can find 20 Jamarcus Russells.

I think the Kalil and Russell type fails are more a failure of scouting and evaluation than anything. Sort of like Greg Little. Those physical attributes mean a lot less when the player just doesn't have a lick of the intagibles necessary to be great. 

Why is someone like Efe Obada a contributing member of the Panthers over Greg Little with the very obvious advantages that Little has? One wants it and the other doesn't. You have to suss that out during your evalutions and weigh that risk.

It's like choosing to marry someone and thinking, "Well maybe he/she will change." Hope springs eternal but it is from the same seed as stupidity comes.

[ForJimmy]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

 

It is more likely (statistically) that Sewell is the next great LT and Lance or Wilson is the next Rosen or Manziel.  Not saying that I think that--but if Sewell is on the board and you take a flyer on either of these two QBs instead, you are likely making a long-term mistake.  Full Stop.

Agreed. It’s definitely a risk/reward. The risk for a qb is greater, but so is the reward. LT might even be the second most important position, but there is a pretty big gap between QB and LT.

[TheRumGone]

I’d rather take a qb but if they passed and pick Sewell I can’t be mad. He’s a fuging monster. I’d chalk it up to them not thinking the rest of the qbs are franchise qbs. I’d disagree but I’m just some dude. 
 

sewell is generational. If we played it that way I’d hope we’d do something like the chiefs did where they build the team up then move up in the draft years down the road to select a very talented prospect like they did with Mahomes. That would be my hope but easier said then done.

[stirs]

2 hours ago, MHS831 said:

The best player in this draft not named Trevor Lawrence--and I would take him before Lance and Wilson.

 

Same page

After Lawrence, I'd rather have Sewell and pick up a QB in the second.

Great Olines make average QBs look great, and terrible Olines make great QB's look average, or out of the league in short time.

[Mr. Scot]

Sewell is fantastic and quite probably one of the best players in the draft.

Sadly I see the chances of him being available to us as approximately zero point zero.

[Call Me James]

1 hour ago, Pup McBarky said:

Cincinnati will NOT pass on Sewell. If they collectively have a stroke and do, we have to take him. 

I just can't see it happening. Especially so after Burrow got injured. 

[AU-panther]

2 hours ago, WarHeel said:

That philosophy worked out great for Cam’s tenure here. Let’s give it another go.

So we would have been better with a great LT and no Qb?

2 hours ago, MHS831 said:

 

It is more likely (statistically) that Sewell is the next great LT and Lance or Wilson is the next Rosen or Manziel.  Not saying that I think that--but if Sewell is on the board and you take a flyer on either of these two QBs instead, you are likely making a long-term mistake.  Full Stop.

True, Sewell is probably the best prospect in the draft but that argument only makes sense if all the positions are equally important.

Think in terms of WAR:

A great OT adds how many wins relative to an average OT?

A great QB adds how many wins relative to an average QB?

Its not even close.  Look at the Browns all of those years with Thomas.

Nobody is saying reach for a 2nd round QB over Sewell, that would be stupid, but if you have a top 10 type of grade on any QB that is available when we pick you have to go with the QB if you don't feel your current QB is good enough.

Long term you are better on missing on some picks if you find your QB then if you are right on a bunch of a non QBs.

I'll take going 1/3 the next 3 first rounds picking all QBs and you go 3/3 picking other positions.  Which team will be better long term?  I'll take the QB.

 

 

[TheProcess]

I think Sewell is the 2nd best player in this draft behind Lawrence, but Cincy will draft Sewell. If they don't, Burrow should immediately demand a trade.

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, BrianS said:

If you are in the top 10 of a draft, and a QB you believe to be franchise quality is there, you TAKE HIM.  Doesn't matter whether some website / pundit / talking head or another thinks he's the 2nd or 4th best QB in the draft.  If your evaluation says "Franchise QB", that's the pick.  It really is that simple.

As a team, everything depends on your internal evaluation of the players.  Just as there are top 10 draft flops, there are mis-evaluations in the other direction as well.  Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Jets, Chargers, Carolina and Cincinnati all passed on Patrick Mahomes because the evaluation was wrong.  *Everyone* passed on Dak Prescott *multiple* times because the evaluation was wrong.

Offensive line evaluations can be wrong too.  Look at the Chiefs.  Sure, Eric Fisher is a high draft choice.  You know who their other tackle is?  Mike Remmers.  Yea, THAT Mike Remmers.  Dude who we crapped on is likely to get a ring.

Sure, I agree, high end offensive line evaluations are *safer* picks that QB's.  That doesn't make them the *right* pick.  It's much easier to find NFL quality lineman throughout the draft than it is to find QB's. 

QB is a weird position man.  Anyone who tells you they "know" how to pick em is wrong.  It's all a guess.  Baker Mayfield came out high, looked like a flop . . . until he didn't.  He now looks like an actual NFL QB.  The difference is that QB is by far and away the most important position on the field.  If you ain't got one, none of the rest of your roster really matters.

Look no further than our team.  I can't believe I'm saying this, but we may well have the best WR group in the league.  Unfortunately, you can't really tell because we ain't got a franchise guy pullin the strings.  What would our offense look like with Mahomes / Wilson / Rodgers under center?  I wouldn't want to play against that.  Nobody wants that.

OK, but if he is the fourth best QB in the draft, what are the odds that he is that franchise QB?  Teams reach every year based on this logic.  Ask the folks in Miami about Rosen, in Oakland about Russell, in NYC about Sanchez, in San Diego about Leaf, in Detroit about Harrington, in Philly about Wentz, Manziel/Quinn/Couch in Cleveland, etc. etc. etc.  If you guess wrong about a franchise qb, its sets your program back years.  So when you say, "franchise QB" you are looking at an opinion that is very unlikely to materialize.

So my point was this--the odds that the fourth QB in the draft being a top 10 pick in terms of value is slim to none.  Each year, about 2 QBs emerge from the draft that anyone would call franchise.  So you grab that fourth QB and call him franchise if you want--and that could be the case---but math is not on your side.

Dont get me wrong, Brian, I want a QB badly.  But that is emotion.  If you step back and examine the big picture--you don't leave Sewell on the table because you are desperate.  The odds that Jones will succeed with a LT like Sewell might be higher than the odds Wilson survives with no quality LT.

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

I think the Kalil and Russell type fails are more a failure of scouting and evaluation than anything. Sort of like Greg Little. Those physical attributes mean a lot less when the player just doesn't have a lick of the intagibles necessary to be great. 

Why is someone like Efe Obada a contributing member of the Panthers over Greg Little with the very obvious advantages that Little has? One wants it and the other doesn't. You have to suss that out during your evalutions and weigh that risk.

It's like choosing to marry someone and thinking, "Well maybe he/she will change." Hope springs eternal but it is from the same seed as stupidity comes.

This and last year may be tough finding that "it" factor.  yes--Scouting is so important and I am so amazed that so many players bust.  You bring up a great point--the players that "want it" the most tend to be your best players.  Kevin Greene for example---not the best athlete, but he was not going to let you beat him.  Beason.  Luke.   Steve Smith.  I see players around the league that are contributors and they should never be in the league, based on talent.