Huddle needs to stop crying about draft picks

[nctarheelreincarnated]

17 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

what is the exception here?  Did you know more QBs taken outside of the first round have won more SBs than those who have? (It is not even close)

LOL. That's like 6 rounds over 50 fuging years. Yes, I would hope they would have won more. Jesus Christ guys on here are dense as fug. 

[MHS831]

4 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

what is the exception here?  Did you know more QBs taken outside of the first round have won more SBs than those who have? (It is not even close)

Actually, there are more players taken in rounds 2-whatever than in the first, but "not even close" is not accurate.

There have been 15 QBs (if you count Steve Young, who was a first rounder who opted for the USFL) and some (like Brady) have been multiple winners. 

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-draft-15-super-bowl-winning-quarterbacks-not-first-round-picks-tom-brady-joe-montana-kurt-warner-brett-favre-042817

Ok, to your point:  How many QBs who were not drafted in the first round (what percentage) became franchise QBs?  You have a pool of thousands vs. a pool of a dozens (about 3 QBs are first rounders each year) and some of the thousands defied the odds--but not really---because the odds suggest that if you were allowed to take all the QBs not selected in round 1 you would eventually find a few that would emerge as elite.

Many of the first round qbs went to bad organizations and they were forced into duty too soon. That almost never happens with a second rounder or later. So now you are comparing a 21-year old messiah to a 23-year old, seasoned, coached player who has been properly seasoned to handle the NFL.  In many cases, they learned from better QBs for a season or two.  The Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Allen draft, for example--they all struggled when asked to start too soon.  Allen, however, was developed and has made it through the filter.

It is a numbers game, and a situation game.  While the point seems valid, it is not.  A better question would be, "What characteristics do the franchise QBs who were not drafted in round 1 share?"  I would say, "Skill set, adaptability, attitude, leadership, work ethic, and intelligence."  So instead of focusing on the round, we should focus on the person beneath the helmet.

[Sir Purr]

41 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The Colts absolutely tanked for Luck

 

Look at all of the Super Bowls they won by doing so!

[TheCasillas]

3 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Actually, there are more players taken in rounds 2-whatever than in the first, but "not even close" is not accurate.

There have been 15 QBs (if you count Steve Young, who was a first rounder who opted for the USFL) and some (like Brady) have been multiple winners. 

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-draft-15-super-bowl-winning-quarterbacks-not-first-round-picks-tom-brady-joe-montana-kurt-warner-brett-favre-042817

Ok, to your point:  How many QBs who were not drafted in the first round (what percentage) became franchise QBs?  You have a pool of thousands vs. a pool of a dozens (about 3 QBs are first rounders each year) and some of the thousands defied the odds--but not really---because the odds suggest that if you were allowed to take all the QBs not selected in round 1 you would eventually find a few that would emerge as elite.

Many of the first round qbs went to bad organizations and they were forced into duty too soon. That almost never happens with a second rounder or later. So now you are comparing a 21-year old messiah to a 23-year old, seasoned, coached player who has been properly seasoned to handle the NFL.  In many cases, they learned from better QBs for a season or two.  The Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Allen draft, for example--they all struggled when asked to start too soon.  Allen, however, was developed and has made it through the filter.

It is a numbers game, and a situation game.  While the point seems valid, it is not.  A better question would be, "What characteristics do the franchise QBs who were not drafted in round 1 share?"  I would say, "Skill set, adaptability, attitude, leadership, work ethic, and intelligence."  So instead of focusing on the round, we should focus on the person beneath the helmet.

The point I am making is valid.  Top 5 vs top 10 pick does not make or break your franchise.

[LinvilleGorge]

5 minutes ago, Sir Purr said:

Look at all of the Super Bowls they won by doing so!

Look at our trophy case full of moral victories.

[MHS831]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not a big fan of the whole "they're professionals" argument. Ron Rivera and Marty Hurney were "professionals".

It's always framed as "they know better than us'. This i's true, but it's not their job to know better than us. Their job is to know better than guys like Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis.

The good part is that I do feel like we have a smarter coach than Ron Rivera now, and there are some very good candidates for the GM job available as well.

This is the best point.  If the players play, the GM then identifies the weaknesses and addresses them. We, as fans, can root for long-term success, even if it means losing a meaningless game.

I was encouraged to see the Panthers; fire--the defense specifically seems to be jelling around young talent.  If you want to talk culture, we have a coach who is getting the most out of players at the bottom of the roster.  I think we are going to be successful in 2021.

[ClawOn]

Players priorities on Sunday:

1. Family 

2. Money

3. Pride 

4. Team

 

" I hope we get some college QB in the 1st round of the draft" didn't make the list. 

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Look at our trophy case full of moral victories.

True.

Look, I don't cheer for losing, and I'm not screaming about the fact that we won yesterday. But again, I'm a realist, so I can understand why some people are.

Can we build a winning team without having a top three draft pick? Sure we can, but we'd be fools not to acknowledge that doing so is significantly harder and quite probably takes longer.

Be patient? Sure, but patience isn't easy to come by in the fanbase of a losing team. And frankly, fans who haven't seen a winning season in a few years and have never seen a consistent winner can be forgiven for not looking forward to waiting a few more years.

I get it. Reality sucks sometimes.

For my part, I'm taking heart that the last few tentacles of the Jerry Richardson octopus are finally being thrown off.

That's at least something.

[MHS831]

13 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Look at our trophy case full of moral victories.

Here is the rub.  Win a meaningless game in December and diminish your chances to get a franchise QB.  The QB is the most important position in football.  People then say, "But look at (this isolated situation)" and base their argument on that case.  It is a sign of self-serving bias--or ignorance.   Objectively speaking, look at the top of the NFL and note how many have franchise QBs they drafted in the first round of the draft:

• Kansas City
• Green Bay
• Pittsburgh
• Buffalo

Four (4) QBs drafted in the first round (all early first round except Rogers) lead the top 5 teams in the league, based on W-L records. New Orleans is the outlier here--having Brees who was drafted at the top of the second round, if memory serves me.

 

[TheCasillas]

2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Here is the rub.  Win a meaningless game in December and diminish your chances to get a franchise QB.  The QB is the most important position in football.  People then say, "But look at (this isolated situation)" and base their argument on that case.  It is a sign of self-serving bias--or ignorance.   Objectively speaking, look at the top of the NFL and note how many have franchise QBs they drafted in the first round of the draft:

• Kansas City
• Green Bay
• Pittsburgh
• Buffalo

Four (4) QBs drafted in the first round (all early first round except Rogers) lead the top 5 teams in the league, based on W-L records. 

 

• Kansas City -  Pick 10
• Green Bay - Pick 24
• Pittsburgh - Pick 11
• Buffalo - Pick 7

I think we should be feeling alright with where we are in the draft.....

[SCO96]

 This tanking talk  reminds me of a situation the Raiders faced under John Madden in 1976.

The Steelers had knocked the Raiders out of the playoffs in 1972, 1974, and 1975 and went on to win the Super Bowl in the last two years (the Raiders beat them in 1973). If the Raiders lost the 13th game of the years to the Bengals, then Cincinnati would clinch their division and Pittsburgh would be eliminated from the playoffs. This would make the Raiders the clear favorite in the AFC. This was  a Raider team that had lost 3 straight AFC title games from 1973-1975.

Madden said his team never considered "tanking" to get an advantage in the playoffs. They whipped the Bengals and finished the season 13-1. They played the Steelers in the 1976 conference playoff and thumped them 24-7. This was a Steelers team that finished the season 10-4 after starting 1-4. They posted 5 shutouts during their 9 game win streak and gave up less than 30 points in the 2nd half the season.

Our tanking fans would have said "we just threw away the season by beating the Bengals". I don't see why so many people think one of these guys after Lawrence is a sure thing anyway. I'd rather use these picks to build a better roster so when we do get our guy (we all know Teddy is a stopgap at the moment) he won't be surrounded by a sloppy supporting cast. 

 

 

 

 

[Snake]

This fan base deserves some more hope too. Yet that didn't happen. 

[Peon Awesome]

58 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Did they waste him or was he just not the guy? Arizona doesn't seem to be wasting Kylar Murray. Houston is wasting Watson but it is very clear he is an elite QB. Herbert appears to be a future star on a very bad team. Is he being wasted? 

The argument I never buy about that is that all these guys end up having 2nd or 3rd chances elsewhere but they just further prove that they aren't the guy. Elite QB's don't grow on trees but if you never take a shot at them, you just simply aren't going to have one. Yes, whiffing on a first round QB always has long term consequences, because you not only miss out on another potential starting/core player but you put them into a position where they can do the maximum damage to the team. 

If you look at a lot of the top 10 QB's drafted over the past decade, you are going to see quite a few starting QB's in the NFL, a bunch of Super Bowl appearances, division titles, Pro Bowl appearances, MVP's(or close). There are really limited flameouts(Rosen, RGIII, Bortles, Gabbert, Locker). Even among those flameouts there is a Pro Bowl and multiple playoff appearances. 

I'd rather go down swinging while trying to actually win than rehashing one overpaid journeyman after the other. After all, the one thing most of those career journeymen have proven is that they AREN'T the guy. Why not gamble on someone who MIGHT be the guy?

Are you proving your point or the counter point? None of the best teams are successful from tanking into a top pick qb. Look at the teams in play for the top 2 seeds this year. Rodgers was taken at the end of the 1st when they had a good team already. Chiefs traded up for Mahomes from pick 27. Brees was a free agent. Seahawks got Wilson in the 3rd. Pittsburgh took Ben at pick 11 (higher than our pick) and he's riding the coattails of their defense this year. Even more apt was San Francisco making the super bowl last year focusing exclusively on defense and signing a middling free agent starter at qb. Josh Allen at 7 is maybe your best argument and they actually are the closest corrolary to us. They've been spurred more by a change at coach and GM with a draft generally focused on defense over the past few years. Even with Allen as a below average qb last year and having to contend with Brady in the division, they were a playoff team in 2019. Hell when all is said and done, we will probably draft at 7 and really drive home the parallels. Of course we take a qb if a good one is there. But to try to stress that all our focus should be on qb rather than building up the whole team is misconstruing the formula that actually seems to work. And you shot yourself in the foot by bringing up Watson, a franchise qb who can't lift his team past 4 wins despite heavy investments on the offensive line and playmakers, who gave away their 1st round pick and still can't beat the Bengals with their 3rd string qb. But by all means, let's pray we can emulate the Texans.

[SmokinwithWilly]

I'll admit I'm pissed we won. I'm pissed because what Rivera had on the field was an absolute crap show and if we had played anyone else with common sense we would have lost. We weren't good enough to win but Ron still found a way. You'd have a hard time convincing me Ron wasnt ranking yesterday for some reason. I dont know what it was, other than maybe he's hoping the Giants or Cowboys win and knock them out of the playoffs because he knows they arent going anywhere.