Draft Analysis: "A massive value-destroying error"?

[jayboogieman]

17 minutes ago, CRA said:

I think you are trying over complicate this.

If you draft a QB high.....you give him a real shot.  No one expecting the bar to be Cam Newton blowing the doors off out of the gate or you go back to the draft.   You give a Mitch Trubisky legit time.  Which he got.  Then they moved on.  

Teams that don't have a QB should be looking to solve that as their first priority in today's NFL. 

adding Dwayne Haskins, Sam Darnold, etc in 2021 can't be viewed on par with going to the NFL draft and acquiring a top 10 QB. 

I'm not trying to over complicate this. Your stated opinion was that a team with a hole at QB should use their first round pick each year until they find their guy.

Quote

 1 hour ago, Shocker said:

So I guess we should use our first rounder on a QB every draft and we cool.  GTFOH

Teams that have a hole at QB should. 

Now you are saying that if you draft a QB high, you give him a real shot. What is a real shot? One year? Three years?

Does drafting a QB high one year mean you can't draft one highly the next year? If he plays his rookie year, he got a chance. If he didn't play, the hole is still there since you can't know if he is the guy or not yet. And according to you, they should draft another QB in the first. But wait, now you are saying we have to give the first guy his chance, so should the team take a different position in the draft or not?

 

Edit: Oh yeah, the last two superbowl winning teams built the team before they got their QB.

Edited May 13, 2021 by jayboogieman

[rayzor]

But what if they traded for (or even picked up in FA) their guy instead?

[GoPanthers123]

Put it this way. Suppose Darnold has 50% of being good and Fields has 40% of being good.  It’s 90% vs 50% with Darnold alone. 

[Toomers]

7 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

I'm not trying to over complicate this. Your stated opinion was that a team with a hole at QB should use their first round pick each year until they find their guy.

Now you are saying that if you draft a QB high, you give him a real shot. What is a real shot? One year? Three years?

Does drafting a QB high one year mean you can't draft one highly the next year? If he plays his rookie year, he got a chance. If he didn't play, the hole is still there since you can't know if he is the guy or not yet. And according to you, they should draft another QB in the first. But wait, now you are saying we have to give the first guy his chance, so should the team take a different position in the draft or not?

The key being what is defined as a “hole”. Unless there is some sort of special circumstance, no team is giving up on a top draft pick after one year.  It took a coaching change for Rosen, and even Haskins got a second year despite seemingly trying to fail. 
 

   

Edited May 13, 2021 by Toomers

[kungfoodude]

Great article but they could expand that to actually include actual performance and that would probably change the results substantially.

From the "positional value" aspect, it hits the mark. But, not all draft decisions are that simple. 

I would say it is a dramatic oversimplification of the process to break it down that way. Great data but not necessarily something you could run a draft based on.

[CRA]

15 minutes ago, rayzor said:

But what if they traded for (or even picked up in FA) their guy instead?

Depends who you acquire.  

You sign Teddy Bridgewater to a deal today for 2 years.  Does your franchise have a QB?  

I'd say you have a hole and a need at QB.  That needs to be solved before you will do anything. 

Sign Tom Brady? I'd say you are in win now mode for at least 2 years and have a QB short term. 

[jayboogieman]

1 minute ago, Toomers said:

The key being what is defined as a “hole”. Unless there is some sort of special circumstance, no team is giving up on a top draft pick after one year.  It took a coaching change for Rosen, and even Haskins got a second year despite seemingly trying to fail. 
 

   

That's the thing. What defines the hole? Does a high draft pick fill it just because the guy is a high draft pick? How long should the QB be given to prove that he can do the job? That's why I stated I disagreed with him about taking a QB in the first round every year.

[CarolinaLivin]

I'm not mad at Teddy though. Us signing Teddy allowed us to draft the way we wanted to (all defense) and so did the Sam signing this year.

This team is willing to take a chance on QB in order to build the rest of the roster. Most won't and don't agree with that, but I actually like that way of building a roster. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by CarolinaLivin

[run-run-pass-punt]

It's a QB league, but maybe the Panthers feel like we've got a better QB than what was available @ 8. If they're right, they made a good decision. We'll see. (I agree with passing on Fields, fwiw.)

[Toomers]

7 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

That's the thing. What defines the hole? Does a high draft pick fill it just because the guy is a high draft pick? How long should the QB be given to prove that he can do the job? That's why I stated I disagreed with him about taking a QB in the first round every year.

The coaches and FO. If a staff feels they can get a better QB, they will do it. There is not set guidelines. If I’m going to the playoffs with Alex Smith, I’m not passing on Mahomes if I think he can be better. It pretty simple. After 2-3 years, of a staff isn’t sure about a QB, they can move on. If they get the chance because they probably got fired for choosing the wrong QB in the first place. 
 

  

[CPcavedweller]

2 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

Here's some analysis about HOW MUCH VALUE DO TEAMS LOSE WHEN THEY DON'T DRAFT A QB IN THE FIRST ROUND:  
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-value-do-teams-lose-when-they-dont-draft-a-quarterback-in-the-first-round/

The article focuses on Fitterer and Rhule's decision to draft Horn instead of Fields.  There's a bunch of number crunching and talk about a quarterback's draft value vs drafting other positions. Those Huddlers who like to dig into stats and numbers will probably like those parts.

 But here are some other excerpts from the piece:
 

 

 

 

We saw Sam as our QB draft pick...its that simple. I personally don't blame them considering he is 23 and already has NFL experience. 

[Smittymoose]

This is why NFL teams don't listen to fuging nerd losers. It isn't baseball. 

[CRA]

22 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

That's the thing. What defines the hole? Does a high draft pick fill it just because the guy is a high draft pick? How long should the QB be given to prove that he can do the job? That's why I stated I disagreed with him about taking a QB in the first round every year.

They temporarily fill the hole.  You then generally give them 2-4 years to grow and work on being the actual solution.    After that period you generally know if you still have a hole or not. 

Exceptions to everything.  So you will see a rare Rosen that doesn’t get the time. 

You also have bodies in the NFL.   Bodies can sometimes have potential to be more and exceed expectations.   But I don’t think you can overly play into the potential and expectations.   Saw that with Teddy.  Seeing that with Darnold.   Bringing in Darnold was the right call….but the narrative that he is on par with bringing in Zach Wilson or Justin Fields for an org just isn’t how I look at things. 

[CPF4LIFE]

2 hours ago, travisura said:

This is all based on player potential by position. If Horn becomes a perennial pro-bowler and Fields doesn't live up to the hype do we really call it a failure? 

If its the opposite then the failure looks a whole lot worse.

Even if Horn is good and Fields is good it still looks bad because QB > CB any day of the week.

Its going to come down to whether Darnold was worth it or not.