It took Rivera a while to win too

[jayboogieman]

1 minute ago, Waldo said:

Even if you have one, and there is one there you might should take him, like Rodgers. It's a great problem to have. 

I hate this example. Green Bay was a much better team with an all pro QB. They took Rodgers because they could afford to waste the pick on someone to sit for a few years. If they had had more holes on that team, they probably would have taken someone else.

How many times did the Pats or Colts take first round QBs when they had Manning and Brady? How many times did the Panthers do it when they had Cam? You don't just take a QB because he is there. For one, teams don't want to tick off their star. Two and more importantly, why waste a pick on someone that won't see the field barring injury when you can use that pick to add more cheap first round talent to the team at other positions?

[Carl Spackler]

32 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Um super bowl and four playoff appearance. I fuging think we all do

Absolutely. poo, I'd enjoy reliving the seven wins of 2018, let alone the playoff years.

[CanadianCat]

17 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

I hate this example. Green Bay was a much better team with an all pro QB. They took Rodgers because they could afford to waste the pick on someone to sit for a few years. If they had had more holes on that team, they probably would have taken someone else.

How many times did the Pats or Colts take first round QBs when they had Manning and Brady? How many times did the Panthers do it when they had Cam? You don't just take a QB because he is there. For one, teams don't want to tick off their star. Two and more importantly, why waste a pick on someone that won't see the field barring injury when you can use that pick to add more cheap first round talent to the team at other positions?

Actually, this past offseason there was a bunch of analysis that the best 'value' would be to ALWAYS draft a QB in round one no matter who is in the board or on your team. Simply for the reason that they are so valuable.

Even when a 1st round QB doesnt play well their trade value remains very high (see Darnolds trade package for example).

In a vacuum, simply looking at value, drafting a 1st round QB each year makes sense. 

 

I mean you can argue for days about the 'right way' to build a team but I thought that take was interesting. 

[jayboogieman]

20 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

Actually, this past offseason there was a bunch of analysis that the best 'value' would be to ALWAYS draft a QB in round one no matter who is in the board or on your team. Simply for the reason that they are so valuable.

Even when a 1st round QB doesnt play well their trade value remains very high (see Darnolds trade package for example).

In a vacuum, simply looking at value, drafting a 1st round QB each year makes sense. 

 

I mean you can argue for days about the 'right way' to build a team but I thought that take was interesting. 

I disagree with that take. You can only play one QB at a time and drafting one in the first each year keeps you from adding elite prospects at other positions.

Dranold's trade package wasn't that high and probably would have been a lot less if the Panthers hadn't botched things with Teddy to badly before making the trade. The Jets knew the Panthers were desperate to move on from Teddy and would pay more to do so.

[Waldo]

58 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

I hate this example. Green Bay was a much better team with an all pro QB. They took Rodgers because they could afford to waste the pick on someone to sit for a few years. If they had had more holes on that team, they probably would have taken someone else.

How many times did the Pats or Colts take first round QBs when they had Manning and Brady? How many times did the Panthers do it when they had Cam? You don't just take a QB because he is there. For one, teams don't want to tick off their star. Two and more importantly, why waste a pick on someone that won't see the field barring injury when you can use that pick to add more cheap first round talent to the team at other positions?

Well run teams do well run things. GB nailed it, hate it all you want but it was smart and kept them relevant. The Pats traded a couple of those guys for way more than the cost of drafting them. That's very positive. The Colts had Manning and a terrible D, they always put it on Manning to out score the other team. Ohh and the team that drafted the QBs in 1st and 2nd has the most rings. Hate it all you want, it can work on a well run team. I just hate we are not a well run team.

 

[jayboogieman]

6 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Well run teams do well run things. GB nailed it, hate it all you want but it was smart and kept them relevant. The Pats traded a couple of those guys for way more than the cost of drafting them. That's very positive. The Colts had Manning and a terrible D, they always put it on Manning to out score the other team. Ohh and the team that drafted the QBs in 1st and 2nd has the most rings. Hate it all you want, it can work on a well run team. I just hate we are not a well run team.

 

Once again, GB was a much better team that could afford to waste a pick on a QB. They did the same thing when they thought Rodgers career had started winding down. There were a lot of years between doing so too. The Pats hadn't picked a QB in the first since 93 until this year. The Cowboys haven't used a first rounder on a QB since 89. The Steelers haven't picked a QB in the first since 04. This year was the first time the 49ers have taken a QB in the first since 05. Those five teams are generally well ran and have the most superbowl wins. Except for QB, none of them have wasted picks on first round QBs unless they have needed a QB. This new idea of taking a QB in the first every year is dumb and a waste of resources that can be used to improve the team in other ways.

[jfo89]

2 hours ago, RumHam said:

Um super bowl and four playoff appearance. I fuging think we all do

I'm referring to the coaching blunders during the Rivera years. 

The playoff appearances were almost in spite of the coaching.

[Waldo]

12 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Once again, GB was a much better team that could afford to waste a pick on a QB. They did the same thing when they thought Rodgers career had started winding down. There were a lot of years between doing so too. The Pats hadn't picked a QB in the first since 93 until this year. The Cowboys haven't used a first rounder on a QB since 89. The Steelers haven't picked a QB in the first since 04. This year was the first time the 49ers have taken a QB in the first since 05. Those five teams are generally well ran and have the most superbowl wins. Except for QB, none of them have wasted picks on first round QBs unless they have needed a QB. This new idea of taking a QB in the first every year is dumb and a waste of resources that can be used to improve the team in other ways.

I thought the Pats traded back into the late first for Jimmy G but he was drafted late in the 2nd, my mistake.

Rogers' wasn't a wasted pick, they had an old Favre and took a chance on a guy falling father than he should have. I also never said they should take one in the first every year, another posted stated a quote but I remember it as drafting a QB every year not every year in the first.

What's the difference between an OG or LS in the 6th that got IRed and a QB that is a long shot. But yeah, if you have a shot at a Rodgers and can flip that then why not? Again, not top 10 picks, Rodgers went 24th. The best reason I can think of is they usually don't last past the pathetic teams picking high every year. The 2nd and after? Developing a QB as a backup and for value seems like a great hustle if you have the staff to draft and coach them. 

What SB has the 49ers won since the 90's? They have lost 2 in the last 10 years. They lost with Kapp and Jimmy G, one they drafted in the 2nd and the other they traded a 2nd for, so they spent 3 first to draft one this year. Steelers last 1st round QB is still their QB from 2004. Cowboys haven't been to a SB since '95 with that 1st pick in round 1. 

It's only a waste of resources if your team is bad at player evaluation and development, which is usually bad teams that waste resources anyways. Same difference. 

 

 

[jayboogieman]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

I thought the Pats traded back into the late first for Jimmy G but he was drafted late in the 2nd, my mistake.

Rogers' wasn't a wasted pick, they had an old Favre and took a chance on a guy falling father than he should have. I also never said they should take one in the first every year, another posted stated a quote but I remember it as drafting a QB every year not every year in the first.

What's the difference between an OG or LS in the 6th that got IRed and a QB that is a long shot. But yeah, if you have a shot at a Rodgers and can flip that then why not? Again, not top 10 picks, Rodgers went 24th. The best reason I can think of is they usually don't last past the pathetic teams picking high every year. The 2nd and after? Developing a QB as a backup and for value seems like a great hustle if you have the staff to draft and coach them. 

What SB has the 49ers won since the 90's? They have lost 2 in the last 10 years. They lost with Kapp and Jimmy G, one they drafted in the 2nd and the other they traded a 2nd for, so they spent 3 first to draft one this year. Steelers last 1st round QB is still their QB from 2004. Cowboys haven't been to a SB since '95 with that 1st pick in round 1. 

It's only a waste of resources if your team is bad at player evaluation and development, which is usually bad teams that waste resources anyways. Same difference. 

 

 

Even taking QBs every year in the mid or late rounds can be a wasted pick if they never play. And the odds are, they won't ever see the field except for a little bit in preseason. And if you're thinking you'll develop them into a Wilson, Brady, or even serviceable like Garoppolo, then you're delusional. Taking a QB every year or two never gives them time to develop. Besides, why do that when the second through fourth are supposed to be the sweet spot for Oline prospects?

Late round picks are an even bigger crap show than the earlier round ones are and teams are basically flinging poo at the wall hoping something sticks. Doesn't matter what they pick. Taking a kicker or punter when there are good ones coming out isn't a bad use of the pick though.

I brought up the Cowboys, 49ers, and Steelers because you said that the team with the most SB wins always drafted QBs to show that they don't. Under Bill, the Pats have only taken Jimmy G as a second round pick. Heck, since Brady was drafted, the Pats have only taken a QB in the third or fourth round 3-4 times when they have multiple picks in those rounds. And most of those guys washed out without ever giving the Pats any value in return. Well run teams simply don't take QBs that often in the draft.

[Waldo]

6 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Even taking QBs every year in the mid or late rounds can be a wasted pick if they never play. And the odds are, they won't ever see the field except for a little bit in preseason. And if you're thinking you'll develop them into a Wilson, Brady, or even serviceable like Garoppolo, then you're delusional. Taking a QB every year or two never gives them time to develop. Besides, why do that when the second through fourth are supposed to be the sweet spot for Oline prospects?

Late round picks are an even bigger crap show than the earlier round ones are and teams are basically flinging poo at the wall hoping something sticks. Doesn't matter what they pick. Taking a kicker or punter when there are good ones coming out isn't a bad use of the pick though.

I brought up the Cowboys, 49ers, and Steelers because you said that the team with the most SB wins always drafted QBs to show that they don't. Under Bill, the Pats have only taken Jimmy G as a second round pick. Heck, since Brady was drafted, the Pats have only taken a QB in the third or fourth round 3-4 times when they have multiple picks in those rounds. And most of those guys washed out without ever giving the Pats any value in return. Well run teams simply don't take QBs that often in the draft.

Your missing the point, most picks are wasted anyways on guys who don't make it in the Not For Long league. QB is the most valuable and outrageously expensive position. If you have the staff to pull it off, you can end up with better draft picks to waste. 

Jimmy G didn't win a SB, neither did Cap and the team is trying desperately to upgrade there again by spending 3 1st on Lance. Pats missed a lot but they got Cassel in the 7th and packaged him to KC. Jimmy G netted a higher 2nd and was part of dealing with Brady's contract. 

What I said was 'Always depends on the QBs. Having the choice is big if there is a QB worth it, many are not.' 

 

[Moose Hoover]

19 hours ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Riverboat Ron was born. 

Fake News.