A draft/trade question for my fellow Huddlers. Is a franchise QB worth (3) #1 draft choices?

[Mage]

16 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

There's no more "right position" than being in a place to take the first quarterback overall.

Yet teams that have been in that place have taken guys like JaMarcus Russell, David Carr and Tim Couch among others.

Those examples would make me think that being smart is...well, kind of important.

Bro, why do you always try to switch gears lol I merely gave you several examples of how teams used a multitude of picks to get their guy, when you suggested that "smart" teams only need 1 pick.  The conversation was never that teams need to be smart about the QB they are targeting.  It was about the amount of draft capital teams used to get QBs.

Yes you still need to make good evaluations.  But there is no right or wrong way to go about getting your franchise QB - all that matters is you get them.  You are 100% dead wrong to suggest that "smart" teams only need 1 pick.  It is all dependent on where you fall in the draft and the strength of the QB class that determines what you will need to give up to acquire a desired QB.  Are the Chiefs less smart than the Jags because they needed to trade up for Mahomes?  How about Bills?  Are they less intelligent than the Chargers?

But you have your schtick and I get it.  

Edited January 21, 2022 by Mage

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Mage said:

Stop always trying to switch the conversation.  I merely gave you several examples of how teams used a multitude of picks to get their guy, when you suggested that "smart" teams only need 1 pick.

Yes you still need to make good evaluations.  But there is no right or wrong way to go about getting your franchise QB - all that matters is you get them.  To imply that smart teams only need 1 pick is just being intentionally deceitful or obtuse, you choose.  

So basically, stop offering different points of view from yours? 

Isn't that kind of what a discussion is?

Yes there are teams that use multiple picks or players. There are also teams that use just a single pick.

Whatever method you choose though, none of it matters if you don't make the right call on who to take. That's why being smart is important.

But again, if you can do so while expending fewer resources, resources that could be used to shore up other areas of the team, then yes that makes you smarter.

It's not complicated.

[Mage]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

So basically, stop offering different points of view from yours? 

Isn't that kind of what a discussion is?

Yes there are teams that use multiple picks or players. There are also teams that use just a single pick.

Whatever method you choose though, none of it matters if you don't make the right call on who to take. That's why being smart is important.

But again, if you can do so while expending fewer resources, resources that could be used to shore up other areas of the team, then yes that makes you smarter.

It's not complicated.

But that wasn't the conversation!
 

You said smart teams only need 1 pick.  I gave you countless examples of teams using more than 1 pick to get their guy, teams who would be considered "smart".  You do this crap all the time.  The conversation was never about teams needing to be smart in their evaluation of QBs.  That is obvious... but you have a thing about stating the obvious, again that's your schtick and I get it.  However my initial post was responding to your suggestion that smart teams only need 1 pick. 

"Smart teams can get the right guy with just one."

The draft capital you use to get a QB has no bearing on your intelligence.  Again, are the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jags?  Bills less intelligent than the Chargers?  49ers less intelligent than the Ravens?

If you are in a position to get a QB only using one pick, it is usually because you are drafting in the top 10.  It has nothing to do with your front office being "smarter" than others.  Which was the CONVERSATION.  Not "smart teams make better evaluations about QBs than other teams."  

[Mage]

And you know what I meant when I said stop trying to switch the conversation.  Nothing to do with offering different viewpoints than mine, but all to do with the fact that I made a post responding to something you said, and you respond by basically changing what the convo was about.  Never had anything to do with the actual evaluations these teams make, and it had all to do with your post implying that there is something wrong or that it is a black mark on an organization to give up a lot of picks to get a QB.

If you have a good team, in all likelihood you aren't picking top 10, and in all likelihood you have to be aggressive to get a QB.  But please explain to us how that makes a team like the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jaguars.

Quote

 

But again, if you can do so while expending fewer resources, resources that could be used to shore up other areas of the team, then yes that makes you smarter.

Chargers only needed 1 pick to get their QB.  This means they are obviously smarter than the Bills.  No context needed whatsoever!

Edited January 21, 2022 by Mage

[rmoneyg35]

You can’t really win without a good qb. The few teams that have won a Super Bowl with out a good team in the past 2 decades were loaded with talent, look how loaded the ravens Super Bowl were in the 2000s. You can always find good player later in the draft, udfa and FA so yeah I would do it if the player was good, I would rather trade for an established qb like Watson instead of a unproven qb in the draft. I don’t think there are any QBs in this draft worth trading 3 1st round draft picks for in this draft.

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, Mage said:

But that wasn't the conversation!

You said smart teams only need 1 pick.  I gave you countless examples of teams using more than 1 pick to get their guy, teams who would be considered "smart".  You do this crap all the time.  The conversation was never about teams needing to be smart in their evaluation of QBs.  That is obvious... but you have a thing about stating the obvious, again that's your schtick and I get it.  However my initial post was responding to your suggestion that smart teams only need 1 pick. 

"Smart teams can get the right guy with just one."

The draft capital you use to get a QB has no bearing on your intelligence.  Again, are the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jags?  Bills less intelligent than the Chargers?  49ers less intelligent than the Ravens?

If you are in a position to get a QB only using one pick, it is usually because you are drafting in the top 10.  It has nothing to do with your front office being "smarter" than others.  Which was the CONVERSATION.  Not "smart teams make better evaluations about QBs than other teams."  

Smart teams often can get the right guy with just one pick, and not necessarily just a super high pick. Look at where Aaron Rodgers and, oh yeah, Tom Brady were drafted (among others).

Now that doesn't mean you can't trade up or something like that, but again, if you can get there without having to do that, it's better.

It's also frequently true that smarter teams take advantage of dumb moves made by not so smart teams. Take for example that the Chargers were able to get Justin Herbert in part because the Dolphins passed on him.

These are basic facts. Not sure why you have an issue with any of that other than that you just want to argue.

[Mage]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Smart teams often can get the right guy with just one pick, and not necessarily just a super high pick. Look at where Aaron Rodgers and, oh yeah, Tom Brady were drafted (among others).

How does that not more or less prove what I'm saying?  It falls down to luck.  The same team you are praising for drafting Aaron Rodgers, also drafted scrubs like Brian Brohm, Huntley, and in all likelihood, Love.

I mean you really think the Patriots drafting Tom Brady has anything to do with anything other than mostly luck?  Get real lol if the Patriots had any idea Brady would turn out the way he did, he wouldn't have fell to the 6th.  Yeah sure they probably had a solid evaluation on him vs other teams, but again it was a lucky pick that they ended up with the GOAT.     

You made a post implying smart teams can do it in 1 pick.  I replied giving you examples of organizations who needed to trade up to get the guy they want.  It comes down to luck and where you are at in the draft.  Yes you can obviously get a guy later in the draft, but your chances of hitting are greatly diminished.  Then for some reason you responded saying, "smart teams have to make the right evaluation," as if that was ever what was being disputed.  But yeah I'm "arguing for the sake of arguing," when my initial post was me just giving you a list of examples of teams lol

And why don't you answer my questions?  You said teams that need to use less resources to get their QB are smarter than teams who do.  So are the Bengals, who fell into the #1 overall pick, a smarter team than the Bills?  And don't try and backtrack and add context now, considering this is what you flat-out said:

Quote

But again, if you can do so while expending fewer resources, resources that could be used to shore up other areas of the team, then yes that makes you smarter.

This is a point-blank statement made by you, suggesting that it makes you smarter if you can get a QB while expending fewer resources.  Bengals used fewer resources to get said QB than the Bills or Chiefs did.  So the Bengals are smarter.  Correct?

Edited January 21, 2022 by Mage

[Mr. Scot]

31 minutes ago, Mage said:

How does that not more or less prove what I'm saying?  It falls down to luck.  The same team you are praising for drafting Aaron Rodgers, also drafted scrubs like Brian Brohm, Huntley, and in all likelihood, Love.

I mean you really think the Patriots drafting Tom Brady has anything to do with anything other than mostly luck?  Get real lol if the Patriots had any idea Brady would turn out the way he did, he wouldn't have fell to the 6th.  Yeah sure they probably had a solid evaluation on him vs other teams, but again it was a lucky pick that they ended up with the GOAT.     

You made a post implying smart teams can do it in 1 pick.  I replied giving you examples of organizations who needed to trade up to get the guy they want.  It comes down to luck and where you are at in the draft.  Yes you can obviously get a guy later in the draft, but your chances of hitting are greatly diminished.  Then for some reason you responded saying, "smart teams have to make the right evaluation," as if that was ever what was being disputed.  But yeah I'm "arguing for the sake of arguing," when my initial post was me just giving you a list of examples of teams lol

And why don't you answer my questions?  You said teams that need to use less resources to get their QB are smarter than teams who do.  So are the Bengals, who fell into the #1 overall pick, a smarter team than the Bills?  And don't try and backtrack and add context now, considering this is what you flat-out said:

This is a point-blank statement made by you, suggesting that it makes you smarter if you can get a QB while expending fewer resources.  Bengals used fewer resources to get said QB than the Bills or Chiefs did.  So the Bengals are smarter.  Correct?

You can attribute it to luck if you want, but I'd say some teams have proven to be an awful lot "luckier" than others.

[CanadianCat]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

You can attribute it to luck if you want, but I'd say some teams have proven to be an awful lot "luckier" than others.

It is luck. 

Its an 'educated' luck mind you but it does come down to that. Thats why the prevailing theory is that trading down is a smart team building move because it gives you more shots (more chances). 

I hate the 'well the patriots drafted Brady in the later rounds' argument. Nobody, not even the patriots knew he would be that good. It just happened. 

Team building is done in a lot of ways. There is no 1 way to do it.

Pretending like you have all the answers with this makes people look silly - which is what @Mageis trying to say. 

[Mr. Scot]

10 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

It is luck. 

Its an 'educated' luck mind you but it does come down to that. Thats why the prevailing theory is that trading down is a smart team building move because it gives you more shots (more chances). 

I hate the 'well the patriots drafted Brady in the later rounds' argument. Nobody, not even the patriots knew he would be that good. It just happened. 

Team building is done in a lot of ways. There is no 1 way to do it.

Pretending like you have all the answers with this makes people look silly - which is what @Mageis trying to say. 

Have our previous two starting quarterback choices failed due to bad luck or the fact that they were poor choices?

I'm sure Matt Rhule would tell you they were just bad luck. But then attributing failure to bad luck has long been a way to give dumb teams an excuse for making dumb choices.

There's an old quote from someone saying they noticed the harder they worked, the luckier they got. It's valid.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Mr. Scot

[CanadianCat]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Have our previous two starting quarterback choices failed due to bad luck or the fact that they were poor choices?

I'm sure Matt Rhule would tell you they were just bad luck.

Attributing failure to bad luck is basically a way to give dumb teams an excuse for making dumb choices.

There's an old quote from someone saying they noticed the harder they worked, the luckier they got. It's valid.

I would disagree with that. And I should make myself clear here. I respect your opinion, your a good contributor on this forum - one of the less reactive ones which i appreciate. 

Honestly I dont think the QB's were the biggest problem I think it was the teams expectations that were the problem and put them in these situations. 

Teddy was brought in to be a bridge and was released because he could not take us the the next level. 

Darnold was brought in on a 'moderate risk, high reward'. He didnt pan out this year. Im ok with both of those moves at QB. When you dont have a guy I think you need to do everything possible to find that guy. 

I think the biggest issue is Rhules expectation went from 'team building' to 'win now'. I think that changed the focus of the team, and not for the better. 

I used to think maybe it was Tepper that forced that on him but given that Rhule was not fired I dont think thats the case. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, CanadianCat said:

I would disagree with that. And I should make myself clear here. I respect your opinion, your a good contributor on this forum - one of the less reactive ones which i appreciate. 

Honestly I dont think the QB's were the biggest problem I think it was the teams expectations that were the problem and put them in these situations. 

Teddy was brought in to be a bridge and was released because he could not take us the the next level. 

Darnold was brought in on a 'moderate risk, high reward'. He didnt pan out this year. Im ok with both of those moves at QB. When you dont have a guy I think you need to do everything possible to find that guy. 

I think the biggest issue is Rhules expectation went from 'team building' to 'win now'. I think that changed the focus of the team, and not for the better. 

I used to think maybe it was Tepper that forced that on him but given that Rhule was not fired I dont think thats the case. 

I could agree in part, but I don't think Matt Rhule knows what he's doing when it comes to offensive player evaluation in general.

He might be a little better on defense, but the overall reality is that he doesn't know how to build an NFL team.

A college program? Sure. But shaping an NFL program and coaching in an NFL game are tasks that are just over his head.

[CanadianCat]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I could agree in part, but I don't think Matt Rhule knows what he's doing when it comes to offensive player evaluation in general.

He might be a little better on defense, but the overall reality is that he doesn't know how to build an NFL team.

A college program? Sure. But shaping an NFL program and coaching in an NFL game are tasks that are just over his head.

I actually think that he left most of the evaluation to his coordinators... 

I might be wrong but it seems like he has a mostly hands off approach, trusting his people. I could be wrong there but thats what Ive gathers from the interviews. 

[Mr. Scot]

55 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

I actually think that he left most of the evaluation to his coordinators... 

I might be wrong but it seems like he has a mostly hands off approach, trusting his people. I could be wrong there but thats what Ive gathers from the interviews. 

My understanding is that Rhule is an "executive" type coach. His position assistants coach up the players and his coordinators do the heavy lifting on gameday.

And that style can work just fine, if you know what you're doing when it comes to picking your staff. Rhule mostly kept his college guys in place. Likely on the belief that "football is football", which is roughly akin to thinking the guy at your local Y can teach basketball just as well as Phil Jackson.

I'm personally more comfortable with a guy who understands the X's and O's, the ins and outs, the flow of a game and such, and all at an expert professional level.

Clearly, that's not Rhule.

If the next coach is an executive type as well though, I'll be okay with that...as long as he's smarter than our current one.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Mr. Scot