NFL Offseason '18: Our American Cousins

[dbunting]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Yes, it's pointless, because football is a team sport.  A good to great QB can be held back by a team with a shitty defense, for example, or by a general lack of weapons around him.  Saying a guy wasn't worthy of the number one pick because he hasn't won a playoff game is hot take material that doesn't factor in the quality of his team.  This isn't basketball, where there are eight to ten guys who you can put on a team and expect to make the playoffs regardless of the supporting cast.  In the NFL, you need a team to compete.

But to maximize your chances of success, you want a QB who is good enough to help you win games rather than just not making you lose them, and you get the best shot at one of those guys at the top of the draft.

Ok but again I will use your own arguement. If that QB isn't a sure fire thing and you know you need surrounding pieces, then wouldn't you rather get the most you can when you have the capital available? Theorectically the Browns could trade back from #1 to say #5 Denver and get the #5 pick, likely next years #1 and at a minimum another #2 this year and or next? So then Cleveland would draft #4 and #5 (maybe still get a QB if Giants take Barkley or Chubb) and have another two 1st rounders next year and a couple more 2nd rounders to draft that surrounding cast of teammates?

All of this will mean nothing when Cleveland drafts Rosen and he promptly announces his arm has fallen off and his is flying to Mars.

[Maithanet]

5 hours ago, dbunting said:

Ok but again I will use your own arguement. If that QB isn't a sure fire thing and you know you need surrounding pieces, then wouldn't you rather get the most you can when you have the capital available? Theorectically the Browns could trade back from #1 to say #5 Denver and get the #5 pick, likely next years #1 and at a minimum another #2 this year and or next? So then Cleveland would draft #4 and #5 (maybe still get a QB if Giants take Barkley or Chubb) and have another two 1st rounders next year and a couple more 2nd rounders to draft that surrounding cast of teammates?

All of this will mean nothing when Cleveland drafts Rosen and he promptly announces his arm has fallen off and his is flying to Mars.

You keep arguing that taking a qb is no sure thing, and that's true.  But taking a positional player in the top 5 is no sure thing either.  Some are great, some are ok and some are busts. 

Look at the 2009 NFL draft, obviously we have a good idea of how good those players are.  The Lions picked Stafford #1 overall.  Stafford is a competent, but unexceptional quarterback.  The next three picks were T Jason Smith (Bust), DE Tyson Jackson (mediocre), and LB Aaron Curry (bust).  Going through the entire top 10, there's not a game changer among them, although Eugene Monroe and BJ Raji had some good years. 

Even with absolutely PERFECT information (which is a ridiculous assumption) is there any player the Lions would be better off taking than Stafford?  2009 was a weak draft, the best of the bunch is probably Clay Matthews.  Would Clay Matthews + a replacement level QB win more than Stafford and a replacement level OLB?  I doubt it.  Elite pass rushers are great, but they do not impact the game like qbs do.  Matthews hasn't been nearly as dominant the past few years since he's been struggling with injury, whereas Stafford has many years left to potentially win a SB. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

You keep arguing that taking a qb is no sure thing, and that's true.  But taking a positional player in the top 5 is no sure thing either.  Some are great, some are ok and some are busts. 

The problem is in this draft there are a lot of QBs that will go high, but all of them are shaky. I really wouldn’t want to be a team that has a high draft pick and needs a QB this year.

Quote

Look at the 2009 NFL draft, obviously we have a good idea of how good those players are.  The Lions picked Stafford #1 overall.  Stafford is a competent, but unexceptional quarterback.  The next three picks were T Jason Smith (Bust), DE Tyson Jackson (mediocre), and LB Aaron Curry (bust).  Going through the entire top 10, there's not a game changer among them, although Eugene Monroe and BJ Raji had some good years. 

Hence why you should always trade back and collect picks. Top picks aren’t that great unless there’s someone you absolutely want.

That’s why of course the Jets went full Jets with their ridiculous trade.

[Jaime L]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I really wouldn’t want to be a team that has a high draft pick and needs a QB this year.

Good thing you have the rock solid, played 48 out of 48 games the last 3 years, large adult man Captain Kirk to rely on. Let the rest try their luck with unproven boys.  

[Maithanet]

45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The problem is in this draft there are a lot of QBs that will go high, but all of them are shaky. I really wouldn’t want to be a team that has a high draft pick and needs a QB this year.

Meh, isn't that true more or less every year?  People worried about the size of Aaron Rodgers hands, Cam Newton's attitude, Jamis Winston's criminal problems, Carson Wentz's accuracy and level of competition.  None of these guys is Andrew Luck, but Luck was considered the best prospect since Peyton Manning, if not John Elway.  Beyond that this seems like a strong crop, I'm sure at least one or two of the first round guys will turn into good starters.  The question is which one.

Quote

Hence why you should always trade back and collect picks. Top picks aren’t that great unless there’s someone you absolutely want.

Of course, it's also possible that the top half of the draft will go more like the 2011 draft, when the first twelve non-qb picks featured 11 pro bowlers, 10 All-Pros and could end up featuring as many as SIX hall of famers (#2 Von Miller, #4 AJ Green, #5 Patrick Peterson, #6 Julio Jones, #9 Tyron Smith and #11 JJ Watt). 

And I doubt that the teams picking Jason Smith, Tyson Jackson and Aaron Curry in 2009 felt any less "great" about their picks than the teams picking in 2011. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Good thing you have the rock solid, played 48 out of 48 games the last 3 years, large adult man Captain Kirk to rely on. Let the rest try their luck with unproven boys.  

If the Vikings don’t win an Owl in the next three years you will be the bane of my existence….

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Meh, isn't that true more or less every year?  People worried about the size of Aaron Rodgers hands, Cam Newton's attitude, Jamis Winston's criminal problems, Carson Wentz's accuracy and level of competition.  None of these guys is Andrew Luck, but Luck was considered the best prospect since Peyton Manning, if not John Elway.  Beyond that this seems like a strong crop, I'm sure at least one or two of the first round guys will turn into good starters.  The question is which one.

You could be correct, but I can’t recall a year in which six QBs are projected to go in the first round and four might go in the top five. And none of them might be any good.

Quote

Of course, it's also possible that the top half of the draft will go more like the 2011 draft, when the first twelve non-qb picks featured 11 pro bowlers, 10 All-Pros and could end up featuring as many as SIX hall of famers (#2 Von Miller, #4 AJ Green, #5 Patrick Peterson, #6 Julio Jones, #9 Tyron Smith and #11 JJ Watt). 

And I doubt that the teams picking Jason Smith, Tyson Jackson and Aaron Curry in 2009 felt any less "great" about their picks than the teams picking in 2011. 

My guess is that 2011 is a statistical anomaly. It would be interesting to see what percentage of top 10 draft picks over the last 25 years are multi time Pro Bowlers and busts, though.

[Kalbear]

15 hours ago, dbunting said:

To me it's all about maximizing talent. I don't think many people have said that ANY of the QB's coming out this year are generational talents or even can't miss QB's. All three of the top QB's have some big question marks from leadership abilities to accuracy. I am sounding like a broken record but I take Barkley #1, Nelson or Fitzpatrick #4 and if you see a QB you like dropping, trade back into the middle of the first round and grab him.

In Barkley, Nelson and Fitzpatrick you have three plug in day one starters with pro bowl written all over them.

Let's stop here then. The goal now shouldn't be to get a once-in-a-generation QB that will last you for 10 years. 

The goal is to get a good QB that you can spend absurdly low amounts of money on and which can do well for the next few years while you buff  the rest of the team with the savings you reap. 

If you think that there's a QB that will give you 4 years of good production and then bolt, awesome. That is worth a savings of somewhere between $60 and $90m for the next 4 years. No other draft pick can give you that value. 

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, briantw said:

What stands out about that list you made of QBs drafted through one and ten is that they are largely quality NFL QBs.  Judging them by Super Bowl wins or playoff wins is pointless, because it doesn't factor in the quality of the team as a whole or the coaching.

Realistically, you should only draft NFL QBs either 1st or in the 6th round by this metric. Nothing else is useful. 

Small sample size dominated by a couple values is small. 

[Maithanet]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My guess is that 2011 is a statistical anomaly. It would be interesting to see what percentage of top 10 draft picks over the last 25 years are multi time Pro Bowlers and busts, though.

2011 was an unusually strong draft, for sure.  I mean Ryan Kerrigan is below average for the top 16 picks in 2011, and he's a three time pro bowler. 

Here's a breakdown of the top 10 picks to give a flavor.  The categories I'm using are Great (multiple Pro Bowl), OK (decent career, maybe a single pro bowl), bust (rotation player or worse).

2008:  Great - 3, OK - 3, Bust - 4

2009:  Great - 1, OK - 5, Bust - 4

2010:  Great - 6, OK - 3, Bust - 1

2011:  Great - 8 , Bust - 2

2012:  Great: 2, OK - 6, Bust - 2

 

So over five drafts, that's 20 Great picks, 17 OK picks and 13 busts.  Even there the 2011 draft might be throwing off the average.  

EDIT:  Also note that plenty of those "OK" picks are still considered busts or at least disappointments.  One season wonders like RG3 and injury prone starters like Darren McFadden I classified as OK. 

[sperry]

I am obviously a homer, but what about Baker Mayfield is shaky? Why is this kid not the slam dunk #1 overall pick?

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, sperry said:

I am obviously a homer, but what about Baker Mayfield is shaky? Why is this kid not the slam dunk #1 overall pick?

A lot of people are really leery of drafting Big 12 quarterbacks.  The spread style isn't very conducive to a transition to the pros and the defenses just aren't very good, which it allows mediocre passers to put up some crazy stats.  I don't know of Mayfield will be the exception or not, but the track record of first round big 12 quarterbacks is quite bad.  Since 2009 we've seen first round picks in Tannehill, RG3, Bradford, Freeman, Gabbert all fail to become reliable starters. 

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, sperry said:

I am obviously a homer, but what about Baker Mayfield is shaky? Why is this kid not the slam dunk #1 overall pick?

He also has crazy beliefs that are antithetical to the league like 'caring about the planet' and 'wanting to help people'.

That's on his scouting report, according to Mike Florio.

[sperry]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

A lot of people are really leery of drafting Big 12 quarterbacks.  The spread style isn't very conducive to a transition to the pros and the defenses just aren't very good, which it allows mediocre passers to put up some crazy stats.  I don't know of Mayfield will be the exception or not, but the track record of first round big 12 quarterbacks is quite bad.  Since 2009 we've seen first round picks in Tannehill, RG3, Bradford, Freeman, Gabbert all fail to become reliable starters. 

 

I think you have two groups there. Gabbert, Freeman, and Tannehill are guys who were not particularly great quarterbacks in college, and them being drafted as high as they were huge reaches. Those 3 are the Josh Allen's of this draft: super talented, with production that doesn't come close to matching that talent.

Bradford and RGIII are both guys who had promising careers derailed by injuries.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, sperry said:

 

I think you have two groups there. Gabbert, Freeman, and Tannehill are guys who were not particularly great quarterbacks in college, and them being drafted as high as they were huge reaches. Those 3 are the Josh Allen's of this draft: super talented, with production that doesn't come close to matching that talent.

Bradford and RGIII are both guys who had promising careers derailed by injuries.

Bradford was an injury risk coming out of OU

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

2011 was an unusually strong draft, for sure.  I mean Ryan Kerrigan is below average for the top 16 picks in 2011, and he's a three time pro bowler. 

Here's a breakdown of the top 10 picks to give a flavor.  The categories I'm using are Great (multiple Pro Bowl), OK (decent career, maybe a single pro bowl), bust (rotation player or worse).

2008:  Great - 3, OK - 3, Bust - 4

2009:  Great - 1, OK - 5, Bust - 4

2010:  Great - 6, OK - 3, Bust - 1

2011:  Great - 8 , Bust - 2

2012:  Great: 2, OK - 6, Bust - 2

 

So over five drafts, that's 20 Great picks, 17 OK picks and 13 busts.  Even there the 2011 draft might be throwing off the average.  

EDIT:  Also note that plenty of those "OK" picks are still considered busts or at least disappointments.  One season wonders like RG3 and injury prone starters like Darren McFadden I classified as OK. 

I think your methodology is sound, and assuming this five year sample is comparative to others, it supports my belief that it’s smart to trade back if there isn’t someone you either really need or really love. I can’t remember where I read it (possibly 538), but there was a great article about how you should build your team in rounds 2-4, and maximizing the number of picks you can get in that range is the best draft strategy. It also discussed how you should stealthy acquire picks in rounds 5-7 and bundle them to move back up into the fourth. That’s in part why I believe the Colts fleeced the Jets.

23 minutes ago, sperry said:

I am obviously a homer, but what about Baker Mayfield is shaky? Why is this kid not the slam dunk #1 overall pick?

If Baker was 6’4 he probably would be. I think worrying too much about a QBs height is overrated, but making sure they have a good frame is important. I haven’t seen his measurable, but he seemed middle of the road in that department. Furthermore, Maith is right about Big 12 QBs. They haven’t translated well at the next level.

That said, I think Mayfield or Rosen will wind up being the best QBs in this class. I have no idea why people love Darnold. I only watched him pay twice, but he was terrible in both games. Allen is intriguing, but he has no business being drafted that high. Getting him in the second round would be good value, but I’m going to laugh at the Browns if they take him first overall. If Jackson can stay healthy, I think he’ll be better than both of them.

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think your methodology is sound, and assuming this five year sample is comparative to others, it supports my belief that it’s smart to trade back if there isn’t someone you either really need or really love. I can’t remember where I read it (possibly 538), but there was a great article about how you should build your team in rounds 2-4, and maximizing the number of picks you can get in that range is the best draft strategy. It also discussed how you should stealthy acquire picks in rounds 5-7 and bundle them to move back up into the fourth. That’s in part why I believe the Colts fleeced the Jets.

If Baker was 6’4 he probably would be. I think worrying too much about a QBs height is overrated, but making sure they have a good frame is important. I haven’t seen his measurable, but he seemed middle of the road in that department. Furthermore, Maith is right about Big 12 QBs. They haven’t translated well at the next level.

That said, I think Mayfield or Rosen will wind up being the best QBs in this class. I have no idea why people love Darnold. I only watched him pay twice, but he was terrible in both games. Allen is intriguing, but he has no business being drafted that high. Getting him in the second round would be good value, but I’m going to laugh at the Browns if they take him first overall. If Jackson can stay healthy, I think he’ll be better than both of them.

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

 

The top 6 QB's in this draft, in order of preference.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

JACKSON

 

The top 6 QB's in this draft, in order of preference.

Is that you, Dylan?

And to think, all this time I thought I was chatting with an adorable, lusty, rage filled tiny RN.

[Jace, Extat]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is that you, Dylan?

And to think, all this time I thought I was chatting with an adorable, lusty, rage filled tiny RN.

I didn't get this one. Who is Dylan?

[briantw]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Realistically, you should only draft NFL QBs either 1st or in the 6th round by this metric. Nothing else is useful. 

Small sample size dominated by a couple values is small. 

I think the point is that you have a much better shot of hitting on a QB when you get the first crack at it and not the sloppy seconds.

1 hour ago, sperry said:

I am obviously a homer, but what about Baker Mayfield is shaky? Why is this kid not the slam dunk #1 overall pick?

Height, character, and whether or not he'll ideally transition to the pros given his college system are all flags for Mayfield.  He's by no means a perfect prospect.  The best prospect in this draft is clearly Rosen, as he's the most complete package of any of the QBs.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The problem is in this draft there are a lot of QBs that will go high, but all of them are shaky. I really wouldn’t want to be a team that has a high draft pick and needs a QB this year.

This is the case literally every year.  There's almost never a slam dunk QB prospect, but yet a QB almost always goes first or very high and goes on to be at least moderately successful.