Would you pay a Kings ransom for TOP QB Prospect next year?

[Tinstar]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Everyone who says this is simply fixated on his height, which further caused him to be a 3rd round pick in the first place.

The idea that all he does is just "do no harm" like Alex Smith, plus make a play or two, while the rest of the team really wins games for him, is idiotic. 

Put Carr behind the OLs he's played behind his whole career and his story instead is he's a shellshocked bust just like his big brother. 

Wilson is quite special. 

I would take Wilson over any QB we have on our roster and over more than half the starting QBs in the league today and I don't think he's anything special .  Aaron Rodgers is special, so is Tom Brady and so is David Carr .  Drew Bress is a great QB, but nothing special .  Stafford is a great QB, but nothing special . I think  Mitch Trubisky has the makeup to be a special, but it will take hard work  .  Lastly, I think Hack has the makeup to be special, but it will take patience and hard work .

Special is the ability to make everyone around you better and want to rise their level of play because they don't want to let you down . 

[jetspenguin]

3 hours ago, Tinstar said:

I would take Wilson over any QB we have on our roster and over more than half the starting QBs in the league today and I don't think he's anything special .  Aaron Rodgers is special, so is Tom Brady and so is David Carr .  Drew Bress is a great QB, but nothing special .  Stafford is a great QB, but nothing special . I think  Mitch Trubisky has the makeup to be a special, but it will take hard work  .  Lastly, I think Hack has the makeup to be special, but it will take patience and hard work .

Special is the ability to make everyone around you better and want to rise their level of play because they don't want to let you down . 

You think Brees and Stafford are on the same level? That is a comparison I rarely hear

[Tinstar]

Just now, jetspenguin said:

You think Brees and Stafford are on the same level? That is a comparison I rarely here

No I don't, but I don't think either are special . Stafford had the chance to be special after he came back into that game and did what he did with a bum shoulder, but all he did was tease folks just like he did at Georgia . Brees is a prolific passer, but he doesn't galvanize a team and he doesn't even galvanize his offensive teammates .

[jetspenguin]

3 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

No I don't, but I don't think either are special . Stafford had the chance to be special after he came back into that game and did what he did with a bum shoulder, but all he did was tease folks just like he did at Georgia . Brees is a prolific passer, but he doesn't galvanize a team and he doesn't even galvanize his offensive teammates .

I agree 100% on Stafford, I have always felt he under achieved even when he had the best receiver in the game for most of his career. Brees on the other hand I felt did bring bring a lot of leadership to the position but was often let down by his defense. There were too many seasons they could have gone further but the defense frankly sucked. IMO

[Savage69]

17 hours ago, T0mShane said:

You know what? I just went back and looked at Elway's numbers. That mother****er really was overrated. Thank you.

If it wasn't for Terrell Davis no going out with 2 bowl wins..

[Smashmouth]

On 5/19/2017 at 8:26 PM, predator_05 said:

Not sure anyone's worthy of a king's ransom.

Queen's ransom, maybe.

long live the Queen

Yes it it was a can;t miss prospect I would pay a kings ransom

[thadude]

3 hours ago, Savage69 said:

If it wasn't for Terrell Davis no going out with 2 bowl wins..

Well it is a team sport

[thadude]

I love this messageboard

 

Hackenberg is good but Elway and Russel Wilson are overrated 

 

LMFAO

[Raideraholic]

9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Everyone who says this is simply fixated on his height, which further caused him to be a 3rd round pick in the first place.

The idea that all he does is just "do no harm" like Alex Smith, plus make a play or two, while the rest of the team really wins games for him, is idiotic. 

Put Carr behind the OLs he's played behind his whole career and his story instead is he's a shellshocked bust just like his big brother. 

Wilson is quite special. 

Derek Carr interior part of his offenseline is top notch , but he makes the whole  offenseline look better than they are.  He doesn't hold the ball long, and has a very quick release. ( very hard to get to him , and that isn't because of the offense line giving him all day.  Derek Carr learned a lot from watching his brother taken a pounding.

 

[Raideraholic]

Sorry about that please delete triple post.

[predator_05]

4 hours ago, thadude said:

I love this messageboard

 

Hackenberg is good but Elway and Russel Wilson are overrated 

 

LMFAO

Hackenstud

[BRONX DUDE]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:32 PM, New York Mick said:

This team is so ******* bad there's no way they're not top five. 

#suckforsam

[BRONX DUDE]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 9:01 PM, sciond said:

we need to tank, but it won't hard with this roster

Tanking is not permitted it THIS NFL

 

 

LOL

[MDL_JET]

On 5/20/2017 at 0:42 PM, Villain The Foe said:

Paying a Kings Ransom isnt and shouldnt be called "being in position". What that's called is being bent over and taking it in the butt. We've been deprived for years, but it's not because we didnt have a high enough pick to draft a franchise QB. Lets take a look. Lets go down the list of times the Jets could have had Franchise/HOF QB's and they didnt have to move an inch from their draft position.

 

1. Remember when Woody Johnson said he regretted passing on Russell Wilson in the 2nd round? 

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-jets/post/_/id/59167/jets-owner-woody-johnson-laments-not-drafting-russell-wilson

2. Remember when the Jets passed on Dan Marino in the 1st round? 

3. Remember when the Jets drafted Christian Hackenberg in the 2nd round and passed on Dak Prescott? 

4. Remember when the Jets passed on Derek Carr in the 2nd round in 2014? 

5 & 6. Remember when the Jets passed on drafting both Tom Brady AND Peyton Manning?
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-york-jets-tom-brady-peyton-manning-draft-092115

 

What you're talking is crazy. The Jets passed on franchise QB's and didnt have to pay any King Ransom's for any of these guys they passed on. Why? Because the Jets had every opportunity to draft any of these guys and passed on them. I could throw in Andy Dalton or Kirk Cousins in that mix as well. There are plenty of QB's that have played in this league that the Jets had the opportunity to draft or evaluate. 

 

The Rams won a SB and had another SB appearance with Kurt Warner, an undrafted guy. The Cowboys had a franchise guy in Tony Romo, an undrafted guy. A guy that so many Jets fans wanted if the Bills released him, Tyrod Taylor was a 6th round pick by the Baltimore Ravens. 

Also, the Jets thought that Mark Sanchez was their guy and moved up in the draft (I wouldnt call it a "Kings Ransom") to acquire Sanchez because he was "their guy". How did that work out? Exactly. 

 

You dont pay King Ransoms. You evaluate and you draft every year until you hit. This is why I preferred the Jets to have drafted a Nathan Peterman this year than bringing in a Free Agent McCown when we know 100% he will amount to nothing. This "mentor excuse" sh*t is for suckers. Seriously, its for the birds. Either you're good or you're not. Now if Peterman becomes the next Prescott/Wilson then he will be another guy that we passed on for a bullsh*t QB. We passed on Carr because we drafted Smith. Well, the Chargers drafted Rivers when they had Brees....two franchise QB's at the end of the day. I dont hear Chargers fans complaining about that situation. However, Jets fans wish Idzik would have taken a chance on Carr. If he did he would still be the GM for this football team. 

 

The Jets take themselves OUT OF POSITION when they pay ransoms, because most of the time when we reflect back in 5 years we tend to see that there is always some 3rd, 4th or 5th round guy that ended up being the best QB in the class the same year some sorry team paid a ransom. What happened last season? What happened with RG3? 

 

Paying Ransoms is equivalent to trying to take the easy way out, and there is no easy way out. That's like trying to pay your rent by playing the lotto because the guy on television said you can win 20 million dollars. That's just stupid. 

Of course it can go either way. But you just listed everything the Jets haven't done. And you're still hoping they do it. If there's a can't miss type guy like when Luck came out, I have no problem going after him as aggressive as possible to cut out any wishing and hoping that we do on a Petty or Geno or have to settle for the 2nd best like Sanchez. 

Besides if you go by your theory. You can trade away multiple first rounders and still draft your 4th round qbs in the following years if he's a total bust. 

[Villain The Foe]

5 hours ago, MDL_JET said:

Of course it can go either way. But you just listed everything the Jets haven't done. And you're still hoping they do it. If there's a can't miss type guy like when Luck came out, I have no problem going after him as aggressive as possible to cut out any wishing and hoping that we do on a Petty or Geno or have to settle for the 2nd best like Sanchez. 

Besides if you go by your theory. You can trade away multiple first rounders and still draft your 4th round qbs in the following years if he's a total bust. 

This "Cant miss guy" is only legit with 20/20 hindsight. Andrew Luck AND RG3 were both "cant miss prospects". The Colts "didnt have to move an inch" in order to draft Andrew Luck because they tanked an entire season and traded their franchise QB away in order to make sure that they got him. The Redskins however, had to wheel-and-deal in order to move up to the #2 spot to get their "cant miss prospect" in RG3. 

 

In 2017 we see that Andrew Luck is a solid QB but is on a team that did everything (such as tanking a season) to get him but cant build an offensive line around him to keep him upright. 

In 2017 we see that RG3 was indeed a prospect worth missing out on. 

 

The funniest thing about this is? The Colts didnt have to "suck for luck" and trade the best QB they've ever had in Peyton Manning, nor did the Redskins have to give up THREE 1st round picks, and a 2nd round pick to the Rams to move up just 4 spots in the draft. Let me show you what they could have done. 

 

The Colts could have tried to win football games the year prior, keep Peyton Manning, and drafted Kirk Cousins in the 4th round to sit behind Manning until he retired. The Colts would have still had Peyton "in his prime" for 2 of Peyton's last 3 seasons, would have been legit superbowl contenders at that time and could have then given the reigns to Kirk Cousins. 

 

The Redskins could have done even better. They could have decided NOT to pay the kings ransom for a "cant miss prospect" that ended up not even being the best QB they drafted that year, but instead they could have kept their 1st and 2nd round picks in 2012, as well as their 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014, drafted whomever they wanted in the 1st round and in the 2nd round drafted Russell Wilson. 

 

This is my point. You dont need to pay King's Ransoms. All that happens is that years later you realize that the QB you did all of that for wasnt even the best QB in the draft. the best QB in that 2012 class is Russell Wilson which was a 3rd round pick. The 2nd best is Andrew Luck, the 3rd is Kirk Cousins which was a 4th round, 4th is Ryan Tannehill and 5th is Nick Foles which was a 3rd round pick. RG3 isnt even in the top 5 best QB's of that class yet the Redskins gave up 3 years worth of 1st round picks because RG3 was considered a "cant miss prospect". 

 

Go ask if the Redskins believe that today, then come back to me and let me know what they told you. 

 

You dont pay Kings Ransoms, period. You dont tank a season and cut your franchise/HOF QB for a QB, period.

These actions are foolish. 

[Sperm Edwards]

23 hours ago, Tinstar said:

I would take Wilson over any QB we have on our roster and over more than half the starting QBs in the league today and I don't think he's anything special .  Aaron Rodgers is special, so is Tom Brady and so is David Carr .  Drew Bress is a great QB, but nothing special .  Stafford is a great QB, but nothing special . I think  Mitch Trubisky has the makeup to be a special, but it will take hard work  .  Lastly, I think Hack has the makeup to be special, but it will take patience and hard work .

Special is the ability to make everyone around you better and want to rise their level of play because they don't want to let you down . 

lol, okay.

Drew Brees and Russell Wilson are not special QBs. Gotcha.

[isired]

We have to take a QB next year. So it all depends on how you view the top QBs - if you think one is head and shoulders above the other 2, you're going to have to pay big to jump up to 1 and get him. If you have 3 rated similarly, the 3rd pick is fine. If you've got 5 QBs that you feel comfortable with, maybe you stand pat.

[jetrider]

On May 21, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Tinstar said:

I would take Wilson over any QB we have on our roster and over more than half the starting QBs in the league today and I don't think he's anything special .  Aaron Rodgers is special, so is Tom Brady and so is David Carr .  Drew Bress is a great QB, but nothing special .  Stafford is a great QB, but nothing special . I think  Mitch Trubisky has the makeup to be a special, but it will take hard work  .  Lastly, I think Hack has the makeup to be special, but it will take patience and hard work .

Special is the ability to make everyone around you better and want to rise their level of play because they don't want to let you down . 

You mean like Sanchez? According to some fans he got the entire team to overcompensate and carry him to two AFCCGs.

[Tinstar]

31 minutes ago, jetrider said:

You mean like Sanchez? According to some fans he got the entire team to overcompensate and carry him to two AFCCGs.

By any chance are you a lawyer ?

[TuscanyTile2]

On 5/20/2017 at 4:38 AM, Villain The Foe said:

I absolutely wouldnt pay a king's ransom to get any of those QB's. Here's why you dont do it. 

 

There are the list of the QB's taken with the 1st pick of the draft the past 30 years. 

1. Jared Goff

2. Jameis Wilson

3. Andrew Luck

4. Cam Newton

5. Sam Bradford- Bust

6. Matt Stafford

7. JaMarcus Russell- Bust

8. Alex Smith- middle of the pack

9. Eli Manning- SB winner

10. David Carr- victim of circumstance but still a bust

11. Mike Vick

12. Tim Couch- Bust

13. Peyton Manning- SB winner

14. Jeff George- Bust

15. Troy Aikman- SB winner

16. Vinny Testaverde Middle of the pack

 

Of the 16 QB's, only 3 have won the Superbowl. You do have a couple who've made it to the dance but lost (Cam, George) and you do have a couple here who are considered legit franchise QB's, but what people must remember is if you give up a king's ransom to get your guy you're INSTANTLY putting that QB in a bad position. Why? 

#1. He could end up being a bust and wasnt worth the trade.

#2. He could end up being just a middle of the pack guy and wasnt worth the trade

#3. He could end up being great but you've traded away all of your draft picks because you mortgaged your future in order to get him so you cant build around him. 

#4. If the Jets win 5 or 6 games they're pretty much guaranteed a top 10 pick. Most of the QB's that have won superbowls or are considered "ELITE" in this league werent taken with the 1st pick of the draft, they were taken in the mid first (Roethlisberger), late first (Rodgers), 2nd round (Brees) 3rd round (WIlson) 6th round (Brady) etc. 

#5. During the last 30 years, half of the 1st overall picks have been QB's yet only 3 have won superbowls (Manning brothers, Troy Aikman), and we have more busts drafted with the 1st pick than we do superbowl winners (5 total busts). 

 

The odds of these "cant miss prospects" being any good are slim. They're always "franchise QB's" until you mortgage your future, draft a guy like RG3 then end up getting your franchise guy during the same damn draft in the 4th round (Kirk Cousins). 

 

You dont pay a King's ransom, period. You evaluate the talent, let foolish teams like the Rams move up to take a guy like Goff and you sit and find the guy with skills that's being overlooked. 

4 of the 16 made it to the Superbowl (3 of them winning it).  You wouldn't take a 25% chance on that?!?!

Also, 5 of the 16 QBs are FQBs:

3. Andrew Luck
4. Cam Newton
9. Eli Manning- SB winner
13. Peyton Manning- SB winner
15. Troy Aikman- SB winner

 

Another 5 were at least decent to pretty good (Bradford is not a bust btw)
2. Jameis Wilson
8. Alex Smith- middle of the pack
6. Matt Stafford
5. Sam Bradford- Bust
16. Vinny Testaverde Middle of the pack
 

[section314]

Hopefully, Hack has a very nice year and we draft a QB next year on day 2 to replace Petty. 

[Dunnie]

if we play well and go 8-8 ... i would trade the entire draft for darnold

 

 

Assuming Hack sucks

 

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

 

[thadude]

14 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

lol, okay.

Drew Brees and Russell Wilson are not special QBs. Gotcha.

I think Tinstar is Mike Macagnan.

[Mogglez]

On 5/21/2017 at 3:33 PM, thadude said:

I love this messageboard

 

Hackenberg is good but Elway and Russel Wilson are overrated 

 

LMFAO

You are literally the only person who compared those 3.  Not a goddamn person has said that.

[Sperm Edwards]

23 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

lol, okay.

Drew Brees and Russell Wilson are not special QBs. Gotcha.

Great QBs are not special, but Hackenberg could be special because he's taller and can throw harder.

I know they were gimmicky, but I remember one of those sports science things that showed Brees hitting an archer's bullseye 10x out of 10, where an Olympic archer hit it only 3 from the same distance. The angle and rotation leaving his hands was the same every time, leading to this pinpoint accuracy responsible for 5000 yards/year and a top 10 (as often as not, top 3) offense for the last decade. Not special. Because the defense sucks, it makes a 66-yard game-winning TD pass with a minute left in a playoff game moot, and he's not special because he didn't psyche the sh*tty D into playing better or some such ridiculousness.

Russell Wilson is also very un-special. It's easy to convert 1sts and TDs behind a suspect pass-blocking line on 2nd or 3rd & long when everyone knows you're passing. 

QBing is all about how tall you are and how hard your fastball is. Accuracy, pocket presence, being cool under pressure, and being the #1 difference in a losing team becoming perennial Super Bowl contenders - right from his rookie season - is not special.

[Jet Blast]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 4:38 AM, Villain The Foe said:

I absolutely wouldnt pay a king's ransom to get any of those QB's. Here's why you dont do it. 

 

There are the list of the QB's taken with the 1st pick of the draft the past 30 years. 

1. Jared Goff

2. Jameis Wilson

3. Andrew Luck

4. Cam Newton

5. Sam Bradford- Bust

6. Matt Stafford

7. JaMarcus Russell- Bust

8. Alex Smith- middle of the pack

9. Eli Manning- SB winner

10. David Carr- victim of circumstance but still a bust

11. Mike Vick

12. Tim Couch- Bust

13. Peyton Manning- SB winner

14. Jeff George- Bust

15. Troy Aikman- SB winner

16. Vinny Testaverde Middle of the pack

 

Of the 16 QB's, only 3 have won the Superbowl. You do have a couple who've made it to the dance but lost (Cam, George) and you do have a couple here who are considered legit franchise QB's, but what people must remember is if you give up a king's ransom to get your guy you're INSTANTLY putting that QB in a bad position. Why? 

#1. He could end up being a bust and wasnt worth the trade.

#2. He could end up being just a middle of the pack guy and wasnt worth the trade

#3. He could end up being great but you've traded away all of your draft picks because you mortgaged your future in order to get him so you cant build around him. 

#4. If the Jets win 5 or 6 games they're pretty much guaranteed a top 10 pick. Most of the QB's that have won superbowls or are considered "ELITE" in this league werent taken with the 1st pick of the draft, they were taken in the mid first (Roethlisberger), late first (Rodgers), 2nd round (Brees) 3rd round (WIlson) 6th round (Brady) etc. 

#5. During the last 30 years, half of the 1st overall picks have been QB's yet only 3 have won superbowls (Manning brothers, Troy Aikman), and we have more busts drafted with the 1st pick than we do superbowl winners (5 total busts). 

 

The odds of these "cant miss prospects" being any good are slim. They're always "franchise QB's" until you mortgage your future, draft a guy like RG3 then end up getting your franchise guy during the same damn draft in the 4th round (Kirk Cousins). 

 

You dont pay a King's ransom, period. You evaluate the talent, let foolish teams like the Rams move up to take a guy like Goff and you sit and find the guy with skills that's being overlooked. 

Hindsight.

Knowing what we know now, I'm sure we would have picked one the QB's you named. But we didn't know then.

[Villain The Foe]

53 minutes ago, Jet Blast said:

Hindsight.

Knowing what we know now, I'm sure we would have picked one the QB's you named. But we didn't know then.

I have a feeling you either read half of what I said or comprehended half of what I said.

I never said that I wouldnt have picked any of the QB's I named. I said that I wouldnt have paid a kings ransom to do so which is the topic of the thread.

 

My position has nothing to do with player hindsight, but more about valuing my current and future draft positions/picks...since what hindsight actually tells me about past teams paying such ransoms (which was the point of my reply) is that paying kings ransoms more often than not leaves you with nothing to show for it. 

The fact that the name itself "kings ransom" should already tell you that you're behind the 8 ball when making such a deal. No hindsight required.

Sure, if I already had the #1 pick in the draft and needed a QB I probably would have taken any of those guys in their respective year. However, for example, trading 3 1st rounders and a couple of 2nd rounders over the next 2 seasons just to move up 6, 7 or 8 spots in a draft in order to draft a guy I have no idea will actually be the answer is just stupid to me. I dont care how much of a "cant miss prospect" a player is considered to be. It's a terrible philosophy when it comes to team building. 

 

That's what im saying. 

[Jet Blast]

40 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I have a feeling you either read half of what I said or comprehended half of what I said.

I never said that I wouldnt have picked any of the QB's I named. I said that I wouldnt have paid a kings ransom to do so which is the topic of the thread.

 

My position has nothing to do with player hindsight, but more about valuing my current and future draft positions/picks...since what hindsight actually tells me about past teams paying such ransoms (which was the point of my reply) is that paying kings ransoms more often than not leaves you with nothing to show for it. 

The fact that the name itself "kings ransom" should already tell you that you're behind the 8 ball when making such a deal. No hindsight required.

Sure, if I already had the #1 pick in the draft and needed a QB I probably would have taken any of those guys in their respective year. However, for example, trading 3 1st rounders and a couple of 2nd rounders over the next 2 seasons just to move up 6, 7 or 8 spots in a draft in order to draft a guy I have no idea will actually be the answer is just stupid to me. I dont care how much of a "cant miss prospect" a player is considered to be. It's a terrible philosophy when it comes to team building. 

 

That's what im saying. 

Actually, I read your post twice and I believe I fully comprehended your point. On the other hand, I didn't clearly make my point:

Without the benefit of hindsight, a team has a better change of winning the QB crapshoot if they push a bunch of chips into the pot. We might get away with waiting for the right QB to fall to us and be lucky enough to get him. However, IMO, we are far more likely to find our franchise guy by betting big. If we had paid, let's say for the sake of argument, 3 first round picks for the right QB no one will complain if we are perennial playoff contenders.

So I say, ante up. But you damn well better make the right choice.

 

[Warfish]

On 5/22/2017 at 1:19 AM, Villain The Foe said:

This "Cant miss guy" is only legit with 20/20 hindsight. Andrew Luck AND RG3 were both "cant miss prospects". The Colts "didnt have to move an inch" in order to draft Andrew Luck because they tanked an entire season and traded their franchise QB away in order to make sure that they got him. The Redskins however, had to wheel-and-deal in order to move up to the #2 spot to get their "cant miss prospect" in RG3. 

 

In 2017 we see that Andrew Luck is a solid QB but is on a team that did everything (such as tanking a season) to get him but cant build an offensive line around him to keep him upright. 

In 2017 we see that RG3 was indeed a prospect worth missing out on. 

 

The funniest thing about this is? The Colts didnt have to "suck for luck" and trade the best QB they've ever had in Peyton Manning, nor did the Redskins have to give up THREE 1st round picks, and a 2nd round pick to the Rams to move up just 4 spots in the draft. Let me show you what they could have done. 

 

The Colts could have tried to win football games the year prior, keep Peyton Manning, and drafted Kirk Cousins in the 4th round to sit behind Manning until he retired. The Colts would have still had Peyton "in his prime" for 2 of Peyton's last 3 seasons, would have been legit superbowl contenders at that time and could have then given the reigns to Kirk Cousins. 

 

The Redskins could have done even better. They could have decided NOT to pay the kings ransom for a "cant miss prospect" that ended up not even being the best QB they drafted that year, but instead they could have kept their 1st and 2nd round picks in 2012, as well as their 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014, drafted whomever they wanted in the 1st round and in the 2nd round drafted Russell Wilson. 

 

This is my point. You dont need to pay King's Ransoms. All that happens is that years later you realize that the QB you did all of that for wasnt even the best QB in the draft. the best QB in that 2012 class is Russell Wilson which was a 3rd round pick. The 2nd best is Andrew Luck, the 3rd is Kirk Cousins which was a 4th round, 4th is Ryan Tannehill and 5th is Nick Foles which was a 3rd round pick. RG3 isnt even in the top 5 best QB's of that class yet the Redskins gave up 3 years worth of 1st round picks because RG3 was considered a "cant miss prospect". 

 

Go ask if the Redskins believe that today, then come back to me and let me know what they told you. 

 

You dont pay Kings Ransoms, period. You dont tank a season and cut your franchise/HOF QB for a QB, period.

These actions are foolish. 

An exceptional post every person here should read till they get it.

[Villain The Foe]

30 minutes ago, Jet Blast said:

Actually, I read your post twice and I believe I fully comprehended your point. On the other hand, I didn't clearly make my point:

Without the benefit of hindsight, a team has a better change of winning the QB crapshoot if they push a bunch of chips into the pot. We might get away with waiting for the right QB to fall to us and be lucky enough to get him. However, IMO, we are far more likely to find our franchise guy by betting big. If we had paid, let's say for the sake of argument, 3 first round picks for the right QB no one will complain if we are perennial playoff contenders.

So I say, ante up. But you damn well better make the right choice.

 

If you fully comprehended my point then you wouldnt have made the statement that I would have picked those QB's if not for hindsight when my point was never about liking any of the QB's prior to them being drafted, it was about paying a kings ransom. 

 

Speaking of that, are you saying that paying the kings ransom has worked more often than not? I ask because you made it seem like "one one will complain if we are perennial playoff contenders". Well, everyone will complain if you're not perennial playoff contenders....so what are you saying really? 

 

At the end of the day, does paying kings ransoms work out more often than not. I am here to say that it doesnt, and im willing to support my position. Im confident that paying such a ransom has ended up not working, or showing years later that if that team simply would have held its position they had an opportunity to draft a very good QB, if not the best QB in that draft year. 

 

Please, if you want to ante up, let me know all of these scenarios where this worked and I'll show you more times when it didnt. 

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

An exceptional post every person here should read till they get it.

You've been on a role yourself sir. 

 

[Jet Blast]

9 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

If you fully comprehended my point then you wouldnt have made the statement that I would have picked those QB's if not for hindsight when my point was never about liking any of the QB's prior to them being drafted, it was about paying a kings ransom.

I never said that you wouldn't have picked those QB's if not for hindsight. Your list of QB's was one of mostly capable players and the odds were that many of those players were bound to become franchise QB's, even before taking hindsight into account. My point is that when a pick is made, although its never a sure thing, taking a highly rated QB prospect early in the draft increases that chances of your team hitting on a franchise QB.

9 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Speaking of that, are you saying that paying the kings ransom has worked more often than not? I ask because you made it seem like "one one will complain if we are perennial playoff contenders". Well, everyone will complain if you're not perennial playoff contenders....so what are you saying really? 

No, I am not.

I am suggesting that paying a kings ransom will position your team to draft one of the players more likely to become a franchise QB. More often than not? No, it's certainly not a sure thing, but I think it's more likely than hitting on the right guy in round 3 or 4.

9 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

At the end of the day, does paying kings ransoms work out more often than not. I am here to say that it doesnt, and im willing to support my position. Im confident that paying such a ransom has ended up not working, or showing years later that if that team simply would have held its position they had an opportunity to draft a very good QB, if not the best QB in that draft year. 

I almost agree with you here (LOL). I would agree, that paying a kings ransom doesn't work out, more than not. And I do agree that holding your position will often give you an opportunity to draft a very good QB. But my problem with this logic is that you have no way of knowing who that very good QB is. Yes he is there, but are you smart enough (or lucky enough) to draft him? Probably not. You will never convince me that picking Brady in the 6th and Prescott in 4th wasn't more about luck than making a smart choice.

9 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Please, if you want to ante up, let me know all of these scenarios where this worked and I'll show you more times when it didnt. 

Agreed...  BUT (with the risk of being trite) I say you "must be in it to win it".

[Villain The Foe]

EDIT

[Villain The Foe]

4 hours ago, Jet Blast said:

I never said that you wouldn't have picked those QB's if not for hindsight. Your list of QB's was one of mostly capable players and the odds were that many of those players were bound to become franchise QB's, even before taking hindsight into account. My point is that when a pick is made, although its never a sure thing, taking a highly rated QB prospect early in the draft increases that chances of your team hitting on a franchise QB.

No, I am not.

I am suggesting that paying a kings ransom will position your team to draft one of the players more likely to become a franchise QB. More often than not? No, it's certainly not a sure thing, but I think it's more likely than hitting on the right guy in round 3 or 4.

I almost agree with you here (LOL). I would agree, that paying a kings ransom doesn't work out, more than not. And I do agree that holding your position will often give you an opportunity to draft a very good QB. But my problem with this logic is that you have no way of knowing who that very good QB is. Yes he is there, but are you smart enough (or lucky enough) to draft him? Probably not. You will never convince me that picking Brady in the 6th and Prescott in 4th wasn't more about luck than making a smart choice.

Agreed...  BUT (with the risk of being trite) I say you "must be in it to win it".

YOu dont pay King ransoms. 

 

No need for me to go back and forth about it. The teams that have done it have paid the price 2fold. 1st for picking a guy that wasnt worth the price of admission and 2nd for originally being in a position to get a guy who was actually good...if only you were to have done your research. It's not a guarantee that you will hit with the #1 overall pick or a pick in the 3rd or 4th round, the difference, which has been my point the entire time, is that you dont give up future picks on a level of a kings ransom in order to find out. 

 

If you want to have a good idea of what a player who isnt considered a "cant miss prospect" by pundits, then how about looking at metrics and analytics. If people would have done that then they would have realized that guys like Tom Brady, Dak Prescott, Drew Brees, and Joe Montana scored off the charts. Funny how these guys were also overlooked, yet 3 of the 4 are considered all-time greats and the 4th looks like he could be on that road. 

 

Getting books like this would have told you everything you needed to know about these guys from a data metric perspective. 

 

There are ways that are outside of the typical conventional way of doing things, and are definitely better than throwing your future away for the opportunity of a 50/50 chance at a franchise QB that even if you did hit on a guy who could be given the label it doesnt mean that he'll ever be "elite". 

 

I'd rather look at books like this and look at other aspects of someones game and use my picks to flesh out other parts of my team, because contrary to popular belief, complete teams win superbowls, not teams with just franchise QBs.  

[thadude]

Watch Bowles somehow survive another terrible season and we draft a LB over a Qb