Economics of drafting a QB in the first round

[Stonehands]

When Sam Bradford was drafted number 1 overall by the Rams in the 2010 NFL Draft, he signed a 6 year $78 million deal with $50 million guaranteed ($13 million a year).  I think a lot of people on this board remember that deal and use it as a reason to think you need to be careful drafting first round QB's today.  The new rookie salary slotting has made those contracts a thing of the past.  Last year's eighth overall pick, Ryan Tannehill, signed for 4 years at $12.668 million or roughly $3.1 million per year.  For comparision purposes, Jason Campbell and Kyle Orton who are both back up QB's in this league each signed multi year deals for $3.5 million a year.  The thought that you "set you organization back" by taking a somewhat risky QB in the first round is absolute hog wash, today.  We could draft someone at 9 or 13 and pay them only a little more than the number that will be created when Tebow is cut.  When you don't have a QB, you go out and get one.  We can take a QB in the first two rounds this year and come back next year and draft another one if we need to and without destroying our salary cap or setting anyone back. 

[JFtoLong]

When Sam Bradford was drafted number 1 overall by the Rams in the 2010 NFL Draft, he signed a 6 year $78 million deal with $50 million guaranteed ($13 million a year).  I think a lot of people on this board remember that deal and use it as a reason to think you need to be careful drafting first round QB's today.  The new rookie salary slotting has made those contracts a thing of the past.  Last year's eighth overall pick, Ryan Tannehill, signed for 4 years at $12.668 million or roughly $3.1 million per year.  For comparision purposes, Jason Campbell and Kyle Orton who are both back up QB's in this league each signed multi year deals for $3.5 million a year.  The thought that you "set you organization back" by taking a somewhat risky QB in the first round is absolute hog wash, today.  We could draft someone at 9 or 13 and pay them only a little more than the number that will be created when Tebow is cut.  When you don't have a QB, you go out and get one.  We can take a QB in the first two rounds this year and come back next year and draft another one if we need to and without destroying our salary cap or setting anyone back. 

Your looking at one angle of this, and by far the LESS important angle.

 

While I agree that the financial side of it is not a big deal anymore, the mere fact that it takes different QB's different amounts of time to develop is much more important.

 

Take Eli and Sanchez, and even through in Alex Smithl

 

Eli in year 4 regular season was considered a huge bust, now he is a future hall of famer.

 

Sanchez is going into year 5 as a colossal bust, and has set this franchise back a very long time.

 

Smith was a huge bust, who is now considered to be a good QB (not by me)

 

You cannot give up on a  high drafted QB early, that is the issue. It often costs GM's and HC's their jobs when a highly drafted QB fails, which leads to new regimes, and setbacks.

 

Your point is severley flawed.

[slats]

You cannot give up on a  high drafted QB early, that is the issue. It often costs GM's and HC's their jobs when a highly drafted QB fails, which leads to new regimes, and setbacks.

 

Your point is severley flawed.

 

I think his point is that you can do that now. If they draft a guy that doesn't set the world on fire this year, they can take a QB again in the first round next year. Especially a team like the Jets, who for all intents and purposes don't have a QB on the roster in 2014 right now. You wouldn't cut the guy you drafted in 2013 next year, you'd just be bringing in competition, with the loser getting a backup job.

[Favorite_Toon]

I think his point is that you can do that now. If they draft a guy that doesn't set the world on fire this year, they can take a QB again in the first round next year. Especially a team like the Jets, who for all intents and purposes don't have a QB on the roster in 2014 right now. You wouldn't cut the guy you drafted in 2013 next year, you'd just be bringing in competition, with the loser getting a backup job.

 

 

You are correct see Brandon weeden

[JFtoLong]

I think his point is that you can do that now. If they draft a guy that doesn't set the world on fire this year, they can take a QB again in the first round next year. Especially a team like the Jets, who for all intents and purposes don't have a QB on the roster in 2014 right now. You wouldn't cut the guy you drafted in 2013 next year, you'd just be bringing in competition, with the loser getting a backup job.

 

Of course you can, I just don't see it happening.

 

To take a QB in the first round, you damn well better like them A LOT!

 

You also know when you take a QB in the first round that QB is the hardest and slowest position to develop, and you expect them to have growing pains and take their lumps early.

 

It is very unlikely that any GM/Coach is going to admit that quickly that they messed up on a QB. It's just way too risky, you lose your job for that.

 

Anything can be done, it is just highly unlikely.

[JFtoLong]

You are correct see Brandon weeden

 

Browns have a different GM than the one who drafted Weeden.

 

I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Idzig will be gone after one year.

[Sperm Edwards]

Your looking at one angle of this, and by far the LESS important angle.

 

While I agree that the financial side of it is not a big deal anymore, the mere fact that it takes different QB's different amounts of time to develop is much more important.

 

Take Eli and Sanchez, and even through in Alex Smithl

 

Eli in year 4 regular season was considered a huge bust, now he is a future hall of famer.

 

Sanchez is going into year 5 as a colossal bust, and has set this franchise back a very long time.

 

Smith was a huge bust, who is now considered to be a good QB (not by me)

 

You cannot give up on a  high drafted QB early, that is the issue. It often costs GM's and HC's their jobs when a highly drafted QB fails, which leads to new regimes, and setbacks.

 

Your point is severley flawed.

 

It's not all that black & white.  When a guy is high priced and sucks you stick with him a lot longer.  Eli was not nearly the bust that Sanchez was, even though his numbers were hardly super (putting it kindly).  Sanchez's bad isn't just the straight numbers.  Even with his stinko throws and foolishness like throwing a red zone pick with his left hand, you could tell Eli had something that Sanchez doesn't, and it's not like Eli is some incredibly great QB even with 2 SB rings.  

 

I get what you're saying about giving a guy enough time to show he's a late bloomer (if he turns out to be one).  But most who suck for 4 years continue to suck.  Few turn into Eli, and fewer are Sanchez-level trash who then turn into something great or even good enough.

 

What he's comparing - correctly in my opinion - is that if you draft a guy and assess that he isn't what you'd hoped (even if that is judged incorrectly), you can start over and try someone else without ripping a hole in the team's cap.  In other words, a team isn't "married" to that prospect for at least 3-4 years due to the massive investment.  A high draft pick is a serious investment, but teams recover from bad picks all the time.  It's quite another thing to recover from a busted high pick who is also gobbling up first team all-pro (at a number of positions) money on your cap like Bradford, Sanchez, and others.

Cam Newton was taken #1.  So was Jamarcus Russell.  Russell busting was doubly-bad because Oakland guaranteed him $40M or whatever it was.  Cam's total contract over 4 years was $22M.  If he was a bust as bad as Russell then Carolina could recover far more easily than if he'd been given Russell's deal.

 

Either way you swing and miss on a draft pick.  But now, with the rookies at the top making 1/2 to 1/3 of what they used to, you also don't swing and miss on him plus another all-pro that now won't fit under your team's cap.  A team picking in the top 10, who needs a QB enough to draft one that high, can ill-afford that double whammy.

[Stonehands]

Of course you can, I just don't see it happening.

 

To take a QB in the first round, you damn well better like them A LOT!

 

You also know when you take a QB in the first round that QB is the hardest and slowest position to develop, and you expect them to have growing pains and take their lumps early.

 

It is very unlikely that any GM/Coach is going to admit that quickly that they messed up on a QB. It's just way too risky, you lose your job for that.

 

Anything can be done, it is just highly unlikely.

 

Why not?  It certainly isn't financial.  You have multiple runningbacks on the roster each year.  Look at RG III and Kirk Cousins.  The worst thing that happens is you have a quality back up that you can trade later for picks.

[Stonehands]

Your looking at one angle of this, and by far the LESS important angle.

 

While I agree that the financial side of it is not a big deal anymore, the mere fact that it takes different QB's different amounts of time to develop is much more important.

 

Take Eli and Sanchez, and even through in Alex Smithl

 

Eli in year 4 regular season was considered a huge bust, now he is a future hall of famer.

 

Sanchez is going into year 5 as a colossal bust, and has set this franchise back a very long time.

 

Smith was a huge bust, who is now considered to be a good QB (not by me)

 

You cannot give up on a  high drafted QB early, that is the issue. It often costs GM's and HC's their jobs when a highly drafted QB fails, which leads to new regimes, and setbacks.

 

Your point is severley flawed.

 

Ask yourself why these franchises were set back.  The answer all has to do with the economics of the pick.  They are forced to "make it work" because of the money invested and the lack of available space to find a suitable replacement.  The point of my post is that that condition no longer exists.  Please explain to me why a team would be "married" to a guy picked in the mid first round in this draft other than some arbitrary feeling of owing it to him.  If the guy can't play, bring in someone else that can.  If he takes longer to develop, give him the time and if you already have someone else, trade him.  When you think about it you will see that I was not "severely flawed" in my thinking.

[Favorite_Toon]

It's not all that black & white.  When a guy is high priced and sucks you stick with him a lot longer.  Eli was not nearly the bust that Sanchez was, even though his numbers were hardly super (putting it kindly).  Sanchez's bad isn't just the straight numbers.  Even with his stinko throws and foolishness like throwing a red zone pick with his left hand, you could tell Eli had something that Sanchez doesn't, and it's not like Eli is some incredibly great QB even with 2 SB rings.  

 

I get what you're saying about giving a guy enough time to show he's a late bloomer (if he turns out to be one).  But most who suck for 4 years continue to suck.  Few turn into Eli, and fewer are Sanchez-level trash who then turn into something great or even good enough.

 

What he's comparing - correctly in my opinion - is that if you draft a guy and assess that he isn't what you'd hoped (even if that is judged incorrectly), you can start over and try someone else without ripping a hole in the team's cap.  In other words, a team isn't "married" to that prospect for at least 3-4 years due to the massive investment.  A high draft pick is a serious investment, but teams recover from bad picks all the time.  It's quite another thing to recover from a busted high pick who is also gobbling up first team all-pro (at a number of positions) money on your cap like Bradford, Sanchez, and others.

Cam Newton was taken #1.  So was Jamarcus Russell.  Russell busting was doubly-bad because Oakland guaranteed him $40M or whatever it was.  Cam's total contract over 4 years was $22M.  If he was a bust as bad as Russell then Carolina could recover far more easily than if he'd been given Russell's deal.

 

Either way you swing and miss on a draft pick.  But now, with the rookies at the top making 1/2 to 1/3 of what they used to, you also don't swing and miss on him plus another all-pro that now won't fit under your team's cap.  A team picking in the top 10, who needs a QB enough to draft one that high, can ill-afford that double whammy.

 

Speaking about Jamarcus Russell I was watching espn and his attempt to come back..  Lane Kiffin was basically begging Al to take Calvin Johnson  with the first pick

[JFtoLong]

It's not all that black & white.  When a guy is high priced and sucks you stick with him a lot longer.  Eli was not nearly the bust that Sanchez was, even though his numbers were hardly super (putting it kindly).  Sanchez's bad isn't just the straight numbers.  Even with his stinko throws and foolishness like throwing a red zone pick with his left hand, you could tell Eli had something that Sanchez doesn't, and it's not like Eli is some incredibly great QB even with 2 SB rings.  

 

I get what you're saying about giving a guy enough time to show he's a late bloomer (if he turns out to be one).  But most who suck for 4 years continue to suck.  Few turn into Eli, and fewer are Sanchez-level trash who then turn into something great or even good enough.

 

What he's comparing - correctly in my opinion - is that if you draft a guy and assess that he isn't what you'd hoped (even if that is judged incorrectly), you can start over and try someone else without ripping a hole in the team's cap.  In other words, a team isn't "married" to that prospect for at least 3-4 years due to the massive investment.  A high draft pick is a serious investment, but teams recover from bad picks all the time.  It's quite another thing to recover from a busted high pick who is also gobbling up first team all-pro (at a number of positions) money on your cap like Bradford, Sanchez, and others.

Cam Newton was taken #1.  So was Jamarcus Russell.  Russell busting was doubly-bad because Oakland guaranteed him $40M or whatever it was.  Cam's total contract over 4 years was $22M.  If he was a bust as bad as Russell then Carolina could recover far more easily than if he'd been given Russell's deal.

 

Either way you swing and miss on a draft pick.  But now, with the rookies at the top making 1/2 to 1/3 of what they used to, you also don't swing and miss on him plus another all-pro that now won't fit under your team's cap.  A team picking in the top 10, who needs a QB enough to draft one that high, can ill-afford that double whammy.

 

 

I strongly disagree with your assertion that it was clear that there was something there with Eli that was not there with Sanchez, considering Sanchez seemed to step up his games in the playoffs and had at least decent playoff games, and a few good ones, while Eli sucked balls in both the regular season and playoffs.

 

You hate Sanchez on a personal level to something I have never seen before, and you are just not objective here at all.

 

I distinctly remember after the Buffalo game that they lucked out winning to make the playoffs that year, every Giants fan on the planet was completely done with Eli, every one.

 

I listed to WFAN for 24 hours straight on a road trip, and it made your Sanchez hatred look mild, and that is not easy.

 

I really dont' even want to get into this right now, the point is that even though you can, teams rarely give up on a highly drafted QB before a few years. Has it happened, yes, is it the norm or the exception? A heck of a lot closer to the exception than the norm.

 

IF they have the mentality that they are going to draft a QB in the first round, every damn year until they get a good/great one, I am all for it, take Smith if you like him, but I would not expect that to be the mentality at all.

 

You take a QB that high if you really think they are great (or if you are trying to sell tickets which would be my fear).

 

If you really think they are great, you are not going to give up on them after one year no matter how bad they look, I don't recall ever seeing a team draft a QB in say the top 15 of the whole draft, and be convinced they were not good enough and draft another one the next year.

 

If you can give me one example of that, I will admit to being wrong.

[JFtoLong]

Ask yourself why these franchises were set back.  The answer all has to do with the economics of the pick.  They are forced to "make it work" because of the money invested and the lack of available space to find a suitable replacement.  The point of my post is that that condition no longer exists.  Please explain to me why a team would be "married" to a guy picked in the mid first round in this draft other than some arbitrary feeling of owing it to him.  If the guy can't play, bring in someone else that can.  If he takes longer to develop, give him the time and if you already have someone else, trade him.  When you think about it you will see that I was not "severely flawed" in my thinking.

 

Are you serious?

 

How long did Vernon Gholston get?

 

High draft picks get time because a first round pick is such a valuable commodity, period. Look at how teams value these draft picks before they even have a player, they are one of the highest valued posessions a franchise has outside of a franchise QB.

 

Teams never give up on high draft picks after one year, never.

 

To me, this would be less of an issue if next year was not projected to be a very good QB year, while this one sucks.

[neckdemon]

Your looking at one angle of this, and by far the LESS important angle.

 

While I agree that the financial side of it is not a big deal anymore, the mere fact that it takes different QB's different amounts of time to develop is much more important.

 

Take Eli and Sanchez, and even through in Alex Smithl

 

Eli in year 4 regular season was considered a huge bust, now he is a future hall of famer.

 

Sanchez is going into year 5 as a colossal bust, and has set this franchise back a very long time.

 

Smith was a huge bust, who is now considered to be a good QB (not by me)

 

You cannot give up on a  high drafted QB early, that is the issue. It often costs GM's and HC's their jobs when a highly drafted QB fails, which leads to new regimes, and setbacks.

 

Your point is severley flawed.

 

 

the thing is you can do it now and not kill your cap. used to be that you couldnt do it because the contracts were so damn high that you HAD to stick with them because you couldnt cut them and afford a replacement that was worth a damn. my problem with it is that you wasted a draft pick if you miss with a boom or bust type qb.

[JFtoLong]

the thing is you can do it now and not kill your cap. used to be that you couldnt do it because the contracts were so damn high that you HAD to stick with them because you couldnt cut them and afford a replacement that was worth a damn. my problem with it is that you wasted a draft pick if you miss with a boom or bust type qb.

 

I don't disagree at all, but I think the cap is less of a factor than a franchise being wrong on a high draft pick, especially a QB.

 

Jets had a huge bust with Gohlston high in the draft, and a few years later were in the AFCC game for the second time (a lot of luck involved)

 

Jets had a huge bust with Sanchez high in the draft, and a few years later are an absolute disaster.

 

 

Neither situation is attributed directly to those players, but they both contributed.

 

If Sanchez was a decent, serviceable starter, the outlook on this team right now would be very, very different.

 

 

If there is one thing history has proven, it is that if you are wrong on a QB, it is a huge setback, and IMO that is much less about salary cap than it is about lost years, and regime changes that are inevitable when you miss on a high QB.

[Stonehands]

Are you serious?

 

How long did Vernon Gholston get?

 

High draft picks get time because a first round pick is such a valuable commodity, period. Look at how teams value these draft picks before they even have a player, they are one of the highest valued posessions a franchise has outside of a franchise QB.

 

Teams never give up on high draft picks after one year, never.

 

To me, this would be less of an issue if next year was not projected to be a very good QB year, while this one sucks.

 

Did you read the initial post?  The salary slotting is different now. Vernon Gholston signed a 5 year $50 million deal with $21 million in guaranteed money.  Again, that does not happen any more and you could move this year's Vernon Gholston on quickly, too.

[neckdemon]

I don't disagree at all, but I think the cap is less of a factor than a franchise being wrong on a high draft pick, especially a QB.

 

Jets had a huge bust with Gohlston high in the draft, and a few years later were in the AFCC game for the second time (a lot of luck involved)

 

Jets had a huge bust with Sanchez high in the draft, and a few years later are an absolute disaster.

 

 

Neither situation is attributed directly to those players, but they both contributed.

 

If Sanchez was a decent, serviceable starter, the outlook on this team right now would be very, very different.

 

 

If there is one thing history has proven, it is that if you are wrong on a QB, it is a huge setback, and IMO that is much less about salary cap than it is about lost years, and regime changes that are inevitable when you miss on a high QB.

 

 

well yeah thats part of the wasted draft pick angle. teams tend to stick with a bust qb longer than other positions because it is accepted that the qb position is one that has the stigma of taking more grooming and experience to play well at. unless ur talking about the peyton mannings and dan marinos of the world, but they are few and far between. its like you said....no team wants to be th eones that let an elite qb go a year or 2 too early and then watch him win 2 superbowls

[Stonehands]

Teams never give up on high draft picks after one year, never.

 

The new salary slotting has only been like this for a short period of time.  Let's see what teams do going forward.  Cleveland seems to be already moving on from Brandon Wheeden in year number 2.  I think you will see it done more and more.

[slats]

If you really think they are great, you are not going to give up on them after one year no matter how bad they look, I don't recall ever seeing a team draft a QB in say the top 15 of the whole draft, and be convinced they were not good enough and draft another one the next year.

 

If you can give me one example of that, I will admit to being wrong.

 

The new CBA is still new, but I think you'll see examples in the near future. The Browns potentially taking a QB high this year after taking Weedon last year is an example. If the Jets took a QB at #9 this year, and he played to a level that helped get Rex fired, you don't think the GM would consider another high pick on a QB with his new coach?

 

Jets had a huge bust with Sanchez high in the draft, and a few years later are an absolute disaster.

 

Hard to call Sanchez a bust when the kid got to the AFC Championship game his first two years in the league. Right or wrong, the Jets had a reason to stick with him beyond his draft status.

 

They bungled the entire QB position, though. That's a big reason Tannenbaum got fired. Not just Sanchez and his contract extension, but Tebow, having no other veteran presence worth a snap, etc. Total botch job. If they picked up Matt Moore before he got to the Dolphins, things would be better here. At least they'd have one guy on the roster who could sorta play QB.

[JFtoLong]

Did you read the initial post?  The salary slotting is different now. Vernon Gholston signed a 5 year $50 million deal with $21 million in guaranteed money.  Again, that does not happen any more and you could move this year's Vernon Gholston on quickly, too.

 

Oh I read it, I just think it is one factor, and not the biggest factor.

 

The only thing worse than being wrong on a high draft pick for a HC/GM is giving up on a high draft pick and having them become successful elsewhere.

 

You are completely ignoring the fear factor.

 

And your argument is flawed, because not every team, every year has cap issues. Plenty of teams with plenty of cap room hold onto high draft pick busts just as often as teams with no cap room.

 

Im not saying things wont change a bit, they will, but teams will still not be quick to give up on high draft picks regardless of the cap implications, and ecpecially not at the QB position.

[JFtoLong]

well yeah thats part of the wasted draft pick angle. teams tend to stick with a bust qb longer than other positions because it is accepted that the qb position is one that has the stigma of taking more grooming and experience to play well at. unless ur talking about the peyton mannings and dan marinos of the world, but they are few and far between. its like you said....no team wants to be th eones that let an elite qb go a year or 2 too early and then watch him win 2 superbowls

 

Exactly

[neckdemon]

The new CBA is still new, but I think you'll see examples in the near future. The Browns potentially taking a QB high this year after taking Weedon last year is an example. If the Jets took a QB at #9 this year, and he played to a level that helped get Rex fired, you don't think the GM would consider another high pick on a QB with his new coach?

 

 

Hard to call Sanchez a bust when the kid got to the AFC Championship game his first two years in the league. Right or wrong, the Jets had a reason to stick with him beyond his draft status.

 

They bungled the entire QB position, though. That's a big reason Tannenbaum got fired. Not just Sanchez and his contract extension, but Tebow, having no other veteran presence worth a snap, etc. Total botch job. If they picked up Matt Moore before he got to the Dolphins, things would be better here. At least they'd have one guy on the roster who could sorta play QB.

 

 

the tebow thing was a joke. and now they are trying beyond try to get someone to give them anything, even a bag of cheetos, to save face. sometimes you just have to show ur busted flush draw and say...yeah i fished and lost

[JFtoLong]

The new CBA is still new, but I think you'll see examples in the near future. The Browns potentially taking a QB high this year after taking Weedon last year is an example. If the Jets took a QB at #9 this year, and he played to a level that helped get Rex fired, you don't think the GM would consider another high pick on a QB with his new coach?

 

 

Hard to call Sanchez a bust when the kid got to the AFC Championship game his first two years in the league. Right or wrong, the Jets had a reason to stick with him beyond his draft status.

 

They bungled the entire QB position, though. That's a big reason Tannenbaum got fired. Not just Sanchez and his contract extension, but Tebow, having no other veteran presence worth a snap, etc. Total botch job. If they picked up Matt Moore before he got to the Dolphins, things would be better here. At least they'd have one guy on the roster who could sorta play QB.

 

IF the Browns take a QB in the first round tonight, that will SORT of be the first example, but I still say that with a new GM/HC all bets are off. The new GM actually has some incentive to draft a QB, because it buys them some time to see if the new QB develops.

 

I thought even up until last year the Jets had to stick with Sanchez given where they drafted him, and his playoff success his first two years. No need for the stupid extension, but they had to stick with him.

 

All I am saying is that you don't ever see a QB taken in the first round on consecutive years, and the new CBA is nowhere near at the top of the list for reasons for that.

 

I would hate to draft one high this year, and not draft one next year and have this years high draft pick be a bust, it would be a big setback.

[JFtoLong]

the tebow thing was a joke. and now they are trying beyond try to get someone to give them anything, even a bag of cheetos, to save face. sometimes you just have to show ur busted flush draw and say...yeah i fished and lost

 

Hey, Cheetos are pretty good. I think they would be happy to get pringles with that olestra stuff in it that says on the carton that you can get loose stools! YUK!

[Strangefunk]

I think you can parlay #9 and #13 into great trade back picks that could land you a late first round/early second round QB or take a chance and hope Dysert lasts until the 4th/5th round.

[jack48]

I strongly disagree with your assertion that it was clear that there was something there with Eli that was not there with Sanchez, considering Sanchez seemed to step up his games in the playoffs and had at least decent playoff games, and a few good ones, while Eli sucked balls in both the regular season and playoffs.

 

You hate Sanchez on a personal level to something I have never seen before, and you are just not objective here at all.

 

I distinctly remember after the Buffalo game that they lucked out winning to make the playoffs that year, every Giants fan on the planet was completely done with Eli, every one.

 

I listed to WFAN for 24 hours straight on a road trip, and it made your Sanchez hatred look mild, and that is not easy.

 

I really dont' even want to get into this right now, the point is that even though you can, teams rarely give up on a highly drafted QB before a few years. Has it happened, yes, is it the norm or the exception? A heck of a lot closer to the exception than the norm.

 

IF they have the mentality that they are going to draft a QB in the first round, every damn year until they get a good/great one, I am all for it, take Smith if you like him, but I would not expect that to be the mentality at all.

 

You take a QB that high if you really think they are great (or if you are trying to sell tickets which would be my fear).

 

If you really think they are great, you are not going to give up on them after one year no matter how bad they look, I don't recall ever seeing a team draft a QB in say the top 15 of the whole draft, and be convinced they were not good enough and draft another one the next year.

 

If you can give me one example of that, I will admit to being wrong.

 

Well, Sanchez' success in the playoffs was entirely due to the play action he was afforded by the Jets killer post season running game.  The minute that went, he went.  The second half against Indy, he sucked.  His success against Pitt came after he fell way behind, and they loosened up their secondary.  Eli stood in the pocket and made big plays under pressure.  Sancho was not doing that.  Everything was scripted to minimum risk for him.  He did not take the Jets anywhere.  They took him.

[neckdemon]

IF the Browns take a QB in the first round tonight, that will SORT of be the first example, but I still say that with a new GM/HC all bets are off. The new GM actually has some incentive to draft a QB, because it buys them some time to see if the new QB develops.

 

I thought even up until last year the Jets had to stick with Sanchez given where they drafted him, and his playoff success his first two years. No need for the stupid extension, but they had to stick with him.

 

All I am saying is that you don't ever see a QB taken in the first round on consecutive years, and the new CBA is nowhere near at the top of the list for reasons for that.

 

I would hate to draft one high this year, and not draft one next year and have this years high draft pick be a bust, it would be a big setback.

 

 

sticking with sanchez last year isnt what got tanny fired....it was the god-awful extension he gave to him after manning laughed at us

 

tanny had just gotten laughed at in front of everyone when he asked the prom queen to dance so he ran home and asked a fat girl to marry him

[Lurking Troll]

The question is do you use a 1st round draft choice on a QB, in a draft where there are no QBs worthy of being drafted in the 1st round, just because they are affordable?

[stoicsentry]

It's not all that black & white.  When a guy is high priced and sucks you stick with him a lot longer.  Eli was not nearly the bust that Sanchez was, even though his numbers were hardly super (putting it kindly).  Sanchez's bad isn't just the straight numbers.  Even with his stinko throws and foolishness like throwing a red zone pick with his left hand, you could tell Eli had something that Sanchez doesn't

Really? You and who else? His 1st superbowl year (think it was year 4 for Eli), he looked hopelessly lost. He had games where he looked like THE worst QB in the entire league.

 

Even if you look at his final stats that year (2007), they were dreadful for a 4th year QB: 23 TD's/20 INT's/6.3 YA/73.9 QBR, 13 fumbles (I think 9 were lost, couldn't find that stat.)

 

Yikes.

 

Sanchez 2nd and 3rd seasons were comparable to Eli's 4th, it's just that his 4th was just pathetic. Of course it doesn't help when the only receiving threat you have on the field in every game is Jeremy Kerley.

[JFtoLong]

Well, Sanchez' success in the playoffs was entirely due to the play action he was afforded by the Jets killer post season running game.  The minute that went, he went.  The second half against Indy, he sucked.  His success against Pitt came after he fell way behind, and they loosened up their secondary.  Eli stood in the pocket and made big plays under pressure.  Sancho was not doing that.  Everything was scripted to minimum risk for him.

 

Whatever, I don't feel like arguing this stupid bs again. Eli looked like more of a bust in year 3 than Sanchez did, he lucked into a SB in year 4, and now is going to be a HOF'er. The point of this whole argument is that you don't draft a high QB two years in a row, it never has happened before.

[JFtoLong]

sticking with sanchez last year isnt what got tanny fired....it was the god-awful extension he gave to him after manning laughed at us

 

tanny had just gotten laughed at in front of everyone when he asked the prom queen to dance so he ran home and asked a fat girl to marry him

 

Tanny got fired for many reasons, that was clearly one of them. I think he really got fired because he executed Rex's plan, and the franchise is a sh!t show because of it.

 

I have and will argue until I am blue in the face that Tanny was not the architect, he was the business guy carrying out Rex's architecture. It's pretty clear, right to Rex's #6 tattoo and all the CB's that Rex insisted on.

 

Rex should have been out the door with Tanny, it's a joke that, that moron is still here.

[JFtoLong]

Really? You and who else? His 1st superbowl year (think it was year 4 for Eli), he looked hopelessly lost. He had games where he looked like THE worst QB in the entire league.

 

Even if you look at his final stats that year (2007), they were dreadful for a 4th year QB: 23 TD's/20 INT's/6.3 YA/73.9 QBR, 13 fumbles (I think 9 were lost, couldn't find that stat.)

 

Yikes.

 

Sanchez 2nd and 3rd seasons were comparable to Eli's 4th, it's just that his 4th was just pathetic. Of course it doesn't help when the only receiving threat you have on the field in every game is Jeremy Kerley.

 

Your right on the money, but the irrational personal hatred of Sanchez by Jets fans makes them distort the facts to fit their hatred.

 

It's really idiotic.

[stoicsentry]

Your right on the money, but the irrational personal hatred of Sanchez by Jets fans makes them distort the facts to fit their hatred.

 

It's really idiotic.

 

I'm not even trying to defend Sanchez, that's the thing, I couldn't care less about him as a player. I'm just being honest and realistic. To accept the hyperbole around here you would have to believe he has effectively 0% chance of ever becoming something, and that's just not true. And we had an offensive lineup that people were already whining about going into the season, and then on top of that 3 of your top 4 weapons in Holmes, Keller and Hill all missed either half the season or even most of it. He was putrid and I'm not saying give him a pass, I just wonder what the reasonable ceiling was when you're bringing WR's in off the streets every week.

 

So that's why I would focus almost exclusively on offense this year. I trust Rex to coach up the defense. But we need to give Sanchez every weapon we can this year. Get him a WR, a RB and a TE, maybe a G as well. If worst comes to worst and you have to part ways with him, at least you will have a competent offense in place for his future successor.

[Sperm Edwards]

I strongly disagree with your assertion that it was clear that there was something there with Eli that was not there with Sanchez, considering Sanchez seemed to step up his games in the playoffs and had at least decent playoff games, and a few good ones, while Eli sucked balls in both the regular season and playoffs.

 

You hate Sanchez on a personal level to something I have never seen before, and you are just not objective here at all.

 

I distinctly remember after the Buffalo game that they lucked out winning to make the playoffs that year, every Giants fan on the planet was completely done with Eli, every one.

 

I listed to WFAN for 24 hours straight on a road trip, and it made your Sanchez hatred look mild, and that is not easy.

 

I really dont' even want to get into this right now, the point is that even though you can, teams rarely give up on a highly drafted QB before a few years. Has it happened, yes, is it the norm or the exception? A heck of a lot closer to the exception than the norm.

 

IF they have the mentality that they are going to draft a QB in the first round, every damn year until they get a good/great one, I am all for it, take Smith if you like him, but I would not expect that to be the mentality at all.

 

You take a QB that high if you really think they are great (or if you are trying to sell tickets which would be my fear).

 

If you really think they are great, you are not going to give up on them after one year no matter how bad they look, I don't recall ever seeing a team draft a QB in say the top 15 of the whole draft, and be convinced they were not good enough and draft another one the next year.

 

If you can give me one example of that, I will admit to being wrong.

 

Sanchez's playoff prowess has turned into something of mythical proportions.  He had a couple of good games.  The rest was our defense taking care of business.  When the defense made Sanchez become the reason for the win, he failed.  The way the playoffs were talked about now you'd think he had a string of 400 yard / 4 TD games.

 

And as it turned out, I was 100% correct on Sanchez.  He is awful.  He even sends Jeff Garcia out to whine to the media on his behalf like some media bodyguard.  Those Giants fans you speak of never saw a Buffalo game like we saw out of Sanchez.  Losing a game when your defense is beating up the opponent and your RBs rush for over 320 yards? That is impossibly incompetent.  And Eli - however overrated as he is anyway - is just flat-out more talented than Sanchez.  He was a better prospect coming out of school and in between his garbage performances he showed a lot more than Sanchez whose throws look bad on most of his completed passes.

 

I can't see 100% giving up on a QB (or a player at any position) after 1 year if he's drafted that high.  Exceptions being for guys with off-field problems like that dumbass in Detroit.  I'm not advocating taking a QB in round 1 or 2 in back to back years.  But teams take a shot on another QB right after taking one very high.  Look at Washington exactly one year ago in the 2012 draft.  What's more, it seems to have been a better move in hindsight than it was at the time (even though RGIII's injury risk was the very reason for drafting Cousins so high in the same draft).

 

Teams have given up on their high pick QBs before and gone with a subsequent draft pick really fast.  It's not common, usually because the teams want to believe in something that isn't there, or because the GM feels his job depends on that QB panning out, but it's happened.  Ironically the other time off the top of my head was with the same team (Washington).  Drafted Shuler 2nd in the country.  Drafted Frerotte in like the 7th round of the same draft.  Shuler was total garbage and Frerotte was the starting QB by year 2 and they were right to give up on Shuler.  If Frerotte wasn't already on the roster I have little doubt Washington would have drafted another at some point in the next draft because Shuler was so bad that Sanchez looks like a HOFer in comparison.  And he was the #2 overall draft pick.

 

Typically a team doesn't draft someone that high and then draft another the following year.  What they generally will do if someone is that bad is bring in a veteran who could actually still play (which the Jets didn't do).  Bolts drafted Leaf, probably already knew he was a bust, and then brought in both Harbaugh and Kramer.  But they clearly gave up on Leaf after 1 year.  So did Washington with Shuler.  

 

But there are other reasons why.  I'm sure one of the main reasons it isn't done is if a team's scouts swung and missed so badly on a top 15 QB prospect, would you as a GM trust them to make another the following year? Probably not.  

 

Also not every QB is put on the field as a rookie.  Akili Smith only started a few games in 1999 (just a couple fewer than McNabb).  But when they gave him most of the following season, they knew before the next draft that he wasn't an NFL QB.  The next year (2001) they weren't going to get a shot at Vick because he was going #1 overall, and the next-best QB (Brees) would have been a massive reach at #4.  There really wasn't anyone else to draft so they went with Kitna, who they'd brought in, and went QB the next year (Carson Palmer).  But they totally gave up on Smith after 1 season starting.

 

Lastly, there is often a coaching change when that occurs.  A team drafting a QB that high is usually not too go to begin with.  If they take a QB that high and he puts up bust-worthy numbers, it's likely the team isn't too good that next season either and a change is made - either to the front office, the head coach, or both.  They may want to see what they've got first before they invest heavily on another high pick.

 

The current rookie salary structure makes this more possible than before.  If you take a shot on one of them you can better afford to miss than in the recent past prior to the current CBA.

[Sperm Edwards]

well yeah thats part of the wasted draft pick angle. teams tend to stick with a bust qb longer than other positions because it is accepted that the qb position is one that has the stigma of taking more grooming and experience to play well at. unless ur talking about the peyton mannings and dan marinos of the world, but they are few and far between. its like you said....no team wants to be th eones that let an elite qb go a year or 2 too early and then watch him win 2 superbowls

QB isn't that different in that regard.  When you bust on a DE like we did with Gholston, we didn't touch anyone in the front 7 for a few years.

 

Very few GMs will bust on someone and then go back to the well and try again at the same position.  Matt Millen and his 4 top 10 WRs in 5 years comes to mind.  At least he got it right the 4th time.

 

But teams who take someone that high stick with him because of the grooming/experience thing at almost every position.  Maybe RB is the only one where a top pick is somewhat universally expected to be beastly by year 2 at the latest to avoid the bust label.

[slats]

Tanny got fired for many reasons, that was clearly one of them. I think he really got fired because he executed Rex's plan, and the franchise is a sh!t show because of it.

 

I have and will argue until I am blue in the face that Tanny was not the architect, he was the business guy carrying out Rex's architecture. It's pretty clear, right to Rex's #6 tattoo and all the CB's that Rex insisted on.

 

Rex should have been out the door with Tanny, it's a joke that, that moron is still here.

 

 

Your right on the money, but the irrational personal hatred of Sanchez by Jets fans makes them distort the facts to fit their hatred.

 

It's really idiotic.

 

Big fan of the irrational personal hatred irony.