Draft Expectations: Using a top 5 pick on QB (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

If a team spends a top 5 pick on a franchise QB, what is the minimum performance that you would consider acceptable to justify the pick? Obviously, we would all want a Drew Brees, Peyton Manning level player but that we also know that they are incredibly rare. So what is the minimum expectation that makes a QB worth a top 5 pick? Let's not consider the players accomplishments, only their level of play. For example, Big Ben has 2 Super Bowls and Stafford has 0 playoff wins but that is also partly due to where they have played and the supporting cast. We aren't looking at wins, rings, etc. Just quality of their play. 

I tried to limit it to modern guys with at least 5 years of play experience so we know how they developed. 

 

[rockaction]

I clicked all of them. They probably have the wins above replacement to back that up. Not sure how you'd go about that, though. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

QBs that high really are boom or bust. Maybe WAR would be a better judge than SB wins, but I only see one of those on that list of many seasons.

 

[TartanLion]

I voted for Stafford and Ryan ( general level of play )and Flacco ( despite the fact I rate him as having never been very good, he still got hot at the right time and landed his team a super bowl ).

 

[Ilov80s]

I clicked all of them. They probably have the wins above replacement to back that up. Not sure how you'd go about that, though. 

Interesting- you seem to be in the minority there. I voted Ryan and Stafford as I think they have performed as top 12 QBs over their NFL time. The other guys just always seem to be middle of the pack at best. If I am spending a top 5 pick on a Tua or Burrow, I think I need them to at least out play 20 or so QBs most years. 

 

[fightingillini]

If spending a top 5 pick on a QB, I expect an average or better NFL QB.  Which means top 16 or so QBs.

Stafford and Ryan definitely meet that criteria.

Flacco, Cutler and Cousins are on the borderline  

The rest - no way.  Smith was for the most part a terrible NFL QB.  He did get better over time, but even then he was a below average NFL starter.  Winston has been a bust.  Dalton has been an average at best QB, but has a nice career to show for it.  Carr has always been one of the lowest 12 QBs in the league.

 

[Ilov80s]

If spending a top 5 pick on a QB, I expect an average or better NFL QB.  Which means top 16 or so QBs.

Stafford and Ryan definitely meet that criteria.

Flacco, Cutler and Cousins are on the borderline  

The rest - no way.  Smith was for the most part a terrible NFL QB.  He did get better over time, but even then he was a below average NFL starter.  Winston has been a bust.  Dalton has been an average at best QB, but has a nice career to show for it.  Carr has always been one of the lowest 12 QBs in the league.

Out of curiosity, how does that position change if we are talking a LT? DE? If you take a LT at pick 4, is it ok if he turns out to be a league average OT? If Washington takes Chase Young and he ends up as an average DE, was that pick worth it?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Out of curiosity, how does that position change if we are talking a LT? DE? If you take a LT at pick 4, is it ok if he turns out to be a league average OT? If Washington takes Chase Young and he ends up as an average DE, was that pick worth it?

I think the equation of positional value (QB being 1) x ranking among starters at that position. Or something like that.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the equation of positional value (QB being 1) x ranking among starters at that position. Or something like that.

Right, like you take a RB top 5 he pretty much has to be a Hall of Famer to begin to justify it. That makes sense 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Right, like you take a RB top 5 he pretty much has to be a Hall of Famer to begin to justify it. That makes sense 

Reminds me of the food pyramid.

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3679554/NFL_Pyramid.0.jpg

 

[Ilov80s]

Reminds me of the food pyramid.

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3679554/NFL_Pyramid.0.jpg

Not sure I totally agree with all the placement but yes that makes sense. Also, for different teams that could be slightly different. Also as the league changes, some position values fluctuate. The higher on the chart, the lower the draft expectations for a hit are. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Not sure I totally agree with all the placement but yes that makes sense. Also, for different teams that could be slightly different. Also as the league changes, some position values fluctuate. The higher on the chart, the lower the draft expectations for a hit are. 

Right. Here is a more traditional ranking, based somewhat on salary.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-position-importance-ranking-value-every-player-053117

 

[Ilov80s]

Right. Here is a more traditional ranking, based somewhat on salary.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-position-importance-ranking-value-every-player-053117

Yep- also for a homer moment here- it shows how Bob Quinn doesn't get it. The Lions have used their recent high value picks on TE, C, 2 ILBs, traded up in the 2nd for a RB.  

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Yep- also for a homer moment here- it shows how Bob Quinn doesn't get it. The Lions have used their recent high value picks on TE, C, 2 ILBs, traded up in the 2nd for a RB.  

Ironically he will probably take a CB #1 this time (an improvement), but still pass on a QB.

 

[Ilov80s]

Ironically he will probably take a CB #1 this time (an improvement), but still pass on a QB.

Give his track record, I expect another DT. 

 

[Apple Juice]

Give his track record, I expect another DT. 

Not to turn this into a Lions thread but I'm really starting to think the fans are going to revolt after this draft. Way more than in any time in recent memory. All we have to look forward to is the third pick in this draft, which couldn't be better in terms of available players and needy teams that should want to move up, and Quinn is going to dig his heels in and take somebody that nobody else in their right mind would. God I can't wait until Quinn and Patricia are outta here. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Not to turn this into a Lions thread but I'm really starting to think the fans are going to revolt after this draft. Way more than in any time in recent memory. All we have to look forward to is the third pick in this draft, which couldn't be better in terms of available players and needy teams that should want to move up, and Quinn is going to dig his heels in and take somebody that nobody else in their right mind would. God I can't wait until Quinn and Patricia are outta here. 

I hope not. Things seem set-up pretty nicely to trade back and still Okudah who almost at worst is the 3rd player on their board. 

 

[travdogg]

If the criteria is knowing what we know now, about how their careers turned out, I'd say Matt Ryan is a lock, and a case can be made for Stafford and maybe Cousins.

Right. Here is a more traditional ranking, based somewhat on salary.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-position-importance-ranking-value-every-player-053117

I personally rate positional value as:

Tier 1: QB, CB

Tier 2: WR, OT , EDGE , DI , Safety 

Tier 3: TE

Tier 4: Guard ,Center ,LB

Tier 5: RB 

Obviously there are outliers like Aaron Donald, Rob Gronkowski, Luke Kuechly, but assuming all players at those positions are an equal level of quality, that is the order I believe they effect the game in.

I think even as the league has become so pass heavy, CB is still somehow undervalued. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

If the criteria is knowing what we know now, about how their careers turned out, I'd say Matt Ryan is a lock, and a case can be made for Stafford and maybe Cousins.

I personally rate positional value as:

Tier 1: QB, CB

Tier 2: WR, OT , EDGE , DI , Safety 

Tier 3: TE

Tier 4: Guard ,Center ,LB

Tier 5: RB 

Obviously there are outliers like Aaron Donald, Rob Gronkowski, Luke Kuechly, but assuming all players at those positions are an equal level of quality, that is the order I believe they effect the game in.

I think even as the league has become so pass heavy, CB is still somehow undervalued. 

So the Ohio State CB would not be a reach at #3?

 

[jtd13]

I think if you are a good enough QB to advance in the playoffs with a solid but not amazing team around you, or bring an otherwise bad team to playoff contention, you are worth the pick. I think those guys on the list are Stafford, Ryan, Cousins, Cutler, Flacco. I didn't really think of my definition until after i voted, so I really only voted for the current starters: Stafford, Ryan, Cousins. 

 

[travdogg]

So the Ohio State CB would not be a reach at #3?

I think there is a legit argument for Okudah over Chase Young. But I'm also a huge Okudah fan, I think over the last 5 drafts, only Jalen Ramsey was a better CB prospect than Okudah.

 

[Conan Troutman]

I only chose Ryan , though Stafford was close and Flacco had that magical playoff run (and it's not like the team carried him, he did play lights out for those couple of games), which arguably would justify the pick despite his performance since. There's always a couple blue chip prospects out there who, in the last decade or so, have way outperformed the QBs taken in the top 5. Plus, the position is actually relatively deep league wide, so investing a lot of draft capital (even if you don't move up, you could've moved down) for a bit above league average doesn't sound all that appealing. 

 

[wgoldsph]

Wasn't cousins a late pick?

 

[huthut]

Voted for Ryan and Stafford. Cousins is borderline, but I think ultimately you would be disappointed with his production in a top 5 pick. Smith is odd because we will never know how he would have turned out of he was not on that disaster of a SF team for so long.

 

[Ilov80s]

Wasn't cousins a late pick?

Yes, some of them weren't top 5 picks.  I am just saying quality of play and career. If the Bengals looked into their crystal ball at Burrow and could see that he would provide Cousins quality of play as an NFL QB, would they still pull the trigger? Is Cousins level of play at QB worth a top 5 pick?

 

[Ilov80s]

Voted for Ryan and Stafford. Cousins is borderline, but I think ultimately you would be disappointed with his production in a top 5 pick. Smith is odd because we will never know how he would have turned out of he was not on that disaster of a SF team for so long.

Played well in KC for that year. He had some good seasons, much like Dalton in that there has been some relative highs but ultimately teams felt ready to move on from. Smith probably has a better argument since Dalton actually has been surrounded at times with pretty good talent. 

 

[travdogg]

Yes, some of them weren't top 5 picks.  I am just saying quality of play and career. If the Bengals looked into their crystal ball at Burrow and could see that he would provide Cousins quality of play as an NFL QB, would they still pull the trigger? Is Cousins level of play at QB worth a top 5 pick?

I think the Bengals would be extremely disappointed if Burrow was only Cousins good, even if Cousins was worthy of a top-5 pick. #1 is entirely different than top-5 in my opinion. 

Hypothetically, if the Bengals knew Burrow would be a Cousins type, then I think that pick is traded, because Burrow would fetch a lot more than just a top-5 pick. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the Bengals would be extremely disappointed if Burrow was only Cousins good, even if Cousins was worthy of a top-5 pick. #1 is entirely different than top-5 in my opinion. 

Hypothetically, if the Bengals knew Burrow would be a Cousins type, then I think that pick is traded, because Burrow would fetch a lot more than just a top-5 pick. 

True. Maybe that's not the best way to think about it- especially with trades. That is another way of thinking about things though- if a team could get a 22 year old Kirk Cousins with rookie contract, how high of a pick would they give up? Would they give up 1.01? They might. 

 

[travdogg]

True. Maybe that's not the best way to think about it- especially with trades. That is another way of thinking about things though- if a team could get a 22 year old Kirk Cousins with rookie contract, how high of a pick would they give up? Would they give up 1.01? They might. 

I'd say no to a 22 year old Cousins at 1.1. 22 year old Matt Ryan, I think a team absolutely would do.

 

[huthut]

Played well in KC for that year. He had some good seasons, much like Dalton in that there has been some relative highs but ultimately teams felt ready to move on from. Smith probably has a better argument since Dalton actually has been surrounded at times with pretty good talent. 

Right, I was saying he is uncertain because he was looking pretty good at the end of his career, but it is hard to extrapolate how good he would have become if he did not end up in a terrible situation. If he was a top 5 pick and ended up somewhere with a good coach he might have been worth it. The mid 2000 49ers? No one could survive that.

 

[ZWK]

If Alex Smith had cost the Chiefs the #5 pick of the draft, and played his 5 seasons in KC on a rookie contract plus a 5th year option, that would've been a solid use of the pick.

(Unfortunately I voted before thinking and didn't select Smith in the poll.)

 

[The Dude]

I think with a 5 years of play behind these guys, you have to have a playoff win to validate the pick.

 

[rockaction]

I think it really comes down to non-positional WAR, and I'm not sure how you do that in football, actually. I think travdogg's pyramid was about right in that he's got CB over EDGE, which the article and pyramid Leroy linked to had as about the same. PFF and Belichick both believe defenses start from coverage in the back, and I'm willing to cede authority to Belichick and numbers to PFF. Plus, it's confirmation bias as I've always believed that.

So there you go. I still think all quarterbacks listed deserve top 5 picks because they've meant more in absolute wins to their teams than just positional WAR. In other words, you can't replace or compare a LB with a QB. Just not in the matrix of things that can happen statistically. But we do know that every year teams just to get a QB because of how important the position is.

 

[travdogg]

I think it really comes down to non-positional WAR, and I'm not sure how you do that in football, actually. I think travdogg's pyramid was about right in that he's got CB over EDGE, which the article and pyramid Leroy linked to had as about the same. PFF and Belichick both believe defenses start from coverage in the back, and I'm willing to cede authority to Belichick and numbers to PFF. Plus, it's confirmation bias as I've always believed that.

So there you go. I still think all quarterbacks listed deserve top 5 picks because they've meant more in absolute wins to their teams than just positional WAR. In other words, you can't replace or compare a LB with a QB. Just not in the matrix of things that can happen statistically. But we do know that every year teams just to get a QB because of how important the position is.

John Harbaugh and Joey Bosa agree. Bosa had a great line that really gave me some of that confirmation bias, after NE beat the Chargers in the divisional round 2 years ago. He was asked about his performance, and he said that he and Ingram had the best games they played all season. The reporter was puzzled as they combined for 3 tackles and 0 sacks, in a game the defense gave up 41 points. Bosa continued and said, one of us beat our guy every single play, and it simply didn't matter. We'd get there in under 2 seconds, and the ball was already out(Edelman and White combined for 24 catches for 248 yards in that game) it was so frustrating, so you'd try even harder to get there faster and then they'd run right where we were(Michel had 129-3) so we played our butts off, and it meant nothing. I thought that was a telling statement in the coverage/pass rush debate, as well as another debate that sacks are arguably more a QB stat than an OL stat, but that is another discussion. 

I think the WAR thing with the QB position is perhaps a dangerous way to look at it. I do believe QB is the most important spot, but as far as WAR ratings are concerned QB's are so responsible for teams win/loss record, that pretty much any 16 game starter will have a rating that exceeds their value. I'm sure Jameis Winston was a top-25 WAR guy last year, just by virtue of 16 starts, but I'd very much argue a guy like Richard Sherman helped his team more than Winston helped his, even though, Winston's performance was more important to his team's success. 

I think, that while QB is the most important position, it is often a mistake to overvalue middling/lower end starters. I think that is kind of QB purgatory, which is what Flacco, Dalton, and maybe Carr represent to me. I think all 3 of those teams would have been better off getting out after their rookie deals expired. 

Along those same lines, i think if I ran an NFL team, I would draft a QB every year, regardless of whether I needed one or not. Not highly mind you, but on day 3, why not? Worst case, you end up cutting a day 3 pick, which happens all over the board. Best case you find a Prescott or Brady(long shot) or a cheap solid backup who you can maybe trade after a couple years(Cousins, Brissett, maybe Minshew) especially when you look at what proven backup QB's(like Case Keenum) cost. I think that also allows you to have a guy(s) in your system for a couple years, so you aren't completely screwed if your starter goes down.

 

[rockaction]

John Harbaugh and Joey Bosa agree. Bosa had a great line that really gave me some of that confirmation bias, after NE beat the Chargers in the divisional round 2 years ago. He was asked about his performance, and he said that he and Ingram had the best games they played all season. The reporter was puzzled as they combined for 3 tackles and 0 sacks, in a game the defense gave up 41 points. Bosa continued and said, one of us beat our guy every single play, and it simply didn't matter. We'd get there in under 2 seconds, and the ball was already out(Edelman and White combined for 24 catches for 248 yards in that game) it was so frustrating, so you'd try even harder to get there faster and then they'd run right where we were(Michel had 129-3) so we played our butts off, and it meant nothing. I thought that was a telling statement in the coverage/pass rush debate, as well as another debate that sacks are arguably more a QB stat than an OL stat, but that is another discussion. 

I think the WAR thing with the QB position is perhaps a dangerous way to look at it. I do believe QB is the most important spot, but as far as WAR ratings are concerned QB's are so responsible for teams win/loss record, that pretty much any 16 game starter will have a rating that exceeds their value. I'm sure Jameis Winston was a top-25 WAR guy last year, just by virtue of 16 starts, but I'd very much argue a guy like Richard Sherman helped his team more than Winston helped his, even though, Winston's performance was more important to his team's success. 

I think, that while QB is the most important position, it is often a mistake to overvalue middling/lower end starters. I think that is kind of QB purgatory, which is what Flacco, Dalton, and maybe Carr represent to me. I think all 3 of those teams would have been better off getting out after their rookie deals expired. 

Along those same lines, i think if I ran an NFL team, I would draft a QB every year, regardless of whether I needed one or not. Not highly mind you, but on day 3, why not? Worst case, you end up cutting a day 3 pick, which happens all over the board. Best case you find a Prescott or Brady(long shot) or a cheap solid backup who you can maybe trade after a couple years(Cousins, Brissett, maybe Minshew) especially when you look at what proven backup QB's(like Case Keenum) cost. I think that also allows you to have a guy(s) in your system for a couple years, so you aren't completely screwed if your starter goes down.

I remember that game NE played against the Chargers. The Chargers played zone all game, though, so maybe that's not the best representation of true man-to-man coverage which you'd hopefully get out of top corners. That said, what what Bosa said afterward can't really be overstated. The line needs some time to get there and make a play, and if they're really leaving early they can be run directly at.

As for the QB stuff, I guess maybe I'm overstating the case, but replacement level to me always meant (and to the guys in SABR, IIRC) what the best backup could do, not what was the average player's stats. Maybe I'm wrong about this. I'm thinking what the 33rd player could do...

Regardless, maybe my logic is a bit faulty, but I'd still like to see whether QBs aren't worth it relative to another position to merit those top five tries every year.

Going to you last point, I agree and think teams should pick a QB every year just to see. Where or how that should happen leaves room for debate, but every year should see a new guy considering what happens to the other guys (they get cut). On the other hand, I'd love to chart the success rates of GM that trade what they believe to be overrated players (I'm lookin' at you, Gettleman) for fifth-rounders. That's a bit of hubris unless dealing with cap issues. But that's an aside. Back to the top five QBs.

 

[Snorkelson]

If Alex Smith had cost the Chiefs the #5 pick of the draft, and played his 5 seasons in KC on a rookie contract plus a 5th year option, that would've been a solid use of the pick.

(Unfortunately I voted before thinking and didn't select Smith in the poll.)

Alex Smith came in and tried really hard not to make any mistakes. Then when Kap came along, that was the difference he offered- steady leadership and game manager while kap offered an exciting upside. He was the same way in KC until they drafted Mahomes, then he actually pushed the ball and took chances and suddenly looked unstoppable. 

As a lions fan looking at stafford, I know the laundry list of garbage qbs we marched through since our last playoff win (and before) so at the very least he’s made football in Detroit watchable. Top 5 pick back then meant salary cap purgatory. So was he worth a top 5 pick with no playoff wins to show for it? I don’t know, I really appreciate what he’s done and his competitiveness, but his contract has started off big and he’s made a ton of money compared to a top 5 pick contract these days. I’d absolutely take his first 5 years on a rookie contract now. I wonder what % of his career wins have been 4th quarter comebacks?

Edit: by some quick math I’ve come up with 36.7% of his wins have been 4th quarter comebacks.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

As a lions fan looking at stafford, I know the laundry list of garbage qbs we marched through since our last playoff win (and before) so at the very least he’s made football in Detroit watchable. Top 5 pick back then meant salary cap purgatory. So was he worth a top 5 pick with no playoff wins to show for it? I don’t know, I really appreciate what he’s done and his competitiveness, but his contract has started off big and he’s made a ton of money compared to a top 5 pick contract these days. I’d absolutely take his first 5 years on a rookie contract now. I wonder what % of his career wins have been 4th quarter comebacks?

Edit: by some quick math I’ve come up with 36.7% of his wins have been 4th quarter comebacks.

Which leads to his off quoted stats concerning playoff wins and the overlap of beating good teams on the road. Good teams at home don't lose very often when they have the lead in the 4th quarter.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I think the WAR thing with the QB position is perhaps a dangerous way to look at it. I do believe QB is the most important spot, but as far as WAR ratings are concerned QB's are so responsible for teams win/loss record, that pretty much any 16 game starter will have a rating that exceeds their value. I'm sure Jameis Winston was a top-25 WAR guy last year, just by virtue of 16 starts, but I'd very much argue a guy like Richard Sherman helped his team more than Winston helped his, even though, Winston's performance was more important to his team's success. 

I think, that while QB is the most important position, it is often a mistake to overvalue middling/lower end starters. I think that is kind of QB purgatory, which is what Flacco, Dalton, and maybe Carr represent to me. I think all 3 of those teams would have been better off getting out after their rookie deals expired. 

Along those same lines, i think if I ran an NFL team, I would draft a QB every year, regardless of whether I needed one or not. Not highly mind you, but on day 3, why not? Worst case, you end up cutting a day 3 pick, which happens all over the board. Best case you find a Prescott or Brady(long shot) or a cheap solid backup who you can maybe trade after a couple years(Cousins, Brissett, maybe Minshew) especially when you look at what proven backup QB's(like Case Keenum) cost. I think that also allows you to have a guy(s) in your system for a couple years, so you aren't completely screwed if your starter goes down.

I think this is a pretty good way to think about it.  I think that the value graph is kind of a hockey stick wherein something like QB1-8 is a tier worth 6-8 regular season wins and 1-2 playoff wins, QB9-22 is a tier worth 2-4 regular season wins, QB23-38 is a tier worth 0-1 regular season wins (which is nothing to sneeze at if you can build a decent team around them).

So depending on which tier you can get someone from and what your team and goals are like are also part of the equation.  Also how you determine their median vs. top outcome and which you value more.  Maybe Jameis was worth the number 1 pick because if he hit, he would have been that special, whereas Flacoo probably never could have been, but might have had a better median outcome. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I think with a 5 years of play behind these guys, you have to have a playoff win to validate the pick.

I think we need to separate the player from their team. Do you think if you swap Flacco and Stafford, the Ravens never win a playoff game with Stafford and the Lions win a SB with Flacco?

 

[The Dude]

I think we need to separate the player from their team. Do you think if you swap Flacco and Stafford the Ravens never win a playoff game with Stafford and the Lions win a SB with Flacco?

I hear you but if I am trying to justify a top 5 pick I think playoff win is part of the criteria.  A top 5 pick should get you there

 

[cheese]

I think if you are a good enough QB to advance in the playoffs with a solid but not amazing team around you, or bring an otherwise bad team to playoff contention, you are worth the pick. I think those guys on the list are Stafford, Ryan, Cousins, Cutler, Flacco. I didn't really think of my definition until after i voted, so I really only voted for the current starters: Stafford, Ryan, Cousins. 

By your definition, Dalton took a 2011 Bengals team people thought would go 0-16 and made the playoffs 5 straight years. 
 

To the larger point, all draft classes are not equal and the draft capitol spent on QBs pretty much always is. As a result, you have bad teams picking non-elite QBs top 10 regularly (because they’re the best of the limited QB options) which skews the stats. I think the Bengals would be disappointed if Burrow was any of the list except Ryan, but I think the Rams would’ve been happy for Goff to turn into several of them for example. 

 

[Anarchy99]

Here is a link to the 25 QB's that were Top 5 picks drafted since 2000. People can poke around to consider whatever criteria they want from there.

That being said, the only players with a Career AV score of 100+ are:

Rivers - 145
Ryan - 135
Eli - 118
Palmer - 108
Newton - 106

Obviously, the longer someone plays the higher his score will be.

Eight QB's have been named to 3 or more Pro Bowls:

Rivers - 8
Ryan, Eli, Vick, Luck - 4
Palmer, Newton, Smith - 3

Only Ryan and Newton have been first team All Pro's.

Of those 25 players, 12 have winning records as a starter, 12 having losing records, and Eli is .500.

Games over .500:
- Ryan +29
- Smith +27.5
- Rivers +22
- Luck +20
- Newton +12.5
- Young +12
- Goff +10
- Vick +10
- Wentz +8
- Trubisky +5
- Palmer +3.4
- Sanchez +1

People can decide on their own what a decent ROI is for a Top 5 pick of any sort, but this is a bit of the recent roadmap as far as highly drafted QB's go.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Left off Dalton, Winston, and Cutler.  Winston could fix that in time though.

The question to me is would you rather have Derek Carr or the 5th best player that came from each draft.  The answer to me is yes.  Look at the 2014 draft.  Players I'd take over Carr - Donald, Beckham, Clowney.  That;s it,  Even if Mack is added, Carr is still the 5th most important player.  QB just matters more.

.

 

[travdogg]

Left off Dalton, Winston, and Cutler.  Winston could fix that in time though.

The question to me is would you rather have Derek Carr or the 5th best player that came from each draft.  The answer to me is yes.  Look at the 2014 draft.  Players I'd take over Carr - Donald, Beckham, Clowney.  That;s it,  Even if Mack is added, Carr is still the 5th most important player.  QB just matters more.

.

I would argue neither Beckham or Clowney are the best player at their positions from that class. That would be Evans and Mack in my opinion.

That said, I can't totally disagree that Carr is right on that top-5 borderline due to positional value, like you said. That said, if a team is taking a QB top-5, I think Carr is the absolute floor or what they would be expecting to get.

 

[Ilov80s]

Left off Dalton, Winston, and Cutler.  Winston could fix that in time though.

The question to me is would you rather have Derek Carr or the 5th best player that came from each draft.  The answer to me is yes.  Look at the 2014 draft.  Players I'd take over Carr - Donald, Beckham, Clowney.  That;s it,  Even if Mack is added, Carr is still the 5th most important player.  QB just matters more.

.

Interesting way to look at it. Since QB is so important, you think even a C level QB is more valuable than the random top 5 non-QB pick? 
 

If you were the Dolphins and lets say Burrow goes #1, Chargers trade with Detroit at 3. The Dolphins are up there looking at Herbert, Okudah and Becton. The scouts all say Okudah is a future Pro Bowler, Becton will be a 10 year starter at LT and that Herbert will play like Derick Carr. Should the Dolphins GM go with Herbert over Okudah and Becton? Now of course scouts are wrong but just looking at those projections, is QB just that much more valuable? 

 

[Ilov80s]

Also I think because QB is so important and one of the few positions where ideally only one player ever plays the position (no subbing, packages, rest, 2nd QB on the field), that getting a bad QB or even a little below average QB is more detrimental long term than missing on a pass rusher or WR in the draft. Every year committed to a below average QB is a missed opportunity to find an above average QB. 

 

[Anarchy99]

Also I think because QB is so important and one of the few positions where ideally only one player ever plays the position (no subbing, packages, rest, 2nd QB on the field), that getting a bad QB or even a little below average QB is more detrimental long term than missing on a pass rusher or WR in the draft. Every year committed to a below average QB is a missed opportunity to find an above average QB. 

I think this one is a solid IT DEPENDS.  A team can mortgage the future to get a perceived stud QB but then surround him with below average skill players and a below average line and that won’t work out very well. Or a team can shore up the line and get decent skill players and still be competitive with an average QB. I don’t think there is a cut and dried answer and most of the teams that “earned” a high draft pick need a lot more help than a new QB. 

 

[need2know]

I think Flacco is terrible but he got hot and won a superbowl.  That makes him worthy of imo

Only others ones I voted were Stafford and Ryan. 

 

[Foosball God]

Reminds me of the food pyramid.

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3679554/NFL_Pyramid.0.jpg

Man, nobody likes Nickelback

 

[Anarchy99]

I posted this in the Stidham thread, since we were discussing drafting QBs. Not just Top 5 picks used on QB's.

Since 2000, here are the total number of first round picks used on QB by each NFL team:

4 - CLE, WAS
3 - BUF, DEN, JAX, NYJ, TEN, BAL
2 - ATL, ARI, CHI, DET, HOU, MIN, NYG, LAR, WAS
1 - CAR, CIN, GB, IND, KC, LAC, MIA, PHI, PIT, OAK, SF
0 - DAL, NE, NO, SEA

Here is a list by team of all QBs drafted in that time that went on to start 25 or more NFL regular season games:

4 - BAL, JAX, NE, NYJ
3 - ATL, BUF, CHI, CLE, DEN, LAR, MIN, WAS
2 - CIN, DAL, DET, HOU, LAC, MIA, OAK, PHI, SF, TB, TEN
1 - ARI, CAR, GB, IND, KC, NYG, NO, PIT, SEA

The point being, it is very difficult to draft a QB that will go on to start 25 regular season games, whether it be in the Top 5 overall picks or at any other point in the draft.