Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Rebuilding NFL teams (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
Boston
Footballguy
That is so easy to say on a message board...but if you are an HC or GM without big time job security you are not going to last long without a legit NFL QB...IMO it is quite simple...it comes down to talent evaluation...if a QB is there that you think is legit you take him...if you don't think he is legit you pass because forcing it never works but you absolutely do not pass on a QB if you have scouted him correctly and are sold on him...you will regret that.
One other thing...why is it assumed that if someone passes on a QB whoever else they take is guaranteed to be very good...that seems to be a given for those who think adding the QB last is the way to go.
Bottomline to me is this is not one-size-fits all...no one way is guaranteed to be a success and like we see with the Niners sometimes luck is involved but I do know if you do not have a good QB in the NFL there is a good chance you are paddling upstream...IMO I would draft a QB pretty much every year even if I had a big time starter...the position is just too important.
One other thing...why is it assumed that if someone passes on a QB whoever else they take is guaranteed to be very good...that seems to be a given for those who think adding the QB last is the way to go.
Bottomline to me is this is not one-size-fits all...no one way is guaranteed to be a success and like we see with the Niners sometimes luck is involved but I do know if you do not have a good QB in the NFL there is a good chance you are paddling upstream...IMO I would draft a QB pretty much every year even if I had a big time starter...the position is just too important.
In theory I would agree, that's the best approach but the one flaw is draft positioning.
If you build up the rest of the team with idea of dropping the QB in later it can become difficult to be in position to obtain the QB. Conversely if you find yourself drafting really high with a need and a chance to draft a QB you rate highly it's pretty hard to pass.
I think there is no real correct formula to build a team. I mean, get the best players and coaches is the formula, but beyond that, I don't feel there is a right or wrong way. I think teams can get the QB first and be fine and teams can do it OL, QB, WRs, and teams I think can even do it without having a very good QB if the defense and running game are good enough where the QB only has to make a handful of plays.
As an aside, I don't recall which GM it was (I wish I did) but they were asked about positional importance and team building and they said:
1. QB
2. EDGE
3. OT
4. CB
5. WR
6. DT
7. RB
8. LB
9. TE
10. G
11. C
12. S
That wasn't an end-all be-all list, but a general priority and money allocation list in the GMs opinion.
As an aside, I don't recall which GM it was (I wish I did) but they were asked about positional importance and team building and they said:
1. QB
2. EDGE
3. OT
4. CB
5. WR
6. DT
7. RB
8. LB
9. TE
10. G
11. C
12. S
That wasn't an end-all be-all list, but a general priority and money allocation list in the GMs opinion.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I’ve seen lots of young QBs ruined because of no OL
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Which recent super bowl team has built with that formula?
I don't disagree, but I've also seen bad young QBs fail behind great OLs, and great young QBs succeed behind bad OLs.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Yeah. Can't remember where exactly, but have heard this theory before. I think some of the former guys in the Miami front office talked about this. Basically their importance is based on how much they impact QB play.
I think there is a clear tier break after #5 (would flip WR and CB) and they are expensive. So my theory for team building is you want to draft those positions with your premium picks. You have to be realistic on QB classes, even if you need an upgrade there.
FairWarning
Footballguy
building the line before the qb, how about both SB teams this year?
rockaction
Footballguy
Purdy I get, but their line isn't that great without Trent Williams. But Patrick Mahomes? His line was good, but he'd have succeeded behind almost any line. See the Super Bowl where they had almost every guy missing on their offensive line and lost to Tampa even though Patrick was still making incredible throws while running for his life nearly every play.
FairWarning
Footballguy
The SF line isn’t that great, but Williams is, and they have great weapons. Few top 5 qb draft picks have the luxury of growing into the position. Hard telling how many teams Purdy would be great on, but he’s the perfect fit for SF.
In the Mahomes example, not having the line means they probably can’t run as well. Patrick can overcome that better than most, but it still limits a lot of what you can do.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I'm not entirely sure that's even accurate. Purdy was an wonderful accident, and the Chiefs were basically the top of the division for 5 years before Mahomes.
Unless these teams were on a 7 year plan using the stated method, in which case many of the guys drafted/signed weren't even around any more.
Seems simple enough, draft good players, re-sign your own good free agents, and fill holes in free agency.
Things tend to work out when you do that, but it's hard.
The order in which the positions are filled seems irrelevant if those things happen.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Oh yeah, also have a good coach. That also helps.
Avoid the Hue Jacksons of the world
Avoid the Hue Jacksons of the world
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I recall something like from Bill Polian perhaps? From the 90s or early 2000s.
I think its still decent although in today's NFL RB is likely lower on the list.
There have been changes with how teams value guards now also which is higher. Teams don't prioritize left side over right as much as they used to.
I think there is some merit to establishing offensive line before QB so that the team can better evaluate the QBs they do get along the way.
David Carr is an example I think of a QB who may have developed better than he did behind a poor offensive line.
On the flip side though if the offensive line is very good maybe that leads to skewed perspective on QB play that's too favorable to the QB although I agree this is where a team would prefer to be with a rookie QB. The best supporting cast around this player as possible for them to start on the right foot.
Browns as an expansion team did it this way and had excellent offensive line through most of Joe Thomas career with them but the QBs they added were not good enough to take advantage of that. Looking back on it Couch did have some good numbers as a QB prospect even compared to QBs today but it didn't work out for him.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
As far as KC and Mahomes I recall a season where they were starting journeymen linemen due to injuries and so on and they completely revamped most of their offensive line the following offseason.
It didn't seem to affect their offense as much as this might some teams because Mahomes is too good anyways. With a semi mobile QB teams may feel more free to focus on lineman run blocking abilities more.
I think this is hard to evaluate because of Andy Reids history with offensive line development being better than a lot of other coaches. I remember KC vastly improving after just one season of several players changing.
As far as Shanahan I think their blocking scheme allows them to do more with less, although perhaps not to the extreme that Shanahan Sr could. More teams are looking for these athletic linemen for the zbs now than there used to be.
It didn't seem to affect their offense as much as this might some teams because Mahomes is too good anyways. With a semi mobile QB teams may feel more free to focus on lineman run blocking abilities more.
I think this is hard to evaluate because of Andy Reids history with offensive line development being better than a lot of other coaches. I remember KC vastly improving after just one season of several players changing.
As far as Shanahan I think their blocking scheme allows them to do more with less, although perhaps not to the extreme that Shanahan Sr could. More teams are looking for these athletic linemen for the zbs now than there used to be.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
KC with Mahomes in the AFC West is starting to look a lot like NE did with Brady in the AFC East. Both played in a division that has been on the weaker side for years, with opponents swapping out coaches and QBs frequently. Since Peyton rode off into the sunset with DEN in 2015, the Chiefs have won the division every year facing:
LV / OAK (61-70), 2 playoff appearances:
- 5 different head coaches
- Mostly Carr with a sprinkle of starts from Matt McGloin, EJ Manuel, Jarrett Stidham, Jimmy Garoppolo, Brian Hoyer, and Aiden O'Connell.
DEN (52-79, 0 playoff appearances):
- 6 different head coaches
- A hodge podge of starting QBs that included Trevor Siemian, Paxton Lynch, Brock Osweiler, Case Keenum, Joe Flacco, Drew Lock, Brandon Allen, Jeff Driskel, Brett Rypien, Teddy Bridgewater, Russell Wilson, and Jarrett Stidham.
SD / LAC (62-69, 2 playoff appearances):
- 4 different head coaches (soon to be 5)
- Philip Rivers and Justin Herbert at QB (with Tyrod Taylor and Easton Stick for a few starts).
That's not meant to take anything away from Mahomes and the Chiefs. They've both been great and what other teams do has nothing to do with them, But the other teams in the division have struggled to put together teams and coaching staffs that have been consistently competitive.
As things pertain to the topic of the thread, a rebuild will go a lot quicker and smoother for a bottom feeder that plays in a weak division with less than stellar QBs in it. Who the competition is in a division would likely impact what order to start bringing in pieces for a rebuild.
LV / OAK (61-70), 2 playoff appearances:
- 5 different head coaches
- Mostly Carr with a sprinkle of starts from Matt McGloin, EJ Manuel, Jarrett Stidham, Jimmy Garoppolo, Brian Hoyer, and Aiden O'Connell.
DEN (52-79, 0 playoff appearances):
- 6 different head coaches
- A hodge podge of starting QBs that included Trevor Siemian, Paxton Lynch, Brock Osweiler, Case Keenum, Joe Flacco, Drew Lock, Brandon Allen, Jeff Driskel, Brett Rypien, Teddy Bridgewater, Russell Wilson, and Jarrett Stidham.
SD / LAC (62-69, 2 playoff appearances):
- 4 different head coaches (soon to be 5)
- Philip Rivers and Justin Herbert at QB (with Tyrod Taylor and Easton Stick for a few starts).
That's not meant to take anything away from Mahomes and the Chiefs. They've both been great and what other teams do has nothing to do with them, But the other teams in the division have struggled to put together teams and coaching staffs that have been consistently competitive.
As things pertain to the topic of the thread, a rebuild will go a lot quicker and smoother for a bottom feeder that plays in a weak division with less than stellar QBs in it. Who the competition is in a division would likely impact what order to start bringing in pieces for a rebuild.
Last edited:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
... and they scored 9 points that day. Doesn't really support your argument that Mahomes can perform no matter how bad the OL.
That said, KC's line in that game was horrifically bad. It wasn't just that they were starting backups, it was that they were starting backups who hadn't even had time to get acclimated to their new roles because Fisher's torn Achilles in the AFCCG started a game of musical chairs that left the center as the only person not playing a brand-new position. So I agree with you that Mahomes can succeed behind almost any line; the Chiefs' OL that day was the "almost".
As far as the OP, the biggest problem is that the NFL Draft won't always agree to your timetable. If you're the Bengals and Joe Burrow falls into your lap, you take Joe Burrow. If you're the Lions and you have the No. 2 pick in a QB-weak draft, you take Aidan Hutchinson. (And if you're the Browns, you don't take a QB with the No. 1 pick even though Mahomes and Watson are available because you're the Browns and that's just what you do -- I kid, I kid).
rockaction
Footballguy
The Jets passed on those guys for Jamal Adams, a safety.
rockaction
Footballguy
I figured that would be the rebuttal which is why I said he was "making incredible throws" that day. Didn't say he was leading them to an offensive that had a great day. The throw that was replayed on football Twitter ad nauseam where he's horizontal to the ground yet heaves it twenty yards only for Damien Williams to drop it in the end zone was some kind of throw, and should have been a successful one for a TD. There were other drops that day.
But yeah, they certainly didn't overpower the Bucs with a good offense. Point taken, but it's a little bit away from the exact point I was making.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
So weird. They're usually really good at evaluating QB prospects at the top of the draft
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Yeah, I totally agree. He was incredible that day, but he was also up against the outer limits of bad o-line play. The only lesson to take away from that game is that no team should ever put their QB in that position
rockaction
Footballguy
I laughed. I cried. I stuck with crying.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
By the way, the Jets are the other reason you can't always execute a perfect plan to build your roster. To paraphrase Mike Tyson, every GM has a plan until he drafts a bust. It doesn't matter when you take your franchise QB if the franchise QBs you keep drafting all suck
JohnnyU
Footballguy
But if you draft and / or sign a great OL first you might keep him alive and confident.
GregR
Footballguy
Well, any QB will play better behind a better line, true.
And there were a lot of problems with the expansion Texans, including coach and GM. But Carr was a contributor to their problems.
He lacked situational awareness and ability to think quickly which wasn't the fault of his line. This was a guy who repeatedly would run out of bounds for a multiple yard loss, instead of flicking the ball out of bounds to get it back at the line of scrimmage. Not with rare occasion, but again and again. I don't think he was going to succeed with the 90s Cowboys line in front of him.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Good QBs make adequate lines sufficient.
Average QBs behind good lines are still average.
Nobody plays well behind bad lines.
You gotta have a QB. Get him when you can. Fill in the blanks later.
Average QBs behind good lines are still average.
Nobody plays well behind bad lines.
You gotta have a QB. Get him when you can. Fill in the blanks later.
Hot Diggity Dog
Footballguy
Depending on your cap situation and your drafting ability (or luck) it seems like you can do it all at once, with the right choices and assuming the right choices exist. Some years there is not a good QB to draft and you are outta luck. But roster turnover is not hard in the NFL.
rockaction
Footballguy
Let's not forget the football sabermetrics mantra that sacks are a quarterback stat.
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
This was my thinking when the Lions drafted Matthew Stafford. Nothing against Stafford, but I knew their line was terrible and he could get killed. And early on I was right. He missed 19 games due to injury in his first two seasons, mostly defensive linemen separating his shoulders. But he got through it and in the long run was far more valuable than any of the offensive tackles I wanted to take instead.
I think if you get too fixated on drafting certain positions before others you can lose sight of what's most important which is to get the best players however you can.
Yep. Sacks are a QB stat, pressures are an OL stat. I've brought it up before, but I'll always remember the Pats/Chargers playoff game from the 2018 season, where Tom Brady went 34-44 for 343-1 and was never sacked. They interviewed Joey Bosa after the game and asked him about his performance, and he said, it was extremely frustrating as he and Melvin Ingram may have played the best game of their careers, getting past their guy almost every snap, and it didn't matter at all. Edelman and White combined for 24 catches in that game, and most were under 2 seconds from the snap.
It may have been Polian. That would explain RB being so high as the guy who had 3 HOFers in Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, and Edgerrin James. I personally would have DT, TE, and G higher and CB and RB lower. My hot take is I think an elite TE is worth more than an elite WR. Harder to find, but also more difficult to defend. I don't think it's a coincidence that this season's final 4 featured what will likely also be the first 4 fantasy TEs drafted next year.
Carr is tough to say. He may have just not been very good no matter where he was drafted.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Good QBs make adequate lines sufficient.
Average QBs behind good lines are still average.
Nobody plays well behind bad lines.
You gotta have a QB. Get him when you can. Fill in the blanks later.
Average QBs behind good lines are still average.
Nobody plays well behind bad lines.
You gotta have a QB. Get him when you can. Fill in the blanks later.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
An intelligent owner would instruct their new GM to build the OL and DL out for a couple seasons
and let them know that they pretty much understood .500 might be the ceiling at first.
-The QB position could be filled at any time in the 1st couple seasons, however the rookie QB isn't likely to see much action his 1st season. Grab a clipboard and observe, Mahomes did.
And if KC wins B2B Super Bowls without Tyreek Hill, not sure you must have elite weapons to actually win a Super Bowl if you have a terrific Defense.
Another head scratcher to me is teams that do not continue to draft QBs even after they have a potential franchise one on the roster already
Last season it felt like teams were ill prepared for their starting QB going down. Of course there will be a drop off but we saw some really bad football many weeks.
The wrost thing that would happen is you trade one of them for some future 1st Rd picks
Beyond all this you need good Edge rushers and playmakers in the Secondary or shut down types. Linebackers are a dying breed it seems, nobody runs the ball any more.
Good thread topic JU
and let them know that they pretty much understood .500 might be the ceiling at first.
-The QB position could be filled at any time in the 1st couple seasons, however the rookie QB isn't likely to see much action his 1st season. Grab a clipboard and observe, Mahomes did.
And if KC wins B2B Super Bowls without Tyreek Hill, not sure you must have elite weapons to actually win a Super Bowl if you have a terrific Defense.
Another head scratcher to me is teams that do not continue to draft QBs even after they have a potential franchise one on the roster already
Last season it felt like teams were ill prepared for their starting QB going down. Of course there will be a drop off but we saw some really bad football many weeks.
The wrost thing that would happen is you trade one of them for some future 1st Rd picks
Beyond all this you need good Edge rushers and playmakers in the Secondary or shut down types. Linebackers are a dying breed it seems, nobody runs the ball any more.
Good thread topic JU
Last edited:
Boston
Footballguy
Not trying to bust ***** but building an O and D line is football 101 and always has been...in 2024 (or any other era for that matter) if you don't understand that you are a moron...it is one of the foundations of football and always has been...at no point should any football team (whether they have a winning or losing record) not be trying to have the best units in the trenches as possible...the issue now is NFL rules and the evolution of the game has made the QB position way more important than any other position and it is not even remotely close...that is why you cannot get cute with the QB position...if you need a QB and have a chance to get a potential big time QB you do not say the timing doesn't work for you and pass on it (your point on development is dead-on and where many totally screw-up)...you just don't have that luxury because you have no clue what your plan B will be in the future...figuring out the QB position is not a one-size fits all proposition and to think you can control the timing of how you do it is an incredibly faulty strategy IMO...that doesn't mean you need to mortgage the future to do it but it also means if you kick the can down the road there is a good chance if you are a GM or HC you will be fired pretty quickly and that is the part of this that many are missing...bad QB play leads to fired employees.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
A general rule of thumb seems to be: the less athletic a QB is (i.e. can he make and/or extend plays when protection breaks down) the more important the o-line becomes.
The caveat is "unless the QB has excellent/elite processing skills, like Tom Brady or Brock Purdy".
Kirk Cousins, for example, can't extend plays and has only above average decision making ability. Since the Vikings line is sub-par, the offense struggles.
Peak Russel Wilson could make plays behind a shaky line, and the offense was more than functional.
The caveat is "unless the QB has excellent/elite processing skills, like Tom Brady or Brock Purdy".
Kirk Cousins, for example, can't extend plays and has only above average decision making ability. Since the Vikings line is sub-par, the offense struggles.
Peak Russel Wilson could make plays behind a shaky line, and the offense was more than functional.
I have long lobbied against drafting a QB high to rebuild a franchise except for a few rare select times.
The team is like 90% guaranteed to lose year one.
70% year two
Now you think year three could be good but the NFL doesn't work that way. Lose for a few years and that means a new GM, new coach, and huge roster turnover which is essentially a rebuild again.
This lie that it started when the QB was drafted is what every coach's ego falls for- I can win with that guy! And when he can't because he plays like every other young QB ever, then he's replaced
The team is like 90% guaranteed to lose year one.
70% year two
Now you think year three could be good but the NFL doesn't work that way. Lose for a few years and that means a new GM, new coach, and huge roster turnover which is essentially a rebuild again.
This lie that it started when the QB was drafted is what every coach's ego falls for- I can win with that guy! And when he can't because he plays like every other young QB ever, then he's replaced
I agree with most of this but take issue with the Vikings point. Maybe 3 years ago the Vikings had a sub-par OL and struggling offense, but they've been a top offense under O'Connell (when Cousins played) and have a borderline top-5 OL, with arguably the best OT combo west of Philly.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Well, kind of. Yes they have good tackles but their IOL is horrible; they get blown up through the middle on the regular. When that happens, Kirk has limited escapability.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
San Francisco got extremely lucky with Purdy. Which is great for them, of course, and in no way takes away from the quality of the team that they've built. But realistically "Let's just roll along and hope we luck into the next Brock Purdy or Tom Brady" probably isn't a good strategy for success in the NFL, and a staff that pursues that strategy intentionally in unlikely to last long.
QB is the single most important position in North American sports. Your odds of success - however you choose to define that - in the NFL are probably cut by about a order of magnitude if you don't have a QB. The Browns had a nice season this year, for example, but they absolutely maxed out what they could have hoped to achieve with a guy like Flacco. The Bengals had all kinds of talent on offense and couldn't do much with it without Burrow. The Chargers are wasting Herbert's career, but they're a 4-win team without him. The Jets. The Steelers. There is a ceiling that is very hard to overcome when good teams aren't scared of your passing game.
Get the QB, and everything else is fixable.
QB is the single most important position in North American sports. Your odds of success - however you choose to define that - in the NFL are probably cut by about a order of magnitude if you don't have a QB. The Browns had a nice season this year, for example, but they absolutely maxed out what they could have hoped to achieve with a guy like Flacco. The Bengals had all kinds of talent on offense and couldn't do much with it without Burrow. The Chargers are wasting Herbert's career, but they're a 4-win team without him. The Jets. The Steelers. There is a ceiling that is very hard to overcome when good teams aren't scared of your passing game.
Get the QB, and everything else is fixable.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
In regards to Vikings offensive line last season I noticed that Dalton Risner PFF grades was only 2 spots better than Ezra Cleveland. So essentially the same level of player. Cleveland the better run blocker, Risner considered more solid in pass protection.
Neither is under contract in 2024 and need to be replaced.
The problem continues to be Bradbury.
Neither is under contract in 2024 and need to be replaced.
The problem continues to be Bradbury.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
1: get your QB
2: protect your QB
3: get to the other guys QB
2: protect your QB
3: get to the other guys QB
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Too many QBs have been ruined, both physically and more importantly psychologically from bad OL play. Why get the QB first? Every year there is the next great perceived QB in the draft, so that wouldn’t necessarily be a great reason when so many QBs fail to live up to expectations. Just my opinion. Of course if there is an Andrew Luck type in the draft and you’re sitting at 1.01, then you take the QB. Problem is when you reach for a QB. Very risky. Why not draft the best left tackle instead if he is highly rated?
Last edited:
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I probably should have been clearer on that. It's more a list of importance than a timeline.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I think we've seen that there are many ways to do it right, but a couple of major ways to do it wrong. The main one (that I see) is that not everybody is on the same page of the rebuild. The GM is rebuilding the team, but the coach and their staff are fighting for their jobs. Or the team accommodates one star offensive player with a new contract knowing that they'll mostly go to waste as the team struggles to find its identity. If you're rebuilding, get everyone on the same page and give them the job security to make mistakes and grow. Don't overpay for a weapon you won't be able to use for a while.
I get that it's easy for me to say in February, but tougher for an owner who is facing 0-9 whose kids can't go on social media without seeing a meme or video about how bad the team is and how everybody should be fired just for shaking their dad's hand. But really, I think it goes smoother if everyone (including the fans) understand what they're trying to do.
I get that it's easy for me to say in February, but tougher for an owner who is facing 0-9 whose kids can't go on social media without seeing a meme or video about how bad the team is and how everybody should be fired just for shaking their dad's hand. But really, I think it goes smoother if everyone (including the fans) understand what they're trying to do.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Dallas Cowboys went 1-15 in 1989 with a rookie QB who played in 11 games and had 9 touchdowns and 18 interceptions. For the most part of his career his int to td ratio are nowhere near Patrick Mahomes level. But he carved out a nice career. On another team and his name could be synonymous with Tim Couch.
Similar threads
- Poll
