Trading up in the Draft for a QB

[Solar7]

Here's what "sitting behind a QB means:"

Rogers and JG sat for a couple of years. Rogers was behind Favre for three years after being drafted (2005-6-7) and didn't take over as a starter until 2008. In the three years, he appeared in a few games but not as a starter.

JG sat behind Brady for 2 years in 214 and 2015. He started in 2 games in 2016 until Brady returned (Card fans remember at least one of those starts. He started that last five games of 2017 after being traded to SF.

Here what 'sitting behind a QB doesn't mean"

Only Mahomes had close to a year behind a starter.

Bortles 21-40 career started 13 games first year
Tannehill 37-40 started all 16 games first year
Goff 11-11 career started 7 games first year
Trubisky 4-8 career started last 12 game first year
Mahomes 1-0 career started last game reg. season

I did misread your original post, I thought you were saying that players didn't get any time to prove their success, not that they didn't get any time to sit behind an established starter. My bad.

 

[Jetstream Green]

It's pretty simple - I look at the past 10-20 years of history and see who was a success when traded up for. Success meaning sustained wins, playoff appearances, statistical consistency, and remained on the team that traded up for him into at least a second contract. And the answer is basically two with caveats... Eli Manning, which I don't really count because his situation is extraordinary and most players aren't going to decline being the #1 pick, and Joe Flacco, who technically the Ravens traded back for, collecting assets, and then up from trading back.

I refuse to count the past two years of drafts yet because those players have not had an opportunity to develop their careers.

Using stats without an explanation on why is faulty, it makes the very thing you thought you where using moot, and that is logic. Then you have to consider finding a QB is rare to begin with regardless if you trade or not. The fact you can list a few which did have success nullifies using a stat which you do not understand to prove a point. You are simply stating the act of trading is want determines failure at the position and not the quarterback's ability you trade for. How does that make sense? How would a front office regard your logic if you told them we cannot trade into a position in the draft simply because 'the stats' say it does not work, you might as well be pushing astrology towards the head brass

 

[Solar7]

Using stats without an explanation on why is faulty, it makes the very thing you thought you where using moot, and that is logic. Then you have to consider finding a QB is rare to begin with regardless if you trade or not. The fact you can list a few which did have success nullifies using a stat with understanding to prove a point. You are simply stating the act of trading is want determines failure at the position and not the quarterback's ability you trade for... how does that make sense

It makes sense in that teams don't let go of superstar quarterbacks and let other teams trade up for them. That trading up isn't going to help you out at all - but patiently waiting for a guy that grades out to work well in your particular system does.

The only argument anyone seems to have against this is that Goff and Wentz look good, and that Watson might be really good if he continues to produce like he did before a major injury. Two guys in 20 years. The argument is also partially that quarterbacks are products of their environments.

Teams make mistakes in evaluations and you have to mitigate what your team is going to be penalized if they screw up.

 

[Solar7]

Using stats without an explanation on why is faulty, it makes the very thing you thought you where using moot, and that is logic. Then you have to consider finding a QB is rare to begin with regardless if you trade or not. The fact you can list a few which did have success nullifies using a stat which you do not understand to prove a point. You are simply stating the act of trading is want determines failure at the position and not the quarterback's ability you trade for. How does that make sense? How would a front office regard your logic if you told them we cannot trade into a position in the draft simply because 'the stats' say it does not work, you might as well be pushing astrology towards the head brass

The front office would probably be understanding that I don't want to trade our future assets away on a hope and a prayer that a guy is good. Hopefully, I'd be good enough at my job to realize that I'm fighting a losing battle giving up my picks for a guy that isn't grading out for the other 30 teams I'm fighting against to pick the 3rd or 4th QB.

Edit: It's all about managing risk. The FO and I can probably make a compromise to move up for a guy we think is pretty solid by a few picks, giving up the opportunity cost of the other.

Do you really think that NFL teams look back at their trades and say "oh, well we traded this pick and the team there picked X player, so we would have picked him too?"

 

[cardncubfan]

Bortles, Mahomes, Goff, Trubisky, Tannehill... at least 5 first rounders who have been given time and weren't rookie successes but will walk into 2018 as starters.

I would only take 2 of those 5 QB's. Mahomes & Goff.

 

[oaken1]

Of course it's mental gymnastics when looking at hypothetical trades. I'm anxious to hear your method to evaluate the effectiveness of trading up in the draft for a QB.

for me... I watch them play. I watch how they interact with their team mates...then I watch interviews when they are available. I look for similarities in other QB's I have seen play over the past 40 years.... then, sadly enough, I correlate all the information I have gathered...and I go with my gut.
Some guys have all the stats and measurables and I still dont like them.... Jared Goff for example...even though it appears I was wrong about him...I wasnt wrong about Carson Wentz...way back when... I was pimping Cam Newton on this board 8 months before the draft. Sometimes you just get a hunch about a guy...
I really liked Desuan Watson but was concerned his pass velocity would lead to lots of picks in the NFL....remains to be seen.

in regards to trading up. It's simple. NFL Quarterback is the single most important position in team sports. At any given time there are less than 30 guys who can play that position effectively.There are also less than 10 who can play that position...uh,...in a transcendent manner... if you see an opportunity to get a guy who can do "A" and you believe he can do "B"...then you do what you have to do to go get him.
It's a gamble. Most GM's who make that gamble fail.... but if your a fast ball hitter and Randy Johnson is sending you a smoker right down the pipe you gotta swing...missing does not mean you dont swing again... the fact that he has struck out the past 10 batters does not mean you dont swing... because its a fast ball,...and thats what you hit.

 

[oaken1]

I mis-read... I thought somebody claimed those RB's increased Cams rushing stats...wasnt commenting on passing.

oops

 

[oaken1]

The front office would probably be understanding that I don't want to trade our future assets away on a hope and a prayer that a guy is good. Hopefully, I'd be good enough at my job to realize that I'm fighting a losing battle giving up my picks for a guy that isn't grading out for the other 30 teams I'm fighting against to pick the 3rd or 4th QB.

Edit: It's all about managing risk. The FO and I can probably make a compromise to move up for a guy we think is pretty solid by a few picks, giving up the opportunity cost of the other.

Do you really think that NFL teams look back at their trades and say "oh, well we traded this pick and the team there picked X player, so we would have picked him too?"

any trade only comes into play if the possessing team has a plan. In the case of this year... the Browns have 1 and 4... if they have three or four QB's rated basically the same overall they could trade #1 knowing they will get a guy at 4... this wont work obviously if they are in love with a guy...if they see Lamar Jackson as absolutely the best QB in this draft hands down and it aint even close...then they wont trade #1,..they will just pick their guy.
But if they look at Rosen, Darnold, and Jackson...and see three QB's who are basically equal even though having different strengths and weaknesses... then they may trade...with the slight risk all those guys are gone by 4... but if Allen is also in their group... then no matter what happens they will get one of the guys they have rated equal. In that case they will be acquiring value while still getting a guy they have rated high.

 

[Solar7]

any trade only comes into play if the possessing team has a plan. In the case of this year... the Browns have 1 and 4... if they have three or four QB's rated basically the same overall they could trade #1 knowing they will get a guy at 4... this wont work obviously if they are in love with a guy...if they see Lamar Jackson as absolutely the best QB in this draft hands down and it aint even close...then they wont trade #1,..they will just pick their guy.
But if they look at Rosen, Darnold, and Jackson...and see three QB's who are basically equal even though having different strengths and weaknesses... then they may trade...with the slight risk all those guys are gone by 4... but if Allen is also in their group... then no matter what happens they will get one of the guys they have rated equal. In that case they will be acquiring value while still getting a guy they have rated high.

For all of the posters clamoring that we need to trade to get "our guy," this is exactly backwards to that.

The Browns can't afford the perception of settling this time around.

 

[oaken1]

For all of the posters clamoring that we need to trade to get "our guy," this is exactly backwards to that.

The Browns can't afford the perception of settling this time around.

well..it's not. Many players will rate out exactly the same.... Imagine it on a Madden scale with each attribute rated from 1-99...then averaged out for an overall grade...
some teams may have 4 different QB's rated at 85

Thats not, of course...saying that I do...or that WE do...or that Keim does... but with a group like this it is entirely possible...
if you factor in ownership...it was the browns owner that fell in love with Johnny Manziel and insisted they draft him....if he also falls in love with Baker Mayfield....well....pretty good chance Mayfield can be had at 4, because most dont have him rated worthy of the top overall pick. which means the Browns can fairly safely assume nobody is going to pick him at 2,or 3...so they could trade #1
however if they are in love with Sam Darnold they better pick him at 1...
as for the Browns perceptions... I still think their GM would prefer a vet QB.... Cousins, or Foles since he missed out on Smith... then he could draft Barkley and an OT to help his club and not have his career tied to a rookie QB right now

 

[GimmedaBall]

You can’t use math or formulas to project anything in the draft.

Guess a lot of teams are wrong then in constructing their draft boards. It is routine to assign grades to a large number of variables (including character issues) and then ordering the draft board according to the mathematical value assigned to a player. Some players get high numbers but then a single variable can get them scratched off the board---with character issues/drugs, etc being high on the 'No Way' for a given player.

If teams are not assigning a mathematical value to a player, how then are they ordering their draft board?

 

[GimmedaBall]

Do you really think that NFL teams look back at their trades and say "oh, well we traded this pick and the team there picked X player, so we would have picked him too?"

Of course they look back on the trades they made and determine the players that were available in the slot they traded away. Whether it is the same guy or not would depend on how the two teams rated the player and if he was still on the draft board. There is a chance that the same guy would be picked by both teams especially when trading up from the 1st round to get higher in the 1st round.

Do you really think that teams don't look back on their trades and see who went at that traded pick????

Wouldn't that be one thing that an owner would use to evaluate his GM/Front Office---who they could have selected instead of the bust they traded up for??

 

[GimmedaBall]

I would only take 2 of those 5 QB's. Mahomes & Goff.

A little soon for both guys.

Mahomes has played in one game as a starter. He's got a lot of talent to throw the ball. Jury still out if he has the Central Processing Unit between the eyes to read D's. He'll be playing streetball with 11 junk yard dogs on the opposite side of the field.

Goff in first year with Jeff 'QB Killer' Fisher' looked like a draft bust. In his second year, he meshed with his new HC/OC. D coordinators will figure out how to nullify the Rams tactic of rushing to the line, Rams coaches reading the D and relaying the play in before the helmet transmission is cut off, Goff then calling the play before the D can adjust. That Ram O is in for a surprise if Goff can't read the D himself and make the proper audible. Look for him and the Ram offense to get pulled back down to earth.

 

[moklerman]

A little soon for both guys.

Mahomes has played in one game as a starter. He's got a lot of talent to throw the ball. Jury still out if he has the Central Processing Unit between the eyes to read D's. He'll be playing streetball with 11 junk yard dogs on the opposite side of the field.

Goff in first year with Jeff 'QB Killer' Fisher' looked like a draft bust. In his second year, he meshed with his new HC/OC. D coordinators will figure out how to nullify the Rams tactic of rushing to the line, Rams coaches reading the D and relaying the play in before the helmet transmission is cut off, Goff then calling the play before the D can adjust. That Ram O is in for a surprise if Goff can't read the D himself and make the proper audible. Look for him and the Ram offense to get pulled back down to earth.

I agree that that tactic will only take the Rams so far. But, I also think it was a brilliant tactic to allow Goff to unlearn what he went through with Fisher and keep him viable during a turnaround season and playoff run. He was essentially a rookie in his 2nd year and McVay maximized what they got out of him. They also had 3 new WR's a new LT and new C all learning the offense. I think whatever tricks they had to utilize to get Goff more up to speed that the league figures how to counter, will be offset by positive playing experience and familiarity. Goff is still very young and I think he will probably be a pretty solid starter.

 

[GimmedaBall]

I correlate all the information I have gathered...and I go with my gut.

Please, no beer and chili beans before making your picks.

 

[Gandhi]

Guess a lot of teams are wrong then in constructing their draft boards. It is routine to assign grades to a large number of variables (including character issues) and then ordering the draft board according to the mathematical value assigned to a player. Some players get high numbers but then a single variable can get them scratched off the board---with character issues/drugs, etc being high on the 'No Way' for a given player.

If teams are not assigning a mathematical value to a player, how then are they ordering their draft board?

You are obviously ignoring most of the information that I wrote, and which goes into projections in order to make your argument fit in.

It goes without saying that teams rank players using a grade system. That’s like saying that whichever quarterback a team think is the best in the class is, yes, ranked as number one in that category with them, and thus ranks as a number which is math. Yes, you are right that they use math in their rankings, and I do as well.

What you are trying to do is using only math as a method to determine if these prospects will be good. For example, you wrote that since the Cardinals’ runningbacks had X amount of production in 2011 that is a prove that Cam Newton would provide similar production with the Cardinals as he did with the Panthers. You are, conveniently for you, ignoring every other factor that goes into a player succeeding with a team.

Oaken is absolutely correct that you must rate them individually. You must watch them play, watch how they interact with their teammates and how they lead, you must watch interviews with them, you must read articles about them. You must gather every bit of information about them, and from there you go with your gut. There is no shortcut, but you give it your best attempt. That’s projecting players.

 

[GimmedaBall]

What you are trying to do is using only math as a method to determine if these prospects will be good. For example, you wrote that since the Cardinals’ runningbacks had X amount of production in 2011 that is a prove that Cam Newton would provide similar production with the Cardinals as he did with the Panthers. You are, conveniently for you, ignoring every other factor that goes into a player succeeding with a team.

Did you miss my long discussion about the 'Butterfly Effect' and how the infinite number of variables effect an outcome?? I discussed both extremes. That's what I was trying to do---not what you claim that I was trying to do.

Of course there are a long list of variables that teams use to grade players. I mentioned some of them in my discussion. Assigning those variables a relative weight and adding them up is using MATH to arrive at your individual ratings and finally your draft board.

I never said that the performance of the Cards RBs in 2011 proved anything about Cam Newton with the Cards---I posted those numbers to show that the RB duo with the Panthers were not drastically better than what the Cards put on the field. That was in rebuttal to Solar7 tossing out that notion (with out any stats to back him up.)

How about sticking with my actual argument and comments instead of making up one and asserting that it is my argument and then debating based on what you claim I said???

 

[moklerman]

Something for all of us arm-chair evaluators to keep in mind:

Did my tape work on top 5 College QBs this week - tough to grade some of these guys bec I have no idea of concepts they are running & what they should be looking at? Why it’s so important to get in a room w/ them before being able to truly evaluate both mind & body!!

If Kurt's having a hard time figuring them out, what do the rest of us really think we're coming up with?

 

[Solar7]

Of course they look back on the trades they made and determine the players that were available in the slot they traded away. Whether it is the same guy or not would depend on how the two teams rated the player and if he was still on the draft board. There is a chance that the same guy would be picked by both teams especially when trading up from the 1st round to get higher in the 1st round.

Do you really think that teams don't look back on their trades and see who went at that traded pick????

Wouldn't that be one thing that an owner would use to evaluate his GM/Front Office---who they could have selected instead of the bust they traded up for??

Yes, they can look back and say "man, we whiffed here, that guy ended up being amazing," but they're not saying "the Steelers selected Antonio Brown with the fifth round pick they received from the Skelton trade, so that means we would have had Antonio Brown in the fifth," they're saying "we really screwed up on our evaluation of Antonio Brown. We should have definitely selected him instead of Andre Roberts in the third, or even over Dan Williams in the first." Even if we still had our original pick, we probably would not have selected Antonio Brown, we probably would have selected someone else on our board, without the foresight of knowing that Brown was going to become one of the NFL's best.

The evaluation of a trade like that can really only be correlated to your draft board, just like the Texans are probably kicking themselves that they don't have access to Saquon Barkley right now. But Barkley could turn out to have a drug habit and only play in 5 games, which wouldn't make the trade for Watson any more or less successful.

 

[Stout]

The logical answer would be "no."

But what if we gave up additional picks to trade up for a QB who becomes a bust? I'm not sure I'm cool with that.

A lot of what goes into what we eventually do will be locked up tightly in the minds of SK and the new coaching staff. Either they make the right decision on a QB they truly love...or they whiff.

We won't know which until we see the dude in action on the field this summer/fall.

That's more than fair, Jeff. I'm iffy on how many picks to give up to move how far and for who myself. Which QB project how, which teams will get FA QBs and which that need QBs will pass in the first round...who the heck knows? Should be exciting, though.

 

[Gandhi]

Did you miss my long discussion about the 'Butterfly Effect' and how the infinite number of variables effect an outcome?? I discussed both extremes. That's what I was trying to do---not what you claim that I was trying to do.

Of course there are a long list of variables that teams use to grade players. I mentioned some of them in my discussion. Assigning those variables a relative weight and adding them up is using MATH to arrive at your individual ratings and finally your draft board.

I never said that the performance of the Cards RBs in 2011 proved anything about Cam Newton with the Cards---I posted those numbers to show that the RB duo with the Panthers were not drastically better than what the Cards put on the field. That was in rebuttal to Solar7 tossing out that notion (with out any stats to back him up.)

How about sticking with my actual argument and comments instead of making up one and asserting that it is my argument and then debating based on what you claim I said???

That is correct. I read your post multiple times but still I apparently managed to not notice the paragraph “When Cam went to the Panthers, there was a unique combination of factors that resulted in his success. For example, Solar7 brings up having both Stewart and Williams as RBs to support Cam.” I apologize for that. I thought your point with mentioning the chaos theory was something else, and after reading your post in the correct context I see your point and think that though the theory is an extreme, there is something to be said about it as it relates to the draft prospects from an anthropological perspective.

That said, I still wouldn’t rely on statistics and various scientific measurements to project draft prospects. I still don’t think it’s fair to think of them as robots. Those things are obviously part of the projection, but I don’t think it is enough to make an educated guess on a trade, free agent pickup or draft selection. Maybe your point is that we can make a fair projection by putting the two parts together, albeit in a less extreme edition? If so, I completely agree.

Again, I am sorry that I misunderstood you.

 

[Chopper0080]

So who is worth 3 #1 picks in this draft?

Sam Darnold

 

[Chopper0080]

The logical answer would be "no."

But what if we gave up additional picks to trade up for a QB who becomes a bust? I'm not sure I'm cool with that.

A lot of what goes into what we eventually do will be locked up tightly in the minds of SK and the new coaching staff. Either they make the right decision on a QB they truly love...or they whiff.

We won't know which until we see the dude in action on the field this summer/fall.

If you are afraid to make a move because you don't trust the people who will then make the decision, you have more problems than just a need at QB.

Making the right move is not dependent upon it's success.

 

[Mainstreet]

Sam Darnold

Bold move but I like it. The USC part bothers me a bit.

 

[Chopper0080]

Bold move but I like it. The USC part bothers me a bit.

He was a walk on and has a chip on his shoulder. He caused the QB they had on their roster to transfer I think. He has all of the tools I want in a QB. He needs some work, but what young player doesn't? Also, his areas of concern are all fixable IMO. I can't say that for most of the other top QBs in this draft (I have personality concerns about Rosen, but who really knows about those).