Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why drafting a QB is more likely than you think


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
58 replies to this topic

#1 Sloth

Sloth

    idk

  • Joined: 06-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,757
  • Reputation: 851
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:12 PM

Like most here, I've been back and forth on an hourly basis on who I think we should take with our first pick. Initially Luck, then Fairley, Peterson, Green and Newton.

Anyways, I wanted to put out why I feel drafting a QB is more likely than some people may think. I'm not trying to argue with or convince anyone, and I'm not ordering my Newton or Gabbert authentic just yet, just stating why I think the possibility is higher than some think.

Ok, here goes.

First and foremost, once the CBA expires, here are the QB's we have under contract:

Jimmy Clausen
Tony Pike

Come draft time, it appears almost certain that we will not have had a FA period. Those two are the only certainties we have. Moore? May not sign here. Volek? May not sign here. Smith? Could go anywhere. Young? Who knows.

Also, because of the lack of CBA, we can't trade players. Just picks. So even if we were to want someone like Kolb, we have no assurance we can get him.

In short, the lack of the CBA screws us and puts us in a really shaky place in regards to the most important position on the field.

Someone is bound to say "But Rivera is a defensive guy! He's definitely going to grab someone on that side of the ball!" right around now. This is a myth:

http://walterfootbal...sivecoaches.php

From the article:

As the chart shows, most current and recent defensive NFL head coaches tend to take offensive players in the first round. Out of 75 first-round picks, 44 were offensive players, meaning the defensive coaches opted to go with offense 58.7 percent of the time.

Going further, most current and recent defensive NFL head coaches focused on drafting first-round offensive players early in their tenure. Looking solely at each coach's first two first-round selections, offensive players were chosen 33 out of 52 times, for a whopping 63.5 percent.

Why do defensive head coaches opt for offense so frequently? My guess is that because most head coaches are overly confident in their abilities, so these defensive guys believed they could coach up "lesser" defensive players.

Conversely, a defensive coach might be worried about his job security if his offense isn't up to par. Thus, the coach will overcompensate in the draft and select talented players who can take care of the other side of the ball.


Basically, defensive coaches are very far from a lock to draft defense early. They're actually more likely to invest in the offense.

Another argument you hear a lot is "QB is too much of a risk! You don't take risks with the first pick. Fairley is the safe pick."

http://walterfootbal...ackriskmyth.php

Now, let's look at the hit and bust rates for each position:

Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Defensive Tackle Hit Rate: 46.9%

Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%
Defensive Tackle Bust Rate: 46.9%

I find it very interesting that according to this data, quarterbacks have higher success rates and lower bust rates than defensive tackles, yet defensive tackle is generally perceived to be the safer route.

It's a small sample size, but the disparity is even larger in the top five. In that area, only one defensive tackle has panned out of five opportunities, whereas five of 10 quarterbacks have been "hits," and only four of 10 quarterbacks have been busts.

Considering how important the quarterback is in relation to the defensive tackle, if a team is deciding between the two positions, the "risk" factor should not sway them away from taking a signal-caller. In fact, it's actually riskier to take a defensive tackle.


In short, DT is just as big, if not a bigger risk than taking QB early in the draft. Considering our two biggest team holes are DT and QB, we're rolling the dice either way.

You knew this one was coming.. remember that we have a completely new coach and staff and remember that new coaches often times means new quarterbacks:

http://walterfootbal...tnewregimes.php

I've said the following countless times in my 2010 NFL Mock Draft and NFL Draft Mailbag: New regimes mean new quarterbacks.

When a new head coach and/or general manager are hired, they usually want to bring in "their guy." Unless the team's signal-caller is on a Pro Bowl level or is being paid tons of money, a new front office has no ties to the leftover quarterbacks.


Last thing I wanted to point out is that Rivera has been waiting to get a HC job for a long time. We were his 8th or 9th interview. He has a modest 4 year deal with a team that just went 2-14. He's going to want to get this ship on course as soon as possible and may not want to gamble a season on "maybe Clausen will improve".

Anyways, just why I feel we *might* go QB once we're on the clock. Not trying to argue or endorse or whatever.

#2 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:19 PM

We might. Very few of us are really dismissing that it's a possibility. The thing is, this isn't the typical "new regime" deal. Hurney is still here, and by all accounts, Clausen was Hurney's guy. So I don't think the new regime bit holds as much weight.

Also, just because we need a QB doesn't mean we need to take a QB at #1. We need other positions, too, and by draft time it may turn out that the dudes in charge actually think we have a bigger need than QB. For some time, the FO has been stressing that they need to find out what they have and, if it isn't going to get it done, search for better elsewhere. It is very possible they have decided that what they have, if backed up by a veteran in FA, is worth going into the season with. Either way, they are going to want a FA QB... I have a VERY hard time believing we go into the season with Clausen/Rookie QB/Pike.

If there is no FA, look at the DT's we are stuck with. Not entirely awe-inspiring, either.

#3 OchoNueve

OchoNueve

    for those of you that don't habla espanol...

  • Joined: 08-August 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,222
  • Reputation: 158
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:20 PM

I said this before, just not using so many words and stats... agree completely

#4 OchoNueve

OchoNueve

    for those of you that don't habla espanol...

  • Joined: 08-August 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,222
  • Reputation: 158
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:22 PM

We might. Very few of us are really dismissing that it's a possibility. The thing is, this isn't the typical "new regime" deal. Hurney is still here, and by all accounts, Clausen was Hurney's guy. So I don't think the new regime bit holds as much weight.

Just because we need a QB doesn't mean we need to take a QB at #1.

If there is no FA, look at the DT's we are stuck with. Not entirely awe-inspiring, either.


serviceable DT's are easier to find in FA than QB's...

That being said, nobody wants a serviceable FA QB (although it would be an upgrade), we want elite talent at that position... and drafting at #1 is our best chance to find it

#5 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:24 PM

serviceable DT's are easier to find in FA than QB's...

That being said, nobody wants a serviceable FA QB (although it would be an upgrade), we want elite talent at that position... and drafting at #1 is our best chance to find it


we also didn't just invest two picks into DT last draft, one being our first pick of the draft...

There are some servicable QBs in FA this year, the issue is that we don't want a servicable QB, we want an elite one, as you pointed out.

There may not be an elite QB in this draft, whereas there might be an elite DT.

#6 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,897
  • Reputation: 7,796
Moderators

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:27 PM

what thing that hurney has said since the season ended makes anyone think that clausen is still his guy?

#7 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:31 PM

what thing that hurney has said since the season ended makes anyone think that clausen is still his guy?


Hurney said. "But Jimmy's going to grow, just like any young quarterback. We feel like he's got the tools to be able to succeed in this league."

Read more: http://www.charlotte...l#ixzz1EKhAhEWg

#8 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:32 PM

what thing that hurney has said since the season ended makes anyone think that clausen is still his guy?


I will post every Hurney quote I've seen implying this:









Wow that's a lot of support.

Oh wow Mav1234 found one. Props to you bro.

#9 KillerKat

KillerKat

    To Hell With Bell

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,391
  • Reputation: 4,553
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:34 PM

No one should expect us to pick a certain guy. Everyone should be prepared for us to pick anyone. It should'nt be a surprise to anyone if we draft Newton or Gabbert #1. Unless you're JOAT.

#10 Peppers90 NC

Peppers90 NC

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 03-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,411
  • Reputation: 1,705
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2011 - 12:35 PM

Other than green, the top 10 players in this draft are on the defensive side of the ball. I'm willing to bet at least 6 or 7 of the top 10 picks will be defense.