Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Want ot wait till after the first round to get a QB??


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#1 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,341 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 10:55 AM

Here are the last ten years QB's taken after the first 44 picks in the draft. Look at all the stars. I bolded all the ones that have panned out so far to become good NFL QB's so you could clearly see the value. To be fair this list does not included Drew Brees who was 33rd overall selection (first pick of second round) or Tony Romo who was undrafted. These are only the guys taken 44th or later.

2010
ROUND 2: Jimmy Clausen, Panthers (48th overall)
ROUND 3: Colt McCoy, Browns (85); Armanti Edwards, Panthers (89)
ROUND 4: Mike Kafka, Eagles (122)
ROUND 5: John Skelton, Cardinals (155); Jonathan Crompton, Chargers (168)
ROUND 6: Rusty Smith, Titans (176); Dan LeFevour, Bears (181); Joe Webb, Vikings (199); Tony Pike, Panthers (204)
ROUND 7: Levi Brown, Bills (209); Sean Canfield, Saints (239); Zac Robinson, Patriots (250)

2009
ROUND 4: Stephen McGee, Cowboys (101)
ROUND 5: Rhett Bomar, Giants (151); Nate Davis, 49ers (171)
ROUND 6: Tom Brandstater, Broncos (174); Mike Teel, Seahawks (178); Keith Null, Rams (196); Curtis Painter, Colts (201)


2008
ROUND 2: Brian Brohm, Packers (56), Chad Henne, Dolphins (57)
ROUND 3: Kevin O’Connell, Patriots (94)
ROUND 5: John David Booty, Vikings (137); Dennis Dixon, Steelers (156); Josh Johnson, Buccaneers (160); Erik Ainge, Jets (162)
ROUND 6: Colt Brennan, Redskins (198); Andre Woodson, Giants (198)
ROUND 7: Matt Flynn, Packers (209); Alex Brink, Texans (223)

2007
ROUND 3: Trent Edwards, Bills (92)
ROUND 5: Jeff Rowe, Bengals (151); Troy Smith, Ravens (174)
ROUND 6: Jordan Palmer, Redskins (205)
ROUND 7: Tyler Thigpen, Vikings (217)

2006
ROUND 2: Kellen Clemens, Jets (49); Tarvaris Jackson, Vikings (64)
ROUND 3: Charlie Whitehurst, Chargers (81); Brodie Croyle, Chiefs (85)
ROUND 5: Ingle Martin, Packers (148); Omar Jacobs, Steelers (164)
ROUND 6: Bruce Gradkowski, Buccaneers (194)
ROUND 7: D.J. Shockley, Falcons (223)


2005
ROUND 3: Charlie Frye, Browns (67); Andrew Walter, Raiders (69); David Greene, Seahawks (85)
ROUND 4: Kyle Orton, Bears (106); Stefan LeFors, Panthers (121)
ROUND 5: Dan Orlovsky, Lions (145); Adrian McPherson, Saints (152)
ROUND 6: Derek Anderson, Ravens (213)
ROUND 7: Matt Cassel, Patriots (230); Ryan Fitzpatrick, Rams (250)


2004
ROUND 3: Matt Schaub, Falcons (90)
ROUND 4: Luke McCown, Browns (106)
ROUND 5: Craig Krenzel, Bears (148)
ROUND 6: Andy Hall, Eagles (185); Josh Harris, Ravens (187); Jim Sorgi, Colts (193); Jeff Smoker, Rams (201); John Navarre, Cardinals (202).
ROUND 7: Cody Pickett, 49ers (217); Casey Bramlet, Bengals (218); Matt Mauck, Broncos (225); B.J. Symons, Texans (248); Bradlee Van Pelt, Broncos (250)

2003
ROUND 3: Dave Ragone, Texans (88); Chris Simms, Buccaneers (97)
ROUND 4: Seneca Wallace, Seahawks (110)
ROUND 5: Brian St. Pierre, Steelers (163)
ROUND 6: Drew Henson, Texans (192); Brooks Bollinger, Jets (200); Kliff Kingsbury, Patriots (201)
ROUND 7: Gibran Hamdan, Redskins (232); Ken Dorsey, 49ers (241).

2002
ROUND 3: Josh McCown, Cardinals (81)
ROUND 4: David Garrard, Jaguars (108); Rohan Davey, Patriots (117)
ROUND 5: Randy Fasani, Panthers (137); Kurt Kittner, Falcons (158); Brandon Doman, 49ers (163); Craig Nall, Packers (164)
ROUND 6: J.T. O’Sullivan, Saints (186)
ROUND 7: Seth Burford, Chargers (216); Jeff Kelly, Seahawks (232); Wes Pate, Ravens (236)

2001
ROUND 2: Quincy Carter, Cowboys (53); Marques Tuiasosopo, Raiders (59)
ROUND 4: Chris Weinke, Panthers (106); Sage Rosenfels, Redskins (109); Jesse Palmer, Giants (125)
ROUND 5: Mike McMahon, Lions (149); A.J. Feeley, Eagles (155)
ROUND 6: Josh Booty, Seahawks (172); Josh Heupel, Dolphins (177).



In summary, yeah there may be busts at QB in the first round but the odds are exponentially higher that those guys in the first round turn into good QB's than waiting to find value at the QB position in the later rounds.

Two guys in ten years have panned out.

It simply doesn't happen.

#2 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,625 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 21 February 2011 - 10:59 AM

That's why we don't take one this year at all.

I want to wait...until next season.

#3 DaCityKats

DaCityKats

    feed KB 2014

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,541 posts
  • LocationDa City

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:01 AM

why prolong the process thats been put off for 10 plus years.

#4 JungleCat

JungleCat

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:04 AM

That's why we don't take one this year at all.

I want to wait...until next season.


:iagree: I don't care if we draft a QB at all this year.

#5 Captroop

Captroop

    Pronounced, "Cat Poop"

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,770 posts
  • LocationNot Telling... CatofWar might find me.

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:04 AM

David Garrard hasn't panned out?

#6 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,341 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:07 AM

That's why we don't take one this year at all.

I want to wait...until next season.


Why wait?? There are two QB's that have high first round grades this year. I'm just not sure what some of you guys want?? Just because Cam isn't Andrew Luck doesn't mean he isn't just as likely to pan out.

As a matter of fact recent history suggests that Luck would have a just as high a likelihood to fail as Cam Newton. The only reason Luck is rated is high as he is is because he played in a Pro System. Well only one QB that came from a true pro system has succeeded lately (Matt Ryan). The fact of the matter is that Luck (like every other QB to come from a pro system) was overrated because of the offense he played in at the college level.

So what do we wait for? What is your criteria for a worthy QB??

#7 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,341 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:11 AM

David Garrard hasn't panned out?


I said to be good QB's. If I downgraded from good QB's to serviceable I would probably have included Gerrard and Kyle Orton.

Not sure I would call those two really good QB's at this point but it depends on what your definition of good is.

#8 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,625 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:11 AM

Luck was rated higher because he was the complete package, no weaknesses, no red flags.

Luck was light years ahead of Newton, let's not reach that far.

#9 mr beauxjangles

mr beauxjangles

    Large Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,397 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:13 AM

Garrard and Orton deserve to be included in my opinion but still doesn't change the conclusion. 'preciate the post.

#10 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,341 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:14 AM

Why wait?? There are two QB's that have high first round grades this year. I'm just not sure what some of you guys want?? Just because Cam isn't Andrew Luck doesn't mean he isn't just as likely to pan out.

As a matter of fact recent history suggests that Luck would have a just as high a likelihood to fail as Cam Newton. The only reason Luck is rated is high as he is is because he played in a Pro System. Well only one QB that came from a true pro system has succeeded lately (Matt Ryan). The fact of the matter is that Luck (like every other QB to come from a pro system) was overrated because of the offense he played in at the college level.

So what do we wait for? What is your criteria for a worthy QB??


I'm not saying Andrew Luck wouldn't be a great player, but he does get a lot of extra credit because he plays in a pro system. I wonder if he would have such high grades if he came from a run and shoot offense or a spread?? Probably not.

And yet year after year first round pro style QB's are failing

#11 King Taharqa

King Taharqa

    The Panthers Quarterback

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,774 posts
  • LocationBobcat Country

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:16 AM

why prolong the process thats been put off for 10 plus years.


Because losing don't bother them. They don't have a passion for winning. Image is more important.

#12 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,341 posts

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:18 AM

Garrard and Orton deserve to be included in my opinion but still doesn't change the conclusion. 'preciate the post.


I guess I looked at from this perspective.

If Kansas City or Houston had the number one overall pick somehow (like a trade for instance) and Andrew Luck was available. Those two teams would pass on Luck because they have a good QB in place.

Denver with Orton or Jacksonville with Garrard would not pass on Luck in a similar situation.

But those guys are serviceable just not good.

Edited by Jackofalltrades, 21 February 2011 - 11:21 AM.


#13 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,642 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:21 AM

Luck was rated higher because he was the complete package, no weaknesses, no red flags.

Luck was light years ahead of Newton, let's not reach that far.


Light years? No. More complete and ready to start, yes.

Luck also had more years in the same system. Against common opponents- Oregon- Newton has better success this year.

No doubt Luck would have been taken first this year by us. But that doesn't mean he was the only choice or guy worthy to be drafted at number 1.

#14 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,625 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:25 AM

Light years? No. More complete and ready to start, yes.

Luck also had more years in the same system. Against common opponents- Oregon- Newton has better success this year.

No doubt Luck would have been taken first this year by us. But that doesn't mean he was the only choice or guy worthy to be drafted at number 1.


A lot of experts would disagree, Luck was the consensus first pick. There were a host of reasons for that.

#15 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,642 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:31 AM

A lot of experts would disagree, Luck was the consensus first pick. There were a host of reasons for that.


You missed my whole point. I didn't say that Newton was better than Luck. I said the Panthers acknowledged that we were going to take him number 1. I also said he was better ready to start and play in a pro offense after being in Harbaugh's system for 3 years.

What I said was that Luck wasn't light years ahead of Newton and that with Luck gone- Newton was still worthy of being drafted number 1. As we get closer to the draft, more experts will come to that conclusion.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com