You don't need a QB to win

[CmC2k]

The Huddle would imploded if Teddy was throwing check downs on 3rd and 8 in the playoffs. 

[WarHeel]

Not disagreeing with the premise but inferring CMC is just a RB and in the same breath mentioning this being a “passing league” is a little hypocritical. We know the dude is way more than a ball carrier.

[OldhamA]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

All we need is a better team around Teddy and we could make a serious run...

Bridgewater has always just been here to hold down the fort at QB - he's light years better than Walker and Grier. They gave him the opportunity to prove that he was more than that, but clearly he's failed to impress.

[Jon Snow]

Well we don't have one and we aren't winning.  Your theory doesn't hold water.

[Waldo]

21 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

Bridgewater has always just been here to hold down the fort at QB - he's light years better than Walker and Grier. They gave him the opportunity to prove that he was more than that, but clearly he's failed to impress.

He is not worth his contract and when you add in the 3rd we missed in signing him it can only be considered a bad move to date. I agree it failed but my take goes deeper. 

And some still belive we are fine building around him to try and not make him not so bad. My statement was more about that crew.

[Mother Grabber]

1 hour ago, BrianS said:

First round drafted QB:  48% success rate

All other rounds combined:  11% success rate

Draw your own conclusions.

my conclusion is that your math doesn't add up

[TLGPanthersFan]

27 minutes ago, Mother Grabber said:

my conclusion is that your math doesn't add up

I think he means it is 48 percent for first round QBs. All other rounds are a combined 11 percent success rate. 

[Peon Awesome]

I don't think you have to convince many people that the qb is important. It's universally accepted as the most important position. You can also look at the data and say the team with the 23rd ranked qb handily beat the team with the 8th ranked qb, and the 19th ranked qb came exceedingly close to knocking off the team with the 3rd ranked qb. Also that 4 of the 14 teams in the playoffs (nearly 30%) had qbs with a lower qbr than Teddy.

Don't take that the wrong way. We absolutely have to upgrade on Teddy. Just saying you can create more than 1 narrative from the numbers. Like an elite defense can often neutralize an elite qb and putting all your eggs in the qb basket isn't the best formula for success either. 

[raleigh-panther]

4 hours ago, Waldo said:

All we need is a better team around Teddy and we could make a serious run...

No offense meant to you, but in no world would Bridgewater win a playoff game now. I don’t care what is put around him.  Defenses know he can’t handle pressure and they just have to sit on the short routes 

I never want to see him again unless it’s on the bench 

[BrianS]

1 hour ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

I think he means it is 48 percent for first round QBs. All other rounds are a combined 11 percent success rate. 

Correct.  People make all the wrong sorts of statements regarding QB's and where they are drafted. 

They will say silly things like "Look at Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, Dak Prescott!  You don't need to draft a QB in the first round!"  And they are right.  If you want to spend 8 to 12 draft picks on non-first round QB's, then you can absolutely, EVENTUALLY, find your guy in later rounds.  This is how we should be thinking of Will Grier, Jimmy Pickles or Tony Pike.  Low, low percentage chance they are a hit. 

Or on the other side of the coin are things like "He's so well thought of!  He can't miss!".  Yea, well, slightly more than half of the round one QB's do in fact fail.  It's not a guarantee.

 

As an aside, in our entire history as a franchise, we've only draft like seven non-first round QB's.  That's not enough picks to even have a shot at one good QB coming out of it.  On the other hand, both of our round 1 QB's have been a success.  Yes, Collins acted like a petulant child while he was here, but the dude got three different franchises to the playoffs and played for SEVENTEEN years.  Cam was Cam.

[Waldo]

4 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

No offense meant to you, but in no world would Bridgewater win a playoff game now. I don’t care what is put around him.  Defenses know he can’t handle pressure and they just have to sit on the short routes 

I never want to see him again unless it’s on the bench 

No offense taken. My take was making fun of the people who ever said that. I have been on the 'he is who he always was crowd' firmly. He is a backup.

[MasterAwesome]

4 hours ago, BrianS said:

First round drafted QB:  48% success rate

All other rounds combined:  11% success rate

Draw your own conclusions.

I can appreciate the time you put into that analysis, but your methodology was pretty flawed imo.

First off, the basis for most of the debate revolving around QB success in the NFL stems from the argument about the efficacy of "tanking"/throwing games to secure a top 3/top 5ish draft pick.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a lot of people on here saying "Oh let's just wait and pick a QB in rounds 2-7 to be our next franchise QB".  If someone on here is genuinely saying something like "Tom Brady was a 6th round pick so we can just wait til the 6th round to get a franchise QB" then you should just ignore those types of silly comments instead of wasting your time doing a bunch of research to address that type of comment.

Based on the posts I've seen here, I'd say at least 95% of Huddlers are in favor of us drafting a QB with our 8th overall pick.  The ones who don't, are generally in favor of building up the o-line/defense and waiting to draft a QB next year, which could very well be in the 1st round.  So it's more a debate around "does tanking for a Top 5 pick significantly improve our odds of finding a successful QB".  Making a comparison between all first round QBs vs. every other round isn't how we should be looking at it, imo.  

I also think lumping together rounds 2-7 heavily skews the data considering no teams draft a QB in the later rounds (4-7, for example) thinking "YES! We've got our franchise QB!".  These teams are drafting these QBs in hopes that maybe they can develop into a decent backup QB if they're lucky.  I think it's a hell of a lot more useful comparing "success rate" of first round QBs vs. second and third round QBs, then lumping all those late rounders in there.  That's how you get a jarring number like an 11% success rate cause it's being weighed down by those bums who no one expects to be successful QBs.

[BrianS]

7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I can appreciate the time you put into that analysis, but your methodology was pretty flawed imo.

First off, the basis for most of the debate revolving around QB success in the NFL stems from the argument about the efficacy of "tanking"/throwing games to secure a top 3/top 5ish draft pick.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a lot of people on here saying "Oh let's just wait and pick a QB in rounds 2-7 to be our next franchise QB".  If someone on here is genuinely saying something like "Tom Brady was a 6th round pick so we can just wait til the 6th round to get a franchise QB" then you should just ignore those types of silly comments instead of wasting your time doing a bunch of research to address that type of comment.

Based on the posts I've seen here, I'd say at least 95% of Huddlers are in favor of us drafting a QB with our 8th overall pick.  The ones who don't, are generally in favor of building up the o-line/defense and waiting to draft a QB next year, which could very well be in the 1st round.  So it's more a debate around "does tanking for a Top 5 pick significantly improve our odds of finding a successful QB".  Making a comparison between all first round QBs vs. every other round isn't how we should be looking at it, imo.  

I also think lumping together rounds 2-7 heavily skews the data considering no teams draft a QB in the later rounds (4-7, for example) thinking "YES! We've got our franchise QB!".  These teams are drafting these QBs in hopes that maybe they can develop into a decent backup QB if they're lucky.  I think it's a hell of a lot more useful comparing "success rate" of first round QBs vs. second and third round QBs, then lumping all those late rounders in there.  That's how you get a jarring number like an 11% success rate cause it's being weighed down by those bums who no one expects to be successful QBs.

If you wanna do that work, feel free.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the sample size in rounds two and three is going to be very small.  Thinking back to all the drafts I looked at, I just don't remember very many QB's in those rounds.

[Moo Daeng]

6 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

 

Of the eight remaining teams in the playoffs, 7 of the 8 have top 10 QBR quarterbacks.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/view/offense/season/2020/seasontype/2/table/passing/sort/adjQBR/dir/desc

Only 2 of the top ten rushing RB's are still in the playoffs.

 

It's a passing league for the few of you hold outs who think that a successful offense will be run through a RB.

This is the perfect definition of a strawman argument.