Big Ben on drafting a QB and roster building

[NAS]

Speaking about Steelers

“I would not draft a quarterback for at least two to three years. That's just my opinion. I think as a GM, if I'm GMing this team ... the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it. Okay? It happened to me. They had a great football team. They plugged me in. We had a veteran group. It just works. It works better than trying to grab a quarterback and be, okay, we're gonna build around this quarterback, because then it's gonna take you four or five years to build around that quarterback. He's probably gonna look like poo up to it and then you're like, is he really our guy? is he not our guy?" 

I agree with him. Only downside  is if you build too good of a roster you’re not drafting high enough to get your  QB

[csx]

3 hours ago, NAS said:

Speaking about Steelers

“I would not draft a quarterback for at least two to three years. That's just my opinion. I think as a GM, if I'm GMing this team ... the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it. Okay? It happened to me. They had a great football team. They plugged me in. We had a veteran group. It just works. It works better than trying to grab a quarterback and be, okay, we're gonna build around this quarterback, because then it's gonna take you four or five years to build around that quarterback. He's probably gonna look like poo up to it and then you're like, is he really our guy? is he not our guy?" 

I agree with him. Only downside  is if you build too good of a roster you’re not drafting high enough to get your  QB

The Mannings were the last two highly drafted qbs to win a SB with the team that drafted them.

 Nobody else taken in top 10 won the Super Bowl with their original team. Stafford did it but after a trade.

[strato]

So that’s what we’re doing. Phew, I thought Bryce was it. Now I see their real plan.  

[Davidson Deac II]

1 hour ago, csx said:

The Mannings were the last two highly drafted qbs to win a SB with the team that drafted them.

 Nobody else taken in top 10 won the Super Bowl with their original team. Stafford did it but after a trade.

Does Mahomes not count as highly drafted? He was top 10.  

But I generally agree.  Drafting a QB in the top five is not usually successful.  QB is such a crapshoot anyway.  

[csx]

19 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Does Mahomes not count as highly drafted? He was top 10.  

But I generally agree.  Drafting a QB in the top five is not usually successful.  QB is such a crapshoot anyway.  

Yeah maybe. Borderline. I was thinking he was 13th for some reason.

Trading up to get a 10 ish pick is nowhere near as risky as #1 or 2

 

Building a solid roster also puts you in the position of being where the Manning, Brady, Stafford want to go to win a or another SB.

Edited 3 hours ago by csx

[Shotgun]

He's right, we should have never drafted Cam. 

[45catfan]

5 hours ago, NAS said:

Speaking about Steelers

“I would not draft a quarterback for at least two to three years. That's just my opinion. I think as a GM, if I'm GMing this team ...  the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it.  Okay? It happened to me. They had a great football team. They plugged me in. We had a veteran group. It just works. It works better than trying to grab a quarterback and be, okay, we're gonna build around this quarterback, because then it's gonna take you four or five years to build around that quarterback. He's probably gonna look like poo up to it and then you're like, is he really our guy? is he not our guy?" 

I agree with him. Only downside  is if you build too good of a roster you’re not drafting high enough to get your  QB

"the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it. "

Bingo.  I've been saying this for years now.  I'm not saying NFL GMs are idiots, but they get stuck in an old school of thought and have a hard time thinking outside out the old paradigm.  Draft the QB, no matter what! If you are at #1, I get it...you have to shoot your shot, especially if there's a legit franchise guy there.  However, I keep going back to the '23 draft, we had zero business taking a QB especially at #9 and what it took to get to #1.  That should have been a foundational draft to set up for a QB in the '24 draft.  The roster was NOT ready yet.  The Steelers are far enough back that they need to stay out of it in round one, maybe take a stab in the middle rounds for a QB and maybe strike gold. Obviously this would be a project guy year one and not starting.

The QB position is the hardest for a rookie to adjust to.  Why in the world would anyone think dropping said rookie into a dumpster fire is going to work out well?  It's just common sense to me.  

[Shocker]

40 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

He's right, we should have never drafted Cam. 

The team around Cam was very good.  Unlike Bryce.

[TD alt]

Meh. You don't necessarily trade a king's ransom for a draft pick, but you should strike when the opportunity presents itself. It's all about scouting and taking the BPA. You don't pass up on a viable QB---your guy who's just sitting there--just because it's year one to three and your team has holes.  Just build your team.

[mav1234]

39 minutes ago, TD alt said:

Meh. You don't necessarily trade a king's ransom for a draft pick, but you should strike when the opportunity presents itself. It's all about scouting and taking the BPA. You don't pass up on a viable QB---your guy who's just sitting there--just because it's year one to three and your team has holes.  Just build your team.

I mean this is the problem with how we tried to build. We took a team with some holes and traded away assets for a QB...

1 hour ago, Shocker said:

The team around Cam was very good.  Unlike Bryce.

Cam elevated the team when he was drafted. It was not a very good team. Remember it'd not done particularly well in 2009 and was atrocious in 2010 - because of QB... We added good TEs but we needed a QB to get them the ball.

We also didn't need to trade current weapons and future picks for Cam... We just had him there.

[SmokinwithWilly]

I think it’s probably easier to find a QB once you have your team built and your system established. You know exactly what you need your QB to do and it narrows down your choices. So much of early QB problems revolve around fitting into the system or signifigantly adjusting the system to fit the QB. Plus you have that rookie cap space to work with, or if it's a FA bridge QB or reclamation project like Darnold or Baker, maybe you get lucky and catch lightning in a bottle. Dynasties are rare. Have the team built to take your shot in a 2-3 years window. 

[jtm]

Unless you have a hall of fame QB, I think defenses win champtionships and I'd follow the Seattle model.  Even the best QBs can't win without a good team and our defense is a couple players away from being elite and what I'd focus on if I'm Dan Morgan.  

[ForJimmy]

2 hours ago, Shotgun said:

He's right, we should have never drafted Cam. 

Yeah you have teams that turn around quickly with players like Burrow (when healthy) and Allen. The Bears and Pats just took top QBs 2 years ago. Yeah it’s easier for the QB when they go to better rosters later, but the QB needy teams are typically at the top of the draft. 

[thennek]

6 minutes ago, jtm said:

Unless you have a hall of fame QB, I think defenses win champtionships and I'd follow the Seattle model.  Even the best QBs can't win without a good team and our defense is a couple players away from being elite and what I'd focus on if I'm Dan Morgan.  

I agree…Defense and running the football….old Foxy had it right.
Unfortunately the new NFL often negates great defense with questionable rules and subjective officiating.  Player safety important but you have to let them play.