IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-25-2013, 10:46 AM
HPF Bob HPF Bob is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,149
Default

But not slim enough to force the selection in a bad year for QBs. If a Luck or RG3 or Cam Newton is there, sure, take him. But I'm not ga-ga over any of the ones who will likely come out this year and when compared to choosing a safer choice like Jake Matthews, it's dumb to overreach just because you need a QB.

How many of the teams in playoff position today are ones that the QB is with their original team and drafted in the first round?

NE - no.
DEN - no
KC - no
CIN - no (Dalton was a second-rounder IIRC)
IND - yes
6th seed? - who cares, they're all 5-6.

SEA - no (Wilson not a first-rounder)
NO - no
ARI - no
DET - yes
DAL - no
CAR - yes

Maybe drafting an elite QB 1-1 isn't the magic tonic some people think.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-25-2013, 10:52 AM
cadams cadams is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob View Post
But not slim enough to force the selection in a bad year for QBs. If a Luck or RG3 or Cam Newton is there, sure, take him. But I'm not ga-ga over any of the ones who will likely come out this year and when compared to choosing a safer choice like Jake Matthews, it's dumb to overreach just because you need a QB.

How many of the teams in playoff position today are ones that the QB is with their original team and drafted in the first round?

NE - no.
DEN - no
KC - no
CIN - no (Dalton was a second-rounder IIRC)
IND - yes
6th seed? - who cares, they're all 5-6.

SEA - no (Wilson not a first-rounder)
NO - no
ARI - no
DET - yes
DAL - no
CAR - yes

Maybe drafting an elite QB 1-1 isn't the magic tonic some people think.
only magic if you get it right, but better chance of getting it right if you take the best prospect out of the group
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:24 AM
Keith Keith is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,761
Default

Split the Case discussion from the Jags game thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arky View Post
Seems like some expect "sensational" all the time....
I don't expect the sensational, though it seems Case expects it of himself. Case needs to learn to throw the ball away instead of taking a 16 yard loss and a sack. Reading blitzes, knowing when to throw away... these are things young QBs always struggle with, so combine that with the injuries on offense, and I can understand why the results are what they have been and why people want to give Case a huge benefit of the doubt.

I don't lay the 0-5 record on Case at all, those first three were there to win, and the team as a whole is responsible. But losing at home to the Raiders and Jaguars? When the opposition had Henne and someone named McLovin? Those "backyard" or what I call "flag football" plays sure seem to have dried up lately. Not a fluke. Teams adjust. This is why it was dangerous to prorate Keenum's stats after just 3 games.

I'm just judging based on what I see. One stat I find telling in my assessment: Keenum is completing just 47.5% of his passes between 1-10 yards through 59 attempts. Yikes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob View Post
How many of the teams in playoff position today are ones that the QB is with their original team and drafted in the first round?

NE - no.
DEN - no
KC - no
CIN - no (Dalton was a second-rounder IIRC)
IND - yes
6th seed? - who cares, they're all 5-6.

SEA - no (Wilson not a first-rounder)
NO - no
ARI - no
DET - yes
DAL - no
CAR - yes

Maybe drafting an elite QB 1-1 isn't the magic tonic some people think.
It's not, and taking Clowney or Matthews may be a good move, especially since the round 1 cap hits are easier on teams now, but a couple things... your list ignores that Denver, KC, and Arizona each have 1-1 guys as their QBs (even though they didn't draft them).

So what this list tells me is that most playoff teams DO need a quality QB, and quality is typically found higher in the draft than later. Are there exceptions? Of course. But Brady's and Romo's are far from the norm, and I don't count Keenum as being in that class.

With a new regime presumably coming in, a new QB at the top just seems all the more likely.
__________________
Support ...IntheBullseye.com and follow us on Twitter
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-25-2013, 06:55 PM
HPF Bob HPF Bob is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
your list ignores that Denver, KC, and Arizona each have 1-1 guys as their QBs (even though they didn't draft them).
By design. The premise (as I see it) is that we MUST draft a QB for next year in the first round. Denver, KC and Arizona didn't do that even though they got, admittedly, 1-1 quarterbacks. They found other ways to get one.



Quote:
With a new regime presumably coming in, a new QB at the top just seems all the more likely.
And what if it is Sumlin or Briles - two coaches who already have a relationship with Keenum and might want to develop him further?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-25-2013, 12:05 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob View Post
But not slim enough to force the selection in a bad year for QBs. If a Luck or RG3 or Cam Newton is there, sure, take him. But I'm not ga-ga over any of the ones who will likely come out this year and when compared to choosing a safer choice like Jake Matthews, it's dumb to overreach just because you need a QB.

How many of the teams in playoff position today are ones that the QB is with their original team and drafted in the first round?

NE - no.
DEN - no
KC - no
CIN - no (Dalton was a second-rounder IIRC)
IND - yes
6th seed? - who cares, they're all 5-6.

SEA - no (Wilson not a first-rounder)
NO - no
ARI - no
DET - yes
DAL - no
CAR - yes

Maybe drafting an elite QB 1-1 isn't the magic tonic some people think.
How does that data compare to the number of teams who have a QB drafted in the 2nd round who is still with them and leading them to the playoffs? How about the 3rd round? I would bet there are more teams with 1st round drafted QBs in the playoffs every year than 2nd round drafted QBs every year. But of course rounds 2-7 plus FA and Trade gets more QBs than just round 1 by itself.

How many playoff teams have RTs they drafted in the 1st round? (I bet none)

DEs they drafted in the first round? (I bet just as many as QB)

You are manipulating data to fit a pre-determined opinion (you don't want a 1st round QB).

Actual analysis says 3 teams drafted their QB in round 1, 1 team in round 2, 1 team in round 3, 1 team in round 6, and 1 UDFA. 2 others signed FAs, and 2 traded for theirs. This means the most likely way to get a playoff QB is to draft one in the 1st round (Luck, Stafford, Newton).

But remove the original team caveat and you get this;

Manning, Luck, Stafford, Newton, Palmer, and Alex Smith were not just 1st rounders, but #1 overall picks. That means half of this year's playoff QBs were #1 overall picks.

Does any of this mean we MUST go QB. Absolutely not. It just means Bob's stats were misleading and I can mislead with stats just as easily if I so desired.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.