They say that in life, we ultimately regret more the things we didn't do than the things we did. So which would be more regrettable, to draft the next JaMarcus Russell or pass on the next Aaron Rodgers?
In 2005, with the #2 ovrall pick the Dolphins selected Ronnie Brown over Aaron Rodgers. In 2007 the Raiders selected JaMarcus Russell over Adrian Peterson. With 20-20 hindsight, which team made the bigger blunder?
DO you regret passing on Rodgers because you picked another stud who led you to a championship?
Or do you regret passing on Rodgers because you picked a merely solid player?
In both cases, you missed out on the premier guy but you still helped your team.
That's merely a question of envy. Do you regret marrying your wife because of who Verlander married?
On the other side, when you pick a Russell and he busts, there is no replacement to that pick. It's gone and you wouldn't even add a non-exciting but useful cog. You get nothing, zero zilch for it. In fact, you get less than that, because you probably wait too many years to cut your losses in the faint hope that you can get some recoup of your investment. So you spiral downward.
DO you regret passing on Rodgers because you picked another stud who led you to a championship?
Or do you regret passing on Rodgers because you picked a merely solid player?
In both cases, you missed out on the premier guy but you still helped your team.
That's merely a question of envy. Do you regret marrying your wife because of who Verlander married?
On the other side, when you pick a Russell and he busts, there is no replacement to that pick. It's gone and you wouldn't even add a non-exciting but useful cog. You get nothing, zero zilch for it. In fact, you get less than that, because you probably wait too many years to cut your losses in the faint hope that you can get some recoup of your investment. So you spiral downward.
In one of those scenarios, you didn't miss out on the premier guy. You got another premier guy.
This is not HIghlander...there can be more than one.
You can succeed in many ways. But you just cannot fail.
Why are we even talking about Rodgers anyway? Over 20 teams passed on him. How many teams took a shit QB at 2 and haven't won anything? You are making my point for me.
Quote:
These aren't comparable circumstances. But to answer the question it has to be JaMarcus Russell, especially since their was no slotted rookie cap in place.
Well there is now, so instead of being so literal, stick to the point: is it worse to draft a QB who busts or to pass on a QB who makes it to the Hall of Fame? The answer should be pretty obvious to anyone being honest with themselves.
Depends on what you have on the roster at the QB position. If you have a bad QB situation, you might as well roll the dice on a new QB. If he fails, you missed out on other good players, but youre essentially in the same position prior to drafting the player.
If you already have an average or better QB on the roster theres considerable more risk gambling on greatness.
It's a false dichotomy though because there's no real way to be sure which one you are doing. You make the best call with the info you have and proceed from there.
Quote:
and makes mine shit? Got it.
Why are we even talking about Rodgers anyway? Over 20 teams passed on him. How many teams took a shit QB at 2 and haven't won anything? You are making my point for me.
Forget the samples I used, just think of it philosophically. Of course teams move on after missing on a Hall of Fame QB, just as they move on from drafting a QB who busts. In the latter case, you lament the cost in money and time spend developing the QB, in the former you lament missing out on being in the Super Bowl hunt year in and year out. Which is the heavier price?
Dang, now I have to go pull out the old Almanac and check.
It's a false dichotomy though because there's no real way to be sure which one you are doing. You make the best call with the info you have and proceed from there.
I *LOVE* this post and you making it.
It simply reeks of uncertainty.
This thread is silly.
So in 28 drafts, that is 2 for 42; or better stated, 0 for 40 if you exclude the two Mannings... Has this just been a soft period for quarterbacks? Uh, I don't think so... Brady, Favre, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Brees etc. are all HOF quarterbacks not selected in the top ten...
Instead, it may be because the intense scrutiny and suffocating pressure of a young man being put in the most important position in the sporting world has become almost unbearable for anyone in today's relentless media environment... especially someone who is pre-anointed as the franchise savior before they have ever thrown a pass in the NFL...
Maybe if the Colts had passed on Andrew Luck in 2012 and supported Peyton Manning with Fletcher Cox or Luke Kuechly, the Colts and not the Broncos would have won a super bowl in 2015...
So in 28 drafts, that is 2 for 42; or better stated, 0 for 40 if you exclude the two Mannings... Has this just been a soft period for quarterbacks? Uh, I don't think so... Brady, Favre, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Brees etc. are all HOF quarterbacks not selected in the top ten...
Instead, it may be because the intense scrutiny and suffocating pressure of a young man being put in the most important position in the sporting world has become almost unbearable for anyone in today's relentless media environment... especially someone who is pre-anointed as the franchise savior before they have ever thrown a pass in the NFL...
Maybe if the Colts had passed on Andrew Luck in 2012 and supported Peyton Manning with Fletcher Cox or Luke Kuechly, the Colts and not the Broncos would have won a super bowl in 2015...
It was just brought to my attention that Trent Dilfer was drafted in the top ten in 1994 so I stand corrected - the correct stats are 3 for 42 top ten super bowl winning quarterbacks and 1 for 40 "non-Mannings"...
So in 28 drafts, that is 2 for 42; or better stated, 0 for 40 if you exclude the two Mannings... Has this just been a soft period for quarterbacks? Uh, I don't think so... Brady, Favre, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Brees etc. are all HOF quarterbacks not selected in the top ten...
Instead, it may be because the intense scrutiny and suffocating pressure of a young man being put in the most important position in the sporting world has become almost unbearable for anyone in today's relentless media environment... especially someone who is pre-anointed as the franchise savior before they have ever thrown a pass in the NFL...
Maybe if the Colts had passed on Andrew Luck in 2012 and supported Peyton Manning with Fletcher Cox or Luke Kuechly, the Colts and not the Broncos would have won a super bowl in 2015...
knowledge drop!
Quote:
A bad QB will take down your franchise quickly. There are other options after passing up a great one that might be nearly as good and not ruin your team.
It's a false dichotomy though because there's no real way to be sure which one you are doing. You make the best call with the info you have and proceed from there.
I *LOVE* this post and you making it.
It simply reeks of uncertainty.
This are incredibly uncertain times. :)
Quote:
In comment 13906676 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
A bad QB will take down your franchise quickly. There are other options after passing up a great one that might be nearly as good and not ruin your team.
It's a false dichotomy though because there's no real way to be sure which one you are doing. You make the best call with the info you have and proceed from there.
I *LOVE* this post and you making it.
It simply reeks of uncertainty.
This are incredibly uncertain times. :)
Then it's good to have principles.
I mean, Ronnie Brown is not as good as Rodgers, for sure. But he was at least a pro bowler. The Raiders passed up some really great players in that draft and took one of the biggest busts of all time.
My answer is that it's far more regrettable to pass on the great QB, than to choose a QB that busts. My guess though is that most posters who want a QB at 2 will agree with that premise, while those that don't will spin it to support their own, non-QB draft preference.
The question was supposed to make you think, but it just made everyone dig their heels in and restate their draft preference.
My answer is that it's far more regrettable to pass on the great QB, than to choose a QB that busts. My guess though is that most posters who want a QB at 2 will agree with that premise, while those that don't will spin it to support their own, non-QB draft preference.
The question was supposed to make you think, but it just made everyone dig their heels in and restate their draft preference.
I want to take a QB.
I answered his question based on the parameters he presented. Missing on Russell was way worse for the Raiders than all the teams who didnt take Rodgers (which also includes the Raiders).
If my math is correct, since Rodgers was drafted there were 2 teams that passed on him that won the Super Bowl. So yeah, that didnt hurt them too poorly.
And IMO the answer is obvious for the reasons already stated.. it's worse picking the bust. As has already been said, you missed out on the HoFer who knows... maybe you have a guy a tick below that. You draft a bust... especially at QB... it's a wasted pick.
Whether or not the guy I had in mind was Rosen or the QB of your choice is unimportant. The purpose of the thread was to approach the discussion we've been having for weeks, but from a different angle. Looking at it from the POV of Dave Gettleman fifteen years from now and knowing that he made a mistake. Which mistake would sting the most? Would it sting more to have selected [Fill In QB of your choice] only to see Barkley go on to have a Hall of Fame career or to choose Barkley and suffer through watching [Fill in QB of your choice] have a Hall of Fame career? I gave the examples from 2005 and 2007 because those were drafts in which a GM made a choice between the highest graded RB on his board and the highest graded QB and in each case the one that got away had a Hall of Fame career.
And IMO the answer is obvious for the reasons already stated.. it's worse picking the bust. As has already been said, you missed out on the HoFer who knows... maybe you have a guy a tick below that. You draft a bust... especially at QB... it's a wasted pick.
The only player in the 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) draft that I would describe as a "tick" below Rodgers would be DeMarcus Ware. Every other player drafted was several ticks below Rodgers, including the three RBs drafted in the first 5 picks who combined for just 5 total 1,000 yd seasons between them.
All the other players drafted in RD 1 that year are out of the league (except for Alex Smith) and most have been gone for at least 5 years.
Also, take a look at that first round in 2005 and read the list of the 22 teams that passed on Rodgers (Dallas did it twice). The majority of those teams have had on-going QB issues that would have been solved for more than a decade if they had taken Rodgers.
In Milton's example the missed opportunity cost of passing on Rodgers is far, far greater than blowing just one pick.
Whether or not the guy I had in mind was Rosen or the QB of your choice is unimportant. The purpose of the thread was to approach the discussion we've been having for weeks, but from a different angle. Looking at it from the POV of Dave Gettleman fifteen years from now and knowing that he made a mistake. Which mistake would sting the most? Would it sting more to have selected [Fill In QB of your choice] only to see Barkley go on to have a Hall of Fame career or to choose Barkley and suffer through watching [Fill in QB of your choice] have a Hall of Fame career? I gave the examples from 2005 and 2007 because those were drafts in which a GM made a choice between the highest graded RB on his board and the highest graded QB and in each case the one that got away had a Hall of Fame career.
I don't know Milt... I guess they'd both sting about the same for me. Either way you've missed out on a HoF player.
Still not getting your point.
Quote:
it's just dressed up differently than the others.
And IMO the answer is obvious for the reasons already stated.. it's worse picking the bust. As has already been said, you missed out on the HoFer who knows... maybe you have a guy a tick below that. You draft a bust... especially at QB... it's a wasted pick.
The only player in the 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) draft that I would describe as a "tick" below Rodgers would be DeMarcus Ware. Every other player drafted was several ticks below Rodgers, including the three RBs drafted in the first 5 picks who combined for just 5 total 1,000 yd seasons between them.
All the other players drafted in RD 1 that year are out of the league (except for Alex Smith) and most have been gone for at least 5 years.
Also, take a look at that first round in 2005 and read the list of the 22 teams that passed on Rodgers (Dallas did it twice). The majority of those teams have had on-going QB issues that would have been solved for more than a decade if they had taken Rodgers.
In Milton's example the missed opportunity cost of passing on Rodgers is far, far greater than blowing just one pick.
Maybe it's just me because I'm still not seeing the point. So you and Milton are suggesting to just pick a QB just because it would supposedly hurt more to miss picking a HoF QB over a HoF RB?
And just because 2 guys agreed with you doesnt mean my take or anyone elses are wrong (or right for that matter).
I answered your question and you scolded me for doing so too literally. Thats when I determined it wasnt an actual exercise but rather and agenda driven thread topic.
Quote:
it's just dressed up differently than the others.
And IMO the answer is obvious for the reasons already stated.. it's worse picking the bust. As has already been said, you missed out on the HoFer who knows... maybe you have a guy a tick below that. You draft a bust... especially at QB... it's a wasted pick.
The only player in the 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) draft that I would describe as a "tick" below Rodgers would be DeMarcus Ware. Every other player drafted was several ticks below Rodgers, including the three RBs drafted in the first 5 picks who combined for just 5 total 1,000 yd seasons between them.
All the other players drafted in RD 1 that year are out of the league (except for Alex Smith) and most have been gone for at least 5 years.
Also, take a look at that first round in 2005 and read the list of the 22 teams that passed on Rodgers (Dallas did it twice). The majority of those teams have had on-going QB issues that would have been solved for more than a decade if they had taken Rodgers.
In Milton's example the missed opportunity cost of passing on Rodgers is far, far greater than blowing just one pick.
And of course most of those players are out of the league 13-14 years later... the average career for an NFL player spans about 3 to 4 years. So using that to prove some kind of point doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
And lastly, this is assuming the QB you pick turns into a HoFer. What if... let's just say Josh Rosen for the sake of argument *grin*... turns out to be a bust? But Barkley goes on to have a HoF career? Does that help or hurt whatever point you guys are trying to make?
Quote:
In comment 13906890 T-Bone said:
Quote:
it's just dressed up differently than the others.
And IMO the answer is obvious for the reasons already stated.. it's worse picking the bust. As has already been said, you missed out on the HoFer who knows... maybe you have a guy a tick below that. You draft a bust... especially at QB... it's a wasted pick.
The only player in the 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) draft that I would describe as a "tick" below Rodgers would be DeMarcus Ware. Every other player drafted was several ticks below Rodgers, including the three RBs drafted in the first 5 picks who combined for just 5 total 1,000 yd seasons between them.
All the other players drafted in RD 1 that year are out of the league (except for Alex Smith) and most have been gone for at least 5 years.
Also, take a look at that first round in 2005 and read the list of the 22 teams that passed on Rodgers (Dallas did it twice). The majority of those teams have had on-going QB issues that would have been solved for more than a decade if they had taken Rodgers.
In Milton's example the missed opportunity cost of passing on Rodgers is far, far greater than blowing just one pick.
Maybe it's just me because I'm still not seeing the point. So you and Milton are suggesting to just pick a QB just because it would supposedly hurt more to miss picking a HoF QB over a HoF RB?
OK. I think Milton is really talking about the missed opportunity cost more than anything else, so perhaps you can consider this non-football example instead.
Let's say years ago you had a lot of money to invest and for some reason you had to choose between two stocks.
You ended up passing on the Apple IPO and instead invested all your money in another stock. Whether that other stock did OK or completely tanked causing you to lose all your money, I guarantee the story you'd be repeating to anyone who'd listen for the rest of your natural life was what a fool you were to pass on the Apple IPO.
That's the missed opportunity cost that Milton is referring to. It really does hurt a LOT more than simply choosing one bad draft pick or stock
The single biggest factor is how much the Raiders paid Russel, and how many years they paid him to do nothing. That reality has changed since that draft.
As stated teams who skipped AR have won Super Bowls. The Raiders had a decade of ineptitude with/following Russel.
Fast forward to today, and the cost of league average QB play is nearing the % of cap allocation of what an early pick cost then.
The reward of getting a cost-controlled QB for 5 years is beyond the risk now.
p.s.--Why do I assume I'm the smartest in the room?
"Ha!"--Milton - ( New Window )
Neither the Raiders or Dolphins got a franchise player, but a least the Dolphins got something.
I'll have you know Ronnie Brown has a higher career QB rating than Jamarcus Russell.
My answer is that it's far more regrettable to pass on the great QB, than to choose a QB that busts. My guess though is that most posters who want a QB at 2 will agree with that premise, while those that don't will spin it to support their own, non-QB draft preference.
The question was supposed to make you think, but it just made everyone dig their heels in and restate their draft preference.
You know what is unconscionable bullshit about this post?
We are presented with two options. That implies that there are two different pov and since its a free will life, opinions are, by right, equal.
Yet one choice is framed here as equitable agreement. The other is presented as contortional spin.
Propagandists everywhere would be proud.
Quote:
But unfortunately since Milton is the one asking, everyone is in attack mode thinking that it's just another Rosen thread.
My answer is that it's far more regrettable to pass on the great QB, than to choose a QB that busts. My guess though is that most posters who want a QB at 2 will agree with that premise, while those that don't will spin it to support their own, non-QB draft preference.
The question was supposed to make you think, but it just made everyone dig their heels in and restate their draft preference.
You know what is unconscionable bullshit about this post?
We are presented with two options. That implies that there are two different pov and since its a free will life, opinions are, by right, equal.
Yet one choice is framed here as equitable agreement. The other is presented as contortional spin.
Propagandists everywhere would be proud.
Another mediocre post Bill. Keep em coming!
No way should you be upset you passed on the HOFer - if you DID draft him... he may not have been the HOFer.
I still want Barkley at 2 - but find it less likely we'll go that way. Darnold has bust written all over him - his release has a Tebow-like wind up to it. Rosen is likely the best QB to come out of this draft, but I really don't want another 10 years of an immobile pocket passer - call it personal preference. Mayfield fits the bill but oh boy his choices in his off field life leave a lot to be desired.
No way should you be upset you passed on the HOFer - if you DID draft him... he may not have been the HOFer.
I still want Barkley at 2 - but find it less likely we'll go that way. Darnold has bust written all over him - his release has a Tebow-like wind up to it. Rosen is likely the best QB to come out of this draft, but I really don't want another 10 years of an immobile pocket passer - call it personal preference. Mayfield fits the bill but oh boy his choices in his off field life leave a lot to be desired.
Exactly right... Each of the top four quarterbacks have flaws that increase the likelihood of a bust... Darnold's turnover propensity, Allen's accuracy, Rosen's durability, Mayfield's height and character... None of them are in the "Andrew Luck Can't Miss" category - and, oh by the way, you would have to say that after six years, Luck has indeed "missed" if you consider a Super Bowl win the objective of a top ten draft franchise quarterback... Listening to his press conference yesterday had to be disconcerting to Colts fans who may now be wondering why they traded back with the Jets...
- Wayne Gretsky
- Michael Scott
Quote:
because he was never any good. At least Ronnie Brown was a good back for a while.
Neither the Raiders or Dolphins got a franchise player, but a least the Dolphins got something.
I'll have you know Ronnie Brown has a higher career QB rating than Jamarcus Russell.
Hahaha.
Whether or not the guy I had in mind was Rosen or the QB of your choice is unimportant. The purpose of the thread was to approach the discussion we've been having for weeks, but from a different angle. Looking at it from the POV of Dave Gettleman fifteen years from now and knowing that he made a mistake. Which mistake would sting the most? Would it sting more to have selected [Fill In QB of your choice] only to see Barkley go on to have a Hall of Fame career or to choose Barkley and suffer through watching [Fill in QB of your choice] have a Hall of Fame career? I gave the examples from 2005 and 2007 because those were drafts in which a GM made a choice between the highest graded RB on his board and the highest graded QB and in each case the one that got away had a Hall of Fame career.
1. As several 'insiders' have stated, it may not be Barkley if they don't go QB at #2. Chubb is definitely in play due to the high value the Giants FO puts on pass rushers (probably 2nd most critical position to them after QB). So why not answer my earlier question regarding Ware vs Rodgers?
2. A lot of regrets also have to deal with how the decision making went down. Is his 'gut' (and film review) telling him that Eli is toast and that he needs to draft a replacement? Is his gut telling him that Barkley is Faulk+? And finally, does he go against his to fill a need?
And lastly, this is assuming the QB you pick turns into a HoFer. What if... let's just say Josh Rosen for the sake of argument *grin*... turns out to be a bust? But Barkley goes on to have a HoF career? Does that help or hurt whatever point you guys are trying to make?
You can stick with that same draft. What if you end up drafting Alex Smith, who's made a nice career for himself, over HOF Ware?