Who would you rather have drafting for the Chiefs?

[jAZ]

Dorsey, Reid and Co., or... The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

So the success rate of these guys, almost all of whom were generally accepted
first round picks, is about 1 in 10.

Other than a Manning, we have only Roethlisberger, Flacco, and Rodgers among 1st rounders winning Super Bowls. And those guys were all middle-late first, weren't they?

Outside of a few no-brainer choices, the picture isn't very clear. That's all I am pointing out.

Basically all you're pointing out here is that there are more than a few QBs who should have been selected earlier than they actually were.

[HotCarl]

Originally Posted by O.city

You seem to have this idea that a guy has to be drafted where he is slotted or graded.

It's not generally a good idea to overpay for things.

If you look at the well-traveled draft value chart, the #1 overall is worth 3,000, and #33 is worth about one sixth of that. So, if you take someone whose true value in most years is as the first pick of round 2, you're paying 6 times sticker, in a way.

You also have to look at opportunity cost. You could have, instead of vaporizing 2,500 points in that system, collected something up to two middle of the first round picks. #15 and #16 would be of a similar score to #1.

What the team lining up in week 1 looks like is all that matters of course, but I think people see taking a late first guy at #1 overall as no big deal because he's a QB. That's a very expensive proposition.

It's not really any different than if we traded two first round picks from our usual middle draft position and took a late first guy. If it works out, maybe you look like a genius, but you should be doing far, far better for your money 9 times out of 10

[HotCarl]

Originally Posted by Brock

Basically all you're pointing out here is that there are more than a few QBs who should have been selected earlier than they actually were.

There are three or four of those out of 30+, yes. Certainly.

But the moral is that the majority of them flame out and set the franchise back 3-4 years. It's just a fact. Maybe it's acceptable risk, maybe it isn't, but we underrate the risk.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

It's not generally a good idea to overpay for things.

If you look at the well-traveled draft value chart, the #1 overall is worth 3,000, and #33 is worth about one sixth of that. So, if you take someone whose true value in most years is as the first pick of round 2, you're paying 6 times sticker, in a way.

You also have to look at opportunity cost. You could have, instead of vaporizing 2,500 points in that system, collected something up to two middle of the first round picks. #15 and #16 would be of a similar score to #1.

What the team lining up in week 1 looks like is all that matters of course, but I think people see taking a late first guy at #1 overall as no big deal because he's a QB. That's a very expensive proposition.

It's not really any different than if we traded two first round picks from our usual middle draft position and took a late first guy. If it works out, maybe you look like a genius, but you should be doing far, far better for your money 9 times out of 10

Nobody cares about imaginary points. You don't win anything by playing an imaginary game of value. If you have the chance to lock up a potentially elite QB for little dollars, you do it.

[O.city]

You're stuck in the 90's with that thinking, to an extent. Rookie Qb's don't come into the league the way the used too.

Whether it be the new rules, college, whatever.


14 of the last 15 first round QB's are starters in teh league right now. If anything, it's shown that taking a Qb in the first round is less risk than it once was. Especially with the new wage scale.

Whoever you pick in teh first sets you back. I don't understand how a QB does it anymore. Tyson Jackson set the Chiefs back, Glenn Dorsey set the Chiefs back etc.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by O.city

You're stuck in the 90's with that thinking, to an extent. Rookie Qb's don't come into the league the way the used too.

Whether it be the new rules, college, whatever.


14 of the last 15 first round QB's are starters in teh league right now. If anything, it's shown that taking a Qb in the first round is less risk than it once was. Especially with the new wage scale.

Whoever you pick in teh first sets you back. I don't understand how a QB does it anymore. Tyson Jackson set the Chiefs back, Glenn Dorsey set the Chiefs back etc.

[HotCarl]

Originally Posted by Brock

Nobody cares about imaginary points. You don't win anything by playing an imaginary game of value. If you have the chance to lock up a potentially elite QB for little dollars, you do it.

If there was one for the taking, I'd be in favor of it. If we were drafting #15, any of these guys would seem like good value. If we could trade down to 10 or so, any of the leading names would be fine choices.

By squandering draft value, whether actual or potential, we're burning picks that could be used to bolster the team. We're putting all our eggs in a basket we fully acknowledge we paid several times face value for.

[O.city]

And if you're picking a guy in the first based on the position he plays being one of the lower bust positions, well, I dunno that that woudl be a really good idea.

[Hammock Parties]

How the hell is it not obvious that HotCarl isn't BlackBob's mult at this point?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

If there was one for the taking, I'd be in favor of it. If we were drafting #15, any of these guys would seem like good value. If we could trade down to 10 or so, any of the leading names would be fine choices.

By squandering draft value, whether actual or potential, we're burning picks that could be used to bolster the team. We're putting all our eggs in a basket we fully acknowledge we paid several times face value for.

The best prospects will be gone by 10 or 15. Wake up.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

If there was one for the taking, I'd be in favor of it. If we were drafting #15, any of these guys would seem like good value. If we could trade down to 10 or so, any of the leading names would be fine choices.

By squandering draft value, whether actual or potential, we're burning picks that could be used to bolster the team. We're putting all our eggs in a basket we fully acknowledge we paid several times face value for.

So is the price for potentially getting a franchise QB.



And to that extent, would you rather overpay for a Qb, or a Guard, or 34DE?

[HotCarl]

Originally Posted by O.city

14 of the last 15 first round QB's are starters in teh league right now.

Whoever you pick in teh first sets you back. I don't understand how a QB does it anymore. Tyson Jackson set the Chiefs back, Glenn Dorsey set the Chiefs back etc.

You're counting plenty of guys in that stat like Blaine Gabbert that prove my point more than yours.

Of course Jackson and Dorsey set us back, those were bad picks. A bust hurts equally no matter what position it is.

The problem there wasn't that we picked defensive ends instead of QBs, it's that we picked poor defensive ends.

If we had gotten two guys worthy of high first round picks, that would have been huge for us.

We'd still be without a QB, but we wouldn't be saying "We won 2 games last year", we'd be saying "We're an inch away, if only we can find a QB."

[O.city]

And this thought that only a drafted Qb is gonna get 3 years is crap.


Wherever we decide to get a Qb this offseason, will get a chance. It's not going to be a year, it will be 2 at minimum.

[HotCarl]

Originally Posted by O.city

So is the price for potentially getting a franchise QB.



And to that extent, would you rather overpay for a Qb, or a Guard, or 34DE?

We don't have to overpay for anything. We can draft players who are the best value at the time we make the selection.

If we consistently draft for maximum draft value, draft players who survive in the league, we raise the talent level on the team, and either we hit on our QB picks, or we have draft ammo to move up sometime for a QB that's worth a high first, because we have enough talent to forego a pick and trade it away.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

The problem there wasn't that we picked defensive ends instead of QBs, it's that we picked poor defensive ends.

The problem with all those other teams wasn't that they were picking QBs, it's that they picked the wrong one.