QB drafting strategy

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,398
Liked Posts:
7,377
Just spitballing here. For a team that legit lands in the top 3 because they're terrible at the QB position, this doesn't really apply. You've already got a top pick so if there's a top QB prospect there for you, then by all means draft the guy. Still though, if you're taking a guy at the top of the draft, you're structuring all your other moves around that guy and him turning out (or not). The point here is that it seems to be the norm: draft a guy high, make him "the guy" and then ride or die. More often than not, if you include your top 10 QB pick turning out to be just "decent" or less (like I would) then it's "die."

For all the other starting QBs not included in the ones above, you've got (in draft pick order):

Cincinnati: Joe Burrow (#1 2020)
Arizona: Kyler Murray (#1 2019)
Cleveland: Baker Mayfield (#1 2018)
Detroit: Jared Goff (#1 2016)
New England: Cam Newton (#1 2011)
Los Angeles Rams: Matt Stafford (#1 2009)
Indianapolis: Carson Wentz (#2 2016)
Atlanta: Matt Ryan (#3 2008)
New York Jets: Sam Darnold (#3 2018)
Miami: Tua Tagovailoa (#5 2020)
New York Giants : Daniel Jones (#6 2019)
Los Angeles Chargers: Justin Herbert (#6 2020)
Buffalo: Josh Allen (#7 2018)
Tennessee: Ryan Tannehill (#8 2012)
Kansas City: Patrick Mahomes (#10 2017)
Pittsburgh: Ben Roethlisberger (#11 2004)
Houston: DeShaun Watson (#12 2017)
Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers (#24 2005)
Carolina: Teddy Bridgewater (#32 2014)
Baltimore: Lamar Jackson (#32 2018)
Philadelphia: Jalen Hurts (2nd round 2020)
Chicago: Andy Dalton (2nd round 2011)
San Francisco: Jimmy Garappolo (2nd round 2014)
Las Vegas: Derek Carr (2nd round 2014)
Denver: Drew Lock (2nd round 2019)
Seattle: Russell Wilson (3rd round 2012)
Minnesota: Kirk Cousins (4th round 2012)
Dallas: Dak Prescott (4th round 2016)
Jacksonville: Gardner Minshew (6th round 2019)
Tampa: Tom Brady (6th round 2000)
Washington: Ryan Fitzpatrick (7th round 2005)
New Orleans: Taysom Hill (undrafted 2017)

For teams in our position or a similar one, is it worth giving up tons of picks to trade up for a QB that's far more likely to cap out at "replaceable" than he is to be a guy you're really comfortable having lead your team for the next 10 years? There's a lot of 1st round picks there but some of the high ones very well may be on the chopping block (Darnold, Jones, Goff) while others are solid (Mayfield, Tannehill). You can find just as many guys who were drafted toward the end of the 1st or later that turn out to be studs (Rodgers, Jackson, Wilson, Prescott, Brady) as you can find in or near the top 10 (Mahomes, Watson and some of the young guys maybe). You can find a whole lot of busts too. In the last 10 years, these guys were drafted in the 1st round: Dwayne Haskins, Josh Rosen, Mitch Trubisky, Paxton Lynch, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel, EJ Manuel, RG3, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, Sam Bradford and Tim Tebow.

Looking at this draft, it appears we'll be on the outside looking in at the top 5 QBs this time around. Looking at percentages, it's likely that only one of those guys ends up being a top 10 QB (if any) while the others become solid starters at best, complete busts at worst. Why would we do that? If QB is the all-important position then why do teams give up a shit load of assets and commit to one for four years only to most likely end up with a guy that's "fine" or worse.

I would think the better approach would be to constantly invest some lower picks in guys. So this year sitting at #20, maybe grab Mac Jones if you like him and he's there but don't trade up for him. Instead, spend a 2nd on Kyle Trask, then the next year, maybe spend a 2nd or a 3rd on another QB to add to the room. Or, if you like what you're seeing in Trask, wait a year and then spend a late 1st, 2nd or even a later round pick on a guy you like to add to the room. If Trask turns out to be Tom Brady then maybe you don't spend any more picks on QB, but if he's just Kirk Cousins, you keep spending a 2nd here, a 4th there, a 6th here. By the numbers, you're just as likely to end up in the same place most other teams are (having a QB that's decent) while also spending more rounds on fliers that could really take your team to the next level, as is what happened with instances like Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott and others. Of course you're going to have plenty of David Fales' in there as well but the point remains.

So yea, I guess "Kyle Trask for 2nd round pick fugyea!"
 
Last edited:

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Only 7 of those guy were drafted higher than out #2 and one of those was like 20 years ago. Wilson lasted due to his size which was more frowned upon at the time and Prescott had some character concerns (though nothing major). Ignoring the great exception (Brady) of the other 6, 1/2 will be backups when those teams can find something better. 1/2 of 1st rounders are misses and it only gets worse thereafter,

While I don't really care for the pretense, I still want to roll the dice on a QB somewhere in this draft.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
CBS sports article has Bears trading a second to the Chargers and taking Lance at 13. That would be okay I guess.

I think it would take more and I would be OK with it. It would also mean the staff gets a pass this year. Lawrence would likely sit (most of) a year.
 

NCChiFan

Bald, fat, toothless
Donator
Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
Posts:
10,720
Liked Posts:
4,973
CBS sports article has Bears trading a second to the Chargers and taking Lance at 13. That would be okay I guess.

According to the draft point system, it would take a bit more than just a trade up for the 1st and 2nd pick from the Bears... Probably have to toss in a 6th as well. Edit: Who knows what could happen...
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,398
Liked Posts:
7,377
While I don't really care for the pretense, I still want to roll the dice on a QB somewhere in this draft.
That's my entire point. We should be rolling more dice on QBs, just not giving up assets to roll those dice in the 1st round when the numbers don't bear out the justification for it and then ignore the position in the draft for 4 years.

When Pace was hired, he said he'd draft a QB every year because that's how important the position is. He proceeded to not draft a QB for two years before giving up draft picks to move up one spot for Trubisky at #2, then never drafted a QB after that either. I'm old enough to remember fans complaining that Pace wasn't bringing in any competition for Trubisky. A 2nd round draft pick would've done that.

It should basically be unofficial rule: draft a QB somewhere in the draft every other year without giving up assets to move up for "that one guy" because a lot of those "that one guys" ends up busting or just being decent and thus not worth what you gave up to get him. If you're pretty well set then maybe draft a flier in the 6th. If he turns out to be Tom Brady-lite then it's an absolute home run, otherwise it's "oh well just a 6th round pick anyway."
 
Last edited:

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I don't disagree but your stats don't show it as cost effective if not early. What happened to the Romos and Warners? You would think that with the revised aerial college game, we'd have more viable late round surprises.
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,398
Liked Posts:
7,377
I don't disagree but your stats don't show it as cost effective if not early. What happened to the Romos and Warners? You would think that with the revised aerial college game, we'd have more viable late round surprises.
How can you have late round surprises when teams are giving up loads of draft picks to take a guy in the 1st and then committing to him for the next 4 years? Look at what we did: drafted Trubisky then ignored the position other than to get him another coach (Daniel). There was no possibility of a late round surprise there because the staff didn't give it a chance by prioritizing bringing in talent there. We committed to "our guy" because we took him with a premium asset (#3 pick + more) and we had to justify spending that asset.

The same pattern emerges with nearly every other team. Basically what I'm saying here is that while every other team is zigging, we should try zagging.
 

NCChiFan

Bald, fat, toothless
Donator
Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
Posts:
10,720
Liked Posts:
4,973
How can you have late round surprises when teams are giving up loads of draft picks to take a guy in the 1st and then committing to him for the next 4 years? Look at what we did: drafted Trubisky then ignored the position other than to get him another coach (Daniel). There was no possibility of a late round surprise there because the staff didn't give it a chance by prioritizing bringing in talent there. We committed to "our guy" because we took him with a premium asset (#3 pick + more) and we had to justify spending that asset.

The same pattern emerges with nearly every other team. Basically what I'm saying here is that while every other team is zigging, we should try zagging.
Which really makes me chuckle at GreenBay's last years first round pick, Jordan Love.
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,760
Liked Posts:
29,472
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
I believe Pace has embraced technology and instead of just using his hand to fling shit at the wall and see what sticks, he has a team of gurus devising a clear thought out scientific approach to it.







 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,398
Liked Posts:
7,377
Which really makes me chuckle at GreenBay's last years first round pick, Jordan Love.
I think it's a smart move. They did the same thing with Rodgers when Favre was still years away from retirement. Worked out pretty well for them. And yea, now if they happened to hit a home run on Jordan Love they'll see that in practice and know that they have options, just like they did when they had Rodgers behind Favre.

Another example is when Washington drafted RG3 2nd overall then backed him up with Cousins in the same draft. Worked out well when disaster struck in the form of RG3 injuries because they gave themselves options rather than just hitching their wagon to a top draft pick and saying "fuck all else."
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,398
Liked Posts:
7,377
To look at this from another POV, it's really just accepting that reliable scouting and talent evaluation is a very difficult thing to do, especially for the QB position since so much of what makes a QB great is between the ears in a way that can't be accurately tested for at the moment. Have some humility and know that there's been a whole lot of guys that came before you who did a whole lot of evaluation that led them to the conclusion that Christian Ponder/Blake Bortles/JaMarcus Russell is my QB for the next 10 years and thus is worth a top 10 pick.

Also look at the model being used and identify the flaws. I'm spending a premium pick on the player so I feel the pressure to make him succeed. As such, I'm not going to bring in any legitimate competition because boy would I have egg on my face if I drafted a guy in the 4th round or signed a guy off the street who beat out my top 10 stud pick. So I'm going to hand him the reigns to my franchise and make all my personnel moves for the next 3 years based around him in a way that's going to be impossible to recover from if he doesn't turn around. In short, I'm going to attach my job to this top 10 QB pick turning out, not just to be decent, but to be exceptional, otherwise the fans are going to be upset that a top 10 pick didn't turn out to be Payton Manning 2.0 and call for my head because the expectation is that top 10 QB pick needs to be a superstar to justify spending such a premium pick.

If I've got a fly in the house, I'd rather take 2-3 whacks at it with a rubber mallet rather than one with a sledgehammer. I'm unlikely to get it with either (akin to finding a superstar) but I'm more likely to be somewhat successful (find a competent starter) with the mallet while doing less damage to the house in the process (structuring all my moves around my top 10 draft pick succeeding).
 

BaBaBlacksheep

Half Mod.
Staff member
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
38,682
Liked Posts:
51,585
I think the only correct strategy is to:
















TAKE MAHOMES OR WASTON INSTEAD OF DEAR SWEET FUCKING MITCH.
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
The only rule of quarterback scouting seems to be that there are no rules.
 

Biscuit

Member
Joined:
Feb 17, 2021
Posts:
75
Liked Posts:
57
I made a list of Bears QB draft picks since 1960, with pick # and year


002 Mitchell Trubisky 2017
183 David Fales 2014
160 Nathan Enderle 2011
181 Dan LeFevour 2010
106 Kyle Orton 2005

148 Craig Krenzel 2004
022 Rex Grossman 2003
012 Cade McNown 1999
232 Moses Moreno 1998
107 Will Furrer 1992

190 Paul Justin 1991
063 Peter Tom Willis 1990
192 Brent Snyder 1989
026 Jim Harbaugh 1987
244 Mark Casale 1984

005 Jim McMahon 1982
260 Tim Clifford 1981
242 Turk Schonert 1980
140 Vince Evans 1977
135 Bob Avellini 1975

186 Alan Chadwick 1974
316 Joe Barnes 1974
420 Craig Holland 1974
033 Gary Huff 1973
167 Jim Fassel 1972

167 Buddy Lee 1971
376 Ron Maciejowski 1971
133 Bobby Cutburth 1970
041 Bobby Douglass 1969
142 Virgil Carter 1967

107 Ron Meyer 1966
228 Tom LaFramboise 1965
112 Larry Rakestraw 1964
081 Dave Mathieson 1963

160 Howard Dyer 1961
257 Ben Charles 1961
032 Don Meredith 1960
057 Dick Norman 1960

38 bites at the apple, without acquiring a franchise QB. Maybe it’s partly because they squander a bunch of lower picks on QBs, hoping to get lucky.
 

ZOMBIE@CTESPN

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 19, 2012
Posts:
17,907
Liked Posts:
19,548
Location:
MICHIGAN
I think one part of the strategy that needs to be part of the discussion isn’t just on field production but the locker room presence. Watson and mahommes owned their locker rooms in college. Trubisky wasn’t shit. Leadership is so big. Obviously still need to have the talent but your qb has to be a leader and own that locker room. Pace missed the boat big time with that when he decided not to scout Watson or mahommes
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,398
Liked Posts:
7,377
I made a list of Bears QB draft picks since 1960, with pick # and year


002 Mitchell Trubisky 2017
183 David Fales 2014
160 Nathan Enderle 2011
181 Dan LeFevour 2010
106 Kyle Orton 2005

148 Craig Krenzel 2004
022 Rex Grossman 2003
012 Cade McNown 1999
232 Moses Moreno 1998
107 Will Furrer 1992

190 Paul Justin 1991
063 Peter Tom Willis 1990
192 Brent Snyder 1989
026 Jim Harbaugh 1987
244 Mark Casale 1984

005 Jim McMahon 1982
260 Tim Clifford 1981
242 Turk Schonert 1980
140 Vince Evans 1977
135 Bob Avellini 1975

186 Alan Chadwick 1974
316 Joe Barnes 1974
420 Craig Holland 1974
033 Gary Huff 1973
167 Jim Fassel 1972

167 Buddy Lee 1971
376 Ron Maciejowski 1971
133 Bobby Cutburth 1970
041 Bobby Douglass 1969
142 Virgil Carter 1967

107 Ron Meyer 1966
228 Tom LaFramboise 1965
112 Larry Rakestraw 1964
081 Dave Mathieson 1963

160 Howard Dyer 1961
257 Ben Charles 1961
032 Don Meredith 1960
057 Dick Norman 1960

38 bites at the apple, without acquiring a franchise QB. Maybe it’s partly because they squander a bunch of lower picks on QBs, hoping to get lucky.
Good list, thanks. No doubt the Bears have had some other worldly luck with QBs, and more guys end up being nothing than being something so I'm not saying we would suddenly be flushed with more QBs than we knew what to do with. It's just better than the alternative of spending premium draft picks (even trading up to do so) and watching those guys bust out.

Kyle Orton was a quality pick for a 4rd rounder, then we traded for Cutler and didn't actually invest anything into the position until Trubisky in 2017. LeVefour, Enderle and Fales in the 5th/6th isn't really addressing the position in a way that you could fall back on. I'm talking a 2nd rounder here, late 1st there, 3rd there. Guys that might be in the 1st round conversation if not for a few things.

It definitely requires a shift in thinking. If Pace were to pick a QB in the 2nd or 3rd in 2019 2 years after taking Trubisky, you'd have to think "oh nice he's really investing in the position" rather than "looks like he's admitting failure already!" The vast majority of fans aren't there, and as demonstrated, the vast majority of GMs as well. Look at how people were like "awwww Aaron Rodgers your days are numbered" when they took Jordan Love instead of saying something like "yea they've got an embarrassment of riches so it's a smart play to invest in the most important position in football for sure."
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
How can you have late round surprises when teams are giving up loads of draft picks to take a guy in the 1st and then committing to him for the next 4 years? Look at what we did: drafted Trubisky then ignored the position other than to get him another coach (Daniel). There was no possibility of a late round surprise there because the staff didn't give it a chance by prioritizing bringing in talent there. We committed to "our guy" because we took him with a premium asset (#3 pick + more) and we had to justify spending that asset.

The same pattern emerges with nearly every other team. Basically what I'm saying here is that while every other team is zigging, we should try zagging.
I don't know wtf you're going on about. It wasn't a recommendation. Romo or Warner would also not go early in this draft based on their college play. Late surprises just don't seem to happen anymore. Probably due to the college emphasis on passing elevating to search for passers. If you don't have one, keep drafting them. Don't expect mid or late round success but you still need to keep rolling the dice until you find one.
 
Last edited:

Top