[ramsman34]

Personally, unless you have identified a QB as another Manning, Luck, Elway, etc. (and the entire league will see that guy the exact same way you do), you don't move up and give up that much to draft on developmental potential - that move means the QB you take is starter day 1. I am of the opinion that you always take the best player available regardless of position, UNLESS - you are loaded and YOUNG at that position (for us, RB, 3-tech, will and mike backer, possibly OG). If the BPA is one of our loaded and young positions, you try to trade down. Follow your board and the rankings you have developed and never reach. It takes a roster of 53, 44 starters, and special teams aces to consistently win. Yes, you need to have consistent, quality QB play. But, you don't have to have a Manning et al to win consistently. IF, you think a QB is THAT caliber, then and only then do you sell the farm to get him.

If you decide to do so, you better pray you are right.

[The Ripper]

Whether or not a QB is a franchise QB depends as much on the franchise as it does the QB...

Depends on what you mean. If you mean the qb is on a team that gets regular winning records, then, yeah, obviously the coach matters. But just in terms of the caliber of qb? I actually think it's the other way around. If the franchise gets a franchise qb everything else is easier and the coach has more of a chance though it's no guarantee.

For example there have been coaching changes in places like Detroit, SD, and NY, but regardless of that, everyone knows those places have franchise qbs in Stafford, Rivers, and Eli.

On the other hand there are coaches who don't manage to get going because they don't have a qb.

I think coaching is huge.

We're much better coached defensively than we are offensively. You see it on the field. You see it in the development of our young players.

If the Rams had drafted Bortles, Bridgewater or Carr in 2012, i think there's an excellent chance we'd be talking about them being busts going into 2016...

That's right on. Some QB's just can't recover from the pounding that they take when they go to a team that's not ready for a franchise QB. Their mechanics can get turned around and in a lot of cases they just can't recover their old form. David Carr is a great example in the NFL and Christian Hackenberg might end up that way.

[PARAM]

Fwiw to offer a more complete picture, here's the 1st round across roughly the same period. Naturally and obviously, I found a much higher hit rate for the 1st round.

I did 2004-2014, which (with a year added) corresponds to the years for my 2nd and 3rd round qb search.

From 2004 to 2014, out of 31 1st round qbs, I got 15 hits: Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Eli, Ryan, Cutler, Newton, Flacco, Smith, Stafford, Luck, Tannenhill, Bradford, Bridgewater, and Bortles.

Granted we really don't know about a couple of those yet. But either way,doing these years brings it to 48.4%.

..

Some might dispute your list of "hits".

Alex Smith? The first overall pick in the 2005 draft? A hit? IMO, he's a game manager not a franchise QB.
Cutler? He's played in the league 10 years and been to the postseason once. And in that single, solitary postseason, he took himself out of the game with an injury that, judging by his presence on the sideline the rest of the way, was at least mildly mysterious. He's got many questions.
Bradford? The guy has been in the league 6 years and missed 33 games, or about 5.5 per year. That's a hit?
The jury is still out on Tannehill. Bridgewater and Bortles have been in the leauge 2 years, though they look promising.
Even counting those 3, that's 11 of 29 first round QBs. 37.9%.
If you don't count them it's 8 of 26 or 30%.
Go back 2 more years (02 and 03) and you can add 1 of 7 hits, putting the percentage at 41.6% (15 of 36), and that's allowing for your liberal rating system. In reality, 12 of 36 or 33%, accepting Tannehill, Bortles and Bridgewater all as the real deal. So with that in mind, maybe one of these top 3 in this years draft pan out?
Hell, if you look at the 6 NFL quarterbacks who had a QB rating north of 99.9, you'd find 1 first round pick (Carson Palmer) and 5 of them made the postseason (Brees the unfortunate outsider).

[Stranger]

I agree that Keenum is trade bait, which is why we're hearing all the praise. And next year's number 1 is too high. Don't do it, Snisher.

[/zn/]

Fwiw to offer a more complete picture, here's the 1st round across roughly the same period. Naturally and obviously, I found a much higher hit rate for the 1st round.

I did 2004-2014, which (with a year added) corresponds to the years for my 2nd and 3rd round qb search.

From 2004 to 2014, out of 31 1st round qbs, I got 15 hits: Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Eli, Ryan, Cutler, Newton, Flacco, Smith, Stafford, Luck, Tannenhill, Bradford, Bridgewater, and Bortles.

Granted we really don't know about a couple of those yet. But either way,doing these years brings it to 48.4%.

..

Some might dispute your list of "hits".

Alex Smith? The first overall pick in the 2005 draft? A hit? IMO, he's a game manager not a franchise QB.
Cutler? He's played in the league 10 years and been to the postseason once. And in that single, solitary postseason, he took himself out of the game with an injury that, judging by his presence on the sideline the rest of the way, was at least mildly mysterious. He's got many questions.
Bradford? The guy has been in the league 6 years and missed 33 games, or about 5.5 per year. That's a hit?
The jury is still out on Tannehill. Bridgewater and Bortles have been in the leauge 2 years, though they look promising.
Even counting those 3, that's 11 of 29 first round QBs. 37.9%.
If you don't count them it's 8 of 26 or 30%.
Go back 2 more years (02 and 03) and you can add 1 of 7 hits, putting the percentage at 41.6% (15 of 36), and that's allowing for your liberal rating system. In reality, 12 of 36 or 33%, accepting Tannehill, Bortles and Bridgewater all as the real deal. So with that in mind, maybe one of these top 3 in this years draft pan out?
Hell, if you look at the 6 NFL quarterbacks who had a QB rating north of 99.9, you'd find 1 first round pick (Carson Palmer) and 5 of them made the postseason (Brees the unfortunate outsider).

I count as a "hit" a living breathing active continuing starter. "Hit" is for me a minimal term...it's hit v. bust/back-up, as opposed to any other consideration (like where picked and whether it includes bad years and the current ranking of the player v. other starters etc.).

It's just a simple test. What percentage of 1st round qbs stuck around as active continuing starters.

So, is it wood or dirt. I can understand a more detailed discussion would follow, saying things like is it oak or pine.

[PARAM]

I count as a "hit" a living breathing active continuing starter. "Hit" is for me a minimal term...it's hit v. bust/back-up, as opposed to any other consideration (like where picked and whether it includes bad years and the current ranking of the player v. other starters etc.).

It's just a simple test. What percentage of 1st round qbs stuck around as active continuing starters.

So, is it wood or dirt. I can understand a more detailed discussion would follow, saying things like is it oak or pine.

Fair enough.

So what do you think? Should we trade up and try for a "hit" (vs. bust)?

I'd agree the object of the draft is to obtain players who can, 1. hang around on an NFL roster, 2. start for an NFL team, 3. produce as a starter

I'd think the aim of drafting a QB in the first round is more about 3 than 2 or 1.....of course, not trying to get into an oak/pine discussion here.

[/zn/]

I count as a "hit" a living breathing active continuing starter. "Hit" is for me a minimal term...it's hit v. bust/back-up, as opposed to any other consideration (like where picked and whether it includes bad years and the current ranking of the player v. other starters etc.).

It's just a simple test. What percentage of 1st round qbs stuck around as active continuing starters.

So, is it wood or dirt. I can understand a more detailed discussion would follow, saying things like is it oak or pine.

Fair enough.

So what do you think? Should we trade up and try for a "hit" (vs. bust)?

I'd agree the object of the draft is to obtain players who can, 1. hang around on an NFL roster, 2. start for an NFL team, 3. produce as a starter

I'd think the aim of drafting a QB in the round is more about 3 than 2 or 1.....of course, not trying to get into an oak/pine discussion here.

Oak/pine discussions are really interesting...and they're interesting because there are a lot of different perspectives and people say different thing. I enjoy that. But sometimes, as in this case, I just want get to the minimum basics. IMO knowing that can be useful too. More than one way to skin a cat.

In terms of trading up...I also found this.

Looking just at the period from 2004-2014, I divided it into qbs picked from 1-12, and qbs picked from 13-32.

Okay of 31 qbs picked across that period:

20 were from picks 1-12, and of those, 12 were hits. 60%.

11 were from picks 13-32, and of those, 3 were hits (Flacco, Rodgers, Bridgewater). 27%. Basically the same as rounds 2-3.

BUT. They say this draft has more tier 2 qb talent. Meaning, interesting developmental guys who could be picked anywhere from the 2nd half of the 1st round to rounds 2 or 3. That is, this draft seems to have more Daltons than usual. So maybe the numbers will be different for this draft.

Personally I don't mind trading up. I wouldn't get into a death match advocating it ... but it wouldn't bother me if they did it.



.

[PARAM]

20 were from picks 1-12, and of those, 12 were hits. 60%.

Again, criteria is hanging around the NFL and starting for a while right?

QB's taken in the top 12, 2004-14

Bortles (too soon to tell)
Luck (check)
Griffen (nope)
Tannehill (sure give him a check)
Newton (check)
Locker (nope)
Gabbert (nope)
Ponder (nope)
Bradford (what the hell why not?)
Stafford (check)
Sanchez (nope)
Ryan (check)
VY (nope)
Leinart (nope)
Cutler (sure, why not)
Russell (nope)
Smith (sure, even if it took him 8 years to get that check)
Eli (check)
Rivers (check)
Ben (check)


I count 11 for 8 against and 1 too soon to tell. And that's considering both Bradford and Alex Smith "hits" which might be challenged by some. Considering the Rams don't want to draft a QB in the top 12 (or 15) who doesn't become a productive starter until year 7, like Alex Smith or miss 31 of his first 80 games in the league due to injury, like Bradford, I would question whether that 60% number is something to hang your hat on if you're the Rams. Because in the end, we are talking about the Rams and why they should, or shouldn't trade up or go QB with the #15 pick. I still think the number is around 50/50 which is basically the draft in a nutshell. The guy you take in any round, at any position has a 50/50 shot at success.

[dieterbrock]

20 were from picks 1-12, and of those, 12 were hits. 60%.

Again, criteria is hanging around the NFL and starting for a while right?

QB's taken in the top 12, 2004-14

Bortles (too soon to tell)
Luck (check)
Griffen (nope)
Tannehill (sure give him a check)
Newton (check)
Locker (nope)
Gabbert (nope)
Ponder (nope)
Bradford (what the hell why not?)
Stafford (check)
Sanchez (nope)
Ryan (check)
VY (nope)
Leinart (nope)
Cutler (sure, why not)
Russell (nope)
Smith (sure, even if it took him 8 years to get that check)
Eli (check)
Rivers (check)
Ben (check)


I count 11 for 8 against and 1 too soon to tell. And that's considering both Bradford and Alex Smith "hits" which might be challenged by some. Considering the Rams don't want to draft a QB in the top 12 (or 15) who doesn't become a productive starter until year 7, like Alex Smith or miss 31 of his first 80 games in the league due to injury, like Bradford, I would question whether that 60% number is something to hang your hat on if you're the Rams. Because in the end, we are talking about the Rams and why they should, or shouldn't trade up or go QB with the #15 pick. I still think the number is around 50/50 which is basically the draft in a nutshell. The guy you take in any round, at any position has a 50/50 shot at success.

Griffin still has time to make that a check, he was in a bad spot.
Out of that list, Gabbert, Ponder, Sanchez, VY, and Russell were either reach picks of way over drafted.
In fact the drafting of VY is what lead to Fisher leaving the Titans.
The only 2 guys on there who were drafted and didn't cut it are Locker and Leniert IMO

[/zn/]

20 were from picks 1-12, and of those, 12 were hits. 60%.

Again, criteria is hanging around the NFL and starting for a while right?

QB's taken in the top 12, 2004-14

Bortles (too soon to tell)
Luck (check)
Griffen (nope)
Tannehill (sure give him a check)
Newton (check)
Locker (nope)
Gabbert (nope)
Ponder (nope)
Bradford (what the hell why not?)
Stafford (check)
Sanchez (nope)
Ryan (check)
VY (nope)
Leinart (nope)
Cutler (sure, why not)
Russell (nope)
Smith (sure, even if it took him 8 years to get that check)
Eli (check)
Rivers (check)
Ben (check)


I count 11 for 8 against and 1 too soon to tell. And that's considering both Bradford and Alex Smith "hits" which might be challenged by some. Considering the Rams don't want to draft a QB in the top 12 (or 15) who doesn't become a productive starter until year 7, like Alex Smith or miss 31 of his first 80 games in the league due to injury, like Bradford, I would question whether that 60% number is something to hang your hat on if you're the Rams. Because in the end, we are talking about the Rams and why they should, or shouldn't trade up or go QB with the #15 pick. I still think the number is around 50/50 which is basically the draft in a nutshell. The guy you take in any round, at any position has a 50/50 shot at success.

In your post, or the quoted version here, I highlighted the guys who I counted as "hits." Yes the criteria was minimum...a continuing starter.

Our only difference is Bortles. I have him as a "hit" so far...you say it's too soon to tell.

So we just differ on that.

Usually if I rank a guy as "too soon to tell" I take him out of the mix entirely. The idea with a basic minimum standard is just to separate clear back-ups and busts from actual hits. Otherwise I would both be saying I can't tell AND he counts against, which skews the percentage. So in your case, doing it your way, I would make it 11 of 19, or 61%

So we end up with basically the same thing if we (1) subtract Bortles from the count, or (2) keep him in because he is a continuing starter who is not in any trouble (that is they still believe in him). Done one way it's 61%, done another it's 60%.

.