Wasting a 3rd rounder on R. Wilson sounds pretty sweet. The examples given ITT sound pretty results oriented to me.

It's a QB league. How is spending a 3nd rounder every couple of years and seeing how the guy does in practice and extending if he seems solid a horrible base strategy exactly? I'd argue keeping a veteran backup around is probably worse than having two young guys to evaluate for example.

I def. think the QB drafting strategies of teams are rather leaky.

Man that 2011 AFCS thread was a blast. Cliffs:
Noodle does not like rooting for his team to lose
PHB was on point a lot
LOL Pats fans (some great Mallet stuff in there that relates to the topic at hand)
I love me some tanking

Referring to the Colts #1:

8 pages of gold in there

Bill Barnwell was saying it wasn't Brady; it was the line and receivers.

Fwiw I take this stance every year when a player is either picked higher or lower than se thought he should be and all I ever get is lolnatediggity. You all owe me an apology

I HATED HATED HATED the Caldwell hire but yeah, kinda feel you on this. Seems to be more accountability this year over previous years. I mean, no way does Schwartz demote Fairley because he was fat and that move seems to be paying off big time. Also, patch work secondary + emergence of Slay is pretty amazing.

Stafford seems to have figured out the whole "take what the defense gives you and if it's not there, throw it away" thing. Not sure how much of that is Caldwell and how much of that is Lombardi but so far

Nath - Post #339, I'll just leave it at that. You keep screaming personal attack! and really I don't care enough to continue with all that. All I did was point out that you're being a little more than inconsistent and maybe a tad forgetful

Got the Lions somewhere between 5-8 area

I think in the NFL there is a lot of value to getting to even just 1 playoff game. The season is so short and the playoffs are so short but seeing your team in the playoffs is really awesome. For this reason in general I don't think the correct strategy is always to tank if you have no SB equity. I mean if that were true then why even try? Because fans like seeing their team win games and threaten the playoffs. If this were the case then like 28 teams this year should have begun tanking in Week 1. But you still have to think of the fans in certain situations. 2011 Colts was not one of those situations.

I remember that thread. I think that's when Noodle gave up on SE. He really hated the idea of tanking. He was completely incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Or thinking long-term. He also seemed to think Curtis Painter was going to be anything more than awful. Him and I clashed a lot. I think he was a good poster overall but that thread was pretty hot AIDS iirc and that dude definitely hated my guts.

Tanking in the NFL is probably where it's most viable because of all the particulars. The rookie contracts, the short season, the lack of a draft lotto, and the ability to turn a team around quick with the right pieces.

That said, like you said, it's situational. The 2014 Jags should absolutely not be tanking. They should've thrown Bort out there and let him grow. The 2014 Bucs? Yeah, burn it down.

Think my favorite part of the AFCS thread, outside of Luck-watch, was Needle seething at Polian after every Colts loss

fwiw I HATE using ANY draft pick on a QB you don't think is your franchise starting one. (ie you better have him graded in the first round or don't bother)

Falling in the draft is strange, sometimes there's some merit to it that we don't know about (or we were wrong for some reason) and sometimes it's just NFL being a bunch of complete morons for some reason.

R. Wilson should've been a first round pick based on college tape, everyone screwed that up (I might've too but that might've been a fair bit b/c of my wisco hate bias). That happens sometimes; but I think he's an outlier.

Starting NFL QB's who aren't first round picks (presuming palmer/locker gets his job back when healthy and ignoring the rams atm)

Brady--6th
Wilson--3rd
Kaepernick--2nd
Geno Smith--2nd
Derek Carr--2nd
Orton--4th
Dalton--2nd
Fitzpatrick--7th
Brees was first pick of the 2nd
Glennon--3rd
Cousins--4th
Hoyer--UDFA

that's a lot of guys you'd put at the bottom of the QB lists/people want to replace right now and very few worth a damn past round 2 (and those are the successes, not even including the lol busts)...

I don't watch college so I don't know but it's amazing how people are still heightists when it comes to NFL QBs. Rodgers is 6'2". Brees is maybe 6'0". Russel is 5'11". In the new game being able to evade pressure and scramble is huge.

My father-in-law and I were "talking football" about the Texans and he called Ryan Fitzpatrick an idiot first of all, which is lol. Secondly when I mentioned Ryan Mallet he goes "Is he a big guy? We need a big 6'5" guy". He kept saying this last year when Keenum was the starter "we need a big guy". Ummmm, Schaub was 6'5" 240 and he ****ing sucked horses. WE NEED A BIG GUY DO.

This is silly. You realize being a middle-of-the-pack QB is still not easy to find, right? Youa re talking like these guys are worthless even though they are each one of 32 starting QBs on the planet.

There is a list of 1st rounders who also suck. Tebow, Quinn, Manual, Losman, JaDrankus, and on and on.

What about romo and foles? There are some sweet QB's on this list. None of them were regarded as first round picks. I'd say it screams that you should draft QB's even if you don't think they are auto franchise QB's

I think it is absolutely fine to use back to back picks on QB in round 1 and two (heck maybe toss in round 3) if you don't have anything.

I mean if you don't have a good QB...finding one is >> everything else.
---

And getting back to the ZOMG-BB picked too many QBs...I'd argue that NE should have snap-picked Teddy at 29

ugh didn't notice they got eaten when I c/p'd it. Romo was undrafted. Foles was a 3rd. It's also plausible some of these teams had the 2nd round QB's they picked graded in the first round. Undrafteds actually help, not hurt the argument but anyway... I guess I just came to the opposite conclusion as you and some others despite the same overall data.

Clearly getting a QB is the most important thing but the list of 3rd round QB's is just going to be so poor as a group that I don't see it the EV there (unless as stated you actually did have them rated pretty highly but passed for other reasons). QB, QB for the first two picks much less three is just never going to be realistic. Then you have to deal with "who is the guy" every damn day in the media potentially dividing the team not to mention you could've used that other pick to help out another era of the team.

Anyway possibly slow pony but chip draws up the most elite plays

I don't think he's that bad. He's at least trying to turn the franchise around by handing the car over to McKenzie and letting take over football decisions.

The middle of the pack QB's are first round picks for the most part.

The bottom end is just not something I'm interested in as the Josh McCown's/Colt McCoy's of the world definitely don't have value to me; but obviously there are different things that people value for teams and how to go about constructing rosters. A fair # of those first round busts I personally didn't value as first round grades. (took me quite a bit to realize why someone would actually have taken someone #1 who wasn't calvin johnson that year despite the importance of having a QB, he was the unquestioned best prospect and I'm usually BPA mindset) Valuation is definitely important wrt the draft and you really can't be wrong on a QB b/c if you fail that you're out essentially these days.

btw--I don't mind anyone at all saying there's a component that we can't fully predict to it and just draft a bunch and then hope one studs out either as that's definitely true. There are multiple winning strategies to win a football game and I think there can be for front offices as well.

AFCS thread was the original Divisional thread and they said it couldn't be done. Now look at SE. Was GOATish.

So what you're saying is you only value the top ~third of the QBs in the league. Well, that's helpful. Considering there are 32 slots that need filling.

And you are also saying you should only invest 1st rounders on QBs, but not on QBs that you know to be worse than 1st-round values, despite the fact they were actually drafted in the first round. That's worded weird... basically you are saying spend only 1st round picks on QBs, but only on the QBs you JUST KNOW will not be busts. Massive LOLZ.

Well, this is useful football talk for everyone! Where do I subscribe to your newsletter? You live in fantasyland.

While there are 32 slots that need filling; there are not 32 that we believe even given significant run good who can win us a title. I'm obviously mostly only interested in finding one of those. Out of 3rd round and below who were drafted I've got wilson/foles/brady for 3/32 as possiblities and that's it. Perhaps this where we actually vastly disagree?

Help me, because I don't understand how point 2 is massive lolz considering (let's just use tebow as the easiest lol example here) Tebow being a first round pick was done by someone who didn't have any idea what the heck he was doing at that second, period. I don't know why I can't disagree with who they took without also having to disagree with the thought process behind it but obviously I feel like if you like someone to be at least a decent franchise QB you really can't wait till round 3 to pick him b/c someone else might too and beat you to him [lol everyone for missing wilson, but I feel like wilsons/foles of the realm where everyone seemingly missed yet are at least seemingly solid just are too rare as given #'s above].

(sidenote--I think it's really strange to me all the bashing that's been going on prior to the draft on them these days given the absolute need for them and the amount of teams that don't have who they feel is that guy)

anyway I'll stfu since I've clearly aids'd this thread a bit too much on the subject, sorry

That's convenient. So is everybody. Unfortunately there are 96 QB slots that need filling at all times. But you'd be a great GM if your strategy is "let's just wait to find a guaranteed franchise QB and draft him top-3. I'm sure we'll get him when he comes around because I'm sure our record the previous year will have been 3-13."

That strategy sure worked out well for the 9ers (Smith 1st overall), Titans (VY 3rd overall), Raiders (Russel 1st overall) and Rams (Bradford 1st overall) in the last 9 years.

Yet in the same breath you are laughing at teams for reaching in the first for guys who YOU KNEW were not going to be franchise guys.

Please realize how ridiculous and contradictory you are sounding.

You aren't AIDSing up the thread. But you are being way too simplistic and idealistic about the draft process. The truth is... almost all of the QBs drafted suck in the NFL. Doesn't matter if they are taken in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. They almost all suck and have very little shot of becoming an entrenched (3-5 years minimum?) starter in the league.

About a month ago I wrote down a list of all the QBs drafted in 2002, 2006, and 2014 (the 3 years the Texans drafted first overall). The list was HOT GARBAGE. Like 30+ names of nothingness. I think Cutler was the best QB on there and like David Carr was the 2nd best. Then a noticeable dropoff to 3rd best. That was across 3 entire drafts. Basically 1 entrenched franchise QB. And he was taken 11th overall I think. 3rd in his class behind VY and Leinart.

The turnover's just not that high for the elite QBs. For obvious reasons. They stay elite for like 8+ years. This isn't college where elite guys stick around 2 years then leave. In the NFL the elite dudes stick around and it's very very hard to draft a guy who even has a chance to break into Top 5 territory.

anfls week 4

RANK	TEAM	LAST WK	GWP	Opp GWP	O RANK	D RANK
1	*CIN	1	0.68	0.51	1	2
2	*SEA	2	0.64	0.54	2	6
3	*DET	3	0.58	0.51	12	3
4	*DEN	11	0.55	0.55	17	11
5	*GB	7	0.55	0.55	15	20
6	*MIA	10	0.54	0.46	20	1
7	*NO	4	0.54	0.49	3	28
8	*SD	6	0.53	0.51	13	15
9	*BAL	13	0.53	0.53	11	25
10	*ARI	15	0.52	0.52	24	8
11	*NYG	17	0.52	0.52	19	18
12	*NYJ	19	0.51	0.51	21	7
13	*WAS	9	0.51	0.46	5	12
14	*KC	21	0.51	0.51	27	14
15	*TEN	5	0.5	0.54	23	16
16	*CLE	16	0.5	0.52	8	29
17	*IND	24	0.5	0.47	6	23
18	*DAL	27	0.49	0.48	7	27
19	*SF	25	0.49	0.49	22	4
20	*CHI	23	0.49	0.51	14	24
21	*HOU	20	0.49	0.48	16	19
22	*ATL	8	0.48	0.51	4	32
23	*PIT	12	0.48	0.47	9	17
24	*BUF	18	0.48	0.51	28	9
25	*CAR	14	0.47	0.49	25	10
26	*MIN	30	0.47	0.47	18	21
27	*NE	26	0.46	0.48	29	5
28	*PHI	22	0.45	0.47	26	13
29	*OAK	28	0.41	0.5	31	22
30	*STL	31	0.39	0.44	10	31
31	*JAC	29	0.39	0.5	32	26
32	*TB	32	0.36	0.46	30	30

Yeah despite my Brady/Pats bashing I meant to say that their defense is still fairly solid.

miami is way too high, we suck! (thought getting reshad, misi, pouncey back will be nice.)

Rankings up tonight (beisbol yesterday). 23 submissions so far