The philosophy of finding an NFL QB.

[Dave Gray]

Assuming that Chad Henne isn't Super Bowl winning material (and many of us are), it leaves us to the question of how / when to get a new QB.

Do you think that it's the kind of thing where you continue to throw high value picks (and trades) until you run across it?  Or do you have to only go after a guy every few seasons, so that you can continue to build up the rest of your team?


I can think of a few guys in a row that the Fins have "gone after", meaning that they spent team capital on players, that turned out to not be the guy they were looking for:

AJ Feeley (Trade)
Culpepper (Trade?  ...I think)
Beck (2nd round)
Pat White (2nd round)
Henne (2nd round)



So, should a team like the Dolphins continue until they get it right....or do you have to space out your "attempts" in order to keep the bones of the team qualified for when your savior does finally come?

(This question goes for all of the NFL...I'm just using Miami as an example.)

[Brian Fein]

Problem is this:

If you continue to burn high picks on QB's that don't work out, you neglect other positions of need.  I would have loved to see the Find grab a RB instead of Pat White (LeSean McCoy and Shonn Greene were both on the board), knowing the status of Ronnie, and the questions surrounding him and Ricky.  I think we'd be looking at a much different spot without wasting that pick.  Instead, now, we have nothing and a hole at RB.

I think you have to get lucky and you have to be a great evaluator of talent, to land a franchise guy.

That said, Miami fans as a whole are fickle and a guy doesn't get a chance to develop without the fan base screaming for his head.  Henne, while he has been unacceptable this season, has shown promise in the past.  I believe firmly that Henne's problem is between his ears, and he has the physical ability to be successful.  That said, I don't know what needs to be done to improve a guy like that.

But, in general, had Miami drafted Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, for instance, he would never have been given the chance to develop into the guy he is today, because after 20 games the stats were bleak and people would be saying "this guy sucks, fire him."

Football requires development, and Miami fans don't have patience.

[CF DolFan]

^^^^ That is exactly why I say we draft somone but allow Henne more time to develop. By the time the season is lost you can play the new guy.  If it never gets lost then you are in pretty good shape.

If we trade or go after a McNabb we are in the same boat in just a short time or maybe sooner. 

[Pappy13]

Do you think that it's the kind of thing where you continue to throw high value picks (and trades) until you run across it?  Or do you have to only go after a guy every few seasons, so that you can continue to build up the rest of your team?

My philosophy in drafting is take the best player available.  That doesn't mean that need is totally thrown out the window or that position is ignored, it just means that need takes a back seat and position is only part of determining "best player".

Here's how I would handle a draft.  First go through all the available players and rank them according to "best player".  Part of that ranking should be based on the position they play.  In other words QB's should be given a higher value than say a punter based on the fact that the QB tends to be a more valuable player to a team than a punter.  This ranking does NOT reflect your current teams need.  Just because your team needs a QB badly, doesn't mean his value is raised nor does it mean his value falls because you already have a good QB.  You're ranking the players against each other, not against your team here.

As you do this, you will realize that it's very difficult to rank each player in an exact order, rather you will tend to have groups of players.  Top end elite players at very valuable positions, top end elite players at less valuable positions, good players at very valuable postions, good players at less valuable positions, and so on.  So rather than having a ranking of 1 to 100 you will have several groups of players that might have a dozen or more players each.  This is your starting point.

Now from the top group of players you start to match up needs of your team and your draft position. If you can find a need player from within this top group that you think will be available when you draft, then take that player.  If you can't find a need player from that group at the position you will draft than take one of the other players from that group or look to trade up or down for better fits for your team needs.  You must be very careful however about placing too much emphasis on position and a players worth.  If a safety is in that top group that you think will be avialable when you draft and you have a need for safety, take him, don't say "Well I'm not sure if he's worth this high of draft pick" or "Well we really need a corner more than a safety".  It doesn't matter.  You are only trying to get the best player available in this draft.  If that safety belongs in the top group of this draft and fits with your needs then he deserves to be taken there, it doesn't matter if Mel Kiper Jr thinks that's too high to select that player. Mel Kiper Jr. doesn't know squat about the Dolphins, he's only comparing that player to others in the draft, which is what you have already done in step 1.  Now you are tryiing to find a player based on your need and draft position.

So to answer your question I think Miami should take a QB if there is one that is in the top group of athletes in the draft when it comes time for them to pick.  If there isn't then they should take somebody else from that top group that will fill a need even if it's less of a need than QB.  Don't pull a QB up into the top group just because you need one badly and don't pass over a player that's in the top group and will help your team to pick one from a lower group just because you don't necessarily need that player.  Injuries are inevitable in the NFL.  Depth is just as important as your starters are.  Depth gives you options.  There are plenty of ways to get players into games if they are that good and you can never anticipate which players will have bad years so "need" is always a moving target and less important than getting a quality player.  You can't always rely on your assessment of your team's needs from 1 year to the next.  A position of strength can quickly turn into a position of weakness through injury or simply poor play and likewise a position of weakness can turn into a position of strength unexpectedly through better than anticipated play.

I believe this approach is best over the long haul.  You'll end up with the best group of players and make fewer mistakes reaching for players.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[David Fulcher]

^^^  All I got's to say in this thread is, "Good post, Pappy!".  I pretty much agree with everything you said above besides maybe that "need" is a less important aspect/thing than getting a quality player...and even that I'm not staunchly against, it just really depends on how great that need truly is for your team.  But like you said, if you're really reaching for that need, then yes, your philosophy is pretty much right in line with mine in regards to the draft (not that I really know anything in regards to how good most of these players really are, though  ), and I also believe that it is the better method to take over the long haul.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

My approach to the draft is the "best available upgrade." 

This is not best available player.   Nor is this draft based on need.

Lets say its your turn to draft.  You look at all the available people to draft and ask, if we which ones if we drafted would be better than our current starters, if more than one by how much.  Lets say hypothetically when Miami drafted there were two players.  One was a left tackle one was a QB.  Lets also assume that the left tackle was a better left tackle than the QB was at being a QB.  But also lets assume the left tackle was only slightly better  than Long and the QB was knock your socks off better than Henne.  You would draft the QB.  Under best available player you would take the left tackle. 

Once you get to the point that no one that is draftable is better than your starters you look to improve your back ups and reserves.  NE isn't going to limit itself to only drafting QBs that are better than Brady.  In this next draft they would be looking for QBs that are better than Hoyer and comparing how much better that guy is over Hoyer vs. how much better a RB is than Thomas Clayton.  Whoever upgrades the team the most gets drafted. 

This may at first glance seem like need based drafting.  Its not.  In need based drafting you start by listing your "needs" then finding the best person in that position.  It is in fact closer to BAP than need based drafting, but it is truly a hybrid of both.     

[Pappy13]

Lets say hypothetically when Miami drafted there were two players.  One was a left tackle one was a QB.  Lets also assume that the left tackle was a better left tackle than the QB was at being a QB.  But also lets assume the left tackle was only slightly better than Long and the QB was knock your socks off better than Henne.  You would draft the QB.  Under best available player you would take the left tackle.

I don't think this is a valid scenario.  Let me explain why.

Remember that I'm starting with the proposition that you first rank the players according to "best" and group them into groups.  I'm not quite sure how you could possibly rank a left tackle that's only slightly better than Long a "better" player to a QB who is "blow your socks off" better than Henne.  QB is the most valued position on your team.  Left tackle is up there, but not as high as QB.  So if a QB is "blow your socks off" better than Henne, then he's got to be one damn fine QB.  Even if the tackle is better than Long, the fact that QB is a more valued position is going to make it tough to rank the LT higher.  If you do, in my mind then he's not a "blow your socks off better QB" than Henne, better but not that much better.  It's just not possible at least to my way of thinking.  In your scenario, I would definately put the QB in a higher bracket than the left tackle because while they are both obviously very good players, the QB is a more valued position.

Your scenario to me seems to suggest that the LT and QB are ranked in the same group.  The LT is better than the QB, but the QB gains ground because it's a more valued position.  In that case I might rank them equally.  In that case, it becomes a best available "upgrade" and I would take the QB, but only because I had them equally ranked to begin with.  If that's not the case, if the LT is actually a "better" player, than I take the "better" player or I try to get out of this draft position.  If worse comes to worse you take the left tackle and put him on the right side or move Long to the right side.  In my opinion you have improved your team more than you would have by taking a lesser player.

And you have to remember that this type of scenario, a one for one choice is probably not going to happen.  Most likely you'll have at least 3 or 4 players that you deem equally deserving of the pick.  In that case of course you take the one that offers you the biggest upgrade, but only because they are all equal.  I don't pick a worse player just because I need that player more.  I would consider that a "reach".  I just don't think that's wise over the long haul.

[bsfins]

Sorry, I've not read the whole thread...I wanted to chime in quickly.....I agree with Brian,but I feel the problem stems with our offense right now is built upon running the ball and playing good defense.Our Offensive play book seems to be built around our running backs,and offensive line.The Quarterback not being the focal point,or high priority,then the Wr's and Te's (in the passing game). Which seem to run against the way our offensive coordinator is calling plays...

I don't think it's as easy as well he's a good QB,draft him, trade for him...He has to fit the system that you're running,the plays that are being called...You can't coach him to be a game manager then bitch at him that's he's not making enough plays...The play calls to hit Z if it's Zone,Y if it Man,or dump it off....

I watch alot of Bears games,the Bears with Cutler,and Mike Martz are the way I look at it...

Modified to add,Sorry for rambling... Basically,I think there are a few ways...
1.) Get a Qb and build around him...(the Colts,and probably the Pats)
2.) Get a game manager,that fits your offensive system (What the Dolphins want)
3.) Have a smart enough Offensive Coordinator, that customizes his system to what you have,until you get a QB for his system...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

.

pretty easy because Long is so much better at his position than Henne is.

Let say we rank all the players from 0 to 100...with 100 being the absolute best at their position and 0 not good enough to consider for the PS.  

And let say I assigned Long a 95 and Henne a 60.  Arbitrary but they are my rankings.  

On my draft board I have a LT with a ranking of 96 and a QB with a 94.  The LT is better than the QB.

The LT is better than Long.  But the QB is knock your socks off better than Henne.  

However, with the Patriots the starting QB is a 100 and the LT is an 85, so I would draft the LT.  

[Pappy13]

pretty easy because Long is so much better at his position than Henne is.

But Henne's position is more valueable than Longs.  There's just no way that I would rank Henne a 60 and Jake long a 95.  No possible way.  It will never happen.

If Long is a 95 then Henne might be an 80 simply because Henne plays a more valuable position.  Long is a much better player, but Henne makes up ground because of the position he plays.

So if the LT is a 96 and the QB is a 94, then the LT is slightly better than my LT and the QB is a good bit better than my QB, but he's NOT "blow your socks off" better.  To Blow your socks off, he's got to be ranked 100.  Got to be.  The position is too important not to be ranked that high.  No other way around it.  If he's only ranked 94, I still would take the LT and I'd play him at RT.

If my QB is ranked 60, then I have AJ Feeley starting, not Henne and in that case I pick up a QB in the 3rd round that is ranked an 80 and upgrade 2 positions.

[Spider-Dan]

Remember that I'm starting with the proposition that you first rank the players according to "best" and group them into groups.  I'm not quite sure how you could possibly rank a left tackle that's only slightly better than Long a "better" player to a QB who is "blow your socks off" better than Henne.  QB is the most valued position on your team.  Left tackle is up there, but not as high as QB.  So if a QB is "blow your socks off" better than Henne, then he's got to be one damn fine QB.  Even if the tackle is better than Long, the fact that QB is a more valued position is going to make it tough to rank the LT higher.  If you do, in my mind then he's not a "blow your socks off better QB" than Henne, better but not that much better.  It's just not possible at least to my way of thinking.

Let me give you a scenario that might be a bit easier to understand.

Let's suppose that our QB is a veteran Cleo Lemon, and his backup is a rookie John Beck.  Over the course of a dreadful season, Lemon shows that he's clearly not a long-term solution to anything, and Beck (while allowing for the fact that he's a rookie) looks overwhelmed and doesn't show much promise.

Now let's suppose that Miami has the #1 overall pick in the next draft, and that we have an opportunity to pick a left tackle who looks to be a potentially perennial Pro Bowler and one of the best at the position (a very important position, if not quite as important as QB).  We also have the chance to pick a talented QB who appears to be somewhat of a risk; he didn't win a Heisman and had problems with interceptions in his senior season.

The consensus seems to be that the LT is the safe, solid pick (at an important position of need, mind you), while the QB carries a bit of a Alex Smith-type risk (the best QB in a mediocre QB draft year) and could set your franchise back years if he fails to pan out.  Additionally, you have a 2nd round pick invested in your current rookie QB, and there's still a chance that he could improve with the new front office that you've brought in... and even if you do want a QB, in this mediocre QB year, you might be able to get a good value QB pick in the 2nd or 3rd round anyway.  So which one do you pick?

This is what "picking the best talent upgrade" boils down to.  You have the chance to pick a player that will almost certainly be really good (and might be great) at an important position you have ignored, or you can pick an uninspiring upgrade at a position you just used a 2nd on last year, to replace a rookie with 4 total starts that's still an unknown quantity.

[Pappy13]

Let me give you a scenario that might be a bit easier to understand.

Let's suppose that our QB is a veteran Cleo Lemon, and his backup is a rookie John Beck.  Over the course of a dreadful season, Lemon shows that he's clearly not a long-term solution to anything, and Beck (while allowing for the fact that he's a rookie) looks overwhelmed and doesn't show much promise.

Now let's suppose that Miami has the #1 overall pick in the next draft, and that we have an opportunity to pick a left tackle who looks to be a potentially perennial Pro Bowler and one of the best at the position (a very important position, if not quite as important as QB).  We also have the chance to pick a talented QB who appears to be somewhat of a risk; he didn't win a Heisman and had problems with interceptions in his senior season.  The consensus seems to be that the LT is the safe, solid pick (at an important position of need, mind you), while the QB carries a bit of a Alex Smith-type risk (the best QB in a mediocre QB draft year) and could set your franchise back years if he fails to pan out.

Which one do you pick?

Jake Long.

But then I package our two 2nd round picks and a couple 6th round picks and move up to 18 and pick Joe Flacco.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But Henne's position is more valueable than Longs.  There's just no way that I would rank Henne a 60 and Jake long a 95.  No possible way.  It will never happen.

If Long is a 95 then Henne might be an 80 simply because Henne plays a more valuable position.  Long is a much better player, but Henne makes up ground because of the position he plays.

So if the LT is a 96 and the QB is a 94, then the LT is slightly better than my LT and the QB is a good bit better than my QB, but he's NOT "blow your socks off" better.  To Blow your socks off, he's got to be ranked 100.  Got to be.  The position is too important not to be ranked that high.  No other way around it.  If he's only ranked 94, I still would take the LT and I'd play him at RT.

If my QB is ranked 60, then I have AJ Feeley starting, not Henne and in that case I start Thigpen who's as least a 70.

On my scale a 100 is best ever.  0 is a guy I could get as an UDFA, steal off of another teams PS, or is delivering packages for UPS hoping for a call from an NFL team. 

You're telling me Henne is 80% Brady/Marino and only 20% random guy behind door #2?  Because I am saying Long is 95% of Jonathan Ogden & only 5% random guy behind door #2.  I think saying Henne is 60% Brady and 40% random guy is being generous to Henne. 

You are correct in aspect of your analysis: You would probably not be comparing a tackle to Long.  Unless both Long and the other guy can only play LT and are incapable of playing RT. You would be comparing the upgrade to the person who would get benched.   I just used Long to make it simpler.  But with all but QB you are usually taking about the weakest of multiple people. 

The importance of the position would lend its self to taking the QB more than the tackle.  Because as you have pointed out a small upgrade at QB can have a bigger impact on the teams success than a comparable upgrade at another position.   

[Pappy13]

You're telling me Henne is 80% Brady/Marino and only 20% random guy behind door #2?

No, I'm telling you that LT's and QB's are NOT on the same scale.  There's one for LT's and there's another for QB's.

If Jake long is a 95, then Henne is an 80 because QB is a more valueable position than LT.  If Jake Long is the best LT ever in the history of the game, that does not compare with the best QB in the history of the game.  It just doesn't.  If the best LT ever in the history of the NFL is a 95 then the best QB ever is a 120 at least.  Maybe 150.

That's MY scale.  You can't compare Apples and Oranges directly, they have to be weighted based on position.

This is the same situation that I was arguing with Spider Dan in another thread where he was saying that he wouldn't take a punter that was rated higher than a QB.  Well for me, to rate a punter higher than a QB, that punter would have to be the best punter in the history of the NFL and the QB would have to be an average 3rd round QB or below.  There's no way that you rate a punter as a better player than a QB unless they are just not in the same league.  It just doesn't happen.  All ratings take into consideration the position the player plays.  It's no coincidence that the top QB's all go in the first round and the top punters go in the 5th.

A top rated LT (Long) is NOT going to ranked above a top rated QB (Ryan), unless the LT has no downside and the QB is a bit of a risk, exactly how it was in 2008.  Had Ryan been a can't miss QB, then he would have been rated higher than Long.  He just would have been.

[Spider-Dan]

So if you understand the choice to pick Jake Long over Matt Ryan (or Joe Thomas over Brady Quinn), you should understand the concept of best available upgrade quite easily.  QB is important, but it doesn't justify throwing away picks for the-best-QB-that-no-one-else-picked-yet.  There are clear franchise QBs (Elway, Mannings, Vick, Rivers) and there are QBs that are the best of a mediocre bunch (A. Smith, Russell, Quinn, V. Young).