Random Commanders Thoughts

[Om]

I don't think we'll be tossing Sam aside. My projection as of today is he's the opening day starter this fall, whether we draft a QB or not. He's money in hand this year ... still on his rookie contract, familiar with his teammates, and clearly a guy with talent. Peters and our new HC will have all offseason to determine just how high they think his ceiling is. Hell, as unlikely as I happen to think it is, they might decide he's good enough to not use our high draft capital this year on a QB at all. THAT would be sweet. And if they do decide to draft a QB, I'm hoping they're the kind of brain trust willing to let a rookie sit for a bit and learn.

 

[Neophyte]

The big thing about the QB position is that there "haves" and "have nots" in the NFL, with very little in between. And the gulf between the two sides is fairly well-defined.

The murkier thing is where you get the guy who moves you from one side of the gulf to the other.

While most folks seem to think picking a QB in the Top 2 is the sure path to finding the guy, history tells us a different story.

There are 4 guys left playing with 3 games to go - only 1 of those guys was picked in the Top 2. Only 2 of them were picked in the Top 10.

 

[DieselPwr44]

So if Johnson is the guy and he tells Peters: Me and Sam go back a ways and I know I can help him, unlike the last OC who said he had no idea, who are we to argue with that?
So many possibilities....going to be interesting fellas.

 

[Primus Porcus]

The big thing about the QB position is that there "haves" and "have nots" in the NFL, with very little in between. And the gulf between the two sides is fairly well-defined.

The murkier thing is where you get the guy who moves you from one side of the gulf to the other.

While most folks seem to think picking a QB in the Top 2 is the sure path to finding the guy, history tells us a different story.

There are 4 guys left playing with 3 games to go - only 1 of those guys was picked in the Top 2. Only 2 of them were picked in the Top 10.

I think it puts a bigger emphasis about it having to be ‘right’ than it does anything else. Reaching at 2 (or 1) puts the team behind the curve. It’s not about prioritizing QB at 2, and more about prioritizing the player worth the 2nd pick in the draft. I imagine there is a level of teams that reach in the top 5 knowing it’s a reach to ensure they get their guys

 

[Kel Varnsen]

So if Johnson is the guy and he tells Peters: Me and Sam go back a ways and I know I can help him, unlike the last OC who said he had no idea, who are we to argue with that?
So many possibilities....going to be interesting fellas.

This is the most important thing to consider. What does the new coach, OC, and I’m sure QB coach think. What can they do with what they have or what they will get. All the analysts, draftnicks, and former players all have their idea of who is good and who isn’t. But none of that matters. That’s been the missing link here for a long time. It was about drafting and signing names and talent instead of who fits. I’m hopeful that the new coach and GM can get the guy they can work with and can work in their system.

 

[Boone]

The big thing about the QB position is that there "haves" and "have nots" in the NFL, with very little in between. And the gulf between the two sides is fairly well-defined.

The murkier thing is where you get the guy who moves you from one side of the gulf to the other.

While most folks seem to think picking a QB in the Top 2 is the sure path to finding the guy, history tells us a different story.

There are 4 guys left playing with 3 games to go - only 1 of those guys was picked in the Top 2. Only 2 of them were picked in the Top 10.

I think that's a little misleading. I've recently seen lists of playoff QBs over the past 20 years, and the vast majority were top picks. I get what you're saying, there are busts taken early, and there are also exceptions who are drafted later. But by far most franchise QBs over time are found in those very early picks.

The simplest way of putting it is that your odds are exponentially better taking one early - even if it is still no guarantee.

 

[Neophyte]

I guess where I take issue with the use of "top picks" is within the context of this year and our #2 pick.

Nearly everyone expects us to take a QB at #2. Earlier this week, Om posted this list of QBs taken 1st or 2nd in the draft going back to 1970.

I don't see having a #1 or #2 as the total positive that others do (except in the value of the pick when traded).

There are no Super Bowl winners on the list of #2 picks. None.

You have to go back to 2011 to find a guy taken #1 who has a Super Bowl appearance (Newton) and 2009 to a guy who won it (Stafford), and he had to be traded to a loaded team to get there.

Take the Mannings and Stafford off the list, and you have to go back to Aikman in 1989 to find a Super Bowl winner.

In all, there are 37 guys on Om's combined list of #1 and #2 picks with a total of 7 Super Bowl winners. That is less than a 20% chance.

Right now, the guys consistently talked about as the best in the league were taken between #5 (Tagovailoa) and #135 (Prescott).

And I know you are talking playoffs and I'm talking Super Bowls but that is my expectation. Like Derek, I have no interest in being the new Dallas where we make the playoffs every year only to lose in the early rounds.

I want trophies.

I want glory.

I'm not sold on any of this year's QBs as a certain rising tide that lifts all boats. Will one of them be great? Sure, I believe one of them will but right now I don't believe anyone in this league knows which one.

I believe we have a better shot at becoming a power by trading back from #2 to stock more draft picks and building the whole of the team. This year that can be done around Sam. If he isn't the guy, we will be drafting in the Top 10 again next year and whoever we draft will have a better team around him from the off, increasing his chances of success in this crazy business.

 

[Boone]

First of all - I hear you and I get it

However, you can't win a Super Bowl if you don't win more than you lose and get to the playoffs. Secondly, the quality of your starting QB and Super Bowl wins are linked - but only to a degree. It takes a lot of things to a) get to a Super Bowl, and b) win a Super Bowl. When it comes to successful/franchise QBs (and yes - I do define that a lot more broadly than 'how many Super Bowls has he won?'), you are far more likely to hit on QBs taken with early picks than later ones. I think the obvious reason for that is that QB rankings coming out of college and assessments by professional scouts are the best measure we have of who the best QBs are. So teams take their guys - early - based on those assessments. Generally speaking, better QBs get chosen earlier than average ones.

That can be true while also acknowledging there is a high bust factor. There is an even higher bust factor for QBs taken later (no one ever seems to acknowledge this part). Guys taken very early are boom or bust. Guys taken later are almost always bust. We seize on the exceptions (Brady, Russell Wilson, Brock Purdy) but I think we have to admit they ARE exceptions.

The argument against trading back is clear. Given the above, it's better to pick a QB earlier than later, most of the time you are wise to swing for the fences when you have a top 3 pick. You don't have those often. And we should know more than any other fanbase just how effing hard it is to find a franchise QB when you don't have a top pick. Someone will swing big this upcoming draft and hit a homerun. I just feel that the fact that many may swing and miss is not a reason to step away from the plate.

Anyway, I am just making general statements, not advocating for a particular course of action in the draft. I have no idea what the right move is.

Good discussion brother.

 

[Boone]

If Ben Johnson gets the nod at HC, and (as it appears currently) Bill Belichick gets zero offers), is there even the remotest possibility that Belichick would take a DC role in Washington?

My guess is no. But Belichick has never been in this situation. Does he want to be out of football entirely? And if he didn't get an offer this year, is it really much more likely he will next season?

 

[Chris]

Well, that would be a shocker now, wouldn’t it?

I have been trying to scope out where Wink Martindale might land. Dallas has been mentioned if Quinn leaves and Philly (before they hired Fangio).

He certainly knows the division intimately and has a history of mostly successful defenses. He is on the doorstep of 61 so I don’t know if that would be viewed by the decision makers as a negative, but he also doesn’t seem destined to chase HC dreams so continuity could be a plus.

 

[Bulldog]

I don't want anyone here as a coordinator whose profile is challenging that of the incoming head coach. There's enough of a job to do here without putting Johnson, Slowik or whomever they chose in the position of having to fend off questions about the role of a guy like Belichick and then deal with reporters ask Belichick about the team during the offseason, etc.

When Beathard brought in Joe Gibbs he kept a veteran defensive coordinator in Richie Petitbon, but Richie wasn't bucking for a lead role as HC and was willing to be a 'team' player overseeing the defense.

He had a lot of independence to run the defense and occasionally he and Gibbs would clash on personnel (see Wilber Marshall), but that never rose to the level of being a visible distraction to the success of the football team.

 

[Neophyte]

First of all - I hear you and I get it

However, you can't win a Super Bowl if you don't win more than you lose and get to the playoffs. Secondly, the quality of your starting QB and Super Bowl wins are linked - but only to a degree. It takes a lot of things to a) get to a Super Bowl, and b) win a Super Bowl. When it comes to successful/franchise QBs (and yes - I do define that a lot more broadly than 'how many Super Bowls has he won?'), you are far more likely to hit on QBs taken with early picks than later ones. I think the obvious reason for that is that QB rankings coming out of college and assessments by professional scouts are the best measure we have of who the best QBs are. So teams take their guys - early - based on those assessments. Generally speaking, better QBs get chosen earlier than average ones.

That can be true while also acknowledging there is a high bust factor. There is an even higher bust factor for QBs taken later (no one ever seems to acknowledge this part). Guys taken very early are boom or bust. Guys taken later are almost always bust. We seize on the exceptions (Brady, Russell Wilson, Brock Purdy) but I think we have to admit they ARE exceptions.

The argument against trading back is clear. Given the above, it's better to pick a QB earlier than later, most of the time you are wise to swing for the fences when you have a top 3 pick. You don't have those often. And we should know more than any other fanbase just how effing hard it is to find a franchise QB when you don't have a top pick. Someone will swing big this upcoming draft and hit a homerun. I just feel that the fact that many may swing and miss is not a reason to step away from the plate.

Anyway, I am just making general statements, not advocating for a particular course of action in the draft. I have no idea what the right move is.

Good discussion brother.

I think the idea that you are better off taking a QB right at the top of the draft is something we have been sold because it appears to make sense because of the importance placed on the position. However, the stats don't necessarily support taking a QB in the Top 2. You want to talk about winning more than Super Bowls - I'm good with that.

These are the top 10 winning percentage QBs of the Modern Era - loosely defined as the last 30-35 years. Honestly, that's probably a broader range than I should use but I didn't want to look like I was cherry-picking years. However, the further back you go, the deeper guys get drafted (Daryl LaMonica is #3 on the list and he was drafted almost as deep as Brady - twice!). I got this from Statmuse - a minimum of 60 games to make the list.

Player	Winning percentage	Games Played	Draft Position
Patrick Mahomes	.771	96 Games	#10
Tom Brady	.749	335	#199
Lamar Jackson	.721	86	#32
Jimmy Garopplo	.704	81	#62
Peyton Manning	.703	266	#1
Jim McMahon	.697	119	#5
Steve Young*	.686	169	#1*
Josh Allen	.670	94	#7
Ben Roethlisberger	.669	249	#11
Aaron Rogers	.656	231	#24

There are 2 guys on this list taken in the Top 2 and we fudging a little with that because Steve Young went #1 in the Supplemental Draft, not the regular Draft. He also got drafted in '84 which is 40 years ago so... (For the record, count Young, there are only 3 guys in the Top 25 of the all-time list who were drafted in the Top 2 - Manning, Young, and Bradshaw)

There are 5 guys on this list drafted in the Top 10.

If we narrow the list to just the last 20-25 years, we lose 3 of those Top 10. I would argue that is a more realistic timeframe because of changes in how the game is played and how players are scouted/evaluated.

The average draft position for these guys is 35th - a high second-round pick.

Because I know someone is going to point to Brady and say he is a serious outlier - the average without Tom Terrific is 17.

If we narrow it down to just the QBs of the last 25 years, the average is 21 (w/o Brady - with him, it drops to #43).

I feel like even though the QB is the most important single position in sports, we have gotten stupid about hunting for a generational franchise guy. Those guys are rare. Much rarer than I think we think they are. I would argue that on the above list only Mahomes, Brady, and Manning fit that description. Maybe Rogers. Only 1 of those was viewed as a generational franchise guy coming out of college.

I am coming to think that maybe the best way to build a winner is to put a little less into your QB so you can put more into other areas of the team.

Which is what we had in the great Redskin teams of the 80s.

 

[Boone]

So 6 /11 of the winningest QBs in the modern era have come from picks made in the top 11. I think that proves my point more than disproves it.

The NFL is a different sport than it was in the 1980s (and I know you already know that). You have to have a top notch QB to consistently win. The only quibble we seem to have is what constitutes an 'early pick'.

I don't know what the best data point to define 'franchise QBs' is. Super Bowl wins isn't it. I'm not even sure 'Winning %' is it as again, that is dependent on a lot more than QB play.

I used to be on the 'build the most outstanding roster possible' then worry about QB train. But I'm convinced we will never consistently win without a top flight QB, and I will die on the hill that the best way to find that guy is with an early pick.

 

[Boone]

And btw - nice job on pulling the stats

One other quibble - you added the 'generational franchise QB' goalpost. I'm talking about a long-term starter at QB you can win with. Generational is by definition an elusive and rare thing.

 

[Neophyte]

I'm not advocating that we drop out of the Top 10.

I am absolutely advocating for NOT taking a QB at #2.

 

[Boone]

I'm not advocating that we drop out of the Top 10.

I am absolutely advocating for NOT taking a QB at #2.

Because YOU don't think any of the QBs likely available are worth it. You could be 1000% wrong. I think what's important is what the new GM and his staff think. If they think a guy is worthy, for God's sake - draft him!

And I say that admitting that it's highly likely any opinion I have on the available guys will prove 1000% wrong

 

[Boone]

We badly need this guy to help us understand what the data really tells us about picking QBs in the draft.

 

[Primus Porcus]

I don't want to be "that guy" but I think the idea that you are better off taking a QB right at the top is something we have been sold because it appears to make sense. However, I don't think the stats support taking a QB in the Top 2. You want to talk about winning more than Super Bowls - I'm good with that.



I feel like even though the QB is the most important single position in sports, we have gotten stupid about hunting for a generational franchise guy. Those guys are rare. Much rarer than I think we think they are. I would argue that on the above list only Mahomes, Brady, and Manning fit that description. Maybe Rogers. And of those 4 guys, only 1 of them was considered to be that kind of talent coming out of college.

I am coming to think that maybe the best way to do things is to put a little less into your QB so you can put more into other areas of the team.

Which is what we had in the great Redskin teams of the 80s.

This is where i'm leaning, but I don't think it's 'taking less' because it comes down to player evaluation, as well as Development. Mahomes at 10 doesn't mean they sacrificed 9 'better' player ahead of him, he was taken at 10 because he was evaluated a certain way and KC found it prudent to go up and get him.

I again think this creates a bigger conversation... generally the teams picking in the top 10, aren't as good as evaluating talent, because they're not good teams.... there's a reason' they're picking higher in the draft, and a lot of top QBs taken early in the draft don't necessarily work out (and yes, you can say that all across the draft). They generally don't make the right decisions when acquiring players across the entirety of the roster. If a good talent evaluator views Maye or Daniels as 'the guy' worth the 2nd pick in the draft, so be it... but if a talent evaluator looks at those guys and views the net 'gain' of the team is higher taking Harrison, Fashanu, or Alt, that's where personnel people separate themselves as being a 'better' evaluator.

In 2021 the Detroit Lions were picking 7th in the draft and Mac Jones was on the board. They had just traded Stafford to the Rams and received Jared Goff back in return, a move a lot of people simply wrote off to a 'salary dump' in order to get the deal done.... They picked Penei Sewell and Mac Jones fell all the way to 15. Goff is now playing in the NFC Championship game with Sewell protecting his blindside.

Stafford by the way went on to win a Super Bowl at the Rams. They saw their guy, they got their guy, and they set him up to succeed.

Ironically enough, that same draft, San Fran traded up to get Trey Lance... and followed that move by taking Purdy as Mr Irrelevant. They deemed that Lance wasn't the guy, but instead of panicking, they've now developed Purdy into an MVP candidate and he's also playing for a shot at the Super Bowl....

The second layer to this onion is Development (as well as fit, as pointed out with Goff / Stafford / Purdy). Does Tom Brady get drafted by the Redskins and go on to win 6 Super Bowls? No chance. Does he win 1, or 2? Maybe, but given the state of the franchise when he was drafted, I don't even know if I'd bet on that much.

This meme came out prior to the 2021 NFL draft. It has since been adapted to apply to our little football team here.

The funny thing is that Cincy went on to go to the Super Bowl in 2022 and lost to Stafford and the Rams.

 

[Boone]

I agree with a lot of that. But anecdotal examples (like Trey Lance or Brock Purdy) is a dangerous path to go down. The reason 'analytics' is all the rage is because it represents the idea that if you follow statistical probability over the long haul, you will make more great decisions than bad. Hitting on a very low probability move, or missing on a high probability move are part of the equation and shouldn't drive your approach one way or the other.

Here's the other thing. I don't necessarily agree that bad decisions are made because bad teams have bad scouting - at least not when it comes to QB. It is very difficult to know if even the greatest college QB will be a great NFL QB. Look at Trevor Lawrence. He was supposed to be a 'generational talent'. Right now, it's not 100% certain he is going to be a successful starter. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to draft him.

If even the experts are often wrong about which QBs are going to be stars and which aren't, I think that argues that you swing more often, not less. Eventually you will hit.

 

[Chris]

How many analytic experts does it take to change a lightbulb?

It depends.