What is a "sure thing?" Would you ever consider a 28-year old a sure thing? Do you think Weeden will not be good, or is it only his age?

 

 

70% age.

But the point about a 28 year old prospect is you take them while projecting that they won't need to grow. That they are physically mature and in their prime as a player. So you don't need to focus on the long term as much. You expect them to be able to be a difference maker basically right away.

 

So that's why I continue to ask, do you think Weeden will not be good, or is it solely the age?

But Weeden will need to grow. I don't know who really think's Weeden isn't going to need time to grow into being an NFL QB.

I think it.

 

And Sports Illustrated columnist Don Banks does too. I don't know who he is, but that was the first thing that popped up when I googled "Brandon Weeden, NFL Ready."

 

http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz1n8mJXn00

 

I gave them Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill in

my first mock, but here's an interesting theory I heard recently that makes some sense: Mike Shanahan loves Oklahoma State quarterback Brandon Weeden, who he coached in the Senior Bowl, and might try to trade down into the 20s of the first round to take him. Weeden is 28 and that scares a lot of teams, but he's mature and ready to play in the NFL right away, and the Redskins don't have time to wait around for someone to develop.

 

 

I don't think it's crazy for a team to think Weeden can play right away.

I think unless its a sure thing, you don't pin the hopes of your franchise on a 28 year old quarterback (and by using a 1st round or 2nd round pick on him, you would be).

 

 

You can say the same for every prospect.

 

Not every prospect is 28 years old. They have years to grow and become a good QB.

 

Aaron Rodgers is the same age and has already established himself as the best in the game. Weeden's just getting his feet wet when Rodgers has already established himself.

 

But every prospect is a risk in the sense that he's unproven. Why does the age matter? Is it setting him back?

Almost every scouting report or expert I've read said he will play right away. On top of that, the recent trend for NFL rookie QBs has been for them to start right away.

 

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, and Mark Sanchez have all started right away. Luck and Griffin will start right away, too.

 

Weeden has growing to do, but it's not much.

Here's my question: Do you think Weeden is not a long term answer because you think he won't be good or is it only his age?

 

 

Read everything I wrote. His age. Even if he develops and plays well in the NFL (which is a question with any NFL prospect), his window for talent is small if it ever happens. If it does, it's for a good 2-3 years, and you're betting on generational talent if you think it's going to last longer.

 

Ultimately, it's a total waste of a #8 pick even if things pan out. He's projected in the 2nd round. Why on Earth would we spend a #8 on him?

Here's my question: Do you think Weeden is not a long term answer because you think he won't be good or is it only his age?

 

 

Read everything I wrote. His age. Even if he develops and plays well in the NFL (which is a question with any NFL prospect), his window for talent is small if it ever happens. If it does, it's for a good 2-3 years, and you're betting on generational talent if you think it's going to last longer.

 

Ultimately, it's a total waste of a #8 pick even if things pan out. He's projected in the 2nd round. Why on Earth would we spend a #8 on him?

 

It's not good for 2-3 years. And you take him at 8 because he's likely the only QB available, he's a very good prospect, and there's a threat that other teams may pick him if you don't.

I agree, taking him at #8 is a poor usage of available resources. I already said I'd take him late in the first or early 2nd.

 

But it's not out of the question to think that he could give the team 5-6 solid years. The question, then, is not whether you think he's a long-term answer. It's a question of whether you think he will be good, period. If you think he'll be good, then he can be a long-term answer. If you think he's not, then he won't be. But if he is going to be good, you're going to know right away. He's physically mature and if any QB is set to step in right away and play well, it's him.

 

So it's all whether you think he will be good. If you think he will be good, you take him with a lower first or second round pick and put him in as the starter.

I disagree with that. Why would taking him at 8 be a poor use of resources?

Aren't NFL rookie contracts only a maximum 4 years?

 

There might be some potential cost savings for an extension for a player you have under contract, but by far the most important thing is your draft pick's performance over the immediately following 4 years. And then the player becomes a free agent.

 

If that's accurate, then, heck, Brandon Weeden might look like an even better pick since you don't have to wait for him to mature in order to be playing at his peak physical condition. He'll be 28, in his prime, so you'll actually get 4 of his very best years, in all likelihood. That seems like a great time to draft a player.

 

He won't solve a team's QB problems for 12 years, but he could be an excellent value despite, and maybe even because of, his age.

I disagree with that. Why would taking him at 8 be a poor use of resources?

 

 

Because he would be available 15-20 picks later.

I disagree with that. Why would taking him at 8 be a poor use of resources?

 

 

Because he would be available 15-20 picks later.

 

As of now, yea. I don't think that will hold true before the draft starts. JMO.

Aren't NFL rookie contracts only a maximum 4 years?

 

There might be some potential cost savings for an extension for a player you have under contract, but by far the most important thing is your draft pick's performance over the immediately following 4 years. And then the player becomes a free agent.

 

If that's accurate, then, heck, Brandon Weeden might look like an even better pick since you don't have to wait for him to mature in order to be playing at his peak physical condition. He'll be 28, in his prime, so you'll actually get 4 of his very best years, in all likelihood. That seems like a great time to draft a player.

 

He won't solve a team's QB problems for 12 years, but he could be an excellent value despite, and maybe even because of, his age.

 

 

I agree. You select him now, and he'll be a free agent when he is 32. Just like Drew Brees. At that point, you decide what his worth is. No bigger risk than selecting a 22 year old QB. It sucks that you will have him for 5-7 seasons rather than 12+ seasons, but that's being very picky.

But there's no guarantee you get him 12+ years anyway. You'd still have to ultimately sign him to an extension or FA contract, at which point he can get market value like any other FA, regardless of age. Maybe there's some value to the possibility of continuity in having the same QB for a very long time, but that's so entirely speculative that it'd be silly for that to make a significant difference in a draft-day decision.

 

(Might a QB have loyalty and thereby alter this equation? Maybe, but that's not a given, and it's not like a guy worth $50MM is taking $30MM to stay in the same place, anyway.)

I don't think length of contract was ever the issue.

I don't think length of contract was ever the issue.

 

The point is that when you draft a guy, you get him for 4 years. So, his performance during those 4 years is the most important consideration. And there might be a lot of reasons to like a mature 28-32 QB than a 22-26 raw QB, including that the former spends more time in his prime while under his rookie contract (with a fixed ceiling price).

There's also the fact that a QB who can step in right now is more valuable for the Dolphins, who aren't a young team by any stretch. This team needs to start winning soon or they need to tear the whole thing down, in which case, if you get the young QB who needs to develop, he's going to have a few years with a good team and then the team might start sucking again.

I don't think length of contract was ever the issue.

 

The point is that when you draft a guy, you get him for 4 years. So, his performance during those 4 years is the most important consideration. And there might be a lot of reasons to like a mature 28-32 QB than a 22-26 raw QB, including that the former spends more time in his prime while under his rookie contract (with a fixed ceiling price).

 

No it's not? If you're drafting a player you're drafting him to be a part of your franchise for forever if they're good. Especially if it's a QB. You don't draft a QB for 4 years, especially not with a #8 pick.

 

We wouldn't be drafting another QB not named Brandon Weeden for 4 years, we'd be drafting him as a franchise QB.

 

And that's also not true. Weeden will not 'spend more time in his prime'. His prime might already be passing, and any adjustment period he needs could be wasted during his optimal seasons. Meanwhile, all else the same, a younger QB is going to have that 'prime' following some seasoning.

And that's also not true. Weeden will not 'spend more time in his prime'. His prime might already be passing,

 

 

He said "spends more time in his prime while under his rookie contract. It is generally accepted as fact that player's primes are the late 20s, so assuming he follows a standard physical development curve, he would be more likely to be in his prime while also playing under his cheaper rookie deal.

I don't think length of contract was ever the issue.

 

The point is that when you draft a guy, you get him for 4 years. So, his performance during those 4 years is the most important consideration. And there might be a lot of reasons to like a mature 28-32 QB than a 22-26 raw QB, including that the former spends more time in his prime while under his rookie contract (with a fixed ceiling price).

 

No it's not? If you're drafting a player you're drafting him to be a part of your franchise for forever if they're good. Especially if it's a QB. You don't draft a QB for 4 years, especially not with a #8 pick.

 

We wouldn't be drafting another QB not named Brandon Weeden for 4 years, we'd be drafting him as a franchise QB.

 

And that's also not true. Weeden will not 'spend more time in his prime'. His prime might already be passing, and any adjustment period he needs could be wasted during his optimal seasons. Meanwhile, all else the same, a younger QB is going to have that 'prime' following some seasoning.

The main concern is the value you get from that pick, and that value is determined by the length of the initial contract -- 4 years. Afterward, you generally have to pay that QB market value, so you're not really gaining anything when you sign him as an FA.

 

(Technically, the Expected Value of resigning any random FA at "market price" should be zero, but with the fixed ceiling in rookie contracts, you have a bigger opportunity to gain value.)

 

And here's a study finding that a QB's prime age is 31.

http://sandcat.middlebury.edu/econ/repec/mdl/ancoec/0718.pdf

I'm starting to think that teams really overvalue having a franchise QB. I think there might be opportunities to exploit by, for example, signing solid veterans every few years, even if they have limited ceilings. The main concern is the idea that you might "need" elite QB play to win a Superbowl, but there are some countervailing consideration such as possible salary savings and knowing what you're going to get/avoiding growing pains/

I'm starting to think that teams really overvalue having a franchise QB. I think there might be opportunities to exploit by, for example, signing solid veterans every few years, even if they have limited ceilings. The main concern is the idea that you might "need" elite QB play to win a Superbowl, but there are some countervailing consideration such as possible salary savings and knowing what you're going to get/avoiding growing pains/

 

 

You're only saying that because you know you don't have a franchise QB :wee

I'm starting to think that teams really overvalue having a franchise QB. I think there might be opportunities to exploit by, for example, signing solid veterans every few years, even if they have limited ceilings. The main concern is the idea that you might "need" elite QB play to win a Superbowl, but there are some countervailing consideration such as possible salary savings and knowing what you're going to get/avoiding growing pains/

 

 

Overvalue? What teams win a Superbowl without a franchise QB, much less make it all the way to the Superbowl?

I'm starting to think that teams really overvalue having a franchise QB. I think there might be opportunities to exploit by, for example, signing solid veterans every few years, even if they have limited ceilings. The main concern is the idea that you might "need" elite QB play to win a Superbowl, but there are some countervailing consideration such as possible salary savings and knowing what you're going to get/avoiding growing pains/

 

 

Overvalue? What teams win a Superbowl without a franchise QB, much less make it all the way to the Superbowl?

I mean, QBs "become" considered franchise QBs when they win Superbowls, so we should be careful of some circularity there. For example, many didn't consider Eli elite until this year's playoff run, but they unabashedly do so.

 

I'm saying that maybe teams would do better if they weren't making trades like the one for RG3. I could see it being the case that the Redskins would do better to have saved those draft picks and sign a reliable, know-what-you're-getting type of veteran QB, rather than mortgaging so much for RGIII.

 

Now, the new rookie wage scale makes this less so, since it was a lot crazier to pay $50+MM to Bradford vs $22MM to Newton (albeit all guaranteed int he latter case). But you still don't get any excess value after the rookie contract just because you drafted a guy, unless he signs a favorable extension/FA contract because he's come to like your team or something like that.

 

I'm not saying it's stupid to want one; I'm saying teams may want one more than they "should," such that they greatly overpay, whether via $$$/draft picks/etc., in order to get that possibility.