"Developmental QB of the future"

[kdhammond]

For those that think it is wise to try to find the Bills' next starting QB in rounds after the first, I offer the following.

This is from the 1999 draft. That was 5 years ago. Long enough for any of the "developmental" QBs to "develop".

Brock Huard
Joe Germaine
Cade McNown (OK, Chic took him in round 1, but he was projected
to go later)
Graham Leigh
Michael Bishop
Ted White
Shaun King
Scott Covington
Aaron Brooks
Kevin Daft
Mike Cook...

Who besides Aaron Brooks has "developed" into a good starting QB (or even a good backup QB) in the last 5 years???? Do any of you really think that Aaron Brooks is really that good of a starting QB, either?

Pretty much 1 for 11 and I would argue that Brooks is not a good starting QB.

I offer this as evidence that you have a low probability of finding a good starting QB/good backup QB in rounds after the first.

I am not arguing that the Bills must draft a QB in round 1 this year, but rather that to pick a QB later is tantamount to taking a wild shot in the dark. If they don't take one of the big 3 (or possibly Losman) this year, then don't waste a later pick on a QB, go for the best players available at any position, preferrably ones that can play special teams, too.

Just to be balanced, I will acknowledge that several highly regarded QBs didn't pan out from that year, either:

Tim Couch (has started a lot, but hasn't exactly been good)
Don McNabb (very good)
Akili Smith (horrible)
Duante Culpepper (I think we'd all take him)

Even with the busts, there is a much higher probability of finding a good starting QB in round one than later.

I'll also concede that if they want to wait till later rounds, they should take 2 or 3 developmental QBs to increase their probability of finding an adequate successor to Bledsoe.

[CJBS]

Shaun King was the QB for a team that went to NFC Champ. was never really given a shot after that could have been good, Brooks plays for a team that can only think about their own stats, dont waste pick 1 on a qb unless Manning falls into our laps try to trade future picks for a backup from someone elses team that wont ever be used by them, NE (not sure their back ups) just used them as an example

[Psychosis]

Like i've said before, the chances of finding a brady or delhomme in the draft are slim. Take one of the top three or else wait 'til next year. The only problem with that is that the bills want to draft bledsoe's successor in this years draft so at this point either of the top three are worth the first pick. I'd take Rivers over all three of them because he sees the field better and the most clutch. I think Rivers is the type of qb who can come in have success in his first year if he was called on. This nonsense about his throwing style won't affect him now if it hasn't affected in the past.

[kdhammond]

Originally posted by CJBS
Shaun King was the QB for a team that went to NFC Champ. was never really given a shot after that could have been good, Brooks plays for a team that can only think about their own stats, dont waste pick 1 on a qb unless Manning falls into our laps try to trade future picks for a backup from someone elses team that wont ever be used by them, NE (not sure their back ups) just used them as an example

Tampa thought so much of King that they brought Rob Johnson in and drafted Chris Simms last year.

I didn't see any teams falling all over themselves to sign King when he became a FA this year.

If trading for someone's former 4th round pick who-hasn't-broken-into-the-starting-lineup QB will net a viable starting QB option, then why not do the same for DE, LB, OL, etc??? How about trading for someone's former 5th round pick WR to solve the WR problem? Heck, probably don't even need a #1 pick, just trade lower round picks for players that other teams "develop" and are not sharp enough to realize how great those guys are.

[1968_bills_fan]

It must be hard to project most college QB's into the pros. The pro players are ALL fast and big and things happen quicker. In college, a lot of weaknesses can be hidden by the "system" or a superior supporting cast and good defensive players can be schemed around.

[swami jr]

The difference between QB and other positions in football is that teams only start one, and the one who starts generally plays the whole game. Therefore there are only so many opportunities for quarterbacks to be successful, and therefore less opportunities are taken advantage of and there are fewer successes than many other posisions. In addition, too much emphasis on winning and losing is plased on the QB, so if a QB doesn't win right away they are deemed 'loosers'. That said, there is still a low rate of success for every position late in the draft. Drafting a developmental QB is not a one time thing, it is something a team has to do year after year. The rate of success isn't as high as an earlier pick, but the risk is so low the ratio between risk and reward evens out (subjective).

People mention the packers picked up Matt Hasselbeck and Aarron Brooks in the late rounds. However, what isn't mentioned is that both these quarterbacks were one of the quarterbacks Green Bay took in each of the drafts from 1995-1999.

Michael Bishop is mentioned above in the leading post. Michael and a guy named Tom Brady were two quarterbacks of four taken in a string of five years in late rounds by the Patriots.

On the second day of the draft, the Minnesota Vikings decided to take a QB 3 of 4 years starting in 1992. One of them was Brad Johnson.

The San Diego Chargers took 7 QBs in 10 years, two of them in the first two rounds (Leaf and Brees). One of the five latter round guys was Trent Green.

Finding a developmental QB can happen. However, it's not the quick fix that is often en vougue. It has to be an ongoing commitment.

Its not a sure thing, but it is an option. We just have to choose wisely, and probably more than once.

[kdhammond]

Swami: I don't disagree with you at all.

What I don't agree with are those that think that you can easily find a viable future starting qb in the mid to late rounds simply by grabbing someone and "developing" them.

If Bledsoe has only 2-3 good years left, then I argue that the Bills don't have the luxury of time to try to find their next QB among 3 or 4 developmental QBs drafted over 5 or 6 years.

[swami jr]

Originally posted by kdhammond
Swami: I don't disagree with you at all.

What I don't agree with are those that think that you can easily find a viable future starting qb in the mid to late rounds simply by grabbing someone and "developing" them.

If Bledsoe has only 2-3 good years left, then I argue that the Bills don't have the luxury of time to try to find their next QB among 3 or 4 developmental QBs drafted over 5 or 6 years.

Just to clarify things:

We agree. Your argument is a valid point. Though I still think it's worth a shot at targeting a guy or two and taking one of them if they are available. You didn't say it wasn't worth a shot, just trying to point out that it wasn't neccesarily worth a shot, and that there are other viable options.

:)

[Pablo]

Ideally Id like to pick up a young veteran QB who is coming into his own . A QB who has shown he can do the job at this level and has some upside.

Couch, for example, has a good deal of starting experience.

With the addition of Mullarkey and Clements and their track record with QB's,I think the Bills can develop a young QB that has already been in the league a couple years and not necessarily have to draft one THIS year.