Trading Post

62 Comments on “Trading Post”

1. 
   1 Sam Lynch said at 2:47 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   For the record, in case it isn’t clear from Tommy’s write up, the Hughes idea was if we could get him for something in the conditional 2013 7th round pick category. Just so commenters don’t think I was advocating giving up the store for someone with 2 sacks in 2 years or anything.

2. 
   2 Mac said at 5:37 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   I just assumed we were going to sign M Favorite to a vet minimum deal and then ship him to the colts for Hughes.

3. 
   3 mark_in_jax said at 10:41 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   Given your “cap” expertise, I’d like to ask you a “restructuring” question about asante. Could we offer cash to a trading partner or do we need to convert part of his salary to a “roster bonus” that we would pay him prior to trading him?

4. 
   4 Sam Lynch said at 11:55 AM on March 29th, 2012:

   Sorry for the late reply. My understanding is that teams are not allowed to trade cash in the NFL. This is different than the rule in MLB and in the NBA, where cash can go with players. Yes, the Eagles could renegotiate Asante’s deal and eat some of the cash with a roster bonus, but I don’t think that is likely to happen. It is far more likely that an acquiring team would just renegotiate Asante’s deal outright.

5. 
   5 Kristopher Cebula said at 2:53 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   i read a quite ridiculous 7 round mock earlier today from some guy matt miller from bleacher report. it was quite awful from an eagles perspective. he had us taking poe at 15, cousins and zach brown in the second, and our old friend vontaze burfict in the fourth. if anyone would like a good laugh, i could probably find the link. point is he had fletcher cox slipping all the way to 25. some people i guess don’t see him quite as highly. mike goodson is an interesting name. i remember watching clips of him before he was drafted after tommy talked him up. seemed like an exciting player. hope we might be able to work out a trade. he was a good RS too, correct?

6. 
   6 Kristopher Cebula said at 2:54 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   i guess it says KOR right next to goodson’s name in the article huh? must have missed that

7. 
   7 drichwine said at 2:58 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   Funny thing is a lot of the mocks I see don’t have many CBs taken after Claiborne in the top half of round 1. Could you see us snatching a CB wth #15 if we don’t have another good option?

8. 
   8 Kammich said at 3:06 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   Some of us talked a bit about Dre Kirkpatrick in some other threads. Interesting option if Cox and Kuechwalker are off the board. The immediate question becomes… can Kirkpatrick play in the slot? If not, I don’t think the Eagles have any interest in him.

9. 
   9 D3FB said at 9:17 PM on March 28th, 2012:

   I’d say simply due to his height, probably not. Same problem as DRC. The taller you are the harder it is to constantly redirect.

10. 
    10 Gregory Post said at 3:11 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Imagine if Blackmon slips to pick #7. Asante + pick 15 could make a lot of sense.

11. 
    11 M0rton said at 4:46 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Is Blackmon even that good?

    He doesn’t compare to even Julio Jones or AJ Green from last year. Why would you want to trade up for that kind of player?

    Did you see what good the Julio Jones trade did for Atlanta? And Jones was a superior prospect to Blackmon.

    The only acceptable pick in the first round is a DT, DE, or *maybe* LB.

12. 
    12 Mac said at 5:25 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    In a previous thread someone said that it has been reported that out of 5 GMs only 2 pegged Blackmon as the #1 WR in this draft class. Ouch… He was making the point that Floyd and Wright were potential targets at 15. But I argue that it’s more of an indictment against Blackmon as a top 10.

13. 
    13 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 6:09 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    That was me quoting Chris Steuber from twitter…

14. 
    14 Mac said at 7:31 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    with Blackmon’s lack of elite speed it just seems like this is an “interesting” WR class with no talent that I would call “must have” especially for an Eagles team that already has 2 good WR.

15. 
    15 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 8:08 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    A WR is certainly not at the top of my wishlist at #15 either. I just want to make a point, that if a WR is atop of our board we have to take him (as long as we can’t trade down).

    What if Jackson gets another concussion and is out several games? Or what if Maclin gets hurt? I wouldn’t hurt to put Blackmon, Floyd or Wright in there, would it?

    Again, I don’t want WR to be our top priority, but if Cox, Kuechly etc. is gone, why not our top WR?

16. 
    16 D3FB said at 9:19 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Trade back, pick up a 1 next year, and if you absolutely must pick up a WR pick up one of the very deep class of Tier 2 WRs

17. 
    17 Kammich said at 3:11 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    That Silva article is interesting. I think most fans tend to over-blow the potential returns in fantasy trade scenarios, but it seems like Silva is low-balling in most cases. Do you really think Chicago would only get a 2nd and a 6th for Matt Forte? Hell no. I would think it would be closer to two 1st round picks, at least.

    Mike Goodson’s name was floated around a few times after Carolina signed Earth’s MVP, Mike Tolbert. He would fill a few different needs for us, and he’s also a capable receiver. I wouldn’t mind that move at all.

    Another interesting name could be Sammie Lee Hill. If we lose Landri and are uncertain about Antonio Dixon bouncing back this year, Sammie could be an intriguing NT option. Good player who is familiar with the wide-9 but just doesn’t get a ton of snaps in a crowded DT field in Detroit.

18. 
    18 Eric Weaver said at 3:43 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Love the Sammie Lee Hill idea. Sort of a forgotten man with Schwartz drafting Suh and Fairley.

19. 
    19 Mac said at 5:40 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I can dig on Mike Goodson… that cat landed me a boat load of fantasy points a couple years ago. If healthy he would be a legit started if (heaven forbid) something happened to Shady.

20. 
    20 Markr said at 3:11 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    According to the value chart it would take our p.15 (1050) and p.46 (440) to move up to Jax’s 7 (1500), assuming we would not be getting in a bidding war with Miami. Maybe we give up Asante, p.15 and p.46 and swap 3rd rounders, Jax p.70 (240) Eagles p.88 (150).

    The net of (100) would essentially value Asante as a high 4th rounder and move us up 18 spots in the 3rd. In return Jax drops back picks up a starting CB, mid 2nd and will most likely still be able to land Floyd at 15. Sounds like a Win-Win to me.

21. 
    21 Kammich said at 3:14 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Good research. It becomes an interesting question of how do you assign a point value to a player instead of a draft pick?

    However, I am still just NOT a fan of moving up in this draft. We have a mid-round pick in the 1st, two 2nds, and now potentially two 3rds… when is the last time that happened? Do we really want to flush all of those picks to move up in a draft that is really light on elite, top-level talent?

    There just isn’t anyone in this draft that I’m clamoring to get, to the point that I’d want to move up. Claiborne and Blackmon, maybe. MAYBE. I’d rather just sit tight and draft the best players we can, where we are. Shrug.

22. 
    22 Mac said at 5:46 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I like Roseman’s approach.. find “the sweet spot” in the draft and try to pile as many picks in there as possible. I think we’re going to see the Eagles hang on to their 2nd and 3rd rounders because it seems like the drop off between them and the top 15 this year isn’t as drastic.

    This draft class just doesn’t have that magical pairing of elite talent and position of need to warrant trading up to 7 (in my opinion). A case might be made for Clairborne or Tannehill but outside of those two… I think we can sit tight and have pretty solid options, or even drop back a little and get some more ammo for wherever that sweet spot is.

23. 
    23 D3Keith said at 10:02 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Speaking of Roseman, it came up in yesterday’s thread how he possibly has been too concerned with need and not concerned enough with BPA in his drafts. He addresses that head on, basically saying it’s true, in Domo’s love letter to him today:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20120328_Paul_Domowitch__Young_GM_Roseman_leading_Eagles_in_positive_direction.html

24. 
    24 mark_in_jax said at 10:52 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I guess that while those of us posting as “mark” may not think “alike” we do think “similar” LOL! In the “Talent Search” thread a day or 2 ago I asked the question “Tommy: Would you trade 15 and 46 to Jags for 7 to get in front of Miami for Tannehill?” Assuming we “like” Tannehill your way works for me. I’m not interested in trading up in the 1st for anyone other than Tannehill now that we traded for Ryans.

25. 
    25 Eric Weaver said at 3:34 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    “It’s funny…earlier today I was thinking about trading up in the 1st round. I wondered if you could get a team like Jacksonville would give up pick #7 for pick 15 and Asante. That isn’t even on the trade value chart, but that is hardly set in stone.”

    I saw somewhere today that somewhat inferred the Rams could still be trade partners with the Browns for the #4 pick. That would allow the Rams to have control over whether they take Richardson or Blackmon. It’d also be very likely if the Vikings decide to take Claiborne, the Rams could definitely use Kalil. Then the Browns would still have a pick ahead of Miami and take Tannehill and pick up an extra third or whatever from the Rams.

26. 
    26 Eric Weaver said at 3:36 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    “There is no one on the Top 10 list that I think the Eagles would target. Sam pointed out to me that there is a player below that group who could be of interest. DE Jerry Hughes has been a major bust for the Colts. He has 1 sack in 2 years. And he’s a pass rusher. Ouch.

    Jerry could be a great fit in the Wide-9. At TCU he got down in a 4-point stance and would fire off the ball on pass plays. He was a great pass rusher in college. You would think he could fit in well in Indy, but something hasn’t clicked for him. If the price was cheap, he would be an interesting reclamation project for Jim Washburn. Hughes will turn 24 in August so there is a ton of tread left on the tire.”

    Couldn’t Hughes also thrive as a strictly rush OLB in a 3-4?

27. 
    27 M0rton said at 4:08 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I am troubled by Jeff McLane’s comments regarding Andy Reid’s “hinting” at the potential of selecting a QB high in the draft this year.

    I am firmly convinced that after the first two QBs (RGIII and Luck), none of the QBs are starter-caliber, much less worthy of 1st or 2nd round picks.

    If this front office somehow decides to spend its #15 pick, even following a trade-down or trade-up, on a QB, then it will set the franchise back years.

    They blew a pick on Kevin Kolb in 2007 when they would have been better served simply improving their roster by picking a defensive player with that pick. The fact that they swindled the Cardinals and extracted a marginal CB out of the entire transaction doesn’t make it a good pick. That player in 2007 could have contributed to the 2008 and 2009 squads and made those teams better; Kevin Kolb did zilch, nada, nothing except brew a QB controversy and in the end fall face down into the turf and usher in the Michael Vick era.

    QBs who aren’t the elite top-tier prospects (RGIII, Luck) simply aren’t worth picking in the draft at any stage before the 6th-7th round.

    I would even be wary of spending a 2nd or 3rd round pick on a QB. If he isn’t a top-tier, elite QB prospect, why bother even wasting the draft pick on him?

28. 
    28 teltschikfakeout88 said at 4:17 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Morton my boy! Where you been! The board has been too optimistic without you! BTW Tom Brady was a 6th rounder and not an elite prospect so I get where you are coming from. Pretty harsh on the Kolb pick. He won some games for us and got us a pick as well.

29. 
    29 M0rton said at 4:41 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Kevin Kolb is clearly not a long term starter.

    He won a few games as a backup. Is this what you want out of your first round pick (first round before trade-down)? Or would you rather have a 16-game contributor on the defense or offense, which is what they could have had instead if they didn’t trade down and select Kolb?

    Again, the fact that they lucked out and were able to swindle Arizona should not change the fact that Kolb was a monumentally wasted pick for a team with an established QB (at the time, McNabb) who needed draft help on defense or offense to compete in 2008 and 2009. And in the end, they pretty much broken even anyway – they picked Kolb with a 2nd round pick and received one in return for him. The CB DRC has yet to prove that he is a worthwhile contributor to the Eagles.

    Maybe Andy Reid “thought” he could mold Kolb into another Matt Hasselbeck or Matt Schaub, just as he “thought” his LBers were good enough going into the 2011 season to play behind the Wide-9. It’s all just hubris, really. Kevin Kolb was not projected as an elite starter in the NFL before the 2007 draft. In fact, he was given a 3rd or later round grade by most scouting organizations. Selecting him violates a major tenet of successful GMs everywhere: if a QB is *not* a clear-cut, ELITE prospect that every team will be targeting in the top-10 of the draft, then he simply does not deserve to be drafted at all. If you can’t get an ELITE guy, don’t even bother wasting a draft pick that could have turned into a solid contributor at another position. It’s not “just” a 2nd round pick. That 2nd round pick could have become an Osi Umenyiora or Lamarr Woodley or a Brian Dawkins, but we know almost with 95% certainty that a QB who fell that low will probably not be a quality starter.

30. 
    30 Kammich said at 5:18 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    You’re right in the sense that 2nd round QBs rarely go on to have successful careers(Drew Brees, Jake Plummer and Kordell Stewart are the only ones I can think of in the last 15 or 20 years).

    That said, its ridiculous to stilt your draft board based on past trends. If you like the player, you take him. You don’t stop and go, “oh shit, when is the last time a 2nd-round QB succeeded in the NFL? Lets pass!” The Eagles liked Kolb, they took him.

    That type of flawed logic reminds me of the front office guy last year who was quoted as saying “I wouldn’t draft Andy Dalton, because when is the last time a red-headed QB succeeded in the NFL?”

31. 
    31 M0rton said at 7:44 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    It’s ridiculous to make future decisions based on analysis of past trends?

    Why don’t we just shut down every investment bank and brokerage firm in Manhattan? Why don’t we stop teaching history in schools?

32. 
    32 laeagle said at 8:58 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    No but it’s important to understand the nature of the trend and not just go on pure statistics. The reason why those guys didn’t pan out is not because of where they were statistically, but because of their abilities and how they were taught once they got into the league. A lot of factors come into play and it’s not like anyone is innately a starting quarterback in the NFL right out of college. It is not some sort of intrinsic value but rather how things pan out based on the time AFTER they’re drafted. You can predict trends based on statistical information to a certain degree but only if you’re looking at the right data. It is a naive assumption that because picks in rounds 2-3 haven’t panned out at QB in years past that NO QB in those rounds will pan out. It’s as naive as assuming that no red-headed QB will pan out because none ever has before. Those numbers are good to take into advisement but they are not a guarantee. Or, using your investment metaphor, “past performance is not an indication of future success”, and that cuts both ways. No successful starting QB had ever been drafted in round 6. Until one was.

33. 
    33 M0rton said at 10:08 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    QB is far and away the most important position in the game. Teams fall all over themselves trying to trade up for elite QB prospects.

    If a QB falls into the 2nd round or further, it simply begs the question: why? If the QB, far more than any other position in the game, determines the success of your franchise, why would anyone allow a potentially elite player at the position to fall past their 1st round pick?

    The reason is simple: that player lacks the clearly identifiable traits that act as prerequisites for elite-level play of the position. Some things are plainly evident to evaluators of QBs: arm strength, accuracy, leadership, athleticism… Some have it, and some just don’t. If a guy isn’t being lusted after by every team needing a QB (and there are lots of them), then he probably lacks those elite traits. There is a much greater chance that he will not pan out as an elite player if he enters the draft lacking elite physical traits. The player *with* the elite physical traits has a “head start” so to speak. He can still bust, but it won’t be for lack of ability. The 2nd round and later QB has to overcome additional hurdles than the clear-cut top-10 talent: his lack of ability.

    Let’s look at it another way: we comb the beach for seashells. We can walk along the waterline itself, or we can walk further inland. Naturally, we will find more seashells near the waterline. That doesn’t mean we won’t ever find any seashells inland, though. But there are factors underlying this trend that are obvious to us: the seashells wash in from the ocean and are thus more plentiful in close proximity to it. The same thing can be applied to QBs: simply because past trends supported by underlying factors (elite physical talent identified in top-10 picks will not fall into the 2nd round, but mediocre physical talent will) predict that elite NFL QBs will be found mostly above the #32 pick, we can’t predict with 100% certainty that no QB picked after #32 will ever be an elite NFL starter, just as we can’t ever predict that we will find zero seashells inland. But we can be relatively confident, with a high degree of confidence, actually, that we will be far more likely to find that elite QB in the first round – preferably in the top 10, before teams have a chance to pick those elite physical specimens themselves – just as we will be far more likely to find those seashells closer to the ocean than further from it.

34. 
    34 laeagle said at 11:01 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    You’re missing the point in statistics, though. They’re just statistics based on trends, and can only work in support of your own evaluation of the situation. In finance, you can run numbers on a specific kind of startup, say, and anticipate that it might not have a chance of a big payday. But if you’re looking at numbers in a vacuum, for instance, saying that “startups in the telecom industry usually fail”, and you’re not looking at the fundamentals of the company, then you’re not doing your job. There may be something fundamental about the idea behind that company that’s worth taking a bet on. That’s how startups are founded, and how innovation happens. It’s also how people have found two of the best quarterbacks in history, Joe Montana and Tom Brady, well past the top of the draft.

    Also, the idea that QB is the most important position does not mean that everyone is going to draft an elite quarterback given the chance. Drafting involves assessing value based on your current needs and is not happening in a vacuum based on prospect value * value of the position. There’s a damn good reason St Louis traded out of the #2 spot. By your logic, they’d have drafted a QB there. By reasonable logic not lost in theoretical fairytale land, the best value was obtained by trading out of that spot. Had they had not trade partners, the best value would have been to take someone at another position. It’s just that simple.

    I’m not saying that the statistics aren’t worth looking at. It’s very important to know things like average success rate per position per draft round. That can help in assessing total value. But if you’re basing your evaluation solely on those stats without evaluating players yourself, you’re a fool. If there was some empirical measurement of draft prospects that was always 100% accurate, or close, and everyone was on this foolproof system, THEN you can trust the numbers alone. But everyone has different evaluations of prospects, so a pure statistical basis for making a draft decision is flat out stupid.

    If the statistics are dissuading you from making a pick but your draft evaluation has the guy ranked highly, you go with your evaluation. Or at the very least you don’t let the statistics completely shut the door on everything your evaluation has told you. To do so is a conservative approach and there’s a reason why a conservative can be defined as “someone who thinks nothing should ever be done for the first time”. Dynasties have been built by talent evaluators who use more than statistics to assemble their draft board. Again, the two best quarterbacks of the modern era are prime examples of this.

35. 
    35 Kammich said at 12:14 AM on March 29th, 2012:

    Umm… in what way does the NFL Draft compare to brokerage firms or public schooling? You are really, REALLY reaching Morton.

    If everyone followed past draft trends, Bill Parcells would’ve never taken Lawrence Taylor 2nd overall. You draft according to your board. You don’t draft according to past “trends,” which in themselves are debatable at best.

    Ludicrous.

36. 
    36 Nick said at 5:19 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Andy Dalton was a second rounder. Aaron Rodgers was a late first rounder.

37. 
    37 Kammich said at 5:26 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Also, its pretty lame to assert that the Eagles only got a good deal for Kolb because they “swindled” the Cardinals.

    Did they “swindle” Miami when they got a 2nd rounder for Feeley? Did they swindle Buffalo when they traded for Jason Peters? Did they swindle Houston in the DeMeco Ryans trade?

    It might be time for you to realize that this organization MIGHT have some idea of what they’re doing.

38. 
    38 teltschikfakeout88 said at 6:11 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Guys don’t waste your time here. I knew as soon as I responded I was going to get tongu lashing on how negative the Kolb pick was. Take for instance the 3rd or later grade by most scouting organizations comment made. I would ask for a link but know I won’t get one. This is just like all the morton negativity around Luke Kuechly. I swear this is a Lawlor plant. In any event, this just makes the board all that more fun to come to.

39. 
    39 M0rton said at 7:42 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    The point is that just because they got some returns in the end on the Kolb investment, it doesn’t mean that it was a good pick to begin with.

    They could just as easily have failed to find a suitor for Kolb and ended up, say, cutting him or trading him for scraps. Then it truly would have been a failed pick without question, right?

    The intention of picking a QB at all in the draft is to groom him as a starting QB – otherwise, it’s a waste of a pick. Has Kolb proven that he can be a starting NFL QB? Not yet and he probably never will. That means it was a failed pick.

40. 
    40 D3Keith said at 9:39 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Is this even the real Morton? If not, seems like a hell of an impression.

41. 
    41 Kristopher Cebula said at 10:58 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    just in case you didn’t know, defenders selected in the second round fail to. hell, they fail in the first round. so what difference does it make where you select qb or defense? second round picks inherently are more likely to fail than a first rounder regardless of the position.

42. 
    42 Eric Weaver said at 11:34 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Right. Pretty much every position decreases success rate as you go through the picks. WR is another position where ColdHardFootballFacts showed that early first rounders give you the best chance at a successful receiver over their career. But it’s like, no duh.

43. 
    43 laeagle said at 11:04 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Quick question: was Brandon Graham a good pick, regardless of what happened with his injury or with JPP? By your logic on the Kolb pick, yes it was, but I somehow don’t think that’s what you think….

44. 
    44 Eric Weaver said at 11:35 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I take it you’ve never conversed with Morton before for you to bring up BG vs JPP. haha

45. 
    45 Kammich said at 12:15 AM on March 29th, 2012:

    Could, would, should. Your entire stance is based on hypotheticals. You can’t admit to the actual tangible returns that the Eagles have gotten. Step outside of your fantasy world for a moment or two.

46. 
    46 eagleizeit said at 4:14 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Tommy – Was wondering why Dixon’s being given the starting job on the 2nd line of the rotation over Landri; seems kind of crazy. Dixon’s coming off an injury, has been out for over a year, never played in the Wide-nine(they have no idea who there getting performance wise) and in the previous years showed a little bit of promise but was never a sure thing anyway. Why wouldn’t they want Landri if a starting DT, in a 2 line rotation system, is at all important like I thought it was. I would think that Dixon’s contract would make it easy to cut him this summer if it’s due to injury, or he doesn’t work out.

47. 
    47 Mac said at 5:51 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I am a big fan of Dixon, but I don’t get why we aren’t making sure Landri comes back. I think Dixon needs to be challenged and I think we need a viable insurance policy in the event that Dixon or Patterson isn’t healthy. I just don’t see the sense in not allocating those resources unless they are absolutely certain there are multiple DTs that Washburn can work with in this draft class.

48. 
    48 D3Keith said at 9:39 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    The answer is in your post. They ARE certain there are DTs they can acquire. I think they want to wait until after the draft to make a move on Landri, Dunlap or Plax, knowing that those are all guys they’d like, but are hardly irreplaceable.

    Landri’s agent, sensing this, is heating things up this week.

    Anybody else notice how Andy said “nah, we’re good” when asked about Plax today?

49. 
    49 Thunder_lips said at 5:32 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    For any fans of the Demeco Ryans trade, Iron Maiden, and shabby art skills, I submit the following: http://i.imgur.com/G4Q3Y.png

50. 
    50 TommyLawlor said at 6:14 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Awesome.

51. 
    51 Alex Karklins said at 8:11 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Totally gnarly, dude. Just whipped out my air guitar for an impromptu jam sesh.

52. 
    52 Eric Weaver said at 11:35 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Did Donovan stop by?

53. 
    53 T_S_O_P said at 5:34 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Who had Cam Newton throwing for 4,000 yards?
    Bonkers!

54. 
    54 ACViking said at 8:02 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    RE: Kolb, Tannehill, and Targeting Only Elite QBs (but not the Kolb trade!!!)

    “MOrton” has made the argument that if a QB is not perceived as elite coming into the draft, a team should not select one until late in the draft. I think he appears to be far more right than not — as the data below seems to prove.

    Since the common draft began in 1967, a total of 73 QBs have been drafted after the 10th pick in Rd 1 though the entire 2nd round: 35 in the 1st Rd and 38 in Rd 2. (I’m assuming, just for the sake of discussion, that an “elite” QB prospect is a Top-10 choice.)

    Based on a review of all the QBs, in terms of getting to the teams to the Super Bowl, I think “MOrton” may be on to something based on a review of the careers of all 73 QBs in the post-No. 10 – end of Rd 2 group.

    The historical anomaly — huge anomaly — is the QB class of 1983 (6 QBs in Rd 1 / 4 after the 10th pick). Of the 4 QBs selected after the 10th pick, and 3 of them made it to the SB at least once. All 4 made the playoffs. There were no 2nd-round QB selected in 1984. (1983’s 1st round was loaded — though the Eagles completely whiffed with FB Mike Haddix — with John Elway, Eric Dickerson, Bruce Mathews, Curt Warner, Jimbo Covert, Willie Gault, Joey Browner, and Don Mosebar, in addition to the 4 QBs listed below.)
    _________________

    Out of the 35 QBs taken in Rd 1 after the 10th pick, 15 of them led the team that drafted them to the playoffs at least once. Of those 15, only 6 have reached the SB. And only 3 have won it.

    * Greg Landry – Detroit Lions (11th pick 1968)
    * Marc Wilson – Oakland Raiders (15th pick 1981)
    * Mark Malone – Pittsburgh Steelers (28th pick 1981)
    ——————–
    CLASS OF ’83 . . .
    * Jim Kelly – Buffalo (14th pick) . . . 4 SBs (HOF)
    *Tony Eason – Patriots (15th pick) . . . 1 SB
    * Ken O’Brien – Jets (24th pick)
    * Dan Marino – Miami (27th pick) . . . 1 SB (HOF)
    ——————-
    * Chris Miller – Falcons (13th pick 1987)
    * Jim Harbaugh – Bears (26th pick 1987)
    * Dante Culpepper – Vikings (11th pick 1999)
    * Chad Pennington – Jets (18th pick 2000)
    ——————
    * Ben Roethlisberger – Steelers (11th pick 2004) . . . 2 SB wins
    * Aaron Rodgers – Packers (24th pick 2005) . . . 1 SB victory
    * Joe Flacco – Ravens (18th pick 2008)
    * Tim Tebow – Broncos (25th pick 2010)
    _______________________

    Looking at Rd 2, of the 38 QBs drafted, 7 have reached the playoffs, 5 have made it to the SB, and 3 have won it.

    * Ken Stabler – Raiders 1976 SB winner
    * Brett Favre – Packers 1996 SB winner
    * Drew Brees – Saints 2009 SB winner
    ————
    * Ron Jaworski – Eagles 1980 SB loss
    * Boomer Essiason – Bengals 1988 SB loss
    ————
    * Randall Cunningham – Eagles (Rd 2 – 1985)
    * Kordell Stewart – Steelers (Rd 2 – 1995)
    ________________________

    There have been 50 QBs selected in the Top 10 from 1967-2011. No QB chosen among the Top 10 during the 2005-2011 has won a SB yet.

    So who’s won most of the 46 Super Bowls since the common draft?

    19 SBs — 46% of those played since a QB chosen in the common draft first played in one — have been won by 10 QBs chosen among the Top 10.

    * Bob Griese – Dophins (4th pick 1967) 2 SB wins, 1 SB loss
    * Terry Bradshaw – Steelers (1st pick 1970) 4 SB wins, 0 losses
    * Jim Plunkett – Patriots (1st pick 1971) 2 SB wins with the Raiders, 0 losses
    * Phil Sims – Giants (7th pick 1979) 1-0
    * Jim McMahon – Bears (5th pick 1982) 1-0
    * John Elway – Colts (1st pick 1983) 2 SB wins, 3 SB losses for Broncos
    * Troy Aikman – Cowboys (1st pick – 1989) 3 SB wins, 0 losses
    * Trent Dilfer – Tampa Bay (6th pick – 1994) 1-0 for the Ravens . . . but he was a caretaker QB
    * Peyton Manning – Colts (1st pick – 1998) 1-1
    * Eli Manning – Chargers (1st pick – 2004) 2-0 for the Giants
    _________________________

    All in all, I think “MOrton” thesis — that relying on an elite QB is the way to win a SB — is born out by the data.

    That’s not to say that a player who slides out of the Top 10 or even into the 2nd round can’t win. There’s Roethlisberger at No. 11 w/ 2 wins. Aaron Rodgers at No. 24 with 1 win. And Drew Brees at 33 (1st pick, 2nd round) with 1 win.

    But it sure looks like your odds are much better if you have a QB drafted among in the Top 5 picks. (As long as his coach gives him some WRs . . . not James Thrash-types.)

55. 
    55 M0rton said at 9:50 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Great work, ACViking. I would love to back up all of my posts with tons of data, but I just don’t have the time to make intricate statistical analyses of these trends.

    One thing I would like to add re: the last two paragraphs and the “blips” in the trends – Joe Montana was only a 3rd round pick because the 49ers played with fire and got lucky that they weren’t burnt. If you listen to Bill Walsh talk about that draft, he went into it targeting Joe Montana as the best QB in that class. The 49ers lacked a 1st round pick, but they had a 2nd round pick, which they used on a mediocre RB that never did much for them. Then with their 3rd rounder, they picked Montana. If they truly believed in Montana as a first round talent, which he was, they would have been prudent to select him with their highest pick (the 2nd rounder) rather than risk Montana being selected by some team with a pick that trumped their 3rd rounder.

    Also re: Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Ben Roethlisberger – Roethlisberger was part of the stacked 2004 draft class which saw Rivers and Manning taken as the top QBs, so a fall to #11 was justifiable, but he was clearly considered a top-10 elite talent by most teams that year, and only “fell” due to the existence of Manning and Rivers. Rodgers and Brees, in my opinion, are two elite top-10 prospects who slipped due to size concerns or “system” concerns. Both were considered weak arm, <6'2" prospects with excellent skill and intangibles who would have clearly been top-10 picks had it not been for these concerns.

    In that sense, a QB can justifiably targeted in the 2nd round if and *only if* they are clearly top-10 talents in some respect but fall due to tangential issues, such as lack of size (Brees), or lack of teams needing QBs (Rodgers, Roethlisberger). 90% of the QBs that fall into the 2nd round will not be categorized as such, and simply are bereft of talent and subsequently bolster my theory. But that 10% has to be accounted for, and has to be identified, because those "elite" level prospects with a few question marks will often turn into elite starters in the NFL, as Brees, Rodgers, and Montana have.

    In the end, the only QB prospects worth drafting above the 6th round are the ones that have clearly identifiable elite talent. You have to be able to go into the draft, as a team, knowing that at least several other teams nad analysts have made the claim that these QBs have the potential, at some point, to become elite players in the NFL. You are looking for the *elite*. You cannot settle for merely a "starter" or a long term "project". Because if you do, you are wasting that draft pick.

56. 
    56 D3Keith said at 9:55 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Dirty Waters on BGN made a similar point, using only the past 10 years. See question No. 3:

    http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2012/3/27/2907438/10-pack-small-sampling-of-random-mostly-eagle-centric-draft-related

57. 
    57 TommyLawlor said at 11:47 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    Great job, AC Viking.

58. 
    58 Kammich said at 12:24 AM on March 29th, 2012:

    Great research as always, ACVike… but everything is weighted when you’re putting QBs under a microscope. Only one will win a Super Bowl every year. That can’t be the over/under for everyone at the position. You could, without question, conjure up similar trends for everyone position picked in the 1st and 2nd round. Especially defensive linemen, who have a higher failure rate than quarterbacks.

    The reason I tend to discount Morton’s stance on things is because anything that goes RIGHT is considered “luck,” in his eyes. Skewing the system. Catching a miracle break. He can’t seem to accept the ideal that the draft is not a science. It is really, REALLY easy to pick things apart in hindsight. For people like Morton, it is apparently much harder to open your eyes and see the things that actually WORK.

59. 
    59 Nathan said at 9:59 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    In an earlier thread someone asked what would happen if Fletcher Cox and/or Luke Kuechly were gone at 15 what should the Eagles do. The more I think about it I hope we trade down. Looking at the value chart we can trade pick 15 for a late 1st round and a late 2nd round and still be a few points short. I could see the Packers, Ravens, or Patriots falling in love with Whitney Mercilus as an OLB in their 3-4 (really anyone at the end of the first could fall in love with someone, I’m just using Mercilus as an example). If we were to trade with the Packers, they would give up #28 (660 points) and #59 (310 points) for our #15 (1050 points). I know it makes us a few points short, but they could throw in a late round pick to make it even (or Aaron Rogers, but that might be a little too much, haha). We would then own picks 28, 46, 51, and 59. We could add any combination of Still, Worthy, Curry, Boykin, Kendricks, Reyes, Lavonte David, or Zach Brown. The possibilities are almost endless and one of these players should be available at all of our picks. We could add depth at several key positions. We would also have our 3rd (#88) to add whatever we missed out on during our first four picks. That would add 5 players inside the top 88 picks. This team needs to add pieces, but the majority of our starters are set (you can say both OLBs spots are open and that’s about it). This scenario would add depth and starters for the future. I’m not opposed to adding Cox or Kuechly, but I like the idea of trading down the more I think about it.

60. 
    60 Cafone said at 10:27 PM on March 28th, 2012:

    I guess I may be the only one who feels this way, but I think it is a mistake to trade Asante Samuel, especially if he’s willing to renegotiate his current contract. I know he’s not a great a tackler, but it seems a little nitpicky to point that out when we’ve got a defensive backfield full of safeties and linebackers that can’t tackle. The overriding impetus for this trade seems to be the fact that DRC was bad on the inside last year and we “hope” he will be better on the outside this year. We also “hope” that the guys behind Aso and DRC are good enough to play in the NFL. And of course we “hope” that Aso and DRC make it through the season with no injuries. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of hope that has gotten us into trouble in the past.

    Asante is a known commodity. We can put him on the outside and he will be a very good starting cornerback. He will create turnovers. Cornerback is too damn important to let a guy like Samuel go.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that the only upside to trading Asante other than the salary savings is so Asomugha can go back to being a cornerback that nobody throws against. Because, as we all saw last year, he doesn’t come close to living up to his reputation when people do throw his way. Or if we’re going to throw away a very good starting cornerback for mid-round picks just so DRC isn’t exposed on the inside, maybe we should move Aso to the inside and start Samuel and DRC at corner.

61. 
    61 somekid said at 1:15 AM on March 29th, 2012:

    the main reason we’re trading him is that we’re moving from zone coverage to more of a press/ man coverage scheme…in this type of D asante wouldve made the perfect safety but as a corner wouldve def taken 2 steps back….and dont move aso anywhere that was the problem last year…you let him play press and man and he excels…

62. 62 网站优化 said at 3:46 AM on April 7th, 2012:

    […] Iggles Blitz » Blog Archive » Trading PostPHOTOS: Navajo trading posts, a changing era | The Daily Times …首页 | 登陆 | 联系 | 标签Copyright © 2012 网站优化. All Rights Reserved. […]