Drafting a QB

I didn't actually do the math on how many of the first round qb's were busts, I just threw out the 50% number as a ballpark figure. And I agree, picking a qb in the first round doesn't mean that said qb will succeed, but qb's picked in the first round are MORE LIKELY to succeed, historically speaking, than qb's picked after the first round... if we can't agree on that then one of us is reading the chart wrong. But that wasn't really my point... my point was that of the qb's drafted in rounds 2-7 or higher, almost NONE of them succeeded with the team that ORIGINALLY DRAFTED THEM. Tom Brady is a big exception, David Garrard to a lesser extent... but that's about it. Even Kevin Kolb may end up being a very good qb, but we know it won't be with the Eagles. So if the 49ers do take a qb in round 2 or 3, history says that even IF that qb makes good, it won't be with the Niners... at least that's the way I read the data.

The best QB the Niners have ever had was a third round pick. But, I think the issue for Harbaugh is whether or not he can get a veteran through free agency or a trade this year and I'm not talking about Kolb. Kolb wants to start for a long time. If Harbaugh can get Bulger or Palmer, someone like that, he'd be a lot more likely to draft Cam Newton or Gabbert with that first pick, let them sit for a year or even two, and groom them to be a franchise QB.

SF could draft two QBs this year.
Here are some comparative stats for our options.
The stats are for last year.

Cam Newton

Comp % 66.1
Yards 2854
TD 30
INT 7
Rating 182.05

Blaine Gabbert

Comp % 63.4
Yards 3186
TD 16
INT 6
Rating 127.03

Andy Dalton

Comp % 66.1
Yards 2857
TD 27
INT 6
Rating 166.48

Colin Kaepernick

Comp % 64.9
Yards 3022
TD 21
INT 8
Rating 150.46

Greg McElroy

Comp % 70.9
Yards 2987
TD 20
INT 5
Rating 168.9

Ricky Stanzi

Comp % 64.1
Yards 3004
TD 25
INT 6
Rating 157.63

There are so much intangibles to a QB's success, but 50% success rate in the first is misleading, if you don't know the numbers don't throw it out there like fact. There are so many gulliable people out there who will be stupid enough to use your info as fact. If it is your opinion then say that you are guessing.

The point of my post is that you no longer need to draft a QB in the top 10 like pre 80's. The need to draft a QB in the top 10 versus other (drafting later, trade, FA, etc) is not as dire, it is more glamourous-yes, and can solidify the position longer. Guys like Kurt Warner, Doug Williams, Drew Brees, Montana, Young, Brady, Bart Starr, Jim Plunket, 15 SB victories between them-I could go on.

What is more important is the OC and QB coach or good GM. Look at niners, Walsh, Holmgren and Shanahan. They were the reasons the niners had one of the longest reigns. As all niners I hope JH will reignite that.

Don't get me wrong, not saying QB is not important, just how you find it is not as dire as you think-that being a QB in the 10 ten. Especially if they are not top ten material.

Originally posted by PloomDG:
I didn't actually do the math on how many of the first round qb's were busts, I just threw out the 50% number as a ballpark figure. And I agree, picking a qb in the first round doesn't mean that said qb will succeed, but qb's picked in the first round are MORE LIKELY to succeed, historically speaking, than qb's picked after the first round... if we can't agree on that then one of us is reading the chart wrong. But that wasn't really my point... my point was that of the qb's drafted in rounds 2-7 or higher, almost NONE of them succeeded with the team that ORIGINALLY DRAFTED THEM. Tom Brady is a big exception, David Garrard to a lesser extent... but that's about it. Even Kevin Kolb may end up being a very good qb, but we know it won't be with the Eagles. So if the 49ers do take a qb in round 2 or 3, history says that even IF that qb makes good, it won't be with the Niners... at least that's the way I read the data.

According to your reading of the data, you actually make a very good argument for the 49ers acquiring either Josh Johnson from Tampa Bay or Matt Flynn from Green Bay. I would be happy to see Balke pick up either one of them to put in the mix here once trades are back in play.

Originally posted by buck:
SF could draft two QBs this year.
Here are some comparative stats for our options.
The stats are for last year.

Cam Newton
Blaine Gabbert
b]Andy Dalton[/b]
Colin Kaepernick
Greg McElroy
Ricky Stanzi

Niners have a lot more options than that.

Originally posted by WildBill:
There are so much intangibles to a QB's success, but 50% success rate in the first is misleading, if you don't know the numbers don't throw it out there like fact. There are so many gulliable people out there who will be stupid enough to use your info as fact. If it is your opinion then say that you are guessing.

The point of my post is that you no longer need to draft a QB in the top 10 like pre 80's. The need to draft a QB in the top 10 versus other (drafting later, trade, FA, etc) is not as dire, it is more glamourous-yes, and can solidify the position longer. Guys like Kurt Warner, Doug Williams, Drew Brees, Montana, Young, Brady, Bart Starr, Jim Plunket, 15 SB victories between them-I could go on.

What is more important is the OC and QB coach or good GM. Look at niners, Walsh, Holmgren and Shanahan. They were the reasons the niners had one of the longest reigns. As all niners I hope JH will reignite that.

Don't get me wrong, not saying QB is not important, just how you find it is not as dire as you think-that being a QB in the 10 ten. Especially if they are not top ten material.

Are you saying that Plunkett was not a top 10 pick? He was the first pick in his draft class.

You're also implying in your post that the QB is not so important; it's the coaches or the GM. That is incorrect IMO. The Niners had that long reign precisely because they had great QBs. The GM (Walsh) was instrumental in finding them and utilizing their talent, but even Walsh couldn't have done it with DeBerg as his QB. Which he acknowledged and went looking for a replacement. (Deberg did lead another team to the playoffs later, though).

If you're saying that its tough to find the talent and you have to have people in the FO that can, then yes I do agree with you. But as a rule those guys are identified earlier rather than later and your chances diminish the longer you wait. To the point that you're just plain lucky if you discover one late. A fluke.

Your also correct in that it takes efficient coaching to draw out what talent is there. No matter where you select it. Don't dispute you there. But the talent has to be there. "Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear."

It sounds like the WZ is settled that #7 is not the best place to draft a QB in this draft. So even if Gabbert and Newton were available at #7 it would be better to trade back for Locker, Dalton, Ponder, or Kapernick. Is that about the truth of it? How about if we got one of these four, would McElroy be a good pick up as well? I would imagine that we would still need a transitional QB like Smith, Bulger, etc until Harbaugh can get someone trained and ready to go.

Originally posted by Yetiman:

Originally posted by PloomDG:
I didn't actually do the math on how many of the first round qb's were busts, I just threw out the 50% number as a ballpark figure. And I agree, picking a qb in the first round doesn't mean that said qb will succeed, but qb's picked in the first round are MORE LIKELY to succeed, historically speaking, than qb's picked after the first round... if we can't agree on that then one of us is reading the chart wrong. But that wasn't really my point... my point was that of the qb's drafted in rounds 2-7 or higher, almost NONE of them succeeded with the team that ORIGINALLY DRAFTED THEM. Tom Brady is a big exception, David Garrard to a lesser extent... but that's about it. Even Kevin Kolb may end up being a very good qb, but we know it won't be with the Eagles. So if the 49ers do take a qb in round 2 or 3, history says that even IF that qb makes good, it won't be with the Niners... at least that's the way I read the data.

According to your reading of the data, you actually make a very good argument for the 49ers acquiring either Josh Johnson from Tampa Bay or Matt Flynn from Green Bay. I would be happy to see Balke pick up either one of them to put in the mix here once trades are back in play.

I hadn't actually thought of that, but you make a great point: late round qb's almost always succeed (if they succeed at all) with their second teams. So Johnson and Flynn make sense in that regard... Kolb would fit the criteria as well.

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

Originally posted by WildBill:
There are so much intangibles to a QB's success, but 50% success rate in the first is misleading, if you don't know the numbers don't throw it out there like fact. There are so many gulliable people out there who will be stupid enough to use your info as fact. If it is your opinion then say that you are guessing.

The point of my post is that you no longer need to draft a QB in the top 10 like pre 80's. The need to draft a QB in the top 10 versus other (drafting later, trade, FA, etc) is not as dire, it is more glamourous-yes, and can solidify the position longer. Guys like Kurt Warner, Doug Williams, Drew Brees, Montana, Young, Brady, Bart Starr, Jim Plunket, 15 SB victories between them-I could go on.

What is more important is the OC and QB coach or good GM. Look at niners, Walsh, Holmgren and Shanahan. They were the reasons the niners had one of the longest reigns. As all niners I hope JH will reignite that.

Don't get me wrong, not saying QB is not important, just how you find it is not as dire as you think-that being a QB in the 10 ten. Especially if they are not top ten material.

Are you saying that Plunkett was not a top 10 pick? He was the first pick in his draft class.

You're also implying in your post that the QB is not so important; it's the coaches or the GM. That is incorrect IMO. The Niners had that long reign precisely because they had great QBs. The GM (Walsh) was instrumental in finding them and utilizing their talent, but even Walsh couldn't have done it with DeBerg as his QB. Which he acknowledged and went looking for a replacement. (Deberg did lead another team to the playoffs later, though).

If you're saying that its tough to find the talent and you have to have people in the FO that can, then yes I do agree with you. But as a rule those guys are identified earlier rather than later and your chances diminish the longer you wait. To the point that you're just plain lucky if you discover one late. A fluke.

Your also correct in that it takes efficient coaching to draw out what talent is there. No matter where you select it. Don't dispute you there. But the talent has to be there. "Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear."

You made all the points I would have...Thanx

Actually I also would have questioned the inclusion of guys like Bart Starr and Joe Montana in his argument. I think we can safely exclude players who were drafted 30 or more years ago... draft evaluation has changed a lot since then.

Originally posted by Rsrkshn:

Originally posted by WildBill:
There are so much intangibles to a QB's success, but 50% success rate in the first is misleading, if you don't know the numbers don't throw it out there like fact. There are so many gulliable people out there who will be stupid enough to use your info as fact. If it is your opinion then say that you are guessing.

The point of my post is that you no longer need to draft a QB in the top 10 like pre 80's. The need to draft a QB in the top 10 versus other (drafting later, trade, FA, etc) is not as dire, it is more glamourous-yes, and can solidify the position longer. Guys like Kurt Warner, Doug Williams, Drew Brees, Montana, Young, Brady, Bart Starr, Jim Plunket, 15 SB victories between them-I could go on.

What is more important is the OC and QB coach or good GM. Look at niners, Walsh, Holmgren and Shanahan. They were the reasons the niners had one of the longest reigns. As all niners I hope JH will reignite that.

Don't get me wrong, not saying QB is not important, just how you find it is not as dire as you think-that being a QB in the 10 ten. Especially if they are not top ten material.

Are you saying that Plunkett was not a top 10 pick? He was the first pick in his draft class.

You're also implying in your post that the QB is not so important; it's the coaches or the GM. That is incorrect IMO. The Niners had that long reign precisely because they had great QBs. The GM (Walsh) was instrumental in finding them and utilizing their talent, but even Walsh couldn't have done it with DeBerg as his QB. Which he acknowledged and went looking for a replacement. (Deberg did lead another team to the playoffs later, though).

If you're saying that its tough to find the talent and you have to have people in the FO that can, then yes I do agree with you. But as a rule those guys are identified earlier rather than later and your chances diminish the longer you wait. To the point that you're just plain lucky if you discover one late. A fluke.

Your also correct in that it takes efficient coaching to draw out what talent is there. No matter where you select it. Don't dispute you there. But the talent has to be there. "Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear."

The point of my post is that
1) Plunkett came to the Raiders later and won a SB (AKA FA), yes he was a number one, but after initial success he faltered because the Pats did not add to the talent. The niners had him, but nothing till he got to the raiders. The same can be said about Doug Williams.

2) No, you need to learn to read the whole post. I did not say QB is not important! Just saying that picking up a SB winning QB or playoff QB can be had in many ways. Not always with a 10 pick. Again see my list. Providing you have a good staff. Deberg was in the playoffs, but he was tutored by Walsh. Walsh felt and wanted better thought and found it in Montana. If you ever saw Deberg play, you know he was good, but inconsistent many times. Yes-I did say it is more important to have a great coaches first, who can find the talent and develope them and make the most of them.

3) Young was a first rounder, but gotten by trade. Wanrer FA, Starr was not even considered until Lombardi came along (kind of like Martz and Warner.). How was Farve picked up by the Packers? Gee I wondered. Who coached him now?

4) To say it is a different era and not apply is wrong. It is like war yes you have tanks and rifles and artillery, but go to west point and they still use sun tzu's the art of war as the bible. Heavy calvary replaced by tanks, arrows replaced by artillary etc. High ground, interlacing fields of fire, ambush, etc. still the same. Point is you still need to find the talented QB (which can come from ANYWHERE and not just the top ten in the draft-that is what I am saying), develope him and give him good schemes that make use of his talents. Without the talent eveluators and coaches like Walsh and Bellicheats you would not have the history that is now. Look at pitts, the front office has stayed the course from the steel curtain era-suffered some let down inbetween was still successful.

Really need to read the whole and not just select lines.

I read every line of your post... right up until your war analogy, that's when I stopped. Let's stick to a kid's game played by adults, shall we?

I kept reading after I posted... one more thing. Your point about the Steelers couldn't be more misguided. In the 70's, the Steelers ran a 4-3 defense. They completely changed their way of thinking (and drafting), and started the NFL sea change to 3-4 defenses. Offensively, they were a run first, downfield passing team with Terry Bradshaw. Now they run a a much more wide-open, spread the field passing game with Roethlisberger. Times change, and the game changes with them. Nothing is exactly the same as it used to be thirty years ago.

Originally posted by PloomDG:
I kept reading after I posted... one more thing. Your point about the Steelers couldn't be more misguided. In the 70's, the Steelers ran a 4-3 defense. They completely changed their way of thinking (and drafting), and started the NFL sea change to 3-4 defenses. Offensively, they were a run first, downfield passing team with Terry Bradshaw. Now they run a a much more wide-open, spread the field passing game with Roethlisberger. Times change, and the game changes with them. Nothing is exactly the same as it used to be thirty years ago.

Their front office is the same tree. Different coaches, but the guys that get the talent is the same, they get people that can coach and id the player they felt could fit. Roths is a good passer, but he is still a bruiser that is hard to bring down. If they had an ortan or other, they would not won those two superbowls.

Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
i can pretty much guarentee we are not gonna pick a qb with our first pick

were one of three teams in top12 that havent called newton for a private workout and we didnt go to his proday

gabbert we attended his proday but havent called him in for a private workout


in addition to that we have looed at almost all the 2 round and third round qb prospects avaliable


the million dollar question is who is harbaugh looking at qb it has to be a FA

either mcnabb or alex smith

Unfortunately nobody can guarantee whether we will draft a QB at 7 or not. And private workouts and visits to pro days are not indicative of interest in a player or not. There are many examples of teams paying little to no mind to a prospect only to draft him. You are reading far too into what we are and aren't doing.

Brandon Graham is a perfect example of this from last years draft class.

Quote:
Graham said he was shocked the Eagles took him. He visited five teams and worked out privately for three others in the weeks leading up to the draft, but had only one 15-minute conversation with Philadelphia scouts at the NFL combine in February.

“The Eagles never showed any interest at all,” Graham said. “I knew it was going to be like that. I knew it was going to be a team that I didn’t even expect.”

And let us not forget Philadelphia traded UP 11 spots to get BG.

And FTR Baalke but not Harbaugh was at the Auburn pro day.