If you had the top overall pick, would you take....? (Round 2)
 

The first was moderately successful, so how about another?

For this one, I wanted to find an adequate, but not spectacular QB. The problem with finding one, is that most teams that have an average QB are actively looking for an upgrade. Therefore, adequate QBs are sometimes shifted around too much to make stats valuable.

Another problem is that people's perception of a QB changes based on a variety of other elements, like the talent around that player, overall record, coach, era they played, who you are a fan of, if you saw the player or just read about him, etc. This is especially true of QBs.

It took me a while, but I believe I have found the right guy. This guy won a Super Bowl and had a Pro Bwl season, but I don;t think you would ever call him great , or even especially good. He wasn't bad either, not a Scott Mitchell or something.

QBs taken in the first round have about a 50/50 chance of being a bust or a boom. Take a QB with the top overall pick could set your franchise back years or give you a gift from the football gods. Or, you could take the sure, thing, the QB who is alright.

So, do you draft Jeff Hostetler with the top overall pick, knowing what will come of his career, or do you take the top overall random rookie and roll the dice?

For the purposes of this question, assume that you can/will play Hostelter for his first few years, despite the fact that he was a backup to Simms during those years. Assume that Hoss will have comparable stats to his post-Simms days as a QB.

I wouldn't want Hostetler if you paid me at 1.1. I'll risk it and go for the highly touted rookie. Terrible example.

Will there be booms/busts at the 1.1? Sure. But if you don't want it, trade down and get some quality players. There is no need to take an average QB for your trouble.

I'll take my chances with the 1.1 everytime unless you;

A) Blow me away with a trade

or

B) My scouts believe there is nobody worth a crap to pick there.

The game assumes you cannot trade down.

My firts choice was Trent Dilfer, but..um...his numbers are REALLY bad. Then I thought "Erik Kramer!" Nope. It's had to find average. People want a top 5 QB only, they don;t seem to settle for a Top 25 QB. So its hard to find one.

who wants just a top 25 qb in a league of 32 teams no matter where they draft him?

That's my point, and that's why its hard to find those guys looking back (another for example I looked up was Harbaugh Hoss has stats better than Harbaugh, Dilfer, Kramer, etc).

If you have a Top 25 FB in a 32 player league, you aren't doing everything you can do improve at the position. Sure if one comes along, you don;t turn it down, but you aren't chasingf FBs everywhere. Same with Ks. But if you have the 25th, 22nd, 20th top QB in the league, you don;t say "Let's surround him with talent so we win," you say "Let's draft a guy and see if he's a Top 5 guy," even when you have needs at other positions far greater tha QB. You sign backups and retrreads of the scrap hewap in the hope you have the next Rich Gannon.

It's hard to find a guy like Hoss, who has 111 career TDs passing/running to 71 picks - good but not amazing, and a 80.8 career QB rating, again nice, but hardly awesome or breathtaking.

Here's the thing, these are all the "top rated rookies" since 1990:


I'd say almost all of them are/were better than Hostetler, and even knowing how they turned out, I would've probably rolled the dice on the potential of the guys that busted. I think you can go as far as Matt Hasselbeck (a guy you know you'd have to wait for and groom, but who would grow into a solid QB that wouldn't leave you constantly looking for a replacement) without it being obvious to me what you do simply because you've got that ~15% chance at a Hall of Famer like Manning or Pace and a great chance of at least getting a few solid years out of another guy. With Hostetler you get a couple average years (never had a rating above 84) and that's that, with Hasselbeck you get a 3-time Pro Bowler who is at his peak or past it, and is still not good enough to win you a Super Bowl (although he came very close).

I would say in this era it's not that hard to find a below or average qb rating guy. I'd rather fill in with that then use a pick to ensure I had that. How hard is a Jeff Garcia type to find. Not hard at all.

I guess the part I that is strange to me is the notion that 80.8 is 'nice'. That's find another starter type rating I would think.

i think the basic trend is no one wants to use a top pick on someone guaranteed to be average. we all want to shoot for the stars and try to nab someone great with that pick. 1.1 is too valuable to waste it on anyone other than someone you think has the chance to be great. if you're afraid the pick will be a bust then you don't have what it takes to be a GM.

These polls are pointless because the entire point of the draft, in any sport, especially the first round, is "upside". Average players can be aquired relatively pain-free in free agency or via trade, but getting a top 5 talent at any position is pretty much impossible unless you draft him.

To lock yourself into an average guy financially makes even less sense. I'd rather take a chance of scoring a guy, and if he sucks to the point of where you need to cut him, you're screwed cap-wise for a few years but then you can start the building process again.

I think that's right. I guess the next question to ask is how high that goes though, are we still looking for greatness when we can have a pretty darn good Curtis Martin or Matt Hasselbeck? Do we only not take the "top rated rookie" if the alternative is Young, Montana, or Brady?

I'd gamble. I took Levens for the Packers in the 1st round and I already have Favre and Rogers so I wouldn't need Hostetler.

That's one of the things I hope these polls will pull out. When do you start taking the player, not the random top rated guy? We'll finding out over the course of the next few days I hope.

what purpose does that serve in light of not knowing any of this prior to the draft?

Couldn't we just do a poll like this:

"Assume you have the choice of being given a random number between 1 and 100, with 100 being the best result, or taking a known number because it is pretty good. What number is the lowest point at which you would take the known number rather than gamble on a random one?

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

100. I aim high.

Then we'd miss out on all the fun of applying our super sweet football judgment skills to say that 68 is actually better than 79 because 68 had that one year where he was UNBELIEVABLE(!!!) and that's what GMs with balls want, UNBELIEVABLE(!!!) seasons and stuff.

In the same vein, here's a fun game that my brother invented when we were kids:

Tools Required:
- 1 pad of lined paper
- 1 pencil
- 1 20-sided dice

Write down your favorite 20 hockey players on the paper. Then place the following column headings to their right:

- 1st Quarter
- 2nd Quarter
- 3rd Quarter
- 4th Quarter
- Season Total

Now, starting with the first player, roll the die. That is how many goals he got in the 1st quarter. Roll it again, and that is the number of assists he got in the first quarter. write these down under the 1st Quarter column.

Repeat this 19 more times for the rest of the players.


Now, repeat what you did for the first quarter of the season for the next 3 quarters.

Finally, tally up the season totals in goals and assists for each player and place that in the Season Totals column beside their names. Add those together and you get the Season Total for points.

Now analyze the stats for each player, see who was a good first half performer, who was a good second half performer, who was more of a passer than a scorer, etc. It's fun to write down award winners at the bottom of the page too, like Art Ross (most points for the season), Maurice Richard (Most Goals). There is no award for assists but you can make one up or just use something like Lady Byng.

Now, you have just completed Season 1. You'll want to play a few more seasons so that you can get a good body of stats to analyze. One fun wrinkle is to drop the worst 1-3 players and put in "rookies" each year.

Once you have about 15-20 seasons completed you can really see patterns emerge and get a good feel for who the top producers are, who is the most consistent, etc. It's a fun game.

you'd have to think long and hard to find a super bowl champion made up of only "good players". every team i can recall had a great player on at least one side of the ball. the only team i can think of is the '98 Falcons team with Jamal Anderson who went to the big game against the Broncos. Anderson wouldn't ever be considered great. but other than that, team like the Ravens had great players on defense. the Pats had Tom Brady and Vinatieri their 1st championship. but by and large you just don't see a team of overall good players beat a team with a handful of outstanding players.

I took Hoss but I am a nostalgic Giants fan

I thought this said "I am high."

So far someone has drafted

QB Jeff Hostetler
RB Dorsey Levens

Surround that team with a good supporting cast and they don't sniff 8 wins.

Maybe we should stick Carl Pickens at WR too.

Put Carl Pickens on that team and you've got 13 wins buddy!!

Haha.

Would it take from 1993-1995?

That's with Dillon. Without, add another couple of years.

You guys are savages

This is exactly why you don't spend a lot of value to get an average player especially at QB. Every team that has one is looking to upgrade which pretty much makes it a buyers market. If you want a guy like Hostetler why spend a 1(1) when you can sign one in FA or trade for one cheaply?

I think this thread, and the other one, would be a little more compelling if the pick in question was 2-20.

No way Levens or Hostetler are even close to being suitable NFL starters for 10 years. These guys are those "in between finding good players"-guys that just play. They are average NFL players, but they are below-average NFL starters, overall.