What is leadership exactly? im confused.

[infantrycak]

None of those QB's were picked #1.

Well, but at some point you start parsing the potentially intersecting groups too small. There have only been 24 QB's to ever win a SB. There have during the SB era been how many QB's taken #1 in the draft--maybe 25 or so. Aikman was one in the ones in both groups. With all the variables affecting who wins the SB, it doesn't strike me as all that odd that the number of #1 QB's to win the SB is small. I am sure you could say the same about #2 or #3, etc. Heck with Aikman and Brady you could say first pick of the draft and last pick of the 6th round have an almost equal chance of success. Simply too small a test set to draw a conclusion IMO. Taking teams to the playoffs seems more realistic IMO.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

Well, but at some point you start parsing the potentially intersecting groups too small. There have only been 24 QB's to ever win a SB. There have during the SB era been how many QB's taken #1 in the draft--maybe 25 or so. Aikman was one in the ones in both groups. With all the variables affecting who wins the SB, it doesn't strike me as all that odd that the number of #1 QB's to win the SB is small. I am sure you could say the same about #2 or #3, etc. Heck with Aikman and Brady you could say first pick of the draft and last pick of the 6th round have an almost equal chance of success. Simply too small a test set to draw a conclusion IMO. Taking teams to the playoffs seems more realistic IMO.

I look it at from when the salary cap ear was installed in 1993. Those are the fiscal rules that we play under and we should look at how teams are comprised since. Being a bad team means high draft picks, high draft picks, such as the #1, do not yield Super Bowls rings except for Orlando Pace.

 

[big homey]

I look it at from when the salary cap ear was installed in 1993. Those are the fiscal rules that we play under and we should look at how teams are comprised since. Being a bad team means high draft picks, high draft picks, such as the #1, do not yield Super Bowls rings except for Orlando Pace.

The last #1 pick in the salary cap era to win a SB was an offensive lineman.
Hmm...

 

[texplayer2]

A couple excerpts from an interesting article


Let's take a look at some of the greatest running backs who have ever played the game and how they did when it comes to the Super Bowls which, after all, is why they play the games. O.J. Simpson never even played in one. Eric Dickerson didn't win one. Negative for Barry Sanders too. Emmitt Smith won a bunch but he also had Troy Aikman. Walter Payton didn't win a Super Bowl until the Bears had one of the best defenses in league history in 1985. Gale Sayers, the guy who Bush is most often compared to, never even played in a playoff game! How about some of the most productive runners from recent years. Jerome Bettis? Curtis Martin? LaDainian Tomlinson? No, No and No.



However from 1993 to 2001 seven of the nine Super Bowl's were won by teams quarterbacked by former 1st round picks, and that doesn't include Brett Favre who went 33rd overall and was later traded to Green Bay for a #1 pick.

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/whos1.html

Whew! Man its a good thing we got Carr then.

 

[infantrycak]

I look it at from when the salary cap ear was installed in 1993. Those are the fiscal rules that we play under and we should look at how teams are comprised since. Being a bad team means high draft picks, high draft picks, such as the #1, do not yield Super Bowls rings except for Orlando Pace.

Well, seems to me you are parsing it down even further, and this into the absurdly unlikely. Seriously, 12 years of drafts and you are going to conclude #1 status is unimportant/unjustified or a bad sign for SB success just because only one of the 12 have made it so far. Seems like an unjustified needle in the haystack search IMO.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

Well, seems to me you are parsing it down even further, and this into the absurdly unlikely. Seriously, 12 years of drafts and you are going to conclude #1 status is unimportant/unjustified or a bad sign for SB success just because only one of the 12 have made it so far. Seems like an unjustified needle in the haystack search IMO.

Well, it is my take and one that is fiscally driven. Fiscally driven takes usually take into account historical data to build out any models. To invest 12% of your cap into an unproven youngin' at the professional level has not shown to be the most fiscally prudent move given the length of the average NFL career and that there are 52 other guys that need to be paid accordingly. Dollars and sense do seem to trump hype and frivilous spending for developing potential in the salary cap era.

Wake up and smell the cap.

 

[infantrycak]

Well, it is my take and one that is fiscally driven. Fiscally driven takes usually take into account historical data to build out any models. To invest 12% of your cap into an unproven youngin' at the professional level has not shown to be the most fiscally prudent move given the length of the average NFL career and that there are 52 other guys that need to be paid accordingly. Dollars and sense do seem to trump hype and frivilous spending for developing potential in the salary cap era.

Wake up and smell the cap.

I understand your cap point very well and have spent quite a bit of time trying to get people to consider it in their off-season suggestions for the Texans. My point is the sample set is too small to conclude #1 pick QB's in the cap era aren't worth the money. I agree with your general point, just not your specific methodology.

 

[Vinny]

Well, it is my take and one that is fiscally driven. Fiscally driven takes usually take into account historical data to build out any models. To invest 12% of your cap into an unproven youngin' at the professional level has not shown to be the most fiscally prudent move given the length of the average NFL career and that there are 52 other guys that need to be paid accordingly. Dollars and sense do seem to trump hype and frivilous spending for developing potential in the salary cap era.

Wake up and smell the cap.

You can say this about just about any position. How many number 1 WR's like Braylon Edwards ever won a SB, or number 1 RB's, or #1 overall DE's won a SB? 32 teams start a season and only one finish with the trophy. Elite QB's are rare and worth taking a shot at one high where you have blue chip talents.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

You can say this about just about any position. How many number 1 WR's like Braylon Edwards ever won a SB, or number 1 RB's, or #1 overall DE's won a SB? Elite QB's are rare and worth taking a shot at one high where you have blue chip talents.

You could, but it is all about development. In the corporate world companies are concerned that if they spend to much money on training, and their competitors are not, they may be risking return by training a force and losing them to the competition. We see this many times especially in the NFL with the QB position. Having a guy sit for a couple of years making 7 million is not good value. Then if they do not pan out they go and find a new home and most often find success. The ramp time for the QB is like no other where you are getting no return on investment for a couple of years and you can't spend those dollars elsewhere.

It really is about how you allocate funds. I just see two players at 3.5 mil will have more of an impact than a guy at 7 mil per out of college.

 

[Vinny]

You may not think it's not good value but you cannot win in the NFL consistantly with a bad QB...or have a historic defense to pair with him. The QB touches the ball every play and you just have to take a chance on this position when you find elite prospects. As good as Ladanian Tomlinson is the Chargers, they didn't start playing well until Drew Brees started playing well. For every Tom Brady on the second day you have 30 BJ Symmons. If you were awarded a crown for cap manipulation I'd agree with you...but talent wins in the NFL and there is enough room to take chances. Teams just will continue to take risks on talent at the QB position high in every draft.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

You may not think it's not good value but you cannot win in the NFL consistantly with a bad QB...or have a historic defense to pair with him. The QB touches the ball every play and you just have to take a chance on this position when you find elite prospects. As good as Ladanian Tomlinson is the Chargers, they didn't start playing well until Drew Brees started playing well. For every Tom Brady on the second day you have 30 BJ Symmons. If you were awarded a crown for cap manipulation I'd agree with you...but talent wins in the NFL and there is enough room to take chances. Teams just will continue to take risks on talent at the QB position high in every draft.

I would love to continue to virtually spar with you but I got a pork shoulder in the oven and have to start channeling spirits of Steelers past so that we can have our coach in place.

Terrible Towel, check.
Iron city Beer, check.
Pierogies, check.
Warrant, Poison and Dokken CD's in carousel, check.
Cut off shirt, check.
Acid washed jeans, never.