Draft strategy: A rookie wage scale and finding a franchise QB

by Josh_D on Jun 29, 2011 9:00 AM EDT

While NFL and player leadership are (hopefully) continuing to work diligently to finish a new CBA, some "details" have been leaked. No hard details have been released, but one thing that could greatly affect the draft and draft strategy is the rookie wage scale. This could go as far as to change how teams acquire and develop the most important employee on the football field: the franchise quarterback. We'll take a look at how the rookie wage scale could affect how teams acquire and develop quarterback talent and the risks involved.

Its well known just how important quarterback play is to being a consistent winner and champion. Quarterback value in the draft reflects this as no position as been picked first overall more often than quarterback. But it goes farther than that too.

In 2010, 56 percent of starting QB were drafted in the first round. The next highest percentage was 12.5 percent out of the second round. That is just the starters. Since 1967, 17 first round quarterbacks have won Super Bowls, many winning multiple times. Of the 45 Super Bowls that have been played, 25 have been won by first round quarterbacks (55.6 percent). The next closest is sixth round and later at 13.3 percent, but that is made up mostly from Tom Brady (6th), Roger Staubach (10th) and Bart Starr (17th). However, over the past 15 years, quarterbacks drafted in the first round have also had a 50 percent bust rate. So while drafting a quarterback in the first gives you the best chance to be a championship contender, that best chance is still only 50 percent and exponentially worse as the draft goes on.

An ancillary reason to why so many first round quarterbacks have had so much success is because of how much has been invested in them. The amount invested in finding franchise quarterbacks and developing them over the last two collective bargaining agreements has risen to disabling levels, highlighted recently by JaMarcus Russell in Oakland, Joey Harrington in Detroit and Ryan Leaf in San Diego. The most recent first overall quarterback, Sam Bradford of St. Louis, received $50 million in guarantees. It's a number that goes directly against the salary cap and thus affects how teams build the rest of their roster.

Here is where finding the franchise QB and the rookie wage scale come together. Teams want to find the most talented QBs and they are at the top of the draft. Teams have had to invest an absorbent amount on these quarterbacks which bust at a rate of 50 percent. No hard numbers have been given for any rookie wage scale, but it isn't much of a stretch to think that the guarantees could be cut in half. Which means instead of getting Bradford at $50 million guaranteed, Carolina and the team with the first overall pick in 2012 could get Cam Newton and Andrew Luck for $25 million each. So if you can get a talent the likes of Newton and Luck for what used to cost Bradford money and develop them side by side, why wouldn't you?

This brings us to the crux of this strategy debate: Knowing what we know about winning percentages, bust percentages, and the reduction in risk financially of drafting first round quarterbacks under a rookie wage scale, is it a good strategy for a team with no franchise QB to take a QB early in consecutive drafts?

The rookie wage scale allows teams flexibility they didn't have before. With a 50 percent bust rate, if a team's scouts and GM are good at their job, drafting consecutive QBs early should at least yield one franchise caliber quarterback. Because the contracts these quarterbacks signed would be under a rookie wage scale, the one QB that doesn't work out also doesn't have a contract that prevents the team from building at other positions and could be in a position to get cut without many repercussions. Most likely though, the QB that doesn't win this hypothetical situation is at least good enough to be a high level backup and his contract can be renegotiated in free agency or he becomes a valuable player on the trade market.

This is not a completely new strategy. Former Packer GM Ron Wolf's first move when hired in 1991 was to get Brett Farve. Even with a future Hall of Famer under center, Wolf drafted seven quarterbacks in nine years as GM. Wolf was generally able to get more than what he spent on them when he later dealt each away. While Wolf drafted quarterbacks from a variety of rounds, he was still about getting value. An important component of draft value is the contract required for that draft position. A wage scale mitigates that and paves the way to take the risk of drafting a valuable asset, such as a quarterback, early in consecutive drafts.

Of course, there are downsides to any strategy. There is always the chance that neither QB drafted pans out, drafting the same position in consecutive years means you're ignoring a need at another position, and having multiple QBs can affect team chemistry. But you can never completely eliminate the risk from drafting a QB early and its arguable that a good QB can cover up deficiencies at other positions. Positions that can be build up once the most important position, quarterback, is taken care of.

Quarterbacks drafted this past draft will most likely be under a rookie wage scale, so if you were the GM of the Panthers, Titans, Jaguars, or Vikings, would you draft a QB early in 2012? Would having Christian Ponder and, say, Landry Jones battle for a starting job be a good idea? Gabbert and Barkley? Is drafting consecutive first round quarterbacks a good strategy to find a franchise quarterback? Please feel free to debate your own strategies for building quarterback depth and how much a rookie wage scale could affect that process.

Poll

Is it a good draft strategy to draft consecutive QBs early in the first round when you have no franchise QBs?

Yes

18 votes

No

29 votes

47 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 4 comments | Add comment | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not a good strategy, I don't think.

If “Hit” and “Bust” are the two possible outcomes, there are four possibilities when you go QB-QB two years in a row (1- Hit/Hit, 2- Hit/Bust, 3- Bust/Hit, 4- Bust/Bust). If the QB bust rate is 50%, then there’s a 25% chance of each possibility:

25% “Hit” “Hit” — in which case you likely wasted a high 1st-round pick on a guy who is going to sit on the bench. Why not give the first new QB an elite WR or RB or O-Lineman instead of hedging your bets and ending up with a backup QB who won’t be able to show what he can do on the field (thus increasing his trade value) except in case of injury to the first?

I suppose in this scenario, there is potential payoff in your QB – QB strategy IF the first QB gets injured OR some other team is willing to offer significant trade value to your backup QB without seeing him on the field in actual NFL games (because he’s on the bench. If he’s not on the bench, then you want to keep him because the first guy is injured)

So, maybe, split this one in half (these ’s are completely arbitrary):
12.5 your first QB is playing well and staying healthy and you aren’t trading your second QB
6.25% your first QB was playing well, got injured, and you were smart to take the second QB
6.25% your first QB is playing well, but you got a good offer for the second guy from another team.

25% “Hit” “Bust” — in this case you again wasted the second pick because the guy is a bust. The right thing, again, would have been to put more talent on the team around the QB because you already have the QB.

25% “Bust” “Hit” — This could be the one scenario where going QB – QB can help. You already have the second guy on your team waiting in the wings ready to take over the offense when the first guy isn’t getting it done.

25% “Bust” “Bust” — In this outcome, you wasted both picks, so the QB – QB strategy didn’t turn out to work either.

So, if we split up the “Hit” “Hit” scenario in half and assume a 50% bust rate, then 62.5% of the time, your QB – QB strategy didn’t pay off because either you wasted a pick or wasted both picks. 37.5% of the time, it turned out to be a good idea.

On the other hand, maybe it would be useful to look at recent history. If you take the top two QB’s drafted since 2001, and then look at the top QB that team would have been able to take the next year. For example, the Lions took Matthew Stafford in 2009, but if they wanted QB-QB, they wouldn’t have been able to take Sam Bradford in 2010 because Bradford went one spot higher, so the highest QB the Lions would have taken would have been Tim Tebow (instead of drafting Ndamukong Suh).

So, going QB-QB, for the teams taking the top two QBs that year, then taking the highest QB they could draft the following year without any draft-day trades the year they’re taking their second QB:

2001
The Falcons took MIchael Vick in 2001. In 2002, they earned the 17th pick (before draft day trades). The next QB selected was Patrick Ramsey. So, would it benefit Atlanta to have Michael Vick and Patrick Ramsey on the roster together (rather than selecting backup RB T.J. Duckett)? In 2007, the first year Vick was in prison, Ramsey started 2 games as a backup in Denver, playing meh okay. In 2008, the Falcons took Matt Ryan, leaving this hypothetical Patrick Ramsey worthless

The Chargers took Drew Brees in 2001. In 2002, the Chargers earned the fifth-overall pick, which they spent on Quentin Jammer. I guess they pick ahead of the Falcons, so if both teams wanted to go QB-QB from 2001-2002, the Chargers would take Patrick Ramsey instead of Quentin Jammer, and the Falcons would take the next QB, Josh McCown instead. meh. Both teams missed out on David Carr and Joey Harrington (sucks, I know).

2002
The Texans took David Carr first-overall in 2002. The Lions took Joey Harrington third-overall.

If both teams wanted to go QB-QB two years in a row, and since both teams finished better than the Bengals (meaning Houston and Detroit miss Carson Palmer), the Lions would have taken “average” QB Byron Leftwich instead of MattMillenMegabust Charles Rogers. Not a franchise savior, which is what you really hope for when you take a QB high, but Leftwich is certainly better than Rogers I guess. The Texans then, if they took the next QB, would select Kyle Boller, instead of Andre Johnson. hmm, no.

2003
For the top two QB’s in the draft, the Bengals took Carson Palmer and the Jags took Byron Leftwich.

If both teams wanted to go QB-QB in 2003-2004, Jacksonville earned the 9th pick, too low for Eli Manning and Philip Rivers, but they would have taken Ben Roethlisberger instead of Reggie Williams. This is definitely an instance where QB-QB works. Cincy, missing on Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger, takes J.P. Lossman when they already have Carson Palmer. No thanks.

2004
San Diego took Eli Manning and New York took Philip Rivers, but let’s go ahead and flip them immediately since that’s essentially what happened.

If the Chargers and Giants wanted to go QB-QB from 2004-2005, already having Eli Manning and Philip Rivers, then, with New York’s highest pick going into draft day being the 43rd overall pick (since they sent the 12th to San Diego who took Shawne Merriman), and San Diego’s highest pick being the 12th, the Giants select Charlie Frye (instead of Corey Webster) just in case Eli Manning doesn’t work out, and the Chargers select Aaron Rodgers instead of Shawne Merriman. Now they have Philip Rivers AND Aaron Rodgers. They’re going to have to trade one of them, but if one guy is on the bench, then how do they develop him into a great QB?

2005
The top two QBs were Alex Smith to San Fran and Aaron Rodgers to Green Bay.

If the 49ers and Packers wanted to go QB-QB, with Green Bay picking one spot ahead of San Francisco, and both teams missing Vince Young, Green Bay could take Matt Leinart (in case Aaron Rodgers doesn’t work out) instead of A.J. Hawk. No thanks.
San Francisco would take Jay Cutler instead of Vernon Davis. I don’t know about this one, what do you guys think? Cutler is probably an upgrade from Alex Smith, but Vernon Davis is a pretty good TE. Would you take Smith AND Davis, or Smith and Cutler?

2006
Tenessee and Arizona took Vince Young and Matt Leinart as the first 2 QB’s in the draft.

Suppose the Titans and Cardinals wanted to go QB-QB just in case Vince Young and Matt Leinart didn’t work out (which they didn’t). They’d both miss out on JaMarcus Russell (unfortunately for Oakland), If they took the actual next QB’s available, Arizona would have Brady Quinn (instead of drafting Levi Brown) to compete with Matt Leinart (good luck with that), but the Titans would have Kevin Kolb to compete with and take over for Vince Young. But they would have taken Kolb instead of 2x Pro Bowl defensive back Michael Griffin. So there is a loss there somewhat. Titans fans, would you take Kolb instead of Griffin? your call.

2007
The Raiders and Browns took 2 busts QB’s: JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn.

So, who would they be able to take in 2008? Oakland would miss out on Matt Ryan by one pick, who would have been a great alternative to Russell (obviously), so the Raiders would take Joe Flacco instead of Darren McFadden. Good QB instead of good RB, I guess. what do you think? Cleveland, starting with the 22nd pick, the next QB would be Brian Brohm. Not a big upgrade over Brady Quinn.

2008
The Falcons took Matt Ryan and the Ravens took Joe Flacco.

If they both wanted to take the first-drafted QB available to them in 2009, originally picking 24 (Atlanta) and 26 (Baltimore), they’d miss out on Stafford, Sanchez, and Freeman. Atlanta would take Pat White instead of Peria Jerry and Baltimore would take Stephen McGee instead of Michael Oher (I know there was a draft-day trade up, but Oher was still lower than the top 3 QB’st his year). Do Pat White and Stephen McGee offer anything when you already have Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco? Not really, no.

2009
The Lions and Jets took the top 2 QB’s: Matthew Stafford and Mark Sanchez.

If they wanted to go QB-QB just in case Stafford and Sanchez didn’t work out, the Lions would miss Sam Bradford and take the next QB, Tim Tebow, instead of Ndamukong Suh. No thank you. The Jets, picking 29th, and missing Bradford and Tebow, would take the next QB, Jimmy Clausen. Any Jets fans want Jimmy Clausen instead of Kyle Wilson when you already have a better QB in Sanchez?

2010
The Rams took Sam Bradford and Carolina took Jimmy Clausen.

We’ll actually see this scenario play out as Carolina took the top QB available, Cam Newton. Should the Rams, already having Sam Bradford, and missing out on Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder before teh 13th pick, take Andy Dalton instead of Robert Quinn? no.

I don’t think I’d take a QB at the top of the draft two years in a row. I’d rather trust my scouts, get a guy who can be “the guy”, and then fill other holes on the roster and try to surround him with talent.

Hey that's a timeout, I can play right? yeah, get me--get the F-- Help me up...I can throw the ball if you need me to throw the ball...

by n4ry4 on Jun 29, 2011 11:09 AM EDT reply actions

your stats are wrong

Just because the bust rate is 50% does not mean that in 2 consecutive picks they won’t both be busts. The 50% is based on hundreds of picks and the percentage flattens out over more picks. With 2 picks statistically you’re just as likely to have 2 busts, or 2 winners as you are to having one of each.

Still it was a good read.

by HenryDawg on Jun 29, 2011 11:53 AM EDT via mobile reply actions

all these numbers point to one kind of obvious conclusion

use high picks (especially now with a rookie wage scale) on positions other than quarterback. build the offensive line and defense so that when the quarterback is finally brought in he has the security around him to be brought up gradually.
a quarterback is the key piece, but if you get him before you have help for him he’ll get destroyed before he was ever given a chance.
a saying I’ve often heard is the game is won in the trenches. get an offensive line so that the qb doesn’t get killed. get an offensive line that can be run behind so the qb doesn’t have to throw 50 times in his first NFL start (like Sam Bradford did). make it easy on him and his confidence will grow and eventually he’ll shine.

"We talk football here, specifically the NFL and, more specifically, the New England Patriots."
"If you can’t treat others with respect, then you shouldn’t be commenting, period."

by statsare4losers on Jun 29, 2011 8:57 PM EDT reply actions

get an offensive line that can be run behind so the qb doesn’t have to throw 50 times in his first NFL start (like Sam Bradford did). make it easy on him and his confidence will grow and eventually he’ll shine.

Out of their two highest draft picks in 2009-2010, other than Sam Bradford, didn’t the Rams draft not one but two offensive linemen—one with their first pick in ’09 and one with their second pick in ’10?

Hey that's a timeout, I can play right? yeah, get me--get the F-- Help me up...I can throw the ball if you need me to throw the ball...

by n4ry4 on Jun 30, 2011 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions