Pick a QB early, or don't waste your time

[Eagle60]

Bears GM: Late-round quarterbacks aren't worth it

Bears general manager Phil Emery cautions against the idea of the Bears drafting a developmental quarterback in the mid-to-late rounds, Jeff Dickerson of ESPN Chicago reports. The Bears used sixth and fifth round picks on quarterbacks Dan LeFevour [2010] and Nate Enderle [2011] and neither player panned out.

"I just did a little study. It's very interesting," Emery said. "That developmental theory doesn't hold a whole lot of water. There's entire classes of quarterbacks, since '06, I went back and looked at from Jay's on -- when people say developmental quarterbacks, OK, so who has gotten developed? There isn't a single quarterback after the third round since 2006 that has been a long-term starter. So you're either developing thirds, and most of them have been wiped out of the league. So to get a quality quarterback, you've got to draft them high. That 2012 class is a blip on the radar that's unusual, highly unusual.

"Most of the starters in this league come from the first and second round. So that's where you need to take a quarterback. So when you talk about quarterback every year, they have to be somebody that you truly believe will beat out the second and third quarterback that you perceive on your roster. And if not, history shows that you shouldn't make that pick."

[NoDakIggle]

Or maybe you need to hire someone capable of developing an NFL QB

[FairOaks]

Yeah, 2006 is a convenient cutoff. There were several viable late-round QBs before that.

The obvious one is Tom Brady. But Marc Bulger was picked in that same 6th round the same year. Kyle Orton was a 4th round pick in 2005. Romo was a UDFA in 2003. One of those will be the Cowboys starter this year. Matt Schaub was a very late 3rd round pick in 2004 -- very good QB for quite some time, and got a pretty good haul for the Falcons in a trade. Matt Cassel was a very late round pick in 2005; the epitome of a QB to develop. He filled in well the one year Brady was injured and got a good haul for the Patriots after that. AJ Feeley was a 5th rounder for the Eagles in 2001, and fetched a second round pick. Ryan Fitzpatrick was #250 overall in 2005; he's had a respectable career. But yes, after that the lower-round picks haven't done as well, other than 2012 -- Wilson and Foles were picked in the third round, and Kirk Cousins in the 4th, who sure looked like he could fetch something pretty decent in trade after his rookie season (though not as much after last year).

It might be a reasonable question if talent evaluation has gotten better to the point that virtually all of the good ones are picked early. Or maybe it was a cycle of not-as-good QBs, which could turn again. There's a general prejudice against them as well -- no way would a 4th round pick get nearly as many chances as Alex Smith did, or Mark Sanchez. So it's a little bit of self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of the late rounders are not going to pan out, regardless what position they play -- but if you hit on a QB you can actually get a good return for them.

And like any other position, you are often just hoping for good backups in those rounds. There is value in that; it's not like it's a long-term starter or a waste, with nothing in between. Matt Barkley would have been a top-10 pick in 2012 if he had come out; he was a 4th rounder in 2013. Does that mean he has no chance, but if he came out a year earlier, he would?

[dawkins20]

is that really news? I think it's pretty damn obvious that most starting QB's are picked in rounds 1-3

that Bears GM sounds a little stupid to me. He doesn't once mention supply and demand. I mean, why force a QB pick in rounds 1 and 2 if other teams aren't?

wackjob!

[CHIP72]

I think the real issue here is that unlike other positions, quarterback is a position where one guy plays all or most of the snaps barring injury. A player drafted low or not drafted at all at another position who doesn't surprise and become a solid starter can still be a useful situational player (say, backup running back, #3 receiver, defensive lineman in a rotation, or nickel cornerback) or a special teams player. A quarterback drafted low or not drafted at all who doesn't surprise and become a solid starter ends up being a backup with limited playing time unless the starter gets injured. Backup quarterbacks also don't play on special teams.

The counterargument to the argument made in the original post is that most low drafted or undrafted players don't pan out, so picking a quarterback low in the draft doesn't really hurt you much more or any more than drafting another player low at a different position.

[Eagle60]

I think what he's saying is why waste a pick on one when there are always decent ones available. Let somebody else develop them.