Must Read Walter Football Article

but I think the analysis fails to notice the fact that while 19 QBs were chosen among the Top 3, only 3 DTs were taken. They were supposed to be more talented yet half the QBs failed.

Also the reasons why DTs and QBs become busts are often very different. The attrition on the DLine is higher than behind center and many DTs cited as busts have also been hampered or completely stopped by injuries (Adam Carriker comes to mind…).

Most of the time, failing QBs already ‘had it’ in them when they were drafted.

If a QB busts (particularly a high draft pick one), you’re team is going to be in rough shape for at least a couple years, probably more. Once you’ve finally decided that QB was a bust, it’s because he’s performed poorly at the most important position on your team for quite a while, and then, you have nothing else to do with him but sit him on the bench. Furthermore, for the first couple years, there’s a decent chance that your QB is wasting time sitting on the bench, not contributing to the team in any way.

When a DT busts, he doesn’t completely hamstringing your team. Maybe for a while he’s playing more snaps than he should, but eventually he can be put into a rotation and used to take advantage of what strengths he may have. He also is extremely unlikely to be sitting for the first year or two. He’ll either be the starter from day one, or worked in for certain packages.

Personally, when I say that QBs are risky, I’m referring to this type of problem. A busted QB contributes absolutely nothing, and represents a huge opportunity cost (of not developing another QB). When any other position busts, they’re almost certainly able to contribute in some way, and they’re extremely unlikely to block the progression of a better option down the road.

Also, while it’s relevant this year, it’s a bit disingenuous to compare QBs to DTs, because I believe that DTs are among the highest bust rate positions in the draft. A comparison to DE would probably show different results.

is somewhat misleading. I mean, “bust” seems to fit whatever the writer/blogger/conversationalist wants it to mean. Is a DT a bust because he doesn’t get a sack on every passing play? Is a DT a bust if an RB gets 4.0 ypc against his team? There’s a decent amount of work that goes into a defense that if one piece is missing, there’s no way a 1st round DT would get good stats.

QBs on the other hand don’t get that fair a shake either. Obviously, it’s ideal if they’re throwing for Mike Martz and running the score up every game. Smart game managers don’t receive quite as much attention, and kinda ride that line between bust and hit if they do it right.

QBs command so much more money that, if anyone labels them a bust, their GMs and coaches sweat for years. DTs, while being paid less, are still a crucial part of making a D that other teams worry about. Considering our rushing ypc against our D the past several years, I’m a bit more in favor of a DT that will at least hold ground, if not tackle for a loss every time a runner comes his way. A good QB with our group of receivers will grow and develop, but I feel like our D being better will yield faster results.