Debunking the "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB" myth...

[Califan007]

There's this belief going around ES for months now that goes something like this:

"Going 6-10 or 7-9 would be disastrous for the Redskins this year. Much better that they go 4-12 so that they can draft (fill in Hot QB Prospect of the Moment here)."

The logic, as it were, goes something like this: You're more likely to get a franchise QB drafting higher up if for no other reason than you have more QBs available to choose from. Sounds reasonable on the surface, I suppose.

But if that were, in reality, true, we'd see a larger percentage of QBs drafted in the top 10 becoming truly successful franchise QBs than outside of the top 10. I mean, how can teams continually be given damn near ALL the rookie QBs to choose from and have it result in anything BUT a majority success rate for those teams?

To question this conventional wisdom, we need to ask a few questions:

1) Is there a significant difference in the success rates of QBs taken in the top 10 of the 1st round, and QBs taken outside of the top 10?

2) Are QBs taken in the top 10 more successful in the playoffs?

3) Does a team's record play a real role in dictating their ability to draft a QB the next season?


So let's take a look-see:


1) Is there a significant difference in the success rates of QBs taken in the top 10 of the 1st round, and QBs taken outside of the top 10?

Over the last 10 years (2001-2010) 27 QBs were drafted in the 1st round. 15 of them drafted in the top 10, 12 of them drafted outside of the top 10.

Now let's break the QBs into Top 10, and Outside the Top 10, and use 3 categories when doing so:

Top 10 QBs

Hits

Matt Ryan
Eli Manning
Phillip Rivers
Mark Sanchez (his playoff stats are impressive, so he belongs here)
Carson Palmer
Michael Vick
Sam Bradford (still early, but I'm putting him here anyway)


Too early to tell:

Matthew Stafford


Misses (all were either cut/traded or benched within their first 4 years):

Vince Young
JaMarcus Russell
Matt Leinart
Alex Smith
Byron Leftwich
David Carr
Joey Harrington



Outside the Top 10 QBs:

Hits:

Joe Flacco
Jay Cutler
Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger
Josh Freeman


Too early to tell:

Tim Tebow


Misses (all were either cut/traded or benched within their first 4 years):

Brady Quinn
Jason Campbell (wasn't traded, cut or benched, but including him here anyway)
J.P. Losman
Kyle Boller
Rex Grossman
Patrick Ramsey


So...what's the success rate for each of these groups of QBs?

Inside the Top 10 - Hits: 47%
Outside of Top 10 - Hits: 41%

Inside the Top 10 - Misses 47%
Outside of Top 10 - Misses: 50%

Doesn't seem like too much of a difference in terms of both successful QBs and busts, does it...Neither of those success rates varies significantly enough to warrant a hard stance of wanting/needing a high draft pick to find a franchise QB and (more importantly) avoid drafting a bust.

So the answer to question 1: Is there a significant difference in the success rates of QBs taken in the top 10 of the 1st round, and QBs taken outside of the top 10?

No, not really.


2) Are QBs in the top 10 of the draft more successful in the playoffs?

Let's face it: getting to the postseason--and hopefully not stopping until the Super Bowl--is the goal of every team, and conventional wisdom says drafting a "franchise" QB is supposed to play a significant factor in reaching that goal. So, if drafting a QB high in the 1st round is worth having a crappy season over, logic dictates that the QBs taken in the top 10 would have noticeably more success and better production in the playoffs than QBs taken outside of the top 10. Becoming a starting-quality QB is one thing...being successful and productive once you're in the playoffs is quite another.

So let's look at the collective production and team success of both sets of QBs in the playoffs.

Inside the Top 10 QBs - playoffs:

59% completion rate
6.9 ypa
34 TDs
4.0% TD percentage
29 INTs
3.4% TD percentage
Record: 13-17

Outside the Top 10 QBs - playoffs:

60% completion rate
7.5 ypa
38 TDs
5.0% TD percentage
27 INTs
3.5% INT percentage
Record: 19-8


Do you see any difference there that would make "tanking" the season worthwhile? I don't.

And actually, the QBs taken outside the top 10 are noticeably more productive in terms of yards per attempt, TD percentage and wins. Completion percentage and INT percentage are basically even. when it comes to the playoffs, in no category have the top 10 QBs outperformed the QBs drafted outside the top 10.

So the answer to question 2: Are QBs in the top 10 of the draft more successful in the playoffs?

No, not at all.


3) Does a team's record play a real role in dictating their ability to draft a QB the next season?

The overriding viewpoint has been going 4-12 will help the Redskins draft a franchise QB...going 6-10 or 7-9 will not. In fact, the Skins going 6-10 again or 7-9 has been described as being a "disaster" by more than a few ES members on numerous occasions. Many have placed extreme importance on what our record will be and how it correlates to the quality of QB available for drafting.

But is that the reality? Not the theory, but the reality?

Let's take a look lol ;)...

"Hit" QBs and their team's prior season record:

Matt Ryan (Falcons: 4-12)
Eli Manning (Giants: 4-12)
Phillip Rivers (Chargers: 4-12)
Mark Sanchez (Jets: 9-7)
Carson Palmer (Bengals: 2-14)
Michael Vick (Falcons: 4-12)
Sam Bradford (Rams: 1-15)
Joe Flacco (Ravens: 5-11)
Jay Cutler (Broncos: 13-3)
Aaron Rodgers (Packers: 10-6)
Ben Roethlisberger (Steelers: 6-10)
Josh Freeman (Bucs: 9-7)

Average number of wins: 6.1


"Missed" QBs and their team's prior season record:

Vince Young (Titans: 4-12)
JaMarcus Russell (Raiders: 2-14)
Matt Leinart (Cardinals: 5-11)
Alex Smith (49ers: 2-14)
Byron Leftwich (Jags: 6-10)
David Carr (N/A)
Joey Harrington (Lions: 2-14)
Brady Quinn (Browns: 4-12)
Jason Campbell (6-10)
J.P. Losman (Bills: 6-10)
Kyle Boller (Ravens: 7-9)
Rex Grossman (Bears: 4-12)
Patrick Ramsey (Redskins: 8-8)

Average number of wins: 4.7...(David Carr is not included here)


Apparently, in the real world the number of wins plays little role in a team's ability to draft a franchise/starter-quality QB in the first round. But how can that be, since everyone knows that the worse your record, the higher you get to draft...and thus the more players you have available to draft from.

That's easy enough to 'splain...

What the stats above tend to indicate, to me anyway, is that trading up, really good scouting, and bringing in a promising 1st round QB into a stable and well-established situation with quality coaches and a competent front office will dictate that QBs success far more than where they are drafted in the 1st round. In theory, drafting 1st would be more beneficial than drafting 12th...but in reality, your draft position is only as valuable as your organization is competent.

You can give a team with crappy scouting, a disorganized front office and incompetent coaches a billion players to choose from...that doesn't mean their selection process will be any better or that the player they DO draft will overcome all that disfunction and live up to his draft status and contract. Quite the contrary, actually.

And the reality is also that the teams with the worst records also tend to be the teams that are the most dysfunctional lol...they are the teams with the worst front offices, the below average scouting teams, mediocre coaches...sometimes all of the above. So their QB selections often end up being a result of that--reaching for QBs and drafting them too high, not properly scouting them, drafting a QB whose skill set does not properly fit with the offensive coordinator's scheme...etc, etc, yadda yadda. A high draft position doesn't safeguard them from that.

Put another way, a QB drafted at #14 by a team that knows what it's doing, will have more success than a QB drafted at #3 by a team that has no idea what it's doing lol. This effectively diminishes the importance of season records to finding and grooming a franchise QB in the draft. It's not the team's draft position that dictates it...

Good teams know how to pick QBs outside of the top 10. They know where to find them, they know how to mold them, develop them...good teams know how to scout QBs and find franchise quarterbacks in numerous places throughout the draft. They also know how to maneuver up in the draft should they find a QB that they are absolutely sold on and believe he won't be around when they pick. They also know how to still win if they're unable to do so.

If you can't win with a QB drafted in the mid-late 1st round, then you won't win with a QB drafted in the top 10, either. The stats help underscore that thought.

So, the answer to question #3: Does a team's record play a real role in dictating their ability to draft a QB the next season?

Partially. But we would be making a huge mistake by placing more importance on draft position than on fostering a winning culture and establishing a competent atmosphere for any drafted QB to succeed in.


Bottom line: You gain no real advantage from drafting a QB in the top 10 than you do in drafting one in the bottom 22 of the 1st round...so you gain no real advantage by having a crappy season. Higher draft picks are important, no doubt...but they should not be the focus of draft and season strategy.

I say, go for as many wins as possible...help create that winning culture and attitude, help set a standard for your future QB's team mates before you even draft him...improve your scouting, your coaching, your front office contract decisions...help form the team into one that has a clue about what it takes to win consistently in the NFL...and the best way of going about doing that, is to make winning every game a priority in everyone involved. Believe that, no matter where you're drafting, it will lead to positive dividends precisely because you know what you're doing.

If you do that, you'll find the franchise's solution at QB...no matter where you draft in the first round.

[Hitman21ST]

tl:dr

:ols:

Just kidding. Good info Cali. Agree on all the points. Would I be upset if we went 4-12? More yes than no, but a little bit of no because of the chances of getting one of the assumed "franchise" QBs. Would I be upset with 8-8? Not at all. It's an improvement on last year, and we can always trade up to get one of those guys. Enough teams drafted a QB last year or are getting a QB in FA that we shouldn't have trouble getting the guy we want.

[Califan007]

:ols:

Just kidding. Good info Cali. Agree on all the points. Would I be upset if we went 4-12? More yes than no, but a little bit of no because of the chances of getting one of the assumed "franchise" QBs. Would I be upset with 8-8? Not at all. It's an improvement on last year, and we can always trade up to get one of those guys. Enough teams drafted a QB last year or are getting a QB in FA that we shouldn't have trouble getting the guy we want.
What's tl:dr? lol *confused*...

[Mahons21]

I'm guessing, too long didn't read.

[Hitman21ST]

What's tl:dr? lol *confused*...

Mahons got it. Too long, didn't read

[Califan007]

I'm guessing, too long didn't read.
:ols: got it now...

[skinsdude]

I refuse to accept your theory until Oldfan approves it. :ols:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Since I am one of the ones screaming to tank the season, I'll give this thread a worth while reply later on. Some very good research and numbers

[Hitman21ST]

I refuse to accept your theory until Oldfan approves it. :ols:

You need to multiply all of Cali's numbers by .92 to eliminate the luck factor. Otherwise, it's all just a straw man. ;)

[Califan007]

I refuse to accept your theory until Oldfan approves it. :ols:
Hey, I used percentages and everthang lol :cool:...



Since I am one of the ones screaming to tank the season, I'll give this thread a worth while reply later on. Some very good research and numbers
Looking forward to it :thumbsup:...have zero problem with people sticking holes in my theory :ols:...

[#98QBKiller]

I don't think we need to tank to get a franchise QB but we do know that:

a) franchise QBs win Super Bowls
b) we need a franchise QB
c) the best shot at a top-rated QB in the draft is by picking higher than other QB-needy teams

So IMO, I would be more confident if we were picking higher but I don't think we need to tank for it. If we finish 7-9/8-8/9-7, there are always trades that can happen.

But the point is, we need a franchise QB badly and we need to get the best man for the job.

[GaryGreenMonk]

we'll see...

if Carolina is kicking our ass in 2 years.. and we are still posting 8-8.. you will have been proven wrong.

[Califan007]

By the way, this part here:


"Hit" QBs and their team's prior season record:

Matt Ryan (Falcons: 4-12)
Eli Manning (Giants: 4-12)
Phillip Rivers (Chargers: 4-12)
Mark Sanchez (Jets: 9-7)
Carson Palmer (Bengals: 2-14)
Michael Vick (Falcons: 4-12)
Sam Bradford (Rams: 1-15)
Joe Flacco (Ravens: 5-11)
Jay Cutler (Broncos: 13-3)
Aaron Rodgers (Packers: 10-6)
Ben Roethlisberger (Steelers: 6-10)
Josh Freeman (Bucs: 9-7)

Average number of wins: 6.1


"Missed" QBs and their team's prior season record:

Vince Young (Titans: 4-12)
JaMarcus Russell (Raiders: 2-14)
Matt Leinart (Cardinals: 5-11)
Alex Smith (49ers: 2-14)
Byron Leftwich (Jags: 6-10)
David Carr (N/A)
Joey Harrington (Lions: 2-14)
Brady Quinn (Browns: 4-12)
Jason Campbell (6-10)
J.P. Losman (Bills: 6-10)
Kyle Boller (Ravens: 7-9)
Rex Grossman (Bears: 4-12)
Patrick Ramsey (Redskins: 8-8)

Average number of wins: 4.7...(David Carr is not included here)

Both categories had six teams that went 4-12 or worse.

Both categories had one team that went 5-11.

Both categories had five teams that went 6-10 or better.

[blindlywewander]

I refuse to accept your theory until Oldfan approves it. :ols:

Ha, I'm the opposite. I accept it until he approves it :ols:

I agree with this in theory, but every draft class is different. I think to be able to land a guy like Luck or Landry Jones (who I feel will be the second QB taken), we'd need to be up there. Trading up would take a lot of ammo. Look at the Julio Jones trade. All those picks for a WR. Imagine trading for a franchise qb.

Could we get a guy later who ends up being good? Sure. It's all a calculated guessing game based on assumed potential. I think the reason most guys are clamoring for a bad season (which sounds crazy) is because this class seems to have 2-4 future stars. And if a team picks in the top 10, chances are quarterback is an area of need. I'm not one to say I hope we do poorly, but I'm also not a proponent of letting the chips fall where they may and grab the best QB available should we pick outside the top 10. Even if we end up 8-8 or better, we still need to trade up. In my opinion anyway..

[Truant]

Nice work. It's a compelling argument. I think the oppositions premise that a 6-10 record would be "disastrous" is a weak one. However, all things being equal, I think most people would prefer to have a better draft pick than a worse one.

If you dig into things a bit more, I'd be curious to see how running backs fit into this, if at all. Just glancing at the successes and failures it seems that QBs with a better RB or running game seemed to achieve success more than if they didn't.


One of the anomalies about top ten picks is that the talent isn't equal every year. Bradford seems like a lock to go in the top ten any year. I think in many years a guy like Gabbert wouldn't sniff the top ten in a deeper/better QB class.

Interesting stuff. Of course just looking at recent Redskins history (Ramsey, Campbell) perhaps it's time we try a more coveted prospect. I think one way or another we're going to be drafting really high this year and we'll get one of these coveted QB prospects. But I'm not rooting for the team to do poorly to achieve that.

[Manny555]

Thanks for the info!!

I really appreciated the point that if we have a solid team (foundation) and coaching staff, the success rate ishigher. I think that is exactly what Shanny is doing now. He is decorating a christmas tree and all we'll have to do is add the star/finishing touch/Qb of the future

[Oldfan]

You are debunking a strawman argument, one you have created that is easier to attack than the intelligent argument that most members are making.

The intelligent argument is that having a high pick in the draft offers a higher probability of success than a lower pick. There’s no debate on that point. And there’s no point to the argument you are making.

Let’s just set aside the small sample size and your subjective judgments on hits and misses and focus on the main flaw in your argument. There is no relevance to a Redskins draft. Comparing the ten highest positions in round one to the 22 lower positions in round one has no relevance.

The Redskins wont be drafting in the top ten positions; nor will they be drafting in the 22 lower positions. They will be drafting in one position -- and the higher it is, the better their chances will be of hitting a good QB if they draft one.

[Califan007]

You are debunking a strawman argument, one you have created that is easier to attack than the intelligent argument that most members are making.

The intelligent argument is that having a high pick in the draft offers a higher probability of success than a lower pick. There’s no debate on that point. And there’s no point to the argument you are making.

Let’s just set aside the small sample size and your subjective judgments on hits and misses and focus on the main flaw in your argument. There is no relevance to our topic. Comparing the ten highest positions in round one to the 22 lower positions in round one has no relevance.

The Redskins wont be drafting in the top ten positions; nor will they be drafting in the 22 lower positions. They will be drafting in one position -- and the higher it is, the better their chances will be of hitting a good QB if they draft one.

Translation: "****!" :mad:

[Hitman21ST]

The Redskins wont be drafting in the top ten positions; nor will they be drafting in the 22 lower positions. They will be drafting in one position -- and the higher it is, the better their chances will be of hitting a good QB if they draft one.

So we won't be drafting in the first 32 positions? Are we trading out of the first round?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I refuse to accept your theory until Oldfan approves it. :ols:

He should be getting back from dinner shortly so he'll chime in, I'm sure.

[blindlywewander]

You are debunking a strawman argument, one you have created that is easier to attack than the intelligent argument that most members are making.

The intelligent argument is that having a high pick in the draft offers a higher probability of success than a lower pick. There’s no debate on that point. And there’s no point to the argument you are making.

Let’s just set aside the small sample size and your subjective judgments on hits and misses and focus on the main flaw in your argument. There is no relevance to a Redskins draft. Comparing the ten highest positions in round one to the 22 lower positions in round one has no relevance.

The Redskins wont be drafting in the top ten positions; nor will they be drafting in the 22 lower positions. They will be drafting in one position -- and the higher it is, the better their chances will be of hitting a good QB if they draft one.

man, oldfan never disappoints.

i kind of disagree. i don't want to get into some great debate, but i think history is relevant to a Redskins draft. Comparing a top 10 pick to a non top 10 pick also has relevance. The argument itself is worth making. Many are saying that we need that high pick to get a franchise QB. Califan is saying that's not true. He didn't put every single draft ever in his original post, though I'm sure you'd have preferred that. But he put the most recent ones. I don't think you can just disregard his point. His argument wasn't overwhelming, but it shouldn't be disregarded as pointless.

But really, his point isn't that we'll have a better chance to get a franchise QB if we pick later. It's just that it's still possible - as we've seen in the past 5 or so years.

*Prepping for an attack on my logic*

[The Tris]

i kind of disagree.

Let me get this straight, you are disagreeing with the premise "The higher the draft pick, the better the odds of success"?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I refuse to accept your theory until Oldfan approves it. :ols:

LMAO. Now that was some funny **** right there.

Nice research Cali man and a really well written piece,

I still want to draft top 5 to enter the Luck/ Jones sweepstakes, but I appreciate the effort all the same, grins.

Hail.

[blindlywewander]

Let me get this straight, you are disagreeing with the premise "The higher the draft pick, the better the odds of success"?

No. Did you read the rest of my post? I disagreed with oldfans overall post. Not that premise.

[The Tris]

No. Did you read the rest of my post? I disagreed with oldfans overall post. Not that premise.

I did. The crux of Oldfan's post is that the probability of success increases the higher the pick. Irregardless of what position it is.

[blindlywewander]

I did. The crux of Oldfan's post is that the probability of success increases the higher the pick. Irregardless of what position it is.

Irregardless? Or regardless? Or are they the same thing? ;)

I understand that point. I never mentioned that point in my response to his post. What I disagreed with, which I typed in my previous comment, was Oldfan's dismissal of Califan's argument. He called it pointless and also said history irrelevant, which is what I disagreed with.

[The Tris]

What I disagreed with, which I typed in my previous comment, was Oldfan's dismissal of Califan's argument. He called it pointless and also said history irrelevant, which is what I disagreed with.

OF was right to dismiss Califan's well thoughtout and researched argument as pointless, because it is strawman.

No one ever said you HAVE to draft a QB in the top 10.

What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.

And this applies to whatever position you target, be it QB or guard.

[Oldfan]

blindlywewander ~ But really, his point isn't that we'll have a better chance to get a franchise QB if we pick later. It's just that it's still possible - as we've seen in the past 5 or so years.

I understood his argument. It’s pointless because he counters an argument that only idiots would make. Who, but an idiot would say that it’s impossible to get a franchise QB unless you pick in the top ten of round one?

The higher the Skins draft, the better the chances have of striking QB gold. Does Cali's argument put a dent in that position? Nope.

[SkinsTillIDie]

Great post Califan. I think it's also important to note a couple things:

a) The Falcons traded up from 27 to 6 in this past draft -- we won't be drafting anything near 27, but moving up to draft one of the premier QB prospects is a highly plausible possibility. And we're benefited by having more than the normal allotment of draft picks next year (an extra 4th from Campbell trade; whatever we may manage to add from Haynesworth/McNabb). If the Falcons can trade up from 27 to 6, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we'll be able to trade up from something like 13 to 6 with far less difficulty. Especially because-

b) Shanahan has already done exactly this before, moving up with a team coming off a 13-3 season and an appearance in the AFC Championship game to draft the franchise quarterback Jay Cutler in the subsequent draft.

Given that we really don't have an idea about the NFL-viability of the QB prospects (outside mostly of Luck, perhaps Barkely), it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that we need to finish with a piss-poor record to get one. For all we know, there may ultimately be 5 QBs that are all far better prospects than anyone in the 2010 draft, at least one of whom would inevitably fall to the middle of the first round

[addicted]

There's this belief going around ES for months now that goes something like this:

"Going 6-10 or 7-9 would be disastrous for the Redskins this year. Much better that they go 4-12 so that they can draft (fill in Hot QB Prospect of the Moment here)."

The logic, as it were, goes something like this: You're more likely to get a franchise QB drafting higher up if for no other reason than you have more QBs available to choose from. Sounds reasonable on the surface, I suppose.

But if that were, in reality, true, we'd see a larger percentage of QBs drafted in the top 10 becoming truly successful franchise QBs than outside of the top 10. I mean, how can teams continually be given damn near ALL the rookie QBs to choose from and have it result in anything BUT a majority success rate for those teams?

You have forgotten a very important fact about the NFL draft with this.
The worse the win loss record the higher the draft pick
But are teams actually purposely going 2-14 so they can draft a future player?
The answer to that is NO
Those teams are drafting high because they lack the talent in the entire team
Losing 10, 12, 14 games takes a whole lot of failure to me
And as we know going from loser to winner requires a huge makeup and change of personnel.
It's not a matter of those teams draft 1-10 not "hitting" more often on QB's they select over those drafting QB's later, its more so that the bad teams fail to build a team around the QB selected high in the draft.
In the end there is no denying the higher the pick the more players to choose from



To question this conventional wisdom, we need to ask a few questions:

1) Is there a significant difference in the success rates of QBs taken in the top 10 of the 1st round, and QBs taken outside of the top 10?

Call me crazy but I actually believe those teams picking outside of the top 10 will have a better chance of success of finding a franchise then those picking in the top 10 because football is a team sport and even with great QB's if they have no supporting cast they are screwed. The better the teams record indicates how they stack up against the rest of the league. So a team that's already better in other positions most likely will have an easier time developing a quality QB. QB's don't play the game alone




2) Are QBs taken in the top 10 more successful in the playoffs?

Again call me crazy but for a team to pull off a 3-13 record to a playoff team quickly they have to get a lot of things right like Atlanta was able to do recently that doesn't involve the QB position at all. The QB's taken in picks 1-10 most likely have worse supporting casts so I would expect them to do worse in the playoffs.



3) Does a team's record play a real role in dictating their ability to draft a QB the next season?

The answer here changes every single year.
The year that Beck was drafted in the 2nd round was a very bad year for QB's
However this year was a great time to draft a QB because so many of them were good and available
Not to mention that QB's like Manning are getting older and it's creating a greater demand for QB's in the league
If that continues then a teams draft position will be much more important then in other years
There are only so many people who can handle playing that position and the landscape of the NFL is changing

Great stats, just not sure I would have interpreted them the exact same way :cheers:

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

its much more simpler than this though. the worse you do, the higher pick you have. you have more options at that higher pick than you do with a lower one, obviously. can you hit on a QB past the top 10? sure. you can hit on a QB anywhere. I'd still feel a lot safer knowing we have whatever QB we want coming out.

and if luck is as good as everyone thinks he is, i have no problem sucking this year for a shot at him.

after seeing the nats snag strasburg and harper, the future is a lot brighter (and more fun) when you end up drafting a potential elite player.

[Califan007]

OF was right to dismiss Califan's well thoughtout and researched argument as pointless, because it is strawman.

No one ever said you HAVE to draft a QB in the top 10.
Did you even read my OP? lol...

And I guess I should have quoted ES members who have indeed made the statement that having another mediocre season would be "disastrous", or the worst possible outcome, or...you get the idea.

And did you even read the thread? Here's a post from the first page:


Since I am one of the ones screaming to tank the season, I'll give this thread a worth while reply later on. Some very good research and numbers

Wait...SHF can't be one of the ones "screaming to tank the season", because according to you and OF, those people don't exist :ols:...

Unless...what you're saying is that, if neither of you ever saw anyone say it, then they must not exist. Pretty arrogant stance to take. Neither of you even asked me to provide quotes (most reading this thread won't require me to, as they have read them before and know I'm telling the truth)...



What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.
And that's been debunked lol :cool:...



And this applies to whatever position you target, be it QB or guard.
This thread deals with finding franchise QBs in the 1st round, inside and outside the top 10.

Using OF's favorite brand of debate, "prove that I'm wrong" instead of just saying I am. ;)

[addicted]

But really, his point isn't that we'll have a better chance to get a franchise QB if we pick later. It's just that it's still possible - as we've seen in the past 5 or so years.



Outside the Top 10 QBs:
...
Misses (all were either cut/traded or benched within their first 4 years):
Jason Campbell (wasn't traded, cut or benched, but including him here anyway)
Patrick Ramsey

Sorry but if our past is an indicator of our future taking QB's in round one late hasn't produced for us. Is it possible that the next QB we draft later then the first 10 picks works out? Yea that's possible but it's not likely to happen

[blindlywewander]

OF was right to dismiss Califan's well thoughtout and researched argument as pointless, because it is strawman.

No one ever said you HAVE to draft a QB in the top 10.

What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.

And this applies to whatever position you target, be it QB or guard.

Obviously. I suppose I misunderstood the original argument. I didn't take Cali's post as an attack on the principle that a higher draft pick means higher chance of success. I took it as 'in spite of those statistics, it is not required' to go 4-12. Many people on this site have said we need to tank the season in order to find that sure fire, franchise guy like Luck. The way I read it, he was saying we don't need to tank in order to find that guy. He wasn't arguing we're more likely to draft that guy, but that we should still win every game we can, knowing that we can still find that stud in picks 11-32.


I understood his argument. It’s pointless because he counters an argument that only idiots would make. Who, but an idiot would say that it’s impossible to get a franchise QB unless you pick in the top ten of round one?

The higher the Skins draft, the better the chances have of striking QB gold. Does Cali's argument put a dent in that position? Nope.

If you read my response to Tris, you'll understand what I mean. I guess I interpreted his post incorrectly. No one would argue that it's impossible to get a franchise guy in the top 10. But the way I interpreted it, he's not arguing that. He's arguing the thought that we need to tank the season to find a franchise quarterback. And his response was, no, we don't need to tank. Thus, I don't see it as a strawman argument. But, that's just how I read it.

Cali man, I'm trying to stand up for you but - I'm probably ending up making a fool of myself. Sorry bro :)

[Goingforburgundy]

To play devils advocate here. I cant seem to find the statistical facts at work right now but it shows your chances to pick a "franchise" QB go down significantly. Why do you think everyone is looking for the next Tom Brady? In the past 15 years there has been only 2 QBs to win a SB that was drafted past the 2nd round. Tom Brady and Kurt Warner. Just some food for thought

[addicted]

And that's been debunked lol :cool:...

Not so sure about that, every situation is different and simply having a franchise QB doesn't mean that the teams not complete crap and he will do any good on that team. Guys like Steve Young come to mind. He was a QB drafted first overall goes to a terrible team, sucks badly there because he can't do it all himself, gets written off as a bust and then goes to a better put together team and immediately has a Hall of Fame career.

Point is that you need more then a QB to win this game

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

We'll tank the season even without trying to because we don't have a competent pro QB. (Apologies in advance to the as yet unproven Beck.).

It's a vicious circle that will be rectified very early in the next draft. ;).

Hail.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

To play devils advocate here. I cant seem to find the statistical facts at work right now but it shows your chances to pick a "franchise" QB go down significantly. Why do you think everyone is looking for the next Tom Brady? In the past 15 years there has been only 2 QBs to win a SB that was drafted past the 2nd round. Tom Brady and Kurt Warner. Just some food for thought

i think hes simply saying you dont need a top 10 QB, you can find a QB in round 1 as a whole. so regardless of our record this coming season, finding a QB has the same success rate in picks 1-10 as it does in picks 11-32.

i still dont think that brings into play the options that a lower draft pick give you. say theres 4 1st round QBs, well with the #1 overall, you have your pick of any of them. if we go 8-8 this year and pick 13th-16th, that limits our choices when a bunch of teams in front of us snag QBs. and that is what i dont like.

[addicted]

We'll tank the season even without trying to because we don't have a competent pro QB. (Apologies in advance to the as yet unproven Beck.).

It's a vicious circle that will be rectified very early in the next draft. ;).

Hail.

My own bone to pick with this argument about drafting a QB next year and tanking a season is that who the hell knows what will happen?
No matter if we go 0-16 or 16-0 who knows if we will think that the player we need to draft where we pick is a QB?
If there was a law or rule that said "You win less then 8 games you must take a QB" then I'd feel confident we would draft a QB
Truth is though there is no guarantee that we would draft a QB next year or pick one from Free Agency if that is our need
So I throw the whole argument about tanking out the window because no one can prove to me that tanking or not tanking means we will draft a QB
No one knows if we would or wouldn't draft a QB if the season goes to crap so why would any fan hope that the season sucks?

Just think about this...every draft you take picks 1-10 which is 10 players and count the number of QB's taken over the past decade, a QB going in picks 1-10 to the worst teams in the league is less then 10%. There is a far greater chance of us tanking and NOT drafting a QB then there is evidence to support that we would select one

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I think after identifying Campbell wasn't the man and then going in REAL hard for Bradford, and subsequently picking up what appeared at the time a solid, quality veteren in McNabb in year one; and then being all set for Locker in year two as I firmly believe we were until TN decided otherwise; it's pretty safe to assume that a QB is a high priority for Shanahan addicted man.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ Wait...SHF can't be one of the ones "screaming to tank the season", because according to you and OF, those people don't exist ...

You really have a fondness for strawman arguments. I never said that. But, even if I had, we would have to hear SHF’s reasons on it before deciding that he fit your argument.


Tris: What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.


Cali: And that's been debunked lol ...

No, you haven’t debunked that position at all. At the very best, you have offered an argument showing that draft positions 1-10 and draft positions 11-32 have gotten comparable results in recent history. And that point bears on nothing.


Using OF's favorite brand of debate, "prove that I'm wrong" instead of just saying I am.

Your logic has already been shown to be unsound. That you and others don’t realize it isn’t our problem.

[Califan007]

You have forgotten a very important fact about the NFL draft with this.
The worse the win loss record the higher the draft pick
But are teams actually purposely going 2-14 so they can draft a future player?
The answer to that is NO
Those teams are drafting high because they lack the talent in the entire team
Nope.

Most teams are drafting high because they:

1) Lack a solidly functioning front office and coaching staff and/or scouting team...the talent level between teams is not that drastic.
2) Are a good team that had, for whatever reason (injuries, ridiculously bad luck, what have you), a down year.

Teams that pick high--and especially teams that pick high often--are usually the ones who are the most dysfunctional. They are usually bad because of that dysfunction. High draft picks don't erase the dysfunction...nor can they offset it.

When bad teams finally start to correct the dysfunction, they start going from bad to mediocre...and their records start giving them draft picks outside of the top 10. But the talent they draft outside of the top 10 is now coming onto a far more competently-functioning team and franchise...so the #14 drafted QB ends up playing better than the high-drafted QB who joins the team in the midst of its collective disorganization and dysfunction.



Losing 10, 12, 14 games takes a whole lot of failure to me
And as we know going from loser to winner requires a huge makeup and change of personnel.
It's not a matter of those teams draft 1-10 not "hitting" more often on QB's they select over those drafting QB's later, its more so that the bad teams fail to build a team around the QB selected high in the draft.
And that's part of what I said lol :yes:...



In the end there is no denying the higher the pick the more players to choose from
But there's also no denying that having a higher pick doesn't cause you to make better decisions or take better actions, either.

If you can't find a franchise QB picking 14th, you can't find a franchise QB picking #3. Again, the value of a higher draft pick becomes devalued by the multitude of aspects that a franchise brings to the table. So worrying about your draft slot is a waste of time. That is, UNLESS there is a particular QB you absolutely MUST have...but wanting a higher draft pick to increase the odds of finding a franchise QB doesn't make sense in reality. It's a bit like Vinny drafting two WRs in the 2nd round because the "odds" were increased that one of them would turn into a quality starter. Doesn't work that simple a manner. Too many other aspects that the Redskins brought to the table effectively diminished the value of those draft slots to the Skins.




Call me crazy but I actually believe those teams picking outside of the top 10 will have a better chance of success of finding a franchise then those picking in the top 10 because football is a team sport and even with great QB's if they have no supporting cast they are screwed. The better the teams record indicates how they stack up against the rest of the league. So a team that's already better in other positions most likely will have an easier time developing a quality QB. QB's don't play the game alone.
Again, you agree with me lol :yes:...focus on making the Redskins a MUCH better-run team, with a MUCH-better attitude and culture...with MUCH better scouting (well, not "much" better, as the Skins' scouting isn't too bad to begin with)...don't worry about draft position.




Again call me crazy but for a team to pull off a 3-13 record to a playoff team quickly they have to get a lot of things right like Atlanta was able to do recently that doesn't involve the QB position at all. The QB's taken in picks 1-10 most likely have worse supporting casts so I would expect them to do worse in the playoffs.
Helps that they brought in a new coaching staff that replaced a rather dysfunctional one lol...Petrino drafting Matt Ryan doesn't turn into a playoff team in one offseason, trust me there.




The answer here changes every single year.
The year that Beck was drafted in the 2nd round was a very bad year for QB's
That doesn't negate the point of my post, though...if anything, it strengthens it.



Great stats, just not sure I would have interpreted them the exact same way :cheers:

No problem...enjoyed reading your perspective on the stats. :cheers:

[addicted]

Just think about this...every draft you take picks 1-10 which is 10 players and count the number of QB's taken over the past decade, a QB going in picks 1-10 to the worst teams in the league is less then 10%. There is a far greater chance of us tanking and NOT drafting a QB then there is evidence to support that we would select one

Not quite less then 10% as I said, if you look over the past 10 drafts these QB's were taken in the first round

2011:
Panthers Newton, Cam
Titans Locker, Jake
Jaguars Gabbert, Blaine
2010:
St. Louis Rams Sam Bradford QB Oklahoma
2009:
Detroit Lions Matthew Stafford QB Georgia
2008:
Atlanta Falcons Matt Ryan QB Boston College
2007:
Oakland Raiders JaMarcus Russell QB Louisiana State
2006:
Tennessee Titans Vince Young QB Texas
Arizona Cardinals Matt Leinart QB
2005:
San Francisco 49ers Alex Smith QB Utah
2004:
San Diego Chargers Eli Manning QB
New York Giants Philip Rivers QB North Carolina State
2003:
Cincinnati Bengals Carson Palmer QB USC
Jacksonville Jaguars Byron Leftwich QB Marshall
2002:
Houston Texans David Carr QB Fresno State
Detroit Lions Joey Harrington QB Oregon

So 16 out of those 100 picks were QB's, equaling 16% not less then 10% as I said.

[The Tris]

And I guess I should have quoted ES members who have indeed made the statement that having another mediocre season would be "disastrous", or the worst possible outcome, or...you get the idea.

The worse we do this season, the higher the probability that, should we choose a QB in the first round, we will draft a successful QB.


Wait...SHF can't be one of the ones "screaming to tank the season", because according to you and OF, those people don't exist

I'm not sure SHF said we *can't* find a successful QB unless we pick in the top ten. I think you are simply twisting his words to suit your argument.

What SHF is saying is exactly what I have said above.


And that's been debunked lol :cool:...

What you have debunked is the idea that you can not find a franchise QB outside the top 10. Which I don't believe me, OF, or SHF said anything remotely close to.

What your thread shows is that among a limited sample size, with an unequal distribution of picks, there have been a comparable number of franchise QBs found in picks 11-32 and in picks 1-10.

That hardly debunks the concept that the higher you pick, the better probability you will draft a talented player.


Using OF's favorite brand of debate, "prove that I'm wrong" instead of just saying I am. ;)

http://dallascowboystimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Pro-Bowl-Selections-by-Draft-No..jpg

http://dallascowboystimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/draft-spot-years-as-starter.jpg

Source:http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/highly-drafted-nfl-quarterbacks-the-holy-grail-for-success/

[addicted]

I think after identifying Campbell wasn't the man and then going in REAL hard for Bradford, and subsequently picking up what appeared at the time a solid, quality veteren in McNabb in year one; and then being all set for Locker in year two as I firmly believe we were until TN decided otherwise; it's pretty safe to assume that a QB is a high priority for Shanahan addicted man.

Hail.

Did I say he didn't consider QB to be a top priority? No
I said that what makes you think that if we are terrible that it means we will draft a QB with a top 10 pick?
Especially when we dropped back from 10th this past year with this obvious need of a QB giving up Gabbert to Jacksonville?
My point is that we've seen two drafts come and go with Shanny and we've traded twice for a QB and pick some off free agency while never drafting one
Again what makes you think that won't be the same strategy going forward?

[SkinsTillIDie]

http://dallascowboystimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Pro-Bowl-Selections-by-Draft-No..jpg

Doesn't this prove that we're more likely to find a pro-bowler at picks 11-15 than at 6-10?

[Califan007]

To play devils advocate here. I cant seem to find the statistical facts at work right now but it shows your chances to pick a "franchise" QB go down significantly. Why do you think everyone is looking for the next Tom Brady? In the past 15 years there has been only 2 QBs to win a SB that was drafted past the 2nd round. Tom Brady and Kurt Warner. Just some food for thought
I'm not talking about QBs being picked in the later rounds...I'm talking about QBs being picked in the 1st round, both inside and outside the top 10...and if there is any real advantage between the two groups.

[blindlywewander]

Your logic has already been shown to be unsound. That you and others don’t realize it isn’t our problem.

hahaha.. how's the weather up there OF?

[Oldfan]

Cali ~ But there's also no denying that having a higher pick doesn't cause you to make better decisions or take better actions, either. Man, you're on a tear! You've just debunked another argument that only idiots would make.

[Califan007]

Great post Califan. I think it's also important to note a couple things:

a) The Falcons traded up from 27 to 6 in this past draft -- we won't be drafting anything near 27, but moving up to draft one of the premier QB prospects is a highly plausible possibility. And we're benefited by having more than the normal allotment of draft picks next year (an extra 4th from Campbell trade; whatever we may manage to add from Haynesworth/McNabb). If the Falcons can trade up from 27 to 6, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we'll be able to trade up from something like 13 to 6 with far less difficulty. Especially because-

b) Shanahan has already done exactly this before, moving up with a team coming off a 13-3 season and an appearance in the AFC Championship game to draft the franchise quarterback Jay Cutler in the subsequent draft.

Given that we really don't have an idea about the NFL-viability of the QB prospects (outside mostly of Luck, perhaps Barkely), it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that we need to finish with a piss-poor record to get one. For all we know, there may ultimately be 5 QBs that are all far better prospects than anyone in the 2010 draft, at least one of whom would inevitably fall to the middle of the first round
Yep, exactly :yes:...as mentioned in the OP, well-run front offices are better able to pull off trades to move them into position to get "their guy"...which means their record is irrelevant in their eyes.

[The Tris]

Doesn't this prove that we're more likely to find a pro-bowler at picks 11-15 than at 6-10?

Yes. This is a statistical quirk.

However, we are still more likely to find a pro bowl QB between picks 1-5 than picks 6-10 or 11-15.

So I guess you can aim for picking in the 11-15 range, or just accept the fact that the higher you pick, the greater probability of success.

More reading: http://www.pigskinology.com/qb-pick-number-and-pro-performance.php


How Well does a QB’s Draft Position Predict His NFL Success?

This seems like a painfully simple question.

As you can see in the first graph, there is a strong correlation between where a QB is selected in the draft and how well he plays, as measured by CarAV per game. The second graph shows the same pattern for total CarAV, though our model for the career data isn’t as strong as the one for the per game CarAV in Graph 1. Roughly speaking, we would have been able to predict less than half of a QB’s success based solely on where he was taken in the draft.

Depending on your outlook, this data could speak well or poorly of current QB-prospect evaluation. On one hand, any variable that has a correlation coefficient of .4 in this sample size is a moderately strong predictor. That this variable is essentially the market evaluation of a QB’s worth relative to all draft-eligible players means the vetting process brings something of value.

However, on the other hand, we have reason to doubt whether that .4 value is a good representation of the relationship. Many of the later round selections never took a regular-season snap in the NFL, and this was probably for good reason. If every team in the league passed on a QB multiple times, there probably is little in his portfolio demanding a test run. But in contrast, there are plenty of first round busts who, in retrospect, produced at seventh-round levels. JaMarcus Russell the 250th selection probably never sees the field; JaMarcus Russell the No. 1 pick played 31 times at .26 CarAV per game (52nd in our list). Because part of the CarAV calculation rewards being on the field regardless of performance, the pressure to play high draft picks probably causes the correlation to be overstated.

We’ve broken down in the table below the per game CarAV a team would expect, given average luck, from drafting a QB in a few pick slots. So, for example, if Carolina feels that Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert warrants their top pick this year, they can expect him to perform slightly worse per game than Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco have to this point.

Pick - Exp. Per Game CarAV - Comps

1 - .700 - Jay Culter (.706); Joe Flacco (.708)

10 - .416 - Matt Leinart (.414); Derek Anderson (.412)

50 - .247 - Keith Null (.250); Charlie Whitehurst (.250)

100 - .180 - Josh Johnson (.176); Craig Krenzel (.167)

200 - .118 - Kellen Clemens (.120); Brodie Croyle (.111)

[hitmandm]

Higher draft picks are better. This is unquestioned. Oldfan is right, if you normalize the QB hits per draft pick number, the top 10 yields a much, much higher hit % than the rest of the draft.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Did I say he didn't consider QB to be a top priority? No
I said that what makes you think that if we are terrible that it means we will draft a QB with a top 10 pick?
Especially when we dropped back from 10th this past year with this obvious need of a QB giving up Gabbert to Jacksonville?
My point is that we've seen two drafts come and go with Shanny and we've traded twice for a QB and pick some off free agency while never drafting one
Again what makes you think that won't be the same strategy going forward?

And my point is the two guys in his first two drafts he coveted he couldn't get. He tried hard for Bradford by all accounts but didn't have the ammo. Locker, I still believe, was the only QB he rated this past draft and the one he really hoped to get. When TN surprised everyone after he fell past teams you feared would take him, our whole draft strategy changed which in the bigger picture wasn't a bad thing at all.

If he'd of had his way, we'd have our QB going forward on board now out of his first two drafts. I fully believe if we were to be in a top picking position next year and Luck or Jones were in our grasp (unless they both have a complete 360 and a slump this year of mammoth proportions); there's no way we'd pass up the chance.

Hail.

*Edit* But again, it's all on a gut feeling either way. Your stats on QB's taken in the top 10 are nice and all, but you can put as much credence on them as regards Shanahan's thinking as you can by trying to gauge him off his previous failed attempts to draft his guy here. Ultimately, nobody knows what his thinking is without being in the man's head.

[Oldfan]

Higher draft picks are better. This is unquestioned. Oldfan is right, if you normalize the QB hits per draft pick number, the top 10 yields a much, much higher hit % than the rest of the draft.A few weeks back, someone posted the hit rate for the top ten QBs at about 48.5%, but the weird thing was that the #1 overall pick QBs had an 81% hit rate. That's just sounds much too high.

[ouvan59]

The higher the pick the better chance you have of getting the better player. But unfortunately the better GMs don't get to pick near the top all that often.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

A few weeks back, someone posted the hit rate for the top ten QBs at about 48.5%, but the weird thing was that the #1 overall pick QBs had an 81% hit rate. That's just sounds much too high.

Any recollection how far back whomever took that Of?

Hail.

[Oldfan]

hahaha.. how's the weather up there OF?I never believed in turning the other cheek. Hit me with a smartass comment and I'll likely retaliate with one.

[Califan007]

The worse we do this season, the higher the probability that, should we choose a QB in the first round, we will draft a successful QB.
I'm not asking you to paraphrase or rationalize what another poster said lol :ols:...



I'm not sure SHF said we *can't* find a successful QB unless we pick in the top ten. I think you are simply twisting his words to suit your argument.
How can I be twisting his words when I gave you an exact quote OF her words? lol...

And get this: SHF read my OP...and identified himself as the type of person I described! :rotflmao:...Yet here you are claiming that I somehow distorted his words to do so. Jeebus lol :ols:...



What SHF is saying is exactly what I have said above.

What SHF is saying is that he is one of those who feel our record will dictate whether or not we are able to get a franchise QB. Now, he can come back on here and explain that he said it wrong...but until he does, I'll pay more attention to SHF's words than your interpretation of them.




What you have debunked is the idea that you can not find a franchise QB outside the top 10. Which I don't believe me, OF, or SHF said anything remotely close to.
Wrong.

What I debunked is the idea that picking a QB in the top 10 improves your chances of ending up with a franchise QB over picking one later in the 1st round. NOT that they are ONLY found in the top 10...but that your chances improve to any significant degree. In reality, it's based far more on things outside of the draft position than the draft position itself. And I backed it up with a ****load of data.




What your thread shows is that among a limited sample size, with an unequal distribution of picks, there have been a comparable number of franchise QBs found in picks 11-32 and in picks 1-10.
"limited sample size" :ols:...yeah, a 10-year test span in a sport that changes its nature every generation or so is just way too small. With the emergence of free agency and a far more pass-friendly approach to the game by the competition committee over the past 10+ years, It's completely relevant to keep the sample size to the time frame that deals with QBs who were drafted during that era...Too many other factors come into play when you start using a QBs success in the late 90s that was drafted in the mid-80s.




That hardly debunks the concept that the higher you pick, the better probability you will draft a talented player.
I said QB...not just "player". I stuck with QBs for a reason...and thus far, everything I've posted points in that direction. You've not explained away any of my stats, you've just stated that it doesn't prove anything lol...you gotta do better.






http://dallascowboystimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Pro-Bowl-Selections-by-Draft-No..jpg

http://dallascowboystimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/draft-spot-years-as-starter.jpg

Source:http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/highly-drafted-nfl-quarterbacks-the-holy-grail-for-success/
Important part from that article"

'The statistic we believe is most representative of a quarterback’s career success (and the most transferable over different eras) is Pro Bowl selections. "

LOL...Ok, if your goal is Pro Bowls, you have a point lol...we all laugh off placing too much importance on Pro Bowl nods, so I doubt this will go over well.

But the most important aspect is this: the article talks about comparing "higher drafted" QBs to those drafted in lower rounds. According to that chart, QBs drafted between 11-15 have a HIGHER chance of going to the Pro Bowl than QBs drafted between 6-10. Notice how it dips the lower you go in the top 10...then spikes dramatically at spots #11-15. The difference between #11 and #1 is negligible. And the difference between #15 and #5 is non-existent.

Thank you for helping me prove my point lol :thumbsup:

[Oldfan]

Any recollection how far back whomever took that Of?

Hail.No, the only other thing I recall was that the LT had the highest hit rate of the top ten picks at about 70% but that could include some who are moved to guard or right tackle. Do you count him as a bust at LT or a hit because he started elsewhere. That's the problem with grading drafts. Too many subjective judgments.

[mjpanzer]

Let me say this:

I like all your research and mostly agree with you.

THAT BEING SAID, PERHAPS there is a correlation between QB's taken later in the first round and being successful, because better teams draft later. A QB drafted with picks 22-32 is going to a top 10 NFL team (that still did well even though they did not have a QB, but are now taking one), while teams going in the top 10 are going to one of the WORST 10 teams in the NFL.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

That's the problem with grading drafts. Too many subjective judgments.

Couldn't agree more. That's one thing nobody's ever gona' agree on.

What I don't understand though is how anyone can argue a higher draft pick doesn't improve your chances of getting a higher calibre player. Is this some parallel Universe where every logical law is back to front?

Hail.

[Califan007]

Yes. This is a statistical quirk.
Statistical quirk :ols:...nice way of explaining away something that doesn't fit your viewpoint :thumbsup:


However, we are still more likely to find a pro bowl QB between picks 1-5 than picks 6-10 or 11-15.

So I guess you can aim for picking in the 11-15 range, or just accept the fact that the higher you pick, the greater probability of success.

but you're more likely to find a Pro Bowl QB between picks 11-15 than you are between picks 6-10. So having a higher draft pick didn't help, did it?

I know, I know...'statistical quirk" and all that. No need to look behind the curtain.

It's funny, but it almost perfectly backs up my stats...But I still think using Pro Bowls as a measuring stick is flawed.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 01:55 PM ----------


Let me say this:

I like all your research and mostly agree with you.

THAT BEING SAID, PERHAPS there is a correlation between QB's taken later in the first round and being successful, because better teams draft later. A QB drafted with picks 22-32 is going to a top 10 NFL team (that still did well even though they did not have a QB, but are now taking one), while teams going in the top 10 are going to one of the WORST 10 teams in the NFL.

Just my 2 cents.
That's actually in line with what I wrote in the OP :yes:...but the teams picking later in the 1st round were already good before drafting that QB. they didn't put off improving and winning until they could draft the QB...they were already doing everything they could TO win. The teams (and fans of those teams) who get giddy because they get to once again pick in the top 10 won't usually see their draft picks bearing much fruit until they change the team and franchise, scouting and coaching.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 01:56 PM ----------


Higher draft picks are better. This is unquestioned. Oldfan is right, if you normalize the QB hits per draft pick number, the top 10 yields a much, much higher hit % than the rest of the draft.

Higher draft picks don't result in better QB play. Better run franchises, better coaching, better scouting and better front offices, do, though. Which is why the good teams focus on those areas and don't give two ****s about draft position or worrying about winning "too much".

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 02:01 PM ----------


Couldn't agree more. That's one thing nobody's ever gona' agree on.

What I don't understand though is how anyone can argue a higher draft pick doesn't improve your chances of getting a higher calibre player. Is this some parallel Universe where every logical law is back to front?

Hail.

1) I'm talking QB...not just "player"

2) I'm talking a more successful franchise QB...not just a "higher caliber" QB.

And it all goes back to what i said in the OP: focus on making the team a winner, in all aspects of the game and how the franchise is run. Don't worry about draft pick slotting...because if you do the former, the latter becomes less and less important. If you do NOT do the former, no amount of top 10 draft picks will matter.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 02:04 PM ----------


Sorry but if our past is an indicator of our future taking QB's in round one late hasn't produced for us. Is it possible that the next QB we draft later then the first 10 picks works out? Yea that's possible but it's not likely to happen

I'm not just talking bout the Skins, though lol...but that does go to something I've said before in the OP: having Snyder and Vinny picking a QB in the late 20s is not the same as having the Packers' FO picking a QB in the last 20s. Going to play for the Packers as a late 1st round pick is not the same as going to play for the Snyderrato Redskins as a late 1st round pick. The draft pick slot matters far less than the health of the franchise picking IN that slot.

If we can't win picking #20, we have zero chance of winning picking #1.

[KDawg]

It's my opinion that there is one name that would be beneficial to tanking (not tht I'd ever advocate tanking. I think tanking is incredibly stupid)...

Andrew Luck.

I really believe he's can't miss, and you aren't getting him if you do even below average.

But, you can find a QB anywhere in the draft. You can also miss on one anywhere in the draft.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Cali, for the record, I wasn't referring to the OP.

I'll remember to clarify next time. You being pernickety (NO s) and all. :silly:

Hail.

[The Tris]

Statistical quirk :ols:...nice way of explaining away something that doesn't fit your viewpoint :thumbsup:

So now your position is that we should shoot for a QB in the 11-15 range (as that is the only range where your argument holds water - dropping down to 16-20 this is not true, nor jumping up to 1-5)?

Way to change your argument as you see fit.:ols::applause::wavetowel:jump:




but you're more likely to find a Pro Bowl QB between picks 11-15 than you are between picks 6-10. So having a higher draft pick didn't help, did it?

But having a higher draft pick than 6 did help right?

The fact that there is a dip at 6-10 doesn't change the fact that QBs taken 1-5 have a higher rate of success than QBs taken 11-15, or that QBs taken 11-15 have a higher success than those taken 16-20, and those taken 16-20, etc. etc.

Can you really be arguing that taking the 3rd or 4th QB in a class is better than taking the 1st or 2nd?

Really what it boils down to is a combination of talent and enviroment. Neither should be sacrificed - and at the end of the day, the higher drafted a QB, and the better enviroment he enters, the higher probability for success.

[MrDuble81]

if this team goes 4-12 this season someone is losing a job... its stupid to think they wont do better this season than last. qb situation will figure itself out soon enough.

[Oldfan]

Cali to The Tris ~ Statistical quirk ...nice way of explaining away something that doesn't fit your viewpoint . So I guess you can aim for picking in the 11-15 range, or just accept the fact that the higher you pick, the greater probability of success. but you're more likely to find a Pro Bowl QB between picks 11-15 than you are between picks 6-10. So having a higher draft pick didn't help, did it?

When there’s no logical reason for it, the jagged lines in a graph indicate that the sample size wasn’t large enough to iron out the kinks. A sample size of 300 might have jagged lines,. A larger sample of 3000 would show the same pattern with a smoother line.

The picks between 11-15 in whatever graph you're talking about would be in line with the others with a bigger sample. There's no good reason that picks in that range would succeed at a higher level than those in the range above it.

[addicted]

And my point is the two guys in his first two drafts he coveted he couldn't get. He tried hard for Bradford by all accounts but didn't have the ammo. Locker, I still believe, was the only QB he rated this past draft and the one he really hoped to get. When TN surprised everyone after he fell past teams you feared would take him, our whole draft strategy changed which in the bigger picture wasn't a bad thing at all.

That's pure speculation without anything offical from the team to support it.
While that may not make it wrong, I do have serious doubts that he would have taken Locker at 10
It seems to me all along that he knew we needed players and it was more important to him to add more picks then to take a QB
And almost all of the so called experts had Gabbert ranked higher then Locker in that draft so if he was going to take a QB why not take Gabbert who was not expected to be on the board at #10
In the end I believe him dropping down to 15 was by design, not some reactionary move made out of haste or because he didn't get his man
No one knows for certain what he does if Locker was there at 10 but my money is on him wanting to make up for the McNabb trade loss more then needing Locker



If he'd of had his way, we'd have our QB going forward on board now out of his first two drafts. I fully believe if we were to be in a top picking position next year and Luck or Jones were in our grasp (unless they both have a complete 360 and a slump this year of mammoth proportions); there's no way we'd pass up the chance.

Hail.

Two things

One Locker did have a 360 turn from his past season not to mention poor combines and Senior games. He didn't do him any favors yet you still believe he was a "must" pick? Don't you think if those two guys did that and he believed in him that he would still draft them if he could?

Two you are actually making a very strong case based on your beliefs about the last two drafts that our pick position has hurt us. If I believed as you did that we missed out on Bradford and Locker then I would think that we needed to absolutely have a top 3 pick to ensure we got one of them. However I don't think either the Bradford or the Locker rumors are worth much including the air that speaks this and believe more so that Shanny is a devious sneaky bastard who wouldn't let his intentions known to anyone if he was interested in a QB like he did with his last drafted QB and since those rumors are known its most likely they are untrue. So since you and I obviously hold different opinions about this and since you believe he missed out on both players then do you believe we should attempt to lose this year ensuring we don't have to give up an entire draft to get a guy he covets? According to you he's already missed out on his two guys, do you really want to see him miss out on another?

Me I think he judges markets fantastically and I don't believe those rumors. I see him as having a master plan and the guy he covets is in Free Agency, call that a hunch




*Edit* But again, it's all on a gut feeling either way. Your stats on QB's taken in the top 10 are nice and all, but you can put as much credence on them as regards Shanahan's thinking as you can by trying to gauge him off his previous failed attempts to draft his guy here. Ultimately, nobody knows what his thinking is without being in the man's head.

No but if the past is any indication he wasn't really interested in those two guys you mentioned. And furthermore who the hell knew before the draft our top pick was ever going to be Ryan Kerrigan? That came out of absolutely nowhere, and that is his MO. You knowing about Bradford and Locker to me screams smoke screen

[Oldfan]

Cali ~ 2) I'm talking a more successful franchise QB...not just a "higher caliber" QB.

What's the difference? Can you define your terms?

[veteranskinsfan]

Califan- good post and thought provoking. Andrew Luck is who the Redskins and 49ers want for sure. I wonder if the 49ers don't have the edge to get him next year.

[Califan007]

I need to address this chart again, too:

http://dallascowboystimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Pro-Bowl-Selections-by-Draft-No..jpg

Here is what i can deduce from this chart alone:

- You have a slightly better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB between picks 1-5 than you do between picks 11-15.

- You have as good a chance--if not a better chance--of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in picks 11-17 than you do between picks 6-10.

- Those last two points would lead one to believe that, as long as you're picking in the top 17 spots, you'll find a Pro Bowl QB with basically equal measure since there's only about a 5% "success" rate difference (if you define "success" by Pro Bowl votes).

- You have a better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in between picks 26-41 than you do drafting one in picks 21-25.

- You have a better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in between picks 61-65 than you do drafting one in picks 21-25.

- You have a better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in between picks 71-75 than you do drafting one in picks 21-25.

- The article states that "...there are fluctuations (which are to be expected)" in the graph...which lines up with my OP. For example, the fluctuations between 1-5, 6-10 and 11-17 are ridiculously consistent...so that indicates a pattern to pay attention to. That's what I did in the OP...three decades of analysis didn't change anything in that regard.

- If I were to make a general assumption from their data, it would be "There's a slight difference in how QBs drafted between 1-5 and 11-15 end up fairing in the NFL...and a noticeable difference between QBs drafted between 11-15 and 6-10 end up fairing."

- That said, the data covers two different eras of QBs and completely ignores how differences in the two eras might effect the chart results, like the role the internet plays in Pro Bowl voting, the number of teams in 1980 as compared to now and how that effected the draft, and how free agency has drastically changed how teams build their rosters.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 02:41 PM ----------


Cali, for the record, I wasn't referring to the OP.

I'll remember to clarify next time. You being pernickety (NO s) and all. :silly:

Hail.
"No s" lol :ols:

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

So since you and I obviously hold different opinions about this and since you believe he missed out on both players then do you believe we should attempt to lose this year ensuring we don't have to give up an entire draft to get a guy he covets? According to you he's already missed out on his two guys, do you really want to see him miss out on another?


Forgive me for leaving the rest of your post as to answer would just to keep going around around in circles. Without being privy to Shanahan's private thoughts, it's all conjecture on both our parts. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this as we hold differing opinions as you mentioned.

I answered the above question in an earlier post unrelated to yourself. I honestly don't think we'll have to tank anything. With this O, particularly as we have no competent pro QB to speak of IMHO (what the unproven Beck may or may not become aside); I think we'll end up with an abysmal record regardless. I believe we'll give our all in all the games, but ultimately come up short 9 times out of 10. Which allied to the youngsters that will be here for the long haul getting another years pro experience under their belts and taking their licks together as they grow would be a progressful season to me, even if it didn't show it in the W/L column.

Would I be happy if we intentionally tanked the year? Honestly, as much as we never would, yes, I'd take that if you gave it to me now in a heart beat. Under normal circumstances I'd scream blue murder at that notion, being a firm believer in success breeding success, with momentum carrying over from one year to the next. But these aren't normal circumstances. We're in the midst of a complete overhaul, but we still lack that elusive, vital component, the franchise QB. A component we've been waiting for, for 37 years IMHO since the last true franchise signal caller we had, SonnyJ, hung it up. After waiting that long for the most important player on this or any other team, you bet your sweet ass I'd take another dire, losing season to get what we've all craved for WAY too long now in DC. And in both Andrew Luck and Landry Jones I personally believe the potentials there in both to be that man. Both of whom will be gone maybe in the first two picks this draft. That's how high I rate the pair.



---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 04:49 PM ----------



"No s" lol :ols:

Knew you'd appreciate that man. ;).

Hail.

[Califan007]

So now your position is that we should shoot for a QB in the 11-15 range (as that is the only range where your argument holds water - dropping down to 16-20 this is not true, nor jumping up to 1-5)?

Way to change your argument as you see fit.:ols::applause::wavetowel:jump:
yet another Reading Comprehension for Beginners student, I see lol...

You'll have to show me where I said teams should SHOOT for picking 11-15. I can save you tons of time and tell you that you won't find it.

The only thing i said was that teams should try and win every game and ignore records and draft position, and I said that because there is a negligible difference between the top 10 QBs and the 11-32 QBs over the last 10 years.

So, no, I didn't change my stance lol...I just pointed out that your supposed "proof" that I was wrong simply backed up my point (and I went further into it in a later post...go read it and then break out the ol' Rationalizer and run your retort through it lol...)



But having a higher draft pick than 6 did help right?
So, instead of me pointing out the obvious, tell me what that says to you...this should be interesting lol...



The fact that there is a dip at 6-10 doesn't change the fact that QBs taken 1-5 have a higher rate of success than QBs taken 11-15, or that QBs taken 11-15 have a higher success than those taken 16-20, and those taken 16-20, etc. etc.
Oh, there are "dips" all over the chart...read my last post lol...



Can you really be arguing that taking the 3rd or 4th QB in a class is better than taking the 1st or 2nd?
:doh:...I've already spelled out, in bright magic marker lol, that I am referring ONLY to the 1st round. That the talent and franchise-quality QBs between the top 10 and outside the top10 in the 1st round is negligible...so hoping for a bad record out of a fear/belief that we NEED a top 10 pick in order to find our franchise QB is faulty.

So, no, I'm not "really" arguing that point you just described. It baffles me that some of you think I am.

But in reference to your question there, read the chart again...then read my last post ;)




Really what it boils down to is a combination of talent and enviroment. Neither should be sacrificed - and at the end of the day, the higher drafted a QB, and the better enviroment he enters, the higher probability for success.

The first part--"a combination of talent and environment"--I don't dispute at all. I'm right there withcha. :thumbsup:

But I DO dispute equating draft pick slot with "talent".

And I DO dispute that draft pick slotting is as important as "environment" as far as a franchise becoming a consistent winner.

As for the second part--"neither should be sacrificed"--I DO dispute that mediocre and awful teams sacrifice "talent" for wins when they go 7-9...or anything above 4-12 lol.

That stuff I just wrote, is a summary of the OP. Notice that nowhere in there did I say that I disputed the notion that quality, talented QBs can not be found outside the top 10. That's never been said by me. That's never been mentioned in the OP. That's some argument a few of you have decided is my point. But it's not.

Notice that nowhere in there did I say that I disputed that you're more likely to find a franchise QB in the top 10 of the 1st round than in rounds 3 and 4 lol...that's never beensaid by me. That's never been mentioned in the OP. that's some argument a fe of you have convinced yourselves is my point. But it's not.

I tried showing that drafting a QB inside the top 10 has not born more success or better results over the last 10 years than drafting outside of the top 10 in the first round.

It's the law of diminishing returns at play. That's what my OP is about.

[NLC1054]

People also tend to forget (or ignore since it helps support their argument that nothing short of sucking will make us better, which is counter-intuitive and boneheaded) that most of the recent quarterbacks who have come into the league and had success camme into stable situations where the whole game wasn't place firmly on their shoulders.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford, Vince Young, Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger...all went to teams with good offensive lines, a guy in the backfield who could run the ball, and defenses that were at least decent to bail the QB out when they have a bad day.

There's a reason why teams that draft high tend to continue to draft high year after year, and there's too many good prospects that come out of college to think they miss on franchise quarterbacks and franchise players over and over and over again. The teams that draft high are usually ill-equipped to surround a quarterback with talent. Good college quarterbacks are ruined on bad football teams that are often mismanaged with second tier players and second rate scouting. You draft a guy then hand him a playbook and scream "SAVE US!" without surrounding him with the tools to do so.

If we go 4-12 or 2-14 or whatever, it means we are a bad football team, and I know some people around here have convinced themselves we're going to blow chunks so who cares, but thinking we're going to suck so who cares is not the way to build a football team. That kind of season means we're ill equpped to draft a quarterback; it means the line sucks, it means all the receivers we draft suck, our running backs suck, and our defense sucks. It means we are not ready to draft a quarterback, because we can't protect him, figuratively and literally. It means Shanahan is on the hot seat (some of you jump for joy at that thought--YAY FOR COACHING INSTABILITY FOR THE SECOND STRAIGHT DECADE!) and on a short leash.

The reason why Jason Campbell wasn't successful here wasn't because he wasn't tough enough, or talented enough,or whatever. It's because as an organization, they failed to put the tools in place for him to succeed. It's because the fan base wanted him to be Peyton Manning right away and pinned the entire failure of the team squarely on his shoulders, and then got mad when he got mad and said he didn't feel like he was the reason the team lost, whether he was right or wrong. If JC has success in Oakland it's because they do what this team didn't; actually, ya know, support him, and build around him.

And even then, even then, 4-12 doesn't guarantee us a quarterback, or not the one we want. Hell, we went 6-10 and still BARELY only made the top 10. All those teams that skipped on a QB this year, you think they won't be looking again next year? You don't think there won't be a team with a harder schedule than us that won't do worse? We are honestly staring down the barrel at a 2012 NFL Draft where the top 5 teams could all need quarterbacks, and if we're number six, we're boned. That means (assuming they all declare) that Luck, Jones and Barkley could ALL be gone. And then what? If we draft a guy in the second round, are the expectations going to be different? No.

2-14 or 4-12, or even another 6-10 season doesn't mean we're taking the right step in rebuilding. It means we're still balls, and aren't ready to not be balls, and should be prepared to be balls for a while, because God knows that Snyder might respect Shanahan, but we start reeling off losses a third season in a row and he's gone, and there's not going to be a soul that's worth anything other than hunting for a paycheck that's gonna come here and coach and rebuild. God himself could reincarnate as a quarterback and it wouldn't make a damn bit of different.

Does a losing record improve your chances of finding your guy? Sure. Does it mean you can't find your guy outside of the top 10? No, it doesn't, which is Cali's whole fuggin' point. Not that draft position isn't important, but that picking in the top 10 or top 5 isn't NECESSARY to find the guy you want.

[addicted]

Forgive me for leaving the rest of your post as to answer would just to keep going around around in circles. Without being privy to Shanahan's private thoughts, it's all conjecture on both our parts. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this as we hold differing opinions as you mentioned.

I answered the above question in an earlier post unrelated to yourself. I honestly don't think we'll have to tank anything. With this O, particularly as we have no competent pro QB to speak of IMHO (what the unproven Beck may or may not become aside); I think we'll end up with an abysmal record regardless. I believe we'll give our all in all the games, but ultimately come up short 9 times out of 10. Which allied to the youngsters that will be here for the long haul getting another years pro experience under their belts and taking their licks together as they grow would be a progressful season to me, even if it didn't show it in the W/L column.

Would I be happy if we intentionally tanked the year? Honestly, as much as we never would, yes, I'd take that if you gave it to me now in a heart beat. Under normal circumstances I'd scream blue murder at that notion, being a firm believer in success breeding success, with momentum carrying over from one year to the next. But these aren't normal circumstances. We're in the midst of a complete overhaul, but we still lack that elusive, vital component, the franchise QB. A component we've been waiting for, for 37 years IMHO since the last true franchise signal caller we had, SonnyJ, hung it up. After waiting that long for the most important player on this or any other team, you bet your sweet ass I'd take another dire, losing season to get what we've all craved for WAY too long now in DC. And in both Andrew Luck and Landry Jones I personally believe the potentials there in both to be that man. Both of whom will be gone maybe in the first two picks this draft. That's how high I rate the pair.



Very interesting take on how you see things GHH
As you can surmise I'm guessing I have problems with lots of it but that's because I don't agree with you on this
I understand why you think that we should tank a season to get a Franchise QB
I just don't think that's the plan for what is in store here for us
In fact due to age, length of contracts, other teams needs, and the short sighted nature of the team over the years I would be very shocked to see us use our #1 next year on a QB no matter where we pick
Drafting a Franchise QB high in the draft is a huge gamble that takes time usually to develop and for a guy who's in the second of a five year deal I doubt Mike pulls it off
The Franchise QB can be found by FA, by UFA, by trade...other then just taking one of the two best in the draft in any given year
He proved this draft he will skip over the 2nd rated QB if he's on the board even if QB is a need

We shall see what happens but like it or not I don't think he will draft a QB next year with the top pick

And for the record I also don't agree with the doomy approach to this season you seem to have
We were 6-10 last year. We beat quality opponents (Packers, Bears, Eagles).
We were only blown out of 3 of 16 games, all others we could have won including losing 3 games that if we had a consistent kicker we would have won
We were 6-10, we could have been 9-7 in the first year change of the defense and new system
And now we are more improved from last year that's in a position to just get better
What are we going to lose from last year? McNabb? Really if we need him so badly then why not hold onto him another year? We have the money to? Who else contributed to last year that we lost that is going to mean we suck ass this year? To me I see no one

What I see is the forum full of stupid ideas passed around by some people like

We are going to be horrible this year
We were a total disaster last season
We are going to tank the season
We are going in the wrong direction

Sorry man but idk what's in the water out your way or better what's in my tap water but I don't see things nearly as bad as most of you out there. I see this team as it is re-signing Grossman and with this schedule we have winning at least 8 games (if the seasons 16 games long) and probably 9 or 10. I feel pretty good about this team this year. You guys will come around

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

People also tend to forget (or ignore since it helps support their argument that nothing short of sucking will make us better, which is counter-intuitive and boneheaded) that most of the recent quarterbacks who have come into the league and had success camme into stable situations where the whole game wasn't place firmly on their shoulders.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford, Vince Young, Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger...all went to teams with good offensive lines, a guy in the backfield who could run the ball, and defenses that were at least decent to bail the QB out when they have a bad day.


Ignoring Flacco, who was taken 18; Raplesberger who went at 11 to a good Steelers team suffering it's only losing season in the past 11; and Vince Young who was drafted by a TN team on the back of two straight horrid losing season in the midst of a downward spiral; the other three were drafted to pretty darn bad football teams in far from good environments.

And aside from how we address the O-line once FA starts, we have a top echelon pass catching tandem at TE; and a nicely developing, young, quality group of receivers and backs. All great assets for a rookie QB to have at his disposal. Throw in a pass happy OC, and a fast developing D in year two of a totally new system with improving personnel all the time; and the situation on this team going forward isn't as bleak as you paint it IMHO.

Hail.

[Skinsinparadise]

its much more simpler than this though. the worse you do, the higher pick you have. you have more options at that higher pick than you do with a lower one, obviously. can you hit on a QB past the top 10? sure. you can hit on a QB anywhere. I'd still feel a lot safer knowing we have whatever QB we want coming out.

and if luck is as good as everyone thinks he is, i have no problem sucking this year for a shot at him.

after seeing the nats snag strasburg and harper, the future is a lot brighter (and more fun) when you end up drafting a potential elite player.

To me that's the operative point. On pure theory yeah we all accept there are no absolutes in sports on just about anything. But you pay the big bucks to personnel IMO partly to make specific player evaluations, ala how do the current slate of Qb's look like. Jake Locker was a top ten pick in arguably a weak draft class for Qb's. Locker might end up being drafted around the same place as Landry Jones but Jones might be considered the much better prospect. I am not picking on Locker, could be anyone. With Qb's in particular there seems to be richer drafts. Does Andrew Luck's prospects pertain to David Carr for example because they were both #1 picks? If we went 4-12 last year would that have solved our Qb situation? the draft geeks didn't think so. If we go 4-12 this year would it solve our Qb situation, the draft geeks think yes. whether they are right or not got no clue but it plays into the point that not every year is equal and its IMO not a purely theoretical conversation but its a player by player situation. And yes, there are no guarantees but what does that prove?

[Califan007]

When there’s no logical reason for it, the jagged lines in a graph indicate that the sample size wasn’t large enough to iron out the kinks. A sample size of 300 might have jagged lines,. A larger sample of 3000 would show the same pattern with a smoother line.
So basically you're saying that the chart is useless and can't be used as proof that I'm wrong lol...

And if you have to wait until 3,000 QBs have been drafted before you can start to make any analysis of draft position in the first round, you're gonna have to wait until the year 2948 :ols:...yeah, let's get together then and see how smooth the line appears then. I'll buy you a beer at the floating space bar on Mars when we do lol... :thumbsup:




The picks between 11-15 in whatever graph you're talking about would be in line with the others with a bigger sample. There's no good reason that picks in that range would succeed at a higher level than those in the range above it.
yes there is, at least in context of this thread and my OP. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

The higher you get to the top, the harder it is to make gains...to the point that you have to start wondering if the cost is worth the gains you'd receive.

From Wiki, because Wiki is never wrong lol:

"The law of diminishing returns...states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant, will at some point yield lower per-unit returns."

In NFL terms, that means jumping from draft pick #100 to pick #5 to choose a QB would by itself yield noticeable returns in terms of possible talent chosen, even if you don't change anything else. Jumping from #15 to #5, though, would yield far, far smaller returns for the team by itself in terms of possible talent, to the point that you have to wonder if the "costs" (in this case, wins) is worth it.

At that point, you can't "hold all other factors constant"...you'd need to change other factors on the team instead of holding them constant--which in the OP, I said would be like a bad/mediocre team "changing" its culture, fostering a winning environment, conducting better scouting, improving the coaching, the front office, etc...without changing those factors, having a draft pick in the top 10 will yield negligible results.

And, yes, there are individual years where the talent level between a QB at 5 might be significantly better than the rest of the QBs in that draft...but I'm not going by a year-by-year analysis...I'm giving a general overall phylosophical approach towards how to view upgrading the QB spot and how draft position facilitates that upgrade.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

This notion that we can package together a deal to trade up for a QB if we're so set on one I keep reading ..... aside from the fact there's NO way you'd gamble the cost of what it would take to get Luck and probably Jones if he progresses again this year at the rapid rate he has so far; we're still in the midst of a complete rebuild. In a circumstance like ours, with still a bunch of holes to fill as we continue to get younger with still a lot of players to move on next pre-season; gambling away one or two drafts worth of first and second round picks would be counter productive in the bigger picture. If we didn't have so much else to attend to, you could make a case. But we do. And you can't in all realism.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

NLC1054 ~ Does a losing record improve your chances of finding your guy? Sure. Does it mean you can't find your guy outside of the top 10? No, it doesn't, which is Cali's whole fuggin' point. Not that draft position isn't important, but that picking in the top 10 or top 5 isn't NECESSARY to find the guy you want.

Only an idiot would disagree if that was his point.

Cali thinks he has debunked the idea that a draft pick in 1-10 is better than a draft pick in 11-32. Check this out:


Tris: What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.


Cali: And that's been debunked lol ...

[Califan007]

People also tend to forget (or ignore since it helps support their argument that nothing short of sucking will make us better, which is counter-intuitive and boneheaded) that most of the recent quarterbacks who have come into the league and had success camme into stable situations where the whole game wasn't place firmly on their shoulders.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford, Vince Young, Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger...all went to teams with good offensive lines, a guy in the backfield who could run the ball, and defenses that were at least decent to bail the QB out when they have a bad day.

There's a reason why teams that draft high tend to continue to draft high year after year, and there's too many good prospects that come out of college to think they miss on franchise quarterbacks and franchise players over and over and over again. The teams that draft high are usually ill-equipped to surround a quarterback with talent. Good college quarterbacks are ruined on bad football teams that are often mismanaged with second tier players and second rate scouting. You draft a guy then hand him a playbook and scream "SAVE US!" without surrounding him with the tools to do so.

If we go 4-12 or 2-14 or whatever, it means we are a bad football team, and I know some people around here have convinced themselves we're going to blow chunks so who cares, but thinking we're going to suck so who cares is not the way to build a football team. That kind of season means we're ill equpped to draft a quarterback; it means the line sucks, it means all the receivers we draft suck, our running backs suck, and our defense sucks. It means we are not ready to draft a quarterback, because we can't protect him, figuratively and literally. It means Shanahan is on the hot seat (some of you jump for joy at that thought--YAY FOR COACHING INSTABILITY FOR THE SECOND STRAIGHT DECADE!) and on a short leash.


DEFINITELY something else i was attempting to point out in my OP :yes:...

If we go 8-8 or--gasp--even 9-7, that's not gonna ruin this franchise...it's not gonna set us up for more years of mediocrity. What it means is that we are that much closer to having the right "environment" for ANY quarterback to succeed in. We should be hoping that our players are as good as possible and that we win as much as possible in order to place those organizational factors into place, and because it will mean we are finally reaching that point where our players are indeed maximizing their talents.

If we end up 3-13, then it means we do suck all over the freakin roster and coaching staff lol...and we have far more to worry about than whether or not we pick at #7 or #14.

*Again, though...the exception is if there is a once-in-a-decade QB that you absolutely are sold on...at that point, just go get the guy, trade your draft picks. But if you can't get him, don't convince yourself that you're screwed. Because you ain't lol...

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 03:35 PM ----------


This notion that we can package together a deal to trade up for a QB if we're so set on one I keep reading ..... aside from the fact there's NO way you'd gamble the cost of what it would take to get Luck and probably Jones if he progresses again this year at the rapid rate he has so far; we're still in the midst of a complete rebuild. In a circumstance like ours, with still a bunch of holes to fill as we continue to get younger with still a lot of players to move on next pre-season; gambling away one or two drafts worth of first and second round picks would be counter productive in the bigger picture. If we didn't have so much else to attend to, you could make a case. But we do. And you can't in all realism.

Hail.
If we're full of holes and in desperate need of an overhaul, then we most likely won't need to worry about trading up, at least not a lot.

And if we're drafting low enough to make trading up a task, then that means we're not full of holes lol...

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 03:36 PM ----------


Only an idiot would disagree if that was his point.

Cali thinks he has debunked the idea that a draft pick in 1-10 is better than a draft pick in 11-32. Check this out:

I have. You saying I haven't is irrelevant.

Wait...lemme get into OF mode and respond again lol

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 03:37 PM ----------


Only an idiot would disagree if that was his point.

Cali thinks he has debunked the idea that a draft pick in 1-10 is better than a draft pick in 11-32. Check this out:

Nonsense. Prove I haven't.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of 7th grade math should be able to do so. Nobody has yet.

You have no argument.

[kyousukeneko]

expecially in this next draft class, it is at least 5 deep in first round talnet QB

luck
barkley
jones
foles
cousin

with a few later round sleepers that could rise
such as
Ryan Tannehill
Brandon Weeden

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If we end up 3-13, then it means we do suck all over the freakin roster and coaching staff lol...and we have far more to worry about than whether or not we pick at #7 or #14.

Using your example Cali man, as I've read it often recently; but I can't agree with this at all.

Results aren't the be all and end all to a team progressing. We could very well continue to improve on defense, play teams to the wire in keeping with the new attitude Shanahan has instilled, get another years invaluable experience from the rooks and young players in the pro game; yet come up short with a poor W record due to an offense that can't execute, in the main, thanks to the poor standard of QB directing them.

A scenario like that to me wouldn't say we sucked. It would say we've taken another step in a lot of areas in the right direction, but we know the one vital component we need to add to really start moving forward. You can't win consistently in today's NFL without good to darn good QB play. Just because your losing in the main through that shouldn't reflect on the rest of the team if their holding up their end.

If we had anything like a competent pro QB that could finish things off last year instead of leaving the useless Gano out there most of the time to try get 3, allied to the way the D kept is games, we'd of had a far better record than we ended up with IMHO.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Cali ~ So basically you're saying that the chart is useless and can't be used as proof that I'm wrong lol...

Nope. You have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Sample size explains the jagged lines. That’s it.


And if you have to wait until 3,000 QBs have been drafted before you can start to make any analysis of draft position in the first round, you're gonna have to wait until the year

Another jump to an unwarranted conclusion.


yes there is, at least in context of this thread and my OP. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

"The law of diminishing returns...states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant, will at some point yield lower per-unit returns."

Now, you are just throwing crap against the wall.

Notice that it said “in all productive processes.” Diminishing returns doesn’t apply. Draft selections are an example of a decision process nothing is being produced.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 06:57 PM ----------


..Nonsense. Prove I haven't..This is a repetition of the request you think is so cute.

I'll repeat the answer:

The logic of your position has been countered and shown to be unsound. To impartial minds, that's proof.

[martytheman]

Sorry to say it op, but the collective IQ here at ES will have a million reasons to prove you wrong.
Andrew Luck is THE SAVIOR of this and any other franchise, no arguing about it.
To think otherwise is to deny reality, because he is a can't miss prospect, and it shows you know nothing about football :)
Hell just see my sig for examples!

/sarcasm

[paloosa]

A lot of information and comparisons that really don't make a hill of beans. A QB that is taken by a team is like shooting craps. It is a gamble. The QB's that have been successful in the NFL are successful because they have the ability to lead. The ones that haven't been successful just can't handle the pressure of being the "MAN!" You can't teach that. The ones that have won championships have done it because they took charge of the team and everyone knows it whether it is the players on the field, on the sidelines, or the people in the stands. They know who is in charge. So anyone can do the comparison and come up with those results but you just can't evaluate the 'It" factor.

[NLC1054]

Using your example Cali man, as I've read it often recently; but I can't agree with this at all.

Results aren't the be all and end all to a team progressing. We could very well continue to improve on defense, play teams to the wire in keeping with the new attitude Shanahan has instilled, get another years invaluable experience from the rooks and young players in the pro game; yet come up short with a poor W record due to an offense that can't execute, in the main, thanks to the poor standard of QB directing them.

A scenario like that to me wouldn't say we sucked. It would say we've taken another step in a lot of areas in the right direction, but we know the one vital component we need to add to really start moving forward. You can't win consistently in today's NFL without good to darn good QB play. Just because your losing in the main through that shouldn't reflect on the rest of the team if their holding up their end.

If we had anything like a competent pro QB that could finish things off last year instead of leaving the useless Gano out there most of the time to try get 3, allied to the way the D kept is games, we'd of had a far better record than we ended up with IMHO.

Hail.

...You're losing me.

I can't see us "playing teams close" all season long but coming up with less wins then last year, nor can I see pretty much anyone, from fans to media to Dan Snyder, somehow thinking that having less wins then we had in 2010 means that somehow, we improved. I can't see anybody on the team being proud that they "kept it close" all season, but ended up with less wins. I can't see how a team that was so close to winning so many games last year somehow winning less is improvement.

Very rarely do teams that end up with those kinds of records have some sort of bright spot. How we were 4-12 with a top 10 ranked defenses is beyond me, but it still meant that the D couldn't close out games either, despite the ranking. But that season was the exception, not the rule, and teams drafting in the top 5 typically have holes all over the place. Less wins than last year means we didn't do a good job filling holes this year and that we're still in a crap position for drafting a quarterback.

[darrelgreenie]

The QBs that have been successful overwhelming come from teams with a good FO, good coaching but specifically at the QB postion either HC or playcaller, and at least decent offensive talent (i.e. pass protection).

Imo teams with these factors tend to have more success w/ their QB regardless of where they draft their QBs then the rest of the league.

[bulldog]

The Redskins are not going to leap over the Eagles and Giants in 2011. The team is going to need a strong 2012 offseason and draft to pick up momentum and climb in the East.

While drafting in the top 5 of each round after going 4-12 is not going to guarantee Andrew Luck or another quarterback, it WILL give promise that this team can acquire another 5-6 players who can be solid contributors at reasonable cost, and a real playmaker with that top overall selection regardless of position.

[Oldfan]

The QBs that have been successful overwhelming come from teams with a good FO, good coaching but specifically at the QB postion either HC or playcaller, and at least decent offensive talent (i.e. pass protection).

Imo teams with these factors tend to have more success w/ their QB regardless of where they draft their QBs then the rest of the league.On the same point, another poster wrote earlier that the first round QBs drafter later were going to better teams, so this would skew the stats somewhat in favor of the later picks.

[Califan007]

Nope. You have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Sample size explains the jagged lines. That’s it.
OF, you can cherry-pick the number of acceptable years to use but it won’t disprove a general rule.



Now, you are just throwing crap against the wall.
I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable parallel and I explained my reasoning. It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable.



Notice that it said “in all productive processes.” Diminishing returns doesn’t apply. Draft selections are an example of a decision process nothing is being produced.
Wins are being produced, yards are being produced, TDs are being produced, and if you go by your viewpoint towards things, losses are being produced in service of a higher draft pick.



This is a repetition of the request you think is so cute.

I'll repeat the answer:

The logic of your position has been countered and shown to be unsound. To impartial minds, that's proof.

You can say it, but it's not true.

---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 04:41 PM ----------


A lot of information and comparisons that really don't make a hill of beans. A QB that is taken by a team is like shooting craps. It is a gamble. The QB's that have been successful in the NFL are successful because they have the ability to lead. The ones that haven't been successful just can't handle the pressure of being the "MAN!" You can't teach that. The ones that have won championships have done it because they took charge of the team and everyone knows it whether it is the players on the field, on the sidelines, or the people in the stands. They know who is in charge. So anyone can do the comparison and come up with those results but you just can't evaluate the 'It" factor.
Do you have anything that actually disproves anything I've said, other than your opinion? lol :)...

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Less wins than last year means we didn't do a good job filling holes this year and that we're still in a crap position for drafting a quarterback.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how you can make progress even if your not winning, but I don't understand the above. How can winning less games than last year put us in a 'crap' position for drafting a QB when there's potentially some darn good ones that will go real high?

My turn to be lost.

Hail.

[Califan007]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how you can make progress even if your not winning, but I don't understand the above. How can winning less games than last year put us in a 'crap' position for drafting a QB when there's potentially some darn good ones that will go real high?

My turn to be lost.

Hail.
I think he means that, if we lose more games it means that we have too many holes/not enough talent, and the team would be in a "crap position" in terms of how well set-up it would be for a QB to come in and be able to make a difference.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Thank you Cali.

Makes sense, even if I don't agree.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Cali ~ OF, you can cherry-pick the number of acceptable years to use but it won’t disprove a general rule.

If you are going to present a statistics based argument, it should conform to these basic rules:

1) Your position should make sense logically;

2) The sample size should be sufficient;

3) Your stats should use objective standards.

Your attempt failed on all three counts. Now, there’s nothing wrong with setting out to prove your 1) counterintuitive position, but when you do it, the standard of proof gets higher. You will need a much bigger 2) sample size and 3) you should use games started or some other objective standard to measure QB performance.


I gave you what I’m calling a reasonable parallel and I explained my reasoning. It’s not up to me to prove that it’s reasonable.

I’m not asking you to prove it. I know you can’t.


Wins are being produced, yards are being produced, TDs are being produced, and if you go by your viewpoint towards things, losses are being produced in service of a higher draft pick.

I think you should stop before you reveal much more. You have already proven you don’t understand the basics of Statistics; now you’re tipping your hand on Economics.

[blindlywewander]

If you are going to present a statistics based argument, it should conform to these basic rules:

1) Your position should make sense logically;

2) The sample size should be sufficient;

3) Your stats should use objective standards.

Your attempt failed on all three counts. Now, there’s nothing wrong with setting out to prove your 1) counterintuitive position, but when you do it, the standard of proof gets higher. You will need a much bigger 2) sample size and 3) you should use games started or some other objective standard to measure QB performance.



I’m not asking you to prove it. I know you can’t.

I think you should stop before you reveal much more. You have already proven you don’t understand the basics of Statistics; now you’re tipping your hand on Economics.

:ols: OF, you are so sure of yourself. Have you ever been wrong in your life? If so, did you write it down? I feel like you being wrong would be something you should mark down like Halley's commit.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

:ols: OF, you are so sure of yourself. Have you ever been wrong in your life? If so, did you write it down? I feel like you being wrong would be something you should mark down like Halley's commit.

Like every woman I've ever known, Of is ALWAYS right even when he's wrong.

Best not to argue the point, just smile and wave.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

:ols: OF, you are so sure of yourself. Have you ever been wrong in your life? If so, did you write it down? I feel like you being wrong would be something you should mark down like Halley's commit.


Like every woman I've ever known, Of is ALWAYS right even when he's wrong.

Best not to argue the point, just smile and wave.

Hail.This is a bad rap, guys. In my last thread, I conceded being wrong on a significant part of my argument. In the thread before that, I conceded being wrong at least twice on minor points. Yet,in both threads I was accused of never admitting to being wrong.

Fact is, it would be a poor debate strategy not to admit being wrong when it’s obvious, especially when it loses a battle but not the war.

I make lots of predictions. No one makes lots of predictions if they have a problem being wrong. My overall prediction record in this forum is pretty good, but I’ve had some spectacular failures. Run through the threads in my history and you’ll find a few.

I AM sure of myself. That's why I don't have a problem admitting to being wrong. It doesn't happen that often because a lot of thought goes into my positions before I post them.

[tshile]

Don't worry OF, i know you're not a woman :)

[blindlywewander]

This is a bad rap, guys. In my last thread, I conceded being wrong on a significant part of my argument. In the thread before that, I conceded being wrong at least twice on minor points. Yet,in both threads I was accused of never admitting to being wrong.

Fact is, it would be a poor debate strategy not to admit being wrong when it’s obvious, especially when it loses a battle but not the war.

I make lots of predictions. My overall prediction record in this forum is pretty good, but I’ve had some spectacular failures. Run through the threads in my history and you’ll find a few.

I AM sure of myself. That's why I don't have a problem admitting to being wrong. It doesn't happen that often because a lot of thought goes into my positions before I post them.

I'm just giving you a hard time. Your brain is just twice as big as us normal people so we gotta compensate ;)

[Califan007]

So anyway lol :ols:...


Drafting a QB in the top 10 in the 1st round does not give a team a significant advantage over drafting a QB outside of top 10 in the first round. Or if you prefer, drafting a QB outside of the top 10 in the 1st round does not damage a team in any significant or measurable way. It's a combination of way too many other team factors and basic luck negating a lot of the value of having a higher draft pick, as well as the law of diminishing returns showing that the closer you get to the top, the harder it becomes to achieve a noticeable gain from your actions (the gains would be increased wins and better production from the QB spot, and the actions would be losing to end up with a better draft spot, trading draft picks/players to jump into the top 10, etc, etc.).

Individual drafts can of course have their exceptions. But as a guiding draft principle in today's NFL, GMs looking for a QB in the first round would be wise to not place inflated stock in to having a top 10 draft pick.

[Oldfan]

I'm just giving you a hard time. ;)Not a problem.

Just between the two of us... I know that I often come off as condescending. That's deliberate. It pisses off the argumentative type posters whose only goal in debate is to piss me off.

My debating style adapts to my opponent.

[illone]

I think you are misunderstanding people when they say 4 wins.

Coincidence due to the fact that Andrew Luck is coming out, and most fans would love to see him on our team and since it's assumed he will be taken in the top 5 of the draft, then people have been throwing around the 1-4 wins thought.

You are correct, though. There is no way to suggest that 4 wins will guarantee us the franchise QB we want/need.

[Califan007]

I think you are misunderstanding people when they say 4 wins.

Coincidence due to the fact that Andrew Luck is coming out, and most fans would love to see him on our team and since it's assumed he will be taken in the top 5 of the draft, then people have been throwing around the 1-4 wins thought.
If the conversation stayed with those thoughts, this thread would have never been created :ols:...

But I've heard WAY too many claim that going 7-9 would be much, MUCH worse than going 4-12, and that it would "guarantee" mediocrity would continue over the next several years...and it goes beyond Andrew Luck in that many of those conversations bring up the fact that we have "no talent" and "tons of holes to fill", so obviously we NEED a top 10 pick to help right the ship. They never seem to believe having a record of 8-8 would hold value...all it would do is give the Skins a lower draft pick and lead to more years of 7-9 or 8-8 seasons with "maybe a playoff appearance here and there". So it goes beyond talking about one singular QB, and instead spreads to an overall perception and viewpoint about the importance of having a top 10 draft pick to rebuilding the team...to the point that tanking the season actually becomes debated. Hell, there was even a sportswriter who made that "tanking" discussion the topic of one of his articles lol...


You are correct, though. There is no way to suggest that 4 wins will guarantee us the franchise QB we want/need.
While that's true, that's not exactly the point I was making or trying to defend here lol :yes:...the point was that some here are placing too much value on having a top 10 pick when it comes to drafting a QB in today's NFL.

[illone]

It pisses off the argumentative type posters whose only goal in debate is to piss me off.


But that just makes you look argumentative and trying to piss people off. Do you see the irony in this?:ols:

[s0crates]

I'm with Califan on this.

I cannot believe how much traction this "tank the season" nonsense is getting.

[illone]

While that's true, that's not exactly the point I was making or trying to defend here lol :yes:...the point was that some here are placing too much value on having a top 10 pick when it comes to drafting a QB in today's NFL.


I just want Andrew Luck to don the B&G so I'm firmly in the camp that believes the team needs to win 4 or less to be in the right position. That doesnt mean I believe the team wins 7 or 8 games and is hosed from getting a good QB, just hosed from getting the best QB in 2012 draft.

See the difference?

I do think mediocrity will continue if the Skins don't get a better Qb than we've had over the past decade, but surely good Qbs can be had in ANY round of the draft, so I don't give up hope, I just assume more of the same if the team continues to win 6-8 games consistently.

[Califan007]

But that just makes you look argumentative and trying to piss people off. Do you see the irony in this?:ols:

he's too self-centered to see it that way lol...He doesn't view people's responses to his posts--regardless of how they respond--as being valid attacks on logic and analysis detached from the person using the logic or doing the analysis...no, they only respond the way they do because of him :ols:...they have no other goal behind their posts than to piss him off...he's the sole reason for their words being typed.

And interestingly enough, he never plays a role IN them apparently being pissed off.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 02:08 PM ----------


I just want Andrew Luck to don the B&G so I'm firmly in the camp that believes the team needs to win 4 or less to be in the right position. That doesnt mean I believe the team wins 7 or 8 games and is hosed from getting a good QB, just hosed from getting the best QB in 2012 draft.

See the difference?
Definitely see it....but that's not the type of viewpoint that lead me to making this thread lol...



I do think mediocrity will continue if the Skins don't get a better Qb than we've had over the past decade, but surely good Qbs can be had in ANY round of the draft, so I don't give up hope, I just assume more of the same if the team continues to win 6-8 games consistently.
But what's leading you to think the team will continue to win 6-8 games consistently? There are some here who feel doing so this upcoming season more or less guarantees that outcome.

[Oldfan]

But that just makes you look argumentative and trying to piss people off. Do you see the irony in this?:ols:No. I don't see that at all. I don't use the same bag of tricks that the argumentative types employ. I debate straight up, but add a layer of condescension. I give them what they deserve.

[illone]

But what's leading you to think the team will continue to win 6-8 games consistently? There are some here who feel doing so this upcoming season more or less guarantees that outcome.

Since Snyder has taken over the team averages 6-8 wins per year so just going off the average. :ols:

[Califan007]

I'm with Califan on this.

I cannot believe how much traction this "tank the season" nonsense is getting.

:yes: Me, either...If I had the time, I'd post a crapload of quoted posts that keep insisting that we're screwed if we don't go in one extreme or the other...we need to either have double-digit wins and have Beck turn into at least Tony Romo, or we need to make the 2008 Lions look good by comparison :yes:...there's no value in going 8-8 in some ES members' collective eyes. there just isn't. It will simply be another mediocre season that will undoubtedly lead to even more mediocre seasons.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 02:13 PM ----------


Since Snyder has taken over the team averages 6-8 wins per year so just going off the average. :ols:

And that's with his fair share of top 10 picks to boot lol...so apparently drafting Andrew Luck won't change that outcome lol ;)...

[martytheman]

I'm with Califan on this.

I cannot believe how much traction this "tank the season" nonsense is getting.

Agreed. Numbskulls like that.....it's like having a legion of Vinny Cerratos as fans... scary.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

This is a bad rap, guys. In my last thread, I conceded being wrong on a significant part of my argument. In the thread before that, I conceded being wrong at least twice on minor points. Yet,in both threads I was accused of never admitting to being wrong.

Fact is, it would be a poor debate strategy not to admit being wrong when it’s obvious, especially when it loses a battle but not the war.

I make lots of predictions. No one makes lots of predictions if they have a problem being wrong. My overall prediction record in this forum is pretty good, but I’ve had some spectacular failures. Run through the threads in my history and you’ll find a few.

I AM sure of myself. That's why I don't have a problem admitting to being wrong. It doesn't happen that often because a lot of thought goes into my positions before I post them.

That was a jokey back handed compliment Of, not a slight on your character. Don't take it literally.

I don't think I'm wrong to say there's a mutual appreciation between the two of us and you certainly know where I stand when it comes to your contribution to the rich fabric of this place.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

That was a jokey back handed compliment Of, not a slight on your character. Don't take it literally.

I don't think I'm wrong to say there's a mutual appreciation between the two of us and you certainly know where I stand when it comes to your contribution to the rich fabric of this place.

Hail.Don't worry about it, GHH. We're good.

[illone]

And that's with his fair share of top 10 picks to boot lol...so apparently drafting Andrew Luck won't change that outcome lol ;)...


No top QB's tho;).

Just think, the Skins were one pick away from Aaron Rodgers. Do you think Gibbs would have been smart enough to draft him over campbell had both been sitting there when the Skins traded up?

[Califan007]

No top QB's tho;).
LoL...true, that. :yes:

Then again, our only top 10 QB drafted over the past 30+ years was Heath stinkin' Shuler :doh:...



Just think, the Skins were one pick away from Aaron Rodgers. Do you think Gibbs would have been smart enough to draft him over campbell had both been sitting there when the Skins traded up?
You know what?...I have asked myself that numerous times. Gibbs very well might have still taken Campbell. I can't recall if he ever made any visits with Rodgers like he did with Campbell...and the reports at the time were that Gibbs made the trade specifically TO get Jason Campbell...not just to get a QB.

So, honestly?...I dunno lol :ols:...

[skinfan2k]

lets go 0-16 to get andrew luck!

[illone]

To clarify my stance, I think this team will be more of the same over the next decade unless an epic bad season occurs and the Skins "luck" into a top pick and the guy is actually good.

See what I did there?

Anything can happen. Beck could be the 2nd coming and if he's anywhere as good as Schaub Skins might be able to compete with him, but I still say the Skins need to get a Cutler type kid and groom him to win.

:2cents:

[Califan007]

To clarify my stance, I think this team will be more of the same over the next decade unless an epic bad season occurs and the Skins "luck" into a top pick and the guy is actually good.

See what I did there?

Anything can happen. Beck could be the 2nd coming and if he's anywhere as good as Schaub Skins might be able to compete with him, but I still say the Skins need to get a Cutler type kid and groom him to win.

:2cents:

What's ironic is that Cutler was not drafted in the top 10...and the team that drafted him had gone 13-3 the season before lol :ols:...

[Oldfan]

Drafting a QB in the top 10 in the 1st round does not give a team a significant advantage over drafting a QB outside of top 10 in the first round. Or if you prefer, drafting a QB outside of the top 10 in the 1st round does not damage a team in any significant or measurable way. It's a combination of way too many other team factors and basic luck negating a lot of the value of having a higher draft pick, as well as the law of diminishing returns showing that the closer you get to the top, the harder it becomes to achieve a noticeable gain from your actions (the gains would be increased wins and better production from the QB spot, and the actions would be losing to end up with a better draft spot, trading draft picks/players to jump into the top 10, etc, etc.).

Individual drafts can of course have their exceptions. But as a guiding draft principle in today's NFL, GMs looking for a QB in the first round would be wise to not place inflated stock in to having a top 10 draft pick.

DRAFTMETRICS came up with stats that conflict with yours. They looked at QBs drafted over 20 years (1991-2010)

27 QBs drafted 1-10
20 hits (successful to moderately successfull) 6 busts one TBD.

19 QBs drafted 11-32
9 hits, 10 busts

I have the same criticism of their study as I do yours. They used subjective judgments to determine hits and misses.

However, their results are what would be expected logically -- a much higher hit rate in picks 1-10.

Your results don't make sense.


http://draftmetrics.com/

[SkinsTillIDie]

I think there's a lot going on in this thread. This is what I'm getting -- Theoretically, the higher you pick, the greater odds you have at getting the best possible QB. This much is obvious. Naturally, it is significantly more advantageous to have the opportunity to pick any of the top 5 QB prospects rather then be limited to drafting one of two or three of the top 5 prospects. Regardless of whether or not another team may mis-scout a player.

However, and Califan's post falls in line with this -- the reality of the NFL is that not advantageous for your franchise to have a 2-14 record. And it is not disadvantageous to have an 8-8 season instead of a 2-14 season, despite the lower subsequent draft status. Essentially, picking higher in the draft has little to no bearing on the ultimate success and long-term viability of the quarterback when compared to a QB drafted a bit later in the first round. For a vast number of reasons, most of which have been listed in the thread.

Many here want Andrew Luck. Don't we all. That would mean that we have to finish 32nd out of 32 teams, likely with a 1-15 record. This, quite simply, won't happen -- and unless we're hit with an epic amount of injuries, one of those seasons where we lose 9 starters to season-long injuries and are forced to start 11 rookies -- we're not going to face such a season. And the point of the thread (and correct me if I'm mistaken), is that this isn't a bad thing. (Novel, isn't it?). A 7-9 or 8-8 season doesn't hurt the franchise, we can still get our franchise quarterback. This really isn't a matter of "we'll get a better player picking #2 than at picking #14."

It's all the more ridiculous that there are many hoping we tank (in essence) because we still know so little about the quarterbacks that will be available in next year's draft. Where did Cam Newton come from? Was there a single scout who had him pinned merely as a draft pick a year ago? Let alone #1 overall. Not to mention all of the post-draft risers via workouts and advanced scouting (i.e. Jay Cutler). Or a surprisingly disappointing season for a presumed top-5 prospect (i.e. Matt Leinart, Jake Locker).

What Califan's OP conveys is this: we are NOT in a worse-off position long-term for finishing 8-8 rather then having a tank season and getting a top 5 pick. And anyone hoping we lose is downright foolish

[skinfan2k]

Most QBs who have great careers in the NFL have great careers in college. Newton is an exception

[SkinsTillIDie]

Most QBs who have great careers in the NFL have great careers in college. Newton is an exception

What? And most QB busts have great careers in college. Whoever we draft in the mid-round will have a "great career in college."

And just off the top of my head, Jay Cutler and Josh Freeman had rather underwhelming stats. Franchise quarterbacks drafted outside the top 10 picks.

[Califan007]

I think there's a lot going on in this thread. This is what I'm getting -- Theoretically, the higher you pick, the greater odds you have at getting the best possible QB. This much is obvious. Naturally, it is significantly more advantageous to have the opportunity to pick any of the top 5 QB prospects rather then be limited to drafting one of two or three of the top 5 prospects. Regardless of whether or not another team may mis-scout a player.

However, and Califan's post falls in line with this -- the reality of the NFL is that not advantageous for your franchise to have a 2-14 record. And it is not disadvantageous to have an 8-8 season instead of a 2-14 season, despite the lower subsequent draft status. Essentially, picking higher in the draft has little to no bearing on the ultimate success and long-term viability of the quarterback when compared to a QB drafted a bit later in the first round. For a vast number of reasons, most of which have been listed in the thread.

Many here want Andrew Luck. Don't we all. That would mean that we have to finish 32nd out of 32 teams, likely with a 1-15 record. This, quite simply, won't happen -- and unless we're hit with an epic amount of injuries, one of those seasons where we lose 9 starters to season-long injuries and are forced to start 11 rookies -- we're not going to face such a season. And the point of the thread (and correct me if I'm mistaken), is that this isn't a bad thing. (Novel, isn't it?). A 7-9 or 8-8 season doesn't hurt the franchise, we can still get our franchise quarterback. This really isn't a matter of "we'll get a better player picking #2 than at picking #14."

It's all the more ridiculous that there are many hoping we tank (in essence) because we still know so little about the quarterbacks that will be available in next year's draft. Where did Cam Newton come from? Was there a single scout who had him pinned merely as a draft pick a year ago? Let alone #1 overall. Not to mention all of the post-draft risers via workouts and advanced scouting (i.e. Jay Cutler). Or a surprisingly disappointing season for a presumed top-5 prospect (i.e. Matt Leinart, Jake Locker).

What Califan's OP conveys is this: we are NOT in a worse-off position long-term for finishing 8-8 rather then having a tank season and getting a top 5 pick. And anyone hoping we lose is downright foolish

You pretty much nailed it :yes: :applause:...

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 06:45 PM ----------


DRAFTMETRICS came up with stats that conflict with yours. They looked at QBs drafted over 20 years (1991-2010)

27 QBs drafted 1-10
20 hits (successful to moderately successfull) 6 busts one TBD.
Do you really believe there have only been 6 QB busts in the top 10 over the last TWENTY years?

They don't consider Tim Couch, David Carr, Rick Mirer, Alex Smith or Joey Harrington busts. Their threshold for avoiding the "bust" label is rather low.

I would imagine that every single team that drafts a QB in the top 10 would consider it a wasted draft pick if they end up benching or cutting that QB within his first 4 years in the league.

And that's what I used as the identifier, because we would NOT be happy with drafting a QB in the top 10, and then only getting mediocre QB play for a few years then cutting him loose due to poor play. We weren't happy with that concerning Campbell or Ramsey, and they were drafted #25 and #32 lol...

Speaking of which, they list Campbell as "successful"...I would bump him down to their "moderately successful" group that they use instead (although I would still keep him in my "misses" category). And I would bump Tim Couch, David Carr, Rick Mirer, Alex Smith and Joey Harrington down to the "bust" category.

That, to me, would leave the count as such:

27 QBs drafted 1-10
15 hits (successful to moderately successful), 11 busts, one TBD

That's a 55% "hit" rate. Over the past 10 years, the "hit" rate has been 47%.

I do think it's telling that they say "the 9 QBs taken between #11 and #20 were fairly successful", with (by their standards, at least) only two "flops". Using their numbers and evaluation, that means that the success rate of QBs picked between 11-20 is an impressive 78%...which dwarfs the top 10 "hit" rate percentage.

Which would actually help back up my point lol :cool:...

[Oldfan]

SkinsTilIDie ~ Naturally, it is significantly more advantageous to have the opportunity to pick any of the top 5 QB prospects rather then be limited to drafting one of two or three of the top 5 prospects. Regardless of whether or not another team may mis-scout a player.

However, and Califan's post falls in line with this -- the reality of the NFL is that not advantageous for your franchise to have a 2-14 record.

It is a disadvantage in the draft obviously. That's the point here.


And it is not disadvantageous to have an 8-8 season instead of a 2-14 season, despite the lower subsequent draft status.

I don't know how you can say that as though it's a general rule.. It would most certainly be a disadvantage if the team used a lot of old vets to get to 8-8... and how else are they likely to get there?


Essentially, picking higher in the draft has little to no bearing on the ultimate success and long-term viability of the quarterback when compared to a QB drafted a bit later in the first round. For a vast number of reasons, most of which have been listed in the thread.

Could you be more specific? What reasons convince you that a QB picked 1-10 would not be more likely to help the team than one picked 11-32?


What Califan's OP conveys is this: we are NOT in a worse-off position long-term for finishing 8-8 rather then having a tank season and getting a top 5 pick. And anyone hoping we lose is downright foolish

Califan's opponents in this thread are not arguing that we should tank the season. Cali, ranted about posters like that, but his argument isn't about that. We are debating Califan's position that a draft pick in the 1-10 range would not offer more likelihood of getting a grade A QB than one in the 11-32 range.

You unknowingly disagreed with him when you said: "Theoretically, the higher you pick, the greater odds you have at getting the best possible QB. This much is obvious." Califan is claiming that his stats disprove that.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 11:58 PM ----------


Califan ~ Do you really believe there have only been 6 QB busts in the top 10 over the last TWENTY years?

So, now you want to challenge another stats compiler's subjective judgement on QB performance? But, you expect YOUR subjective judgment, on a smaller sample size should be acceptable to impartial minds?

If you do a proper study, you will start with a much larger sample and use an objective marker like GAMES STARTED, otherwise your stats will only persuade people who already agree with you.

If you do that kind of study you will get a steadily decreasing hit rate as the drafting position goes down. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

[Califan007]

So, now you want to challenge another stats compiler's subjective judgement on QB performance? But, you expect YOUR subjective judgment, on a smaller sample size should be acceptable to impartial minds?
If it's not, then say so and explain why. Remember, it's not up to me to explain anything...it's up to you to show that my list is inaccurate.

But the question still stands--and not just for you, but for everyone: do you REALLY think there have only been SIX busts out of all of the QBs drafted in the top 10 over the last 20 years? Because if you don't, then that should make any intellectually honest person question how valuable the results of that study really are.

Personally I don't want nor do I need you to answer that question...but at least everyone else reading and taking part in this thread can approach the information you provided from a more knowledgeable and informed standpoint...if they just went on your summary of the study they'd be grossly misinformed.






If you do a proper study, you will start with a much larger sample and use an objective marker like GAMES STARTED, otherwise your stats will only persuade people who already agree with you.
Games started matters most, eh? What's the goal of drafting a QB in the top 10...to find a guy who's merely good enough to start? Not to mention that my point in the OP was about finding a franchise QB, not merely an OK starter for a few seasons. I broke my groups into whether or not they could be considered a franchise QB...

What's the cut-off point in terms of starts for determining the difference between a "moderately successful" QB and a "flop"? Alex Smith has started 50 games in 6 years...8 games a season. Is that adequate in your eyes? (again, I don't expect anything like an actual answer from you, this is mostly just something for others to consider as they read my response to you).

Rick Mirer was on 7 different teams in 11 years. Does that describe "moderately successful" QB worthy of a top 10 draft pick to anyone? Is that all it takes, lasting long enough and floating around from team to team so that eventually, you might end up with a collective 50 games started?

So far you and the other poster have provided dubious "proof" that my OP and subsequent posts aren't true...and the "proof" actually ended up backing up my points in both circumstances :ols:...



If you do that kind of study you will get a steadily decreasing hit rate as the drafting position goes down. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

And yet the author of this study you yourself provided makes the claim that the "hit" rate of QBs drafted between #11 and #20 is BETTER than in the top 10...I'm gonna guess you didn't actually read that part and didn't know that was in there lol...

[skinsnshanny]

Here is another way to look at it.

2010 Qbs by passer rating:
1. Round 6
2. Top 10
3. Round 1 (20-32)
4. Top 10
5. Round 1 (pick 11)
6. Round 1 (11-20)
7. Round 1 (11-20)
8. Round 7
9. Round 3
10. Top 10

(4 out of the top 10 passers in passer rating come from picks 1-11)

Yards:
1. Top 10
2. Top 10
3. Round 2
4. Late Round
5. Top 10
6. Top 10
7. First round (20-32)
8. Round 6
9. Top 10
10. Late Round

(5 out of the top 10 passers in yards were drafted in the top 10)

Total Tds
1. Round 6
2 Second round
3. Top 10
4. Round 1 (20-32)
5.Top 10
6. Top 10
7. Top 10
8. Top 10
9. Late Round
10. Top 10

(6 out of 10 qbs in terms of total tds were drafted in the top 10)

QBs in playoffs (just a list)
Round 1 (20-32)
Pick 11
Top 10
Round 6
Round 1 (11-20)
Pick 11
Round 6
Top 10
Top 10
Top 10
Round 7
Round 1 (pick 11-20)

(out of the 12 playoff Qbs, 4 were from the top 10 and 6 were from picks 1-11)

It appears to me that there is little question that out of any group of 10 consecutive picks, picks 1-10 (or even 1-11) clearly lead to more QBs in the top 10 in the NFL.

Further, it is stunning (or maybe obvious) that a disproportionate of the top qbs in the league come from the top 10 picks. There are over 200 picks in an NFL draft, yet about 50% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10. Thus if you want a qb ranked high, you have a better chance of getting one if you have picks 1-10.

[Oldfan]

Cali, it doesn’t matter whether I, or anyone else, think you did a better job with your opinions on QBs because:

1) If the sample size is large enough, the cutoff point between hit and miss, as long as it does not vary, will only affect the hit rate. It won’t affect the distribution. There should still be a steady decline as you drop down from pick #1, as I’ve been arguing;

2) Both your method and the method in the study I posted are flawed as I noted when I posted it. They are flawed because your opinion should not influence the results in any way. The combination of the influence of your opinion and a small sample size creates statistical havoc. The results can’t be trusted.

The best approach would probably use a combination of objective markers: games started, YPA, QBR... any stat that includes a measurement of QB performance except the researcher’s opinion.

[DeaconBlue]

The problem oldfan os that I feel like even with all your theoretical "objectivism" you say you create with all your stat driven formulae I see you sprinkle periodically across the stadium here I still beleive you inject more subjectivism that just about anyone else here. It seems like through your decisions about what stats are relevant to any discussion and their relative weighting that you massage the numbers to tell whatever story it is you prefer to hear. My gut, yes I know you don't care about it, says that there might be a kernal of truth in cali's arguement. To me even if the odds go up to 60/40 that a top 11 qb pick becomes a success it still seems like a crapshoot.

[Oldfan]

The problem oldfan os that I feel like even with all your theoretical "objectivism" you say you create with all your stat driven formulae I see you sprinkle periodically across the stadium here I still beleive you inject more subjectivism that just about anyone else here. It seems like through your decisions about what stats are relevant to any discussion and their relative weighting that you massage the numbers to tell whatever story it is you prefer to hear. My gut, yes I know you don't care about it, says that there might be a kernal of truth in cali's arguement. To me even if the odds go up to 60/40 that a top 11 qb pick becomes a success it still seems like a crapshoot.It would be foolish of me to do as you accuse because there are members in this forum with far more formal training in statistics than I. It would take only one to point out my errors and make me look bad.

In my most recent thread, I used a math-based estimate as part of an argument. A poster with more math training than I confirmed my main point, but pointed out a glaring omission.

[chipwhich]

For once I 100% back oldfan. This theory is ludicrous. There are so many flaws in the premise, I don't know where to start.

[Oldfan]

Here’s a logical, rather than a statistical, approach to the question:

If Mike drafts #1, he is sure to get the QB he wants.

If he drafts #2, there is a chance he will not get the guy he wants.

If he drafts #3, there is twice as much chance he will not get the guy he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #4, there is three times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #16, there is 15 times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

Califan can only be right that it doesn’t matter much where Mike Shanahan drafts only if Mike knows little about evaluating QBs and so is likely to blow the pick no matter where he drafts.

[Califan007]

Here is another way to look at it.

2010 Qbs by passer rating:
1. Round 6
2. Top 10
3. Round 1 (20-32)
4. Top 10
5. Round 1 (pick 11)
6. Round 1 (11-20)
7. Round 1 (11-20)
8. Round 7
9. Round 3
10. Top 10

(4 out of the top 10 passers in passer rating come from picks 1-11)

Yards:
1. Top 10
2. Top 10
3. Round 2
4. Late Round
5. Top 10
6. Top 10
7. First round (20-32)
8. Round 6
9. Top 10
10. Late Round

(5 out of the top 10 passers in yards were drafted in the top 10)

Total Tds
1. Round 6
2 Second round
3. Top 10
4. Round 1 (20-32)
5.Top 10
6. Top 10
7. Top 10
8. Top 10
9. Late Round
10. Top 10

(6 out of 10 qbs in terms of total tds were drafted in the top 10)

QBs in playoffs (just a list)
Round 1 (20-32)
Pick 11
Top 10
Round 6
Round 1 (11-20)
Pick 11
Round 6
Top 10
Top 10
Top 10
Round 7
Round 1 (pick 11-20)

(out of the 12 playoff Qbs, 4 were from the top 10 and 6 were from picks 1-11)

It appears to me that there is little question that out of any group of 10 consecutive picks, picks 1-10 (or even 1-11) clearly lead to more QBs in the top 10 in the NFL.

Further, it is stunning (or maybe obvious) that a disproportionate of the top qbs in the league come from the top 10 picks. There are over 200 picks in an NFL draft, yet about 50% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10. Thus if you want a qb ranked high, you have a better chance of getting one if you have picks 1-10.

If this were Groundhog Day and we kept repeating the 2010 season over and over, your point would be more valid lol...not to mention you don't expand the top 10 to the top 11 when the mood hits you to do so. I didn't arbitrarily include a #10 or #9 drafted QB on occasion to bolster my stance, so you shouldn't arbitrarily include a #11 drafted QB to bolster yours.

But anyway, if we look beyond 2010 and just go back to 2009, here's what we find:

Top 10 QB rating:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)


Top 10 QB, yards:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)


Top 10 QBs, touchdowns:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)
3 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Cutler)



2008:

Top 10 QB rating:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Pennington, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, yards:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, McNabb)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, McNabb)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)


2007:

Top 10 QB rating:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, McNabb)
1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QB, yards:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer)
1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer)
1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)


Clearly your conclusion that "about 50% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10" varies wildly from year to year, and can not be a blanket statement. It's no more accurate than saying "about 20% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10" based off the 2007 season. As Oldfan loves saying, your sample size is abysmally small to draw any conclusions.


Also interesting is, if we look at the QBs that have been drafted since 2000, the list looks like this:

2009:

Top 10 QB rating:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)


Top 10 QB, yards:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 ( Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)


Top 10 QBs, touchdowns:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)
3 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Cutler)



2008:

Top 10 QB rating:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Pennington, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, yards:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)
2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)


2007:

Top 10 QB rating:

0 QBs drafted in the top 10
1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QB, yards:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Carson Palmer)
1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Carson Palmer)
1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)


We might be going through a period where top 10 QBs are panning out at a noticeably lower rate...recently drafted QBs help skew that stat some, but if there really is some magnified advantage to picking a QB in the top 10 shouldn't more than two QBs taken in the top 10 between 2000-2007 be in the top ranked QBs of 2009? Or is that the statistical norm--that on average, no more than 2 of the QBs drafted in the top 10 each decade go on to be ranked in the top 10 in any given year?

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 11:31 AM ----------


For once I 100% back oldfan. This theory is ludicrous. There are so many flaws in the premise, I don't know where to start.
Start anywhere you want lol...I'll wait. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 11:50 AM ----------


Cali, it doesn’t matter whether I, or anyone else, think you did a better job with your opinions on QBs because:

1) If the sample size is large enough, the cutoff point between hit and miss, as long as it does not vary, will only affect the hit rate. It won’t affect the distribution. There should still be a steady decline as you drop down from pick #1, as I’ve been arguing;

2) Both your method and the method in the study I posted are flawed as I noted when I posted it. They are flawed because your opinion should not influence the results in any way. The combination of the influence of your opinion and a small sample size creates statistical havoc. The results can’t be trusted.
1) And the "hit" rate is the main thrust of this argument lol..so the most important part of the debate is being affected, and that's more than fine with you. Gotcha.

2) You would have to show HOW it's flawed, not just state that it is. Mine is based off of not just MY opinion, but the overall opinion of each QB and their "franchise" status. Nobody here yet has questioned my categorization of QBs, so I'm guessing that it's not just an individual opinion...And even IF you want to see it as an individual opinion, if you AGREE with my opinion of the QBs who were "hits" and "misses", then the conclusions reached from that breakdown hold validity. If you do NOT agree, then you provide a better breakdown of the players and then show the adjusted results (like I just did...twice). Nobody has bothered to do so...not even you.


The best approach would probably use a combination of objective markers: games started, YPA, QBR... any stat that includes a measurement of QB performance except the researcher’s opinion.
The best approach would be to first define what a "Franchise QB" is...I at least came close to doing so by showing the players who either are considered a franchise QB or just a tier below. All I end up asking people is to look at my list and determine if they agree or not.

Using a stat like "number of starts" to determine quality of the player is flawed because:

1) It's not using average number of starts per year...so a QB taken #1 overall who goes on to be little more than a journeyman QB living off his draft status will have his "hit" status inflated due to nothing more than accumulating starts from bouncing from team to team.

2) It assumes that the number of starts that a 1st round QB has in his career dictates what the number of starts a franchise QB should have ..that ignores that a LOT of franchise QBs come from lower rounds, and THEY should be included in defining the barometer for number of starts, not just any QB taken in the 1st round.

But as I said earlier, even taking your study as gospel, it still shows that there's a better "hit"rate for QBs taken between 11-20 than there is for QBs taken between 1-10...which helps make my point that a 6-10 or 7-9 record does not make finding a franchise QB less likely.

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ And the "hit" rate is the main thrust of this argument...

Nope. It doesn’t matter if the average hit rate is 40%, 50% or 70% -- this argument hinges on how the hit rate distributes itself throughout the first round. So, the difference between your subjective approach and the subjective approach of Draftmetrics does not matter. Both approaches are equally flawed. What matters is whether or not you and the other guy applied your opinions evenly, without bias. It also matters considerably that his sample size was larger.

When a debate opponent refuses to admit the chinks in his argument as you have done here, it’s hard to tell if they don’t understand the counters or if they simply refuse to admit them. I’ve decided you’re just being stubborn.

You correctly pointed out that the sample size was too small in SnS’s stats. But, you stubbornly ignore the same failing in yours.

You correctly pointed out that he should not arbitrarily switch from 1-10 to 1-11 simply because it favors his position. But you want to argue a switch from 11-32 which represents the “outside the top 10“ you began with in your OP to 11-20 in the Draftmetrics stats simply because it favors your position.

I believe you know very well that your subjective method of deciding hits and misses combined with the small sample size renders your results unreliable.

In #132, I showed the logical position. You are stubbornly trying to turn logic on its ear with a poorly-conceived statistical study. So, I won’t waste more time with this.

[SkinsTillIDie]

It is a disadvantage in the draft obviously. That's the point here.

No. The point (or at least, MY point), is that we don't need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB. As this thread is properly titled.


I don't know how you can say that as though it's a general rule.. It would most certainly be a disadvantage if the team used a lot of old vets to get to 8-8... and how else are they likely to get there?

We are likely to get there if our team improves on our 6-10 performance last year, which is absolutely reasonable. Given particularly because we lost, what, 6 additional games by 4 points or less? (I believe if Gano had made all of his kickers in 4 specific games, we would have won 2 of those and the other 2 would have gone to overtime). If our 3-4 defense plays better in its second season with an influx of scheme-specific talent at OLB (Kerrigan), DE (Jenkins), and at FS (Atogwe) and possibly DE (other Jenkins). ... If our offensive line plays better in its second year playing the zone-blocking scheme with better chemistry and consistency.

We don't need a lot of "old vets" to get to 8-8. We have an abundance of promising youth: Ryan Torain, Fred Davis, Trent Williams, Kory Lichensteiger, Anthony Armstrong, Kevin Barnes, Perry Riley, Robert Henson, Will Montgomery, Logan Paulsen, Darrell Young, Graham Gano, Jeremy Jarmon, Keiland Williams, Brandon Banks, Rob Jackson, Malcolm Kelly, Terrance Austin, Adam Kerrigan, Jarvis Jenkins, Leonard Hankerson, Roy Helu, Chris Neild, Evan Royster, and others. Some of them will step in and contribute this year; some will step in and excel far beyond any of our imaginations. In the manner that Anthony Armstrong and Brandon Banks came out of absolutely NOWHERE to become the most explosive players on our offense.

You are right, if our 8-8 consisted of 11 or 12 total starters that were 30+ years old, it would be hard to classify that as a good, promising season. However, if you actually look at our roster, with a few reasonably predicted veterans added (at DE replacing Daniels/Holliday; at NT replacing Bryant/Kemoeatu; at C/G replacing Rabach) we have very, very few 30+ starters. The vast majority of the team will be here for the long run. Getting experience and getting better for when we can bring in our rookie QB.

But I digress.


Could you be more specific? What reasons convince you that a QB picked 1-10 would not be more likely to help the team than one picked 11-32?

My argument is not that a QB picked 1-10 may or may not help more than than one picked at 11-32. Sam Bradford came in to an awful Rams team and helped that atrocious team reach 8-8 (admittedly, in the worst division in NFL history... that team might not have won 4 games in the East).

However, to answer your question, mainly, a QB picked 1-6 (which is the crux of my argument, as I believe we'll likely pick somewhere between 10-15 this year), will step into a team that is not ready for him to succeed. A team picking 1-6 will almost certainly have an offensive line that cannot keep him upright and receivers that are mostly ineffective and among the most easily-blanketed in the league. This isn't always the case. Jake Locker may be stepping into the most ideal situation of any of the rookie QBs (other than Mallett), in terms of immediate support system. And he was picked 8th.

It's impossible to say with complete certainty (as anything is), but David Carr most likely wouldn't have flamed out if he wasn't forced into an atrocious situation in Houston, behind a terrible offensive line, while everyone expected him to be the savior (as a #1 pick will always be expected to be). Meanwhile, Matt Cassel never ever should've had a better career than Carr. A 7th round pick who had zero college career to speak of. But because of his situation and coaching, he was able to blossom.

My point is that it is ridiculous to assume with certainty that as a franchise, we are better off with a 2-14 record and drafting a QB then if we finish 8-8 and draft a QB.


Califan's opponents in this thread are not arguing that we should tank the season. Cali, ranted about posters like that, but his argument isn't about that. We are debating Califan's position that a draft pick in the 1-10 range would not offer more likelihood of getting a grade A QB than one in the 11-32 range.

You unknowingly disagreed with him when you said: "Theoretically, the higher you pick, the greater odds you have at getting the best possible QB. This much is obvious." Califan is claiming that his stats disprove that.

I'm not arguing for or against Califan. I'm arguing for me, and the gist of his original argument. His argument IS against that, the notion that as a franchise, we need to be picking in the top couple picks to be best off down the road (via the drafting of a "franchise QB").
...
Yes, theoretically, this much is true. But again, the NFL doesn't exist in a theoretical realm. There are a million other variables that coincide with the ultimate success of a QB. If Ryan Mallet had been drafted in Oakland (if they had maintained the 17th overall pick), he would develop differently then he will in New England. And he will now most likely have a much better career, even though he fell to the 3rd round. If we had drafted Aaron Rodgers at 9, he surely wouldn't have had as successful career as he has had in Green Bay despite falling to 24.

This is ultimately my argument and my belief: we don't have to finish 4-12 to get a franchise QB. As I understand it, that was the premise of the thread. Not that finishing 4-12 might land us a QB prospect with a higher grade heading into the draft (which again, doesn't mean ultimately better).

Josh Freeman is the best QB of his class, despite falling to 17. Jay Cutler is the best QB of his class despite falling to 11 (even after an absurd amount of pre-draft hype for Vince Young and Matt Leinart for their stellar college careers, compared to a rather pedestrian career for Cutler). Perhaps this upcoming draft may resemble that of 2004, where Eli Manning and Philip Rivers went in the first 4 picks but Ben Roethlisberger was there to be had at 11 (and who has been ultimately the most successful QB of the bunch).

If you were to give me the option, all things being equal, of picking a QB at 1 or at 13, of course I'd pick the QB at 1. You'd have to be an idiot not to do so. But this is the NFL, and all things aren't equal. If you want to make the argument that we have better odds of getting to the superbowl with the best possible QB prospect, I would argue that we would be much better off if our abundance of aforementioned promising youth develop and play well while we "only" get the third best QB prospect in the draft (who will, in all likelihood, be a higher-rated prospect than anyone in last year's draft). But again, that was not the purpose of the thread I don't care how this thread really has morphed, but that original argument remains: We can find our franchise QB with a 7-9 or 8-8 record.

And dare I need to remind you once again: Mike Shanahan selected his last franchise quarterback Jay Cutler in the draft following a 13-3 season and an appearance in the AFC Championship game. This issue is not as black/white as you are trying to make it.

[Califan007]

His argument IS against that, the notion that as a franchise, we need to be picking in the top couple picks to be best off down the road (via the drafting of a "franchise QB")...NFL doesn't exist in a theoretical realm. There are a million other variables that coincide with the ultimate success of a QB....we don't have to finish 4-12 to get a franchise QB. As I understand it, that was the premise of the thread. Not that finishing 4-12 might land us a QB prospect with a higher grade heading into the draft (which again, doesn't mean ultimately better)....

If you were to give me the option, all things being equal, of picking a QB at 1 or at 13, of course I'd pick the QB at 1. You'd have to be an idiot not to do so. But this is the NFL, and all things aren't equal. If you want to make the argument that we have better odds of getting to the superbowl with the best possible QB prospect, I would argue that we would be much better off if our abundance of aforementioned promising youth develop and play well while we "only" get the third best QB prospect in the draft (who will, in all likelihood, be a higher-rated prospect than anyone in last year's draft). But again, that was not the purpose of the thread I don't care how this thread really has morphed, but that original argument remains: We can find our franchise QB with a 7-9 or 8-8 record.

SkinsTillIDie gets it :yes:...

[Oldfan]

.

STID ~ No. The point (or at least, MY point), is that we don't need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB. As this thread is properly titled.

Who, in their right mind, would disagree that it’s POSSIBLE to get a franchise QB anywhere in the draft? That’s a strawman argument.

Cali thinks he has debunked the idea that a draft pick in 1-10 is better than a draft pick in 11-32. Check this out:


Tris: What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.


Cali: And that's been debunked lol ...

Lol, indeed.



We are likely to get there [8-8] if our team improves on our 6-10 performance last year, which is absolutely reasonable.

You wrote four paragraphs of unrealistic optimism to support the above assertion. When we use the word “likely,” we are claiming probability not possibility. It’s possible that everything will come up roses for the Skins this season, but it isn’t something you can claim as likely to happen.

Once again, staying in the realm of probability and not possibility, this is the logical argument that Califan thinks he has defeated with the statistics he has whipped up:

If Mike drafts #1, he is sure to get the QB he wants.

If he drafts #2, there is a chance he will not get the guy he wants.

If he drafts #3, there is twice as much chance he will not get the guy he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #4, there is three times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #16, there is 15 times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

Califan can only be right that it doesn’t matter much where Mike Shanahan drafts only if Mike knows little about evaluating QBs and so is likely to blow the pick no matter where he drafts.


However, to answer your question, mainly, a QB picked 1-6 (which is the crux of my argument, as I believe we'll likely pick somewhere between 10-15 this year), will step into a team that is not ready for him to succeed.

Why is it important that your QB has immediate success? You take the top notch QB when he becomes available. Sam Bradford had a 76.5 QBR last season. Peyton’s was 71.2 in his first season.


My point is that it is ridiculous to assume with certainty that as a franchise, we are better off with a 2-14 record and drafting a QB then if we finish 8-8 and draft a QB.

Your arguments have leaped from possibility to certainty while avoiding probability ...which lies between. Decisions are based on probability, not on possibility or certainty since almost anything is possible, and almost nothing is certain.
.

Yes, theoretically, this much is true. But again, the NFL doesn't exist in a theoretical realm.

The higher you draft, the better your chances of getting a good player (the principle of probability applies). That’s not a theory. It’s a fact.



If you were to give me the option, all things being equal, of picking a QB at 1 or at 13, of course I'd pick the QB at 1. You'd have to be an idiot not to do so.

Califan claims that his stats debunk that notion. He says it doesn’t make much difference whether you pick at 1 or 13.

Do you agree or disagree with him? He's claiming that you "get it."

BTW, according to this draft trade chart that teams use, the #1 pick is worth almost three times the value of the #13.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

[skinsnshanny]

But as I said earlier, even taking your study as gospel, it still shows that there's a better "hit"rate for QBs taken between 11-20 than there is for QBs taken between 1-10...which helps make my point that a 6-10 or 7-9 record does not make finding a franchise QB less likely.

First, why do remove qbs drafted in the top 10 prior to 2000 but still performing at the top level from the list? Simply to help your argument that is silly. The entire point of getting a guy is for him to be good for a long time. (you do it only to take manning and Mcnabb out of any rankings). Seriously, that is like the strongest point of why the top 10 is essential. These guys are good for so long.

You understand that even your other year stats, which I have not checked for accuracy, show that 20% or so of the TOP 10 qbs are consistently from picks 1-10 (and yes we can expand it to 11 because it follows the point of high picks, it is the next consecutive one...a good spotting point would be 16 where you are in the bottom half of the league) If you are going to lump 1-10 and then 11-32, you might as well just lump 1-10 and then the rest of the draft or simply just 11-20. But if you do the latter you will see that number 11 makes a big impact which is much closer to 10 than to 20. Also we should count picks 1-10 in each round in the Top 10 category (or at least round 2, as a team is awarded the first pick in each around, and thus has the first chance in each round to nab the qb)

Simply saying more top QBs come from picks 11-last pick than 1-10 is not telling. It is telling that such a high amount do come from 1-10 (or 11).

You also just left out the playoff stat too.

Bottom line: No other 10 pick bracket produces more top 10 qbs. Further the only reason any other bracket would is if a team in the first bracket mis scouted, but that is due to error, and not due to anything special about picking later.

***But here is the point that really gets to the point....

If a team has a higher pick say 1-10 that pick has value that pick 20 does not have. The team can either draft at the high pick and have first chance at their highly scouted player OR they can use the value of the pick and move back, maybe get 2-3 picks and thus increase the chance of landing that top player.

So if want to draft a qb 11-32, having pick 1 could turn into picks 12 and 14 ....

No disadvantage of the higher pick. None.

Edit: Notice you stopped at 2007, why not include 2006?

Tds: 5 of the top 10 were top 10 picks
Rating: 4
Yards: 3
--so 40%

2005:
Tds: 5
Rating: 3 (including positions 1 and 2)
Yards: 5
--so over 40%

2004:
Tds: 2 (3 with 11)
Rating: 2 (4 with 11)
Yards: 2 (3 with 11)
--so only 20% here (over 30 with pick 11)

2003
Tds: 2 (3 with 11)
Rating 2 (top 2 spots and 3 with 11)
Yards: 1 (2 with 11)
--So only 20% again

2002:
Tds: 3
Rating: 3
Yards: 4 (5 with 11)
So 30, maybe a little more

2001
Tds:3
Rating: 3
yards 2
--Again about 30

2000
Tds: 4 (5 with 11)
Rating: 1 (2 w 11)
Yards 3 (4 with 110
about 30


So when it all comes together over the loong haul, it looks like 30-40% (not the 50 i had claimed) but that is still incredible for 10 picks out of over 250. And if you add in number 11 (which could be just as bad of a record the previous season as pick 10) the numbers shoot up.

[CliffBattles]

only had time to read the first couple pages, but I think getting the #1 pick in this draft vs say the 11th pick is different than most seasons because of Andrew Luck.

He is being considered a once in a generation player. If it was the past season, I don't think it would matter as much (with a QB class that nobody could decide who was clearly the best)

[Burgold]

only had time to read the first couple pages, but I think getting the #1 pick in this draft vs say the 11th pick is different than most seasons because of Andrew Luck.

He is being considered a once in a generation player. If it was the past season, I don't think it would matter as much (with a QB class that nobody could decide who was clearly the best)

Last year, around this time I think most were saying that about Jake Locker.

[Portis N Pals]

I'd gladly go win less this year to get Luck. I think he's going to be THAT good. And when I look at how strong our division is, I seriously doubt that even if we scrapped hard all year and somehow finished in that 7-9 to 9-7 range it wouldn't be enough to get into the post season anyway.

[darrelgreenie]

There are a lot of good points made in this thread.
The 2 opinions expressed are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, historically the higher you draft the greater the likelihood that pick will succeed.
But, at the same time you don't have to pick top 10 to land a franchise QB.
Oldfan views the above statement as a strawman argument.
But, many posters and football fans in general believe this notion.


Bottom line: No other 10 pick bracket produces more top 10 qbs. Further the only reason any other bracket would is if a team in the first bracket mis scouted, but that is due to error, and not due to anything special about picking later.I wanted to address only this point; if you don't mind because I agree with most of the rest of your post.

Teams 'mis scout' all the time.
Often times HC/GMs scouts will have completely different draft rankings then other teams and the publically held 'consensus'.
Mike Shanahan has mentioned several times about he had different QBs rated higher or lower then the consensus.
Mike Holmgren, who has created several NFL starting QBs, wanted Colt McCoy and got his guy in the 3rd round; Holmgren btw has never drafted a QB in the 1st round.

My point is that the coaching and envirornment plays as big a role in a QB success as their perceived talent based on draft status.
I'm sure if you isolated the draft position and draft success of the coaches considered to be QB 'gurus' their success rate will surpass that of the rest of the league despite not drafting their QBs in the 1st round let alone top 10 very often.

I think the differences between QB prospects ability is large overrated; both in each draft and in drafts compared over the years i.e. 2011 vs 2010.

A bad franchise is unlikely to produce a 'franchise' QB.
A franchise with the right infrastructure has a good chance to produce a 'franchise' QB.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ But, at the same time you don't have to pick top 10 to land a franchise QB.
Oldfan views the above statement as a strawman argument.
But, many posters and football fans in general believe this notion.

Give me your best guess. What percentage of NFL fans are unaware that high grade QBs can be found in any round of the draft? What percentage are unaware that Tom Brady was a sixth round pick?

I think about 20% of the posters in this forum overuse hyperbole to state their positions. If you decide to take their hype literally, "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB,"you can create strawman arguments all day long. I think that’s what Cali is doing.

If we had an actual poster saying that, we could pin him down on his actual meaning. How likely is it that he would not admit that it's possible to find a top notch QB in any round of the draft?

On the other hand, the draft trade chart shows that a #16 pick is worth one-third of the #1 pick. That gives us a ballpark idea of how the NFL teams regard the probability factor when comparing the two.


A bad franchise is unlikely to produce a 'franchise' QB.
A franchise with the right infrastructure has a good chance to produce a 'franchise' QB.This is obviously true. I think in terms of a percentage of full potential.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning look much better than Jay Cutler because their support systems allow them to perform much closer to their full potential. Yet, in raw, tangible talent, neither is his equal. A lesser QB in Chicago over the last couple of seasons would look like a complete bust.

I think Alex Smith, who most consider a bust, has a chance to be pretty good with a better support system.

[CliffBattles]

Last year, around this time I think most were saying that about Jake Locker.

Uh.....I see what you mean..... probably every other year (at least) there is a QB considered to be top pick, Luck is beyond that. It reminds me of when Elway or Testeverde came out.

[darrelgreenie]

Give me your best guess. What percentage of NFL fans are unaware that high grade QBs can be found in any round of the draft? What percentage are unaware that Tom Brady was a sixth round pick?C'mon, these are loaded questions that don't represent my point.


I think about 20% of the posters in this forum overuse hyperbole to state their positions. If you decide to take their hype literally, "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB,"you can create strawman arguments all day long. I think that’s what Cali is doing.Being a regular poster in the draft database thread and being involved in several QB (college prospect) threads, I can assure that for many posters its not hyperbole.
I can't guess at a number but many fans consider next years crop of QB and especially Andrew Luck as can't miss prospects worth tanking for or trading the house to acquire.


How likely is it that he would not admit that it's possible to find a top notch QB in any round of the draft?Considering that many people are advocating the tanking or trading the house for Luck,Jones or Barkley I'd say it far more then you realize.


On the other hand, the draft trade chart shows that a #16 pick is worth one-third of the #1 pick. That gives us a ballpark idea of how the NFL teams regard the probability factor when comparing the two.I don't disagree in general but the trade chart is subjective based on desire.


This is obviously true. I think in terms of a percentage of potential.Its not as obvious as you would think.


Tom Brady and Peyton Manning look much better than Jay Cutler because their support systems allow them to perform much closer to their full potential. Yet, in raw, tangible talent, neither is his equal.People get caught up in stats, I watched a bunch of Bears game last year and imo Cutler had the best season of his career.
It was down right crazy/heroic taking the punishment behind that o-line without getting gunshy.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ C'mon, these are loaded questions that don't represent my point.

I wanted you to be more specific to better understand your position, but if you would rather keep your position vague, “many posters and football fans” will have to do.


Being a regular poster in the draft database thread and being involved in several QB (college prospect) threads, I can assure that for many posters its not hyperbole.
I can't guess at a number but many fans consider next years crop of QB and especially Andrew Luck as can't miss prospects worth tanking for or trading the house to acquire.

Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.
Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction.

[darrelgreenie]

Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.
Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction.Okay, you might not see the logic.
That's fair.
But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

[KDawg]

Okay, you might not see the logic.
That's fair.
But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

Tanking is stupid.

A top 10 pick isn't required.

A top 10 pick allows you to find the most talented quarterbacks, whether they pan out from there is a different story.

If we want Andrew Luck or a Matt Barkey or even a Landry Jones, it's likely we'd need a top 10 pick.

However, if we start Beck this year and we somehow have a good season, we have something in Beck we never expected and may not need to draft a 1st round grade QB. If he stinks, we'll be picking in the top ten. I really believe we're ina win/win with Beck for the long term. Although short term (this season) could get ugly. But hey, surprises happen all the time.

[chipwhich]

Okay, you might not see the logic.
That's fair.
But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

That's not logic. That's just random meanderings.

If a franchise QB can be found as an UDFA (Tony Romo) then there is no need to tank.

Let's use your logic and take it one step further.


If a franchise QB can be found as an UDFA (Tony Romo) then there is no need to draft a QB.

This thread might be one of the most dog chasing tail threads I have ever seen.

I can make random comments all day long.

Because the Redskins are so bad at drafting 1st round QB's (Shuler, Ramsey, Campbell) they don't have the smarts to use a top 10 pick, so they have no need to tank.

You can continually avoid the obvious with random "logic" but it doesn't make it "logic".

[Oldfan]

Okay, you might not see the logic.
That's fair.
But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.There is never any NEED to tank (depending on one's definition of the word), but it might be a wise move based on probability. If someone made the statement that Cali used in his thread title, I would assume it was his hyperbolic way of saying that it's a wise move based on probability until the poster's position is clarified. I would assume that because my interpretation does not have to presume the poster is a dunce.

[darrelgreenie]

That's not logic. That's just random meanderings.

If a franchise QB can be found as an UDFA (Tony Romo) then there is no need to tank.

Let's use your logic and take it one step further.


If a franchise QB can be found as an UDFA (Tony Romo) then there is no need to draft a QB.

This thread might be one of the most dog chasing tail threads I have ever seen.

I can make random comments all day long.

Because the Redskins are so bad at drafting 1st round QB's (Shuler, Ramsey, Campbell) they don't have the smarts to use a top 10 pick, so they have no need to tank.

You can continually avoid the obvious with random "logic" but it doesn't make it "logic".Your response has very little to do with my post nor my position.

-Cheers

---------- Post added July-24th-2011 at 12:57 PM ----------


There is never any NEED to tank, but it might be a wise move based on probability. If someone made the statement that Cali used in his thread title, I would assume it was his hyperbolic way of saying that it's a wise move based on probability until the poster's position is clarified. I would assume that because my interpretation does not have to presume the poster is a dunce.You layed out the positions, I'm just following them.
Based on the positions below:

Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.
Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction.If you can also get a franchise QB without tanking for Luck then why is it worth it?

Or:
if someone doesn't believe in Position 2)
then
Position 1) is uneccesary

[chipwhich]

If you can also get a franchise QB without tanking for Luck then why is it worth it?

Or:
if someone doesn't believe in Position 2)
then
Position 1) is uneccesary

Where is my tail? Chasing after it.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ If you can also get a franchise QB without tanking for Luck then why is it worth it?

Or:
if someone doesn't believe in Position 2)
then
Position 1) is uneccesary

I suggest you forget words like need, necessary or required. They are not appropriate in a decision based on Probability.

Will the team be more likely or less likely to land a high-grade QB if our front office does not make win-now roster moves this season?

Those who believe that there are some super QB prospects coming out in the next draft feel it is much more likely that the team will do better by not making those win-now moves. If they are right about those QBs, then they have a sound argument.

[darrelgreenie]

Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.
Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction.
If you can also get a franchise QB without tanking for Luck then why is it worth it?
Or:
if someone doesn't believe in Position 2)
then
Position 1) is uneccesary


I suggest you forget words like need, necessary or required. They are not appropriate in a decision based on Probability.To be fair I'm not discussing probability, I was addressing the positions you layed out above.
I've already stated that historically or in general its true that drafting higher increases the probability of yielding a successful pick.

I'm explaining why I disagree with this:

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction

But if you like I can ammend the statement thusly:

If someone doesn't believe Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.
Then they belive this: It is possible to find a franchice QB outside of the top ten picks.

If you believe it is possible to find a franchice QB outside of the top ten picks then its not worth tanking for Luck i.e. Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.

This is all according to your positions 1 & 2.




Below is a different discussion.

Will the team be more likely or less likely to land a high-grade QB if our front office does not make win-now roster moves this season?How do you determine high-grade? Consensus?
QB rankings are subjective.


Those who believe that there are some super QB prospects coming out in the next draft feel it is much more likely that the team will do better by not making those win-now moves. If they are right about those QBs, then they have a sound argument.Well, yeah.
But its impossible to know if anyone is right about a QB prospect until the prospects fails or succeeds.

[Oldfan]

DG, I think if you will recognize that this entire thread discusses a decision based on Probability, we can clear this matter up.

Do we need to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

Is it worth it to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

If it’s possible to get a franchise QB later in the draft, then why is it necessary to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

Let’s imagine that we had a whiz-bang computer application enabling us to get precise odds on this decision. The numbers look like this on our chances of landing a top notch QB.

Draft positions 1,2,3,4 --- 76%

Draft positions 15, 16, 17, 18 -- 31%

With these numbers it would clearly be to the team’s advantage not to make win-now roster moves to get to 8-8. It would be much better to play all our young guys and hope for bad luck and the worst record possible,

That’s the argument that some are making.

If the Redskins front office sees those QBs in next year’s draft as superior prospects, this would be the percentage play. Since they don’t have this whiz-bang computer application, they have to use their best judgment.

[skinny21]

Give me your best guess. What percentage of NFL fans are unaware that high grade QBs can be found in any round of the draft? What percentage are unaware that Tom Brady was a sixth round pick?

I think about 20% of the posters in this forum overuse hyperbole to state their positions. If you decide to take their hype literally, "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB,"you can create strawman arguments all day long. I think that’s what Cali is doing.

If we had an actual poster saying that, we could pin him down on his actual meaning. How likely is it that he would not admit that it's possible to find a top notch QB in any round of the draft?

On the other hand, the draft trade chart shows that a #16 pick is worth one-third of the #1 pick. That gives us a ballpark idea of how the NFL teams regard the probability factor when comparing the two.

This is obviously true. I think in terms of a percentage of potential.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning look much better than Jay Cutler because their support systems allow them to perform much closer to their full potential. Yet, in raw, tangible talent, neither is his equal.
Dg is right. Cali's OP made an argument against those people who believe we need a poor season for a franchise qb. I'm with you in that it seems ludicrous for people to believe that, but many posts of this variety are out there, Cali even quoted one. So, as much as I understand your argument, this doesn't render Cali's argument a strawman.

The only time I noticed Cali crossing into the realm of 'strawman' was his "that was debunked" quote, but the lol and smiley led me to believe that was sort of a joke. At the
Least it wasn't the point of his OP.

It seems that you assumed his OP was an attempt to refute your argument, but I just don't think it was. Perhaps it has turned into that, but that's besides the point of the OP.

Cali's argument may have some issues, but his subjective elements are fairly sound and I for one won't fault him for his arbitrary sample size because he uses a decade, not 7 years or 11 or some such. Any span of time he used would by necessity be arbitrary unless he broke down every qb ever drafted, which would be a pain in the rear as well as innaccurate given the numerous changes in the league.

It seems to me, by your reply to the OP and Tris' reply to bweather? that you're getting defensive because you believe his OP was an attack on your position. I understand diagreeing with his actual argument in terms of sample size, subjectivity etc., but it seems that you agree with Cali that the doomsayers are being needlessly extreme.

[darrelgreenie]

DG, I think if you will recognize that this entire thread discusses a decision based on Probability, we can clear this matter up.

Do we need to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

Is it worth it to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

If it’s possible to get a franchise QB later in the draft, then why is it necessary to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

Let’s imagine that we had a whiz-bang computer application enabling us to get precise odds on this decision. The numbers look like this on our chances of landing a top notch QB.

Draft positions 1,2,3,4 --- 76%

Draft positions 15, 16, 17, 18 -- 31%

With these numbers it would clearly be to the team’s advantage not to make win-now roster moves to get to 8-8. It would be much better to play all our young guys and hope for bad luck and the worst record possible,

That’s the argument that some are making.

If the Redskins front office sees those QBs in next year’s draft as superior prospects, this would be the percentage play. Since they don’t have this whiz-bang computer application, they have to use their best judgment.We just have to agree to disagree.
You and I were originally discussing a different topic.

But, even if the computer generated those numbers it wouldn't explain the reason for the results.
It couldn't tell you why they prospects succeeded or failed.
And knowing the reasons for the results is more important then the results.

But, of course in general you don't make win now moves unless your team is actually within striking distance of winning the Lombardi.

[skinny21]

DG, I think if you will recognize that this entire thread discusses a decision based on Probability, we can clear this matter up.

Do we need to tank the season? That’s asking the wrong question.

I'm not sure how this is the wrong question. For purposes of your argument, definitely, but since it's the underlying question of the OP, no matter how much you disagree with the question, it is THE question.

I happen to agree with you. If we turn this thread into one of probability, then tanking the season (to me) isn't necessarily a bad thing. If we treat this thread as what the title indicates, then I agree with Cali. I get what you're saying about hyperbole, but some people truly seem to think that if we don't tank then we're doomed to mediocrity. I have trouble believing that someone that states "I'll be one of the ones screaming to tank the season" actually mean "tanking would increase the probability of finding a franchise qb, which I would be happy with". The OP does a good job of indicating that it might not be that bad to have a decent season (heck, it might be better to win some in terms of installing a 'winning culture' and getting the young guys to trust the coaches and eachother).

I took this thread as a bit daylight shone to the doomsayers, not at attack on the probability of whether tanking would put us into a better position to draft a franchise qb.

[The Tris]

Sorry to dip out of town right when this got fun. Sounds like I didn't really miss much though


The Redskins are not going to leap over the Eagles and Giants in 2011. The team is going to need a strong 2012 offseason and draft to pick up momentum and climb in the East.

While drafting in the top 5 of each round after going 4-12 is not going to guarantee Andrew Luck or another quarterback, it WILL give promise that this team can acquire another 5-6 players who can be solid contributors at reasonable cost, and a real playmaker with that top overall selection regardless of position.

I thought this was a good point from a very intelligent member that got no response.

[warpath213]

Sorry to dip out of town right when this got fun. Sounds like I didn't really miss much though



I thought this was a good point from a very intelligent member that got no response.

I like it. Seriously, the more draft picks we get, the better. We have got to have a cultural change here in DC if this team ever hopes to get back to where we were. An infusion of youth with a solid core of veteran players (those like fletcher and cooley) and stability from a coaching perspective is what we must have.

[Oldfan]

DG and Skinny, my earlier attempt to clear the confusion only added more. I’m going to briefly sum up my position and bow out.

This issue is about a decision based on Probability.

The proponents of the “Let’s play this season for a high draft pick” argument have Probability on their side if they are correct that three outstanding QB prospects will be coming out in the next draft. If the Redskins front office agrees that there are three great QBs, and if they truly want to build this roster, they should play only the young guys on our roster this season and not make win-now roster moves. Then,we should all hope for bad luck and a bad record.

Logically, it’s certain that Mike can get the guy he wants if we draft #1. If he drafts #2, there is a chance he will not get the guy he wants. If he drafts #16, there is 15 times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

Califan wants to deny that logic with a small sample of stats and his opinions as the standard for determining hits and misses. His claim is that it wouldn't make much difference where Mike drafts. Can you believe that?

[Hitman21ST]

Logically, it's certain that Mike can get the guy he wants if we draft #1. If he drafts #2, there is a chance he will not get the guy he wants. If he drafts #16, there is 15 times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

Califan wants to deny that logic with a small sample of stats and his opinions as the standard for determining hits and misses.

I understand the logic, but the numbers aren't exactly accurate. You would need to take into account the teams that have drafted a QB and don't qualify as "QB needy." If all three come out next season, and the Panthers have the first pick again in the draft, the team picking #2 will still have the same chance of drafting their guy as if they were picking first.

I agree with the premise, just not the numbers.

[Oldfan]

I understand the logic, but the numbers aren't exactly accurate. You would need to take into account the teams that have drafted a QB and don't qualify as "QB needy." If all three come out next season, and the Panthers have the first pick again in the draft, the team picking #2 will still have the same chance of drafting their guy as if they were picking first.

I agree with the premise, just not the numbers.All of the teams picking ahead are a threat to swap picks with a team in need of a QB.

[Hitman21ST]

Any of the teams picking ahead is a threat to swap picks with a team in need of a QB.

We would also then by a threat to trade up. We would be in better position too, also, with more ammunition.

For a probability premise like this, you can't assume trades will happen. You would have to take the draft order as give, then factor out any teams that don't need a QB.

[The Tris]

We would also then by a threat to trade up. We would be in better position too, also, with more ammunition.

For a probability premise like this, you can't assume trades will happen. You would have to take the draft order as give, then factor out any teams that don't need a QB.

Then the lower we pick, the higher the cost to trade up.

Also, you can mark this in stone, the first player taken in the 2012 NFL draft will be Andrew Luck, regardless of what he does this season, or which team has the worst record.

[Hitman21ST]

Then the lower we pick, the higher the cost to trade up.

Also, you can mark this in stone, the first player taken in the 2012 NFL draft will be Andrew Luck, regardless of what he does this season, or which team has the worst record.

Panthers, Vikings, Bengals?

[Oldfan]

We would also then by a threat to trade up. We would be in better position too, also, with more ammunition.

For a probability premise like this, you can't assume trades will happen. You would have to take the draft order as give, then factor out any teams that don't need a QB.You are making rules on how this has to be done? This makes more sense to me.

Let x = the probability percentage of a trade up. Let y = the percentage of teams not needing QBs. Even after x and y are calculated as factors of picks #2 and #16, #16 will remain 15 times #2 because x and y operate equally against both.

[Hitman21ST]

You are making rules on how this has to be done? This makes more sense to me.

Let x = the probability percentage of a trade up. Let y = the percentage of teams not needing QBs. Even after x and y are calculated as factors of picks #2 and #16, #16 will remain 15 times #2 because x and y operate equally against both.

You don't need to trade up to 1 to be guaranteed of getting "your" guy. You just need to trade up to one spot above the highest picking QB needy team. If there are 6 teams that need a QB, but of those six, the one with the highest pick is picking 6th, you're not going to need to trade up to the first pick.

[The Tris]

Panthers, Vikings, Bengals?

They will trade the pick.

(or unless their current rookie QB excels, take Luck anyway and have a trade chip with their 2011 QB)

When a QB of Luck's caliber is available, unless you have a sure thing at QB for the long term, you take Luck.

[skinsnshanny]

You don't need to trade up to 1 to be guaranteed of getting "your" guy. You just need to trade up to one spot above the highest picking QB needy team. If there are 6 teams that need a QB, but of those six, the one with the highest pick is picking 6th, you're not going to need to trade up to the first pick.

This assumes the other teams will not trade up to stop you from picking their guy. If luck is as good as he was last year, he is going number 1, even if the colts end up with the first pick.

[Oldfan]

You don't need to trade up to 1 to be guaranteed of getting "your" guy. You just need to trade up to one spot above the highest picking QB needy team. If there are 6 teams that need a QB, but of those six, the one with the highest pick is picking 6th, you're not going to need to trade up to the first pick.You are taking us in a circle. There's one chance Mike will not get his guy at #2 no matter what the team's needs are at #1 because any team can trade up to #1. That's where we started.

The bottom line is that whatever other factor comes into play, when expressed as a risk percentage, that percentage will apply equally against the #2 and the #16, so the ratio between the odds at #2 and those at #16 will remain the same: 15/1

The Skins could trade up to #1 from any position also. Obviously, the higher our own draft pick, the lower the cost.

[Califan007]

This ended up being a cool thread, thanks for everyone's opinions and challenges, even if I didn't agree with some of them much. :cheers:...

[s0crates]

After seeing the events of the past week, I have noticed the "suck for Luck" crowd has been quiet. Are you tankers still out there? Are people starting to think we can win this season?

I've got the Kool-Aid on ice myself.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

After seeing the events of the past week, I have noticed the "suck for Luck" crowd has been quiet. Are you tankers still out there? Are people starting to think we can win this season?

I've got the Kool-Aid on ice myself.

It's a completely mixed emotion.

On the one hand I love the pick-up's we've done (save for letting, IMHO, a highly promising rush end go and two 30 year old wide out's, be they camp fodder or not, coming in); and I love the cuts of what we had. All carrying on in the main from last year and the subsequent draft this in our complete overhaul of the dross we had here. The worrying thing for me is if we now add some more vets. in the hope that we actually can make a serious push 'this' year. I'll temper that by saying if we did, and Beck turned into something special, then I wouldn't be too upset by that. It would be a real pleasant bonus.

But if he didn't, and we won 6/7 or 8 games or so, and it was down to say the D and Beck proved to be another in the long line of average QB's here in DC, then I'd despair. We'd have a real good, young developing group; yet we'd still be stuck in the same ol' cycle of never kicking that on due to the most important guy on the team.

The ideal scenario for me still, to what I see as the best for the future, is for all the young guys and good age FA pick-up's to play and grow together this year, yet to just come up short in enough games to fail in the W column enough to get us into the Luck/ Jones sweepstakes.

So it's a mixed 'wait and see' at the minute to answer your question as to what FA still holds and the type of player we still bring in.

Hail.

[Grinder]

The ideal scenario for me still, to what I see as the best for the future, is for all the young guys and good age FA pick-up's to play and grow together this year, yet to just come up short in enough games to fail in the W column enough to get us into the Luck/ Jones sweepstakes.


Exactly. Unless Beck taps into his inner Brady and lights it up out of nowhere this season is a means to an end...getting a high enough pick to claim our first franchise passer in DECADES.

I don't look at it as doom and gloom at all...would Indy would go back and try to win more games the year before they picked Manning #1? Hell no.

Watch and support the Skins this season knowing there is a bigger goal in play than a winning record in 2011.

[The Tris]

There's a difference between winning, and winning with youth.

If we are building a sound long term team to support said franchise QB, it is just as valuable.

[Skinzfever2010]

Tank? We won't need to tank anything our team sucks. This season is about coming together and growth. Our defense will do its best which will result in them winning us 4 or 5 games maybe less (3-4 is still being learned). Our offense is one big cluster **** of a work in progress. New average WRs, rookie WRs, and two good TEs isn't going to cut it in the NFC BEAST.

Andrew Luck 2012

Hail!

[kiingspadee]

I just wanted to post this http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?319933-OK-those-that-feel-like-we-should-draft-an-OL-over-a-QB-at-4-interesting-stuff-regarding-QBs-and-the-Draft

Not all of this is mine - however I have put this in numerous threads. Since some of the time they get pushed out of the way by other debates I felt like it was time to post it in another thread. Sorry to MODS if this is any sort of problem however I feel like it is rather good info and some people may not go through looking page by page.

Found an interesting little article

http://www.bloguin.com/articles/foot...rterbacks.html

There were 29 quarterbacks selected in the top 16 of the NFL Draft since 1993...

Hits: 13
Busts: 12
OK: 2
TBA: 2

Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%

Also, second-round quarterbacks have a 90.9-percent bust rate (I'll be exploring this soon). Excluding Drew Brees and possibly Chad Henne, name one successful Round 2 quarterback in the past decade. Don't try, because there are none. Believe it or not, the next best guy is Tarvaris Jackson (Kevin Kolb and Chad Henne being unknowns right now).

*So don't bother with Tebow in the 2nd

Also found this

How many first round draft pick quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl
As of the 2007 season:

Joe Namath - Super Bowl III
Bob Griese - Super Bowl VII and VIII
Terry Bradshaw - Super Bowls IX, X, XII, and XIII
Jim Plunkett - Super Bowls XV and XVIII
Jim McMahon - Super Bowl XX
Phil Simms - Super Bowl XXI
Doug Williams - Super Bowl XXII
Troy Aikman - Super Bowls XXVII, XXVIII, and
Steve Young - Super Bowl XXIX
John Elway - Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII
Trent Dilfer - Super Bowl XXXV
Ben Roethlisberger - Super Bowl XL
Peyton Manning - Super Bowl XLI


And

Peyton Manning, Tennessee (1st overall)
Donovan McNabb, Syracuse (2nd overall)
Daunte Culpepper, Central Florida (11th overall)
Chad Pennington, Marshall (18th overall)
Carson Palmer, USC (1st overall)
Eli Manning, Mississippi (1st overall)
Philip Rivers, N.C. State (4th overall)
Ben Roethlisberger, Miami-Ohio (11th overall)
Aaron Rodgers, California (24th overall)
Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt (11th overall)
Matt Ryan, Boston College (3rd overall)
Joe Flacco, Delaware (18th overall)
Matthew Stafford, Georgia (1st overall)
Mark Sanchez, USC (5th overall)

And Finally


Between 1970 and 2006, 577 quarterbacks have been drafted by NFL teams. Of those 577, 78, or 13.5 percent, were drafted in the first round. More quarterbacks have been drafted in the first round than any other round in the draft. Of those first round picks, 31, or 40 percent, have played in the Pro Bowl at least once in their careers.

Generally, the later a quarterback is selected in the draft, the less likely he is to reach the Pro Bowl. Second and third round selections have reached the Pro Bowl 20 percent of the time, and after that the rate drops precipitously to 10 percent or less.

A total of 77 quarterbacks who entered the league between 1970 and 2006 have played in the Pro Bowl, of which the 31 first round picks comprise 40 percent.

Under one half of quarterbacks who have played in the Pro Bowl were first round draft picks, but the proportion of Super Bowl winners is even more in favor of first rounders.

Twenty quarterbacks who entered the league between 1970 and 2006 have started for teams that won the Super Bowl, and of those 20, 11 were drafted in the first round. Of all quarterbacks drafted in the first round, 14 percent have started on the team that won the Super Bowl.

For quarterbacks drafted later or not at all, the rate is less than two percent.

Finally, the ultimate test of greatness is an election into the Hall of Fame. To date, nine quarterbacks who entered the league in 1970 or later have been enshrined in Canton, and three active quarterbacks (as of the 2008 season) can be considered locks for election after they retire, bringing the total to 12 current or future Hall of Fame quarterbacks who entered the league since 1970.

Of those 12, six were first round draft picks. Of the remainder, three were taken in the second or third round, and the rest were undrafted or drafted late.

And if you look at the list of some of the best quarterbacks drafted in the past 12 years 8 of 14 were drafted in the top 10. And of those 8 all 8 were in the top FIVE. How many of those 8 are franchise quarterbacks? All 8 but let's say 6 of 8 since Sanchez and Stafford are still well new. But Sanchez did reach the playoffs!

Then if we take a look at those that won a super bowl from my list

Joe Namath - 1st Overall (of course the St. Louis Cardinals drafted him 12th overall in the NFL but he went to the Jets in the AFL)
Bob Griese - 4th Overall
Terry Bradshaw - 1st Overall
Jim Plunkett - 1st Overall
Jim McMahon - 5th Overall
Phil Simms - 7th Overall
Doug Williams - 17th Overall
Troy Aikman - 1st Overall
Steve Young - 1st Round (Supplement Draft)
John Elway - 1st Overall
Trent Dilfer - 6th Overall
Ben Roethlisberger - 11th Overall
Peyton Manning - 1st Overall
Eli Manning - 1st Overall


So let us see how many were drafted in the Top 5 - 10 out of 14. How many in the top 10 you ask - 12 out of 14. Out of these 14 quarterbacks how many Super Bowl's do they have? 23! 5 of the 14 also won multiple Super Bowls. All 5 were selected in the top 5

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

So let us see how many were drafted in the Top 5 - 10 out of 14. How many in the top 10 you ask - 12 out of 14. Out of these 14 quarterbacks how many Super Bowl's do they have? 23! 5 of the 14 also won multiple Super Bowls. All 5 were selected in the top 5

Cheers Klings. I've seen the whole article before from a previous posting as you mentioned, but good to read through it again.

The above piece from your post just brings home even more to me both our desperate need for a QB of that ilk; and why I'd be perfectly happy to end up with one of the worst records in the league this year to be picking top 5 with a chance of a guy of the caliber of a Luck or Jones. (And I know there's no guarantee on any draft pick. But if you aren't even in a position to take that gamble on the potential of what I and many others think will be darn good pro QB's, then your never gona' know. And Hell knows we need to know.).

We've not had a franchise QB since Sonny J hung it up back in the year I was born, 1974 IMHO. 37 freaking years waiting for the most important person on this or any other team. That's scandalous in anyone's book. And you can't win consistently in the NFL of 2011 without a player under center of that ilk.

Improving the win column to around .500 or better this year would just keep us in the same, tired ol' cycle of not being able to move forward due to mediocre play from the most important person on the team. (And not having the ammo to move up for one of the REAL good ones.). Unless of course Beck turns out to be that missing link and plays like the top echelon group in this league.

Though I doubt there's many, if any, that even dares hope that will happen.

Long term future > superficial feel good wins in the present.

Hail.

[shoefly72]

I appreciate the time you took to compile those stats, but with all due respect a lot of them don't go very far in proving anything. Different teams draft guys in different spots in the first round for so many reasons, and lumping them all into a couple categories just based on their draft position doesn't really show much.

For example, the Titans just drafted Jake Locker in the top ten (which many thought was a bad pick and a reach) based pretty much on potential as he has not shown a great body of work passing the ball or reading coverage in college. If he doesn't pan out, using the logic of your post it would be another tally mark in support of the fact that drafting a QB in the top ten doesn't guarantee that he'll be good. While that statement is true on the surface, it's only true because you still have to properly evaluate the player ( Drafting a bad player in the top ten doesn't turn him into a good player). Most would agree that Locker wasn't worthy of a top ten pick, so just because one team over valued him and picked him at that spot doesn't mean it should support your argument. Also there are some years where the class is weaker and a guy who goes in the top ten wouldn't even be top 20 in another draft. The main reason why most think it's better to pick a QB high is because if you assume that talent has accurately been evaluated, teams are going to pick the best players first before anybody else does. So after a certain point those elite players are gone. Conversely you can end up with an elite player outside of the top ten if everybody misses in their evaluation of him or he's a late bloomer, or teams pick based on their needs etc.

Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith were tossups as to who was the best QB prospect that year. The Niners liked Smith (whiff) and Rodgers slid because nobody else needed a QB. He was picked in the 20's, but most teams probably still thought of him as a top ten talent. If teams in the top ten had needed a QB that year he would have been picked there, and it would support the opposite argument. There are too many variables that go into the draft to draw conclusions based on top 10 or 10-20.

However, to simplify it, prospects like Manning, Bradford, Luck etc (who have shown elite passing abilities and have physical tools, rather than somebody who is drafted merely on potential like Cam Newton, Jamarcus Russel, Kyle Boller etc)never fall that low because they are close to a sure thing and are in high demand. So while you may land an elite player outside the top ten because people slept on him, teams had different needs, etc, it is much easier and reliable to work with as many known quantities as possible. (I am confident player X is going to be a star, if I pick the highest I can make sure nobody else picks him and not have to hope that nobody else needs him or thinks he's as good as he really is). If you could go back in time, you STILL want to be the 49ers because you control your own destiny. This time around you think Aaron Rodgers is better and take him at 1. The Packers can't do anything about it; the only way they could have landed him was to hope everyone else didn't realize how good he'd be. I'd rather rely on my own scouting abilities and pick whoever I want than to rely on 10-20 other teams to undervalue the guy I want and/or not have a need for his position. And obviously since you can't pick #1 every year, you'd like to get as close as possible to this utopian position if there is an elite guy like Luck on the board. The further up the board you go, the more players you have to choose from and the more you control your own destiny and don't have to worry about teams picking a player you want. Sure you might mis-evaluate a guy, but you can't operate under the assumption that your scouting is incompetent so it doesn't behoove you to get the guy you have rated the highest.

Another example is if you say that the best players make the most money. Well you can look at a number of guys who are very good and aren't the highest paid, and you can look at a number of guys who are mediocre and yet are paid the most. That doesn't disprove the fact that in general the best players will make the most money, it proves that teams overpay and overvalue players *cough*ALBERT*cough* just like they overvalue players in the draft.

Now of course if your team is already competing and has few holes there's no point in having this discussion because you're willing to play the odds that you can get a good player to help you out based on other teams not needing him, undervaluing him, or the fact that you don't think any one player is appreciably better than the others. But in general, kingspadees post and stats point to the fact that if a team scouts well and picks a quarterback early in the first round, he will probably be pretty good.

[s0crates]

You would expect high first round picks to have a higher rate of success, of course. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the notion that you need to pick in the top 5 to get a good QB, or that a top 5 QB will necessarily be the answer.

Where was Heath Shuler drafted? Ryan Leaf?

What round was Joe Montana picked in? Tom Brady? Kurt Warner?

[Grinder]

You would expect high first round picks to have a higher rate of success, of course. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the notion that you need to pick in the top 5 to get a good QB, or that a top 5 QB will necessarily be the answer.

Where was Heath Shuler drafted? Ryan Leaf?

What round was Joe Montana picked in? Tom Brady? Kurt Warner?

What are "outliers" for a thousand, Alex?

You can't count on other teams mis-evaluations to score a franchise QB in the mid or late rounds. The elite live in the top of the first round and the heavy odds are that's where we need to get our guy.

And the worst thing this franchise could do is continue to be scared of drafting a QB high due to the ghost of Heath Schuler.

[kiingspadee]

Cheers Klings. I've seen the whole article before from a previous posting as you mentioned, but good to read through it again.

The above piece from your post just brings home even more to me both our desperate need for a QB of that ilk; and why I'd be perfectly happy to end up with one of the worst records in the league this year to be picking top 5 with a chance of a guy of the caliber of a Luck or Jones. (And I know there's no guarantee on any draft pick. But if you aren't even in a position to take that gamble on the potential of what I and many others think will be darn good pro QB's, then your never gona' know. And Hell knows we need to know.).

We've not had a franchise QB since Sonny J hung it up back in the year I was born, 1974 IMHO. 37 freaking years waiting for the most important person on this or any other team. That's scandalous in anyone's book. And you can't win consistently in the NFL of 2011 without a player under center of that ilk.

Improving the win column to around .500 or better this year would just keep us in the same, tired ol' cycle of not being able to move forward due to mediocre play from the most important person on the team. (And not having the ammo to move up for one of the REAL good ones.). Unless of course Beck turns out to be that missing link and plays like the top echelon group in this league.

Though I doubt there's many, if any, that even dares hope that will happen.

Long term future > superficial feel good wins in the present.

Hail.

Glad you enjoy the read - it is definitely an eye opener

[Rpredskins]

The only team I am worried about is Buffalo. They are going to suck this year and need a QB. The other possibility is the Browns. Other than them, every team has either a starter or a young QB who theyre not going to replace with a First round pick.
Worst case scenario we get the "3rd best" QB. And remember trading up is not as hard as you think. Unless the new system has dramatically reduced rookie contracts, somebody in the top 5 will be happy to trade down.
Honestly I would be perfectly happy if we traded 2 first round picks to get Luck. Getting a franchise QB is worth any price

[SwampEm]

Big Ben, and Aaron Rodgers were taken out of the top 10 and they thier teams still managed to be okay last year. Only 1 out of the last 12 SB winning QB's were taken with the top pick....

[illone]

You would expect high first round picks to have a higher rate of success, of course. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the notion that you need to pick in the top 5 to get a good QB, or that a top 5 QB will necessarily be the answer.

Where was Heath Shuler drafted? Ryan Leaf?

What round was Joe Montana picked in? Tom Brady? Kurt Warner?

Those are the exception, not the rule. You could draft a QB in the 4th+ round over the next 10 years and easily miss on all of them. The better chance of getting a keeper is to draft one at the top of the 1st.

[Riggins77]

we'll see...

if Carolina is kicking our ass in 2 years.. and we are still posting 8-8.. you will have been proven wrong.

I wouldn't use playing Carolina to determine if his theory is right or wrong. The thing about this years QB class was that it is weak. Weakest QB class in a long time and so many teams needed a QB, all of them got drafted way higher than they should have. Personally, none of these QBs should have been drafted until the late first round based on the overall talent in the draft. But it happened.


As for the original post: I agree that we do not need to tank the season in order to grab a top QB in next years draft. And I would like to think that the organization would not intentially tank the season even if we are 5-7 with 4 games left and no shot at making the playoffs just to pick lower. Now because of the rookie salary cap, we have to worry about some teams not being scared to spend the money they did in the past to land one of the top picks. Less fear in paying 22 million over 4 years (Newton) than 50 million over 5 million (Bradford). This goes for any player at any position, teams in the past that didnt have a lot of cap space and didnt want to pay out a ton for a top 5 pick, don't have to worry as much anymore.

[illone]

The good news for us is that even if we DO happen to win 5-6 games, which is definitely possible, trading up into the top of the draft isn't as risky anymore with the new rookie wage scale.

Hell, Cam would have made more $$ if he stayed at Auburn. :paranoid:

:ols: