A statistical(kind of) analysis of first round QBs by draft class

[Vilandil Tasardur]

2000
Pennington → Win

2001
Vick → Win

2002
Carr → Fail
Harrington → Fail
Ramsey → Fail

2003
Palmer →Win
Leftwich → Win
Boller → Fail
Grossman → Fail

2004
Manning → Win
Rivers → Win
Roethlisberger → Win

2005
Smith → Fail?
Rodgers → Win
Campbell → Fail?

2006
Young → Fail
Leinart → Fail
Cutler → Fail?

2007
Russell → Fail
Quinn → Fail

2008
Ryan → Win
Flacco → Win


Above, I posted every first round QB by draft class from 2000 through 2008. I believe the more recent draft classes are too fresh to assess. The reason I post this is simple. Every year people argue about which QB is the one. In 2006 everyone was fighting over whether Leinart or Young should be the number one pick and which had more potential to be the franchise QB. In 2004 the Manning-Rivers debate was heated and in 05 the talks of Rodgers going number one had people wondering which was the real franchise QB.

However, In the 9 years represented, seven of them show a noticeable trend; the draft classes tend to succeed or fail together. With 03 and 05 as the exceptions, there aren't some "good" QBs and some "bad" QBs in each class. Rather, the class as a whole either pans out or fails. 05 has Rodgers as the outlier and 03 has Boler and Grossman as outliers (although it could be argued whether Palmer and Leftwhich are wins.)

My point is that teams shouldn't ask themselves "which QB is the right one in this year's draft?" Teams should ask themselves "is this a draft of winners?" Don't ask "Stafford? or Sanchez?" Instead ask "are Stafford and Sanchez a money draft class?"

What do you guys think? Is there something to my theory? Do you disagree with my assessment of the QBs? The analysis of my data?

[ConnSKINS26]

Its coincidence. There's no logical reason why this could ever be a "rule".

[terpskins10]

I despise Cutler, but please explain why Leftwich is a win and Cutler is a fail.

[Audible_Red40]

J.P. Losman FTW!!!

[Hitman21ST]

I would argue that Grossman and Cutler were wins. Grossman started in the Super Bowl. If Pennington, Vick, Palmer, and Leftwich were wins, Grossman should be a win too. Cutler took the team to the NFC Championship game, so he should be considered a "win" as well.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Cutler had a ? mark because I'm not sure how I feel about him. If you guys want to declare him a win then I am certainly behind the more. Same with Grossman, I could easily be persuaded into labeling Grossman a success; in his case it actually serves to help the point.

Its coincidence. There's no logical reason why this could ever be a "rule".

Part of me agrees, but I do have a theory. I think that whenever there is a weak class of QBs, teams reach on the next guys because they feel like there must be someone. Every year there is a team that needs a QB, and every year at least some of those teams feel like waiting only holds them back an extra year. These teams reach on 2nd rounders in the first and end up busting big, like on Losman or Boller.

Last year seemed to be the opposite. Teams weren't sold on Claussen and Mccoy and let them drop out of the first round. They recognized that Bradford was the only sure QB, although the Broncos did take Tebow.

[Hitman21ST]

Last year seemed to be the opposite. Teams weren't sold on Claussen and Mccoy and let them drop out of the first round. They recognized that Bradford was the only sure QB, although the Broncos did take Tebow.

Tebow hasn't been that bad, actually. For only starting a few games, he did well for himself.