Why Drafting A Franchise QB At #3 Is Important

[K Gun Special]

Hmm or we look at where these teams rank with their run D..... I'm guessing none of them gave up over 200 yards a game on the ground 7 or so times this year.

 

 

yea bc when you are scoring points its hard to give up that many yards on the ground.

 

The bills offense is just as bad as the defense.

 

Statistically that's meaningless. A one year's sample has no merit as it relates to yearly expected outcomes. I have a lot of questions before I'd even give this any consideration. Of the remaining teams no in the playoffs or without winning records, how many first rounders are starting or did start? What percent of all QBs are first round picks? The position has such a premier that QBs often get picked in the first round not because they're deserve it, but because teams feel like they have to grab one and gamble and its worth the risk.

 

Cherry picking statistics and then making an argument without any statistical tests to prove anything only shows a bias in your argument toward the pick you want. Take stats 101 and come back with something significant.

 

 

Ok, since 1983, every super bowl except one, has featured at least one first round QB. Many have had two.

[CodeMonkey]

A new DC would make us want to watch!

Hmmm. I'm not sold on the new DC thing. If you apply the same logic to the offense which was also very bad this season, you would have to throw Gailey under the bus as well. You can't expect miracles with dog **** for players, no matter who the DC is.

[Wraith]

We are talking about the terrible performance of one season of NFL football, not some million-trial clinical test or statistically valid population sample or something. Lose the 'Stats 101' powertrip and get real. It's a football message board. People use statistics to compare performances over the course of one or more seasons to make their points.

 

Yeah and they're usually wrong. The original poster grossly distorted the truth, anyway. Here's the real layout.

 

AFC

Jets (Sanchez, 1st rd pick) vs. Colts (Manning, 1st rd pick)

Ravens (Flacco, 1st rd pick) vs. Chief (Cassel, Trade)

 

Bye

Steelers (Roethlisberger, 1st rd pick)

Patriots (Brady, 6th rd pick)

 

NFC

New Orleans (Brees, Free Agent) vs. Seattle (Hasselbeck, Free Agent)

Green Bay (Rodgers, 1st rd pick) vs. Eagles (Vick, Free Agent)

 

Bye

Atlanta Falcons (Ryan, 1st rd pick)

Chicago (Cutler, Trade)

 

1st rd picks at QB in playoffs with the team that drafted them: 6 of 12 teams

 

Of those six, two are mediocre to decent (Sanchez and Flacco) and reliant on great defenses.

[TH3]

Statistically that's meaningless. A one year's sample has no merit as it relates to yearly expected outcomes. I have a lot of questions before I'd even give this any consideration. Of the remaining teams no in the playoffs or without winning records, how many first rounders are starting or did start? What percent of all QBs are first round picks? The position has such a premier that QBs often get picked in the first round not because they're deserve it, but because teams feel like they have to grab one and gamble and its worth the risk.

 

Cherry picking statistics and then making an argument without any statistical tests to prove anything only shows a bias in your argument toward the pick you want. Take stats 101 and come back with something significant.

 

Actually I took alot of statistics - and he has a point. A top level quarterback has a more statistically significant effect on a team than any other position. Flip out Manning, Brady, Brees, BR, MV,Ryan....with say Trent or even Fitz and one has a completely different team. A great DE will not change the fortunes of a team as much as a top QB.

 

I agree with his point - if there is a QB who is a game changer - I would agree to take him in round one. Now the debate becomes - get Luck - or is Cam Newton or Mallet/Gibbons(sp?) one of those qb's that is "statistically significant"?

Edited January 3, 2011 by baskin

[BobChalmers]

Also, to the posters that claim the Bills offense is good - it's really quite terrible and about as bad as the defense was. Fitz did not shine - he was well below average and led his team to the third worst season in the NFL. Bottom quarter offense, bottom of the barrel QB. Only way to turn things around and compete for championships for a decade is to find elite QB play any way you can - and not settle for a smart guy with a killer beard. Dare to dream of having the next Tom Brady and own the division until 2025.

 

FAIL.

 

This team defense gave up 30+ points in NINE of SIXTEEN games. Thanks to Fitz and the offense, we actually managed to win one of those, and went to OT in another.

 

People who assign win % to the QB obviously have no business arguing what position to draft. For you QB == WINS and by that logic, obviously we should trade our entire roster and all future draft picks for Manning or Brady. Your faulty premise makes any logical argument invalid.

 

The truth is, football is as great as it is because it's the ultimate team game, and you need players at all positions to succeed. Yes, QB is the single most important position, but that's relative to each other position, not all other positions in total.

 

 

Also - why can't people on this board pay attention to what's happening to the roster over the season and see its impact on the result? The OL sucks? is that before or after we had two waiver guys manning the right side?? Does noone else see how losing multiple starters directly leads to less offense? We need a better starting ORT so that we can be using our starters as depth. We need a real TE so we can hurt teams up the middle when they blitz or drop into cover-2.

 

The Patriots are so smart? Well, who did they draft last year? Oh look - 2 TE's in the first three rounds. When Brady went down they were still 11-5, led by a guy who was never a college starter - remember?

 

We need a TE and at least 2 LB's and an ORT.

 

Having said that - if Luck or another QB Nix believes in as elite is there at #3, you may have to go for it just because it's (thankfully) rare to be up there. But you don't take a QB just because.

Edited January 3, 2011 by BobChalmers

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Statistically that's meaningless. A one year's sample has no merit as it relates to yearly expected outcomes. I have a lot of questions before I'd even give this any consideration. Of the remaining teams no in the playoffs or without winning records, how many first rounders are starting or did start? What percent of all QBs are first round picks? The position has such a premier that QBs often get picked in the first round not because they're deserve it, but because teams feel like they have to grab one and gamble and its worth the risk.

 

Cherry picking statistics and then making an argument without any statistical tests to prove anything only shows a bias in your argument toward the pick you want. Take stats 101 and come back with something significant.

 

 

You are wrong. One year of stats may or may not be determinative, but it may be significant in a larger population and i am guessing the poster wasn't a suggesting a finding of the scale you were attributing to it. Also, while this isn't statistically significant, other larger population studies have been done which support to the point ( which may or may not be significant). Regardless, your apparent position doesn't even have a population as supportive as this one. In any event, while as this study may be slanted, your response is more slanted and lacks any facts as well.

Edited January 3, 2011 by N.Y. Orangeman

[benjamin]

Statistically that's meaningless. A one year's sample has no merit as it relates to yearly expected outcomes. I have a lot of questions before I'd even give this any consideration. Of the remaining teams no in the playoffs or without winning records, how many first rounders are starting or did start? What percent of all QBs are first round picks? The position has such a premier that QBs often get picked in the first round not because they're deserve it, but because teams feel like they have to grab one and gamble and its worth the risk.

 

Cherry picking statistics and then making an argument without any statistical tests to prove anything only shows a bias in your argument toward the pick you want. Take stats 101 and come back with something significant.

 

While I agree, that's a pretty high bar to surpass on a sports discussion board. 2BD would be a lonely place if that were a requirement for comments.

[K Gun Special]

Yeah and they're usually wrong. The original poster grossly distorted the truth, anyway. Here's the real layout.

 

AFC

Jets (Sanchez, 1st rd pick) vs. Colts (Manning, 1st rd pick)

Ravens (Flacco, 1st rd pick) vs. Chief (Cassel, Trade)

 

Bye

Steelers (Roethlisberger, 1st rd pick)

Patriots (Brady, 6th rd pick)

 

NFC

New Orleans (Brees, Free Agent) vs. Seattle (Hasselbeck, Free Agent)

Green Bay (Rodgers, 1st rd pick) vs. Eagles (Vick, Free Agent)

 

Bye

Atlanta Falcons (Ryan, 1st rd pick)

Chicago (Cutler, Trade)

 

1st rd picks at QB in playoffs with the team that drafted them: 6 of 12 teams

 

Of those six, two are mediocre to decent (Sanchez and Flacco) and reliant on great defenses.

 

 

I fail to see how the OP distorted the truth. You simply have a different reading bc your focus is on whether that person was drafted by their current team.

 

The posters main point was that 1st round QB talent is most important, its been covered countless time. Look at the last 25 super bowls and show me one other than the Brad Johnson SB that didn't have one 1st round QB playing, i don't care if that team drafted him either.

[Wraith]

I don't care if that team drafted him either.

Unless the point is to draft a QB that will eventually lead some other team to the playoffs, you should care.

[K Gun Special]

Unless the point is to draft a QB that will eventually lead some other team to the playoffs, you should care.

 

 

The point is to acquire top QB talent, which almost always has to be done via the draft. If we can do that via trade im all for it.

 

You can be successful with avg oline or D if you have a great QB.

 

Raising the QB play is the #1 way for a team to be successful in a quick way.

[Just in Atlanta]

Here's the playoff seeding for this year:

 

AFC

Jets (Sanchez, 1st rd pick) vs. Colts (Manning, 1st rd pick)

Ravens (Flacco, 1st rd pick) vs. Chief (Cassel, 7th rd pick)

 

Bye

Steelers (Roethlisberger, 1st rd pick)

Patriots (Brady, 6th rd pick)

 

NFC

New Orleans (Brees, 2nd rd pick) vs. either St. Louis (Bradford, 1st rd pick) or Seattle (Hasselbeck, 6th rd pick)

Green Bay (Rodgers, 1st rd pick) vs. Eagles (Vick, 1st rd pick or Kolb, 2nd rd pick)

 

Bye

Atlanta Falcons (Ryan, 1st rd pick)

Chicago (Cutler, 1st rd pick)

 

1st rd picks at QB in playoffs: 9 of 12 teams

 

Teams that didn't make the playoffs with winning records:

Giants (Manning, 1st rd pick)

Tampa Bay (Freeman, 1st rd pick)

San Diego (Rivers, 1st rd pick)

 

# of teams with winning records + playoff teams with 1st rd QBs: 12 of 15

 

Other 1st rd picks at QB:

Teams that didn't make the playoffs with .500 or below records:

Dallas (Romo [hurt], undrafted, Kitna undrafted)

Washington (McNabb, 1st rd pick, Grossman, 1st rd pick) - both have been to SB with other teams

Detroit (Stafford [hurt], 1st rd pick, Hill, undrafted) - too early on Stafford

Minnesota (Favre [hurt], 2nd rd pick, Jackson, 2nd rd pick)

Carolina (Moore [hurt], undrafted, Clausen, 2nd rd pick)

San Francisco (Smith, 1st rd pick, Smith, 5th rd pick) - Smith is a legit bust

Arizona (Anderson, undrafted, Hall, undrafted, Skelton, 5th rd pick)

Miami (Henne, 2nd rd pick)

Cleveland (Delhomme, undrafted, McCoy, 3rd rd pick)

Cincinnati (Palmer, 1st rd pick) - has been above average most of his career, but is starting to fade

Jacksonville (Garrard, 4th rd pick)

Tennessee (Young, 1st rd pick, Collins, 1st rd pick) - Young is a headcase, Collins has been to SB

Oakland (Campbell, 1st rd pick, Boller, 1st rd pick) - both underachievers

Denver (Orton, 4th rd pick, Tebow, 1st rd pick) - too early on Tebow

 

Obviously, drafting a QB in the 1st does not guarantee a better team or playoff spot, but the numbers do not lie - to win in this league, you have to have a stud behind center, and 9 out of 12 times, they are found in the first round.

Disagree. Fitz at least is an average QB playing behind a below average line and with a way below average run defense. I think most fans would rather have him than Sanchez or Henne. Unless we can get Luck, I don't see any point wasting a first round pick on anything other than addressing our most pressing need--run stuffers.

[Rob's House]

Since 2000 Only 5 of 11 SB winning teams had a QB drafted in rd 1 (and one was Trent Dilfer). Of the remaining teams, 5 had a QB picked in rd 6 or later. This scientific method of statistical analysis proves that in this century the SB champion is just as likely to have a QB picked in the 6th or later as it is to have a 1st rounder. In fact, statistically speaking there is a higher probability that the SB champions will not have a 1st rd quarterback. Just sayin.

[akm0404]

FAIL.

 

This team defense gave up 30+ points in NINE of SIXTEEN games. Thanks to Fitz and the offense, we actually managed to win one of those, and went to OT in another.

 

25th in the NFL in total offense. 28th in the NFL in points scored. I'll give you that the offense is somewhat better than last year, and was CERTAINLY more watchable (touchdowns+turnovers look MUCH better than 3 and out futility, even if they accomplish the same thing). But the Bills offense was bad. Very very very bad in 2010. There were only a handful of teams that were worse offensively. That isn't good enough.

 

The defense was statistically almost identical to the offense in terms of futility. They did it by getting blown up by the run and playing decently against the pass. But either way, 24th in the NFL in total defense and woeful in forcing turnovers. Very comparable, but they were more the Edwards style of getting ground to a pulp methodically game in and game out.

 

Both are not nearly good enough, and both need to be RADICALLY improved in order for the Bills to contend for the playoffs.

 

 

Having said that - if Luck or another QB Nix believes in as elite is there at #3, you may have to go for it just because it's (thankfully) rare to be up there. But you don't take a QB just because.

 

I agree with you here. If Luck is there, you take him because you'd be on drugs not to. If you don't think Newton can be a superstar, you pass on him.

[34-78-83]

FAIL.

 

This team defense gave up 30+ points in NINE of SIXTEEN games. Thanks to Fitz and the offense, we actually managed to win one of those, and went to OT in another.

 

People who assign win % to the QB obviously have no business arguing what position to draft. For you QB == WINS and by that logic, obviously we should trade our entire roster and all future draft picks for Manning or Brady. Your faulty premise makes any logical argument invalid.

 

The truth is, football is as great as it is because it's the ultimate team game, and you need players at all positions to succeed. Yes, QB is the single most important position, but that's relative to each other position, not all other positions in total.

 

 

Also - why can't people on this board pay attention to what's happening to the roster over the season and see its impact on the result? The OL sucks? is that before or after we had two waiver guys manning the right side?? Does noone else see how losing multiple starters directly leads to less offense? We need a better starting ORT so that we can be using our starters as depth. We need a real TE so we can hurt teams up the middle when they blitz or drop into cover-2.

 

The Patriots are so smart? Well, who did they draft last year? Oh look - 2 TE's in the first three rounds. When Brady went down they were still 11-5, led by a guy who was never a college starter - remember?

 

We need a TE and at least 2 LB's and an ORT.

 

Having said that - if Luck or another QB Nix believes in as elite is there at #3, you may have to go for it just because it's (thankfully) rare to be up there. But you don't take a QB just because.

[All_Pro_Bills]

A QB can only be a Franchise QB AFTER they demonstrate success at the Pro level. Since none of the potential draftees have a single down of professional football experience its hard to say any of them are the real deal. Maybe all 4 top QB prospects turn out to be great pro's or maybe none of them. More likely something in between. I haven't gathered any statistics but I suspect there's just as many 1st round QB busts as there are guys that turn out to be 'Franchise QB's'.

 

The problem with the draft is you're not sure what you're going to get. The Bills have a high 1st round pick and must select an impact player, whatever the position. If they go defense or offense he's got to be a playmaker. He's got to dominate his opponent, win the one-on-one battles, and make plays, not ride the bench like many of the Bills recent 1st rounders. He's got to enable the offense to put points on the board or keep the opposition from doing the same.

 

I'm no draft expert but I do know if you can't stop the run, rush the passer, and protect you're own QB it really doesn't matter who you have at the QB position. Drafting a franchise QB given the current state of the Bills would be like putting a professional NASCAR driver in a Yugo for the Daytona 500 and expecting a 1st place finish. Getting a great QB will lead to more victories only if you've got the support system and an above average team around him to succeed.