A case not to draft a QB outside of the 1st round

[gumby]

Thanks to Mr. WEO for the inspiration.

 

I went through past drafts to compile a list of franchise QBs and in what round they were drafted in. The assumption I am going on is that a franchise QB needs to be a starter in the NFL for at least 3 years regardless if the team he played on drafted him or not. So Brett Favre was a franchise QB although being drafted by the Falcons. Also it doesn't take into account the quality of QB, so a David Carr (5 year starter) is considered a franchise QB just as Peyton Manning is.

 

My sample size is from a 20 year period (1989-2008). Reason I stopped at 2008 is that would give QBs from that draft class a chance to establish themselves as a 3 year starter.

 

In each round I will give the number of QBs selected and the number of QBs who became 3 year starters and then the percentage for each. Also for each round (besides the 1st there being just too many) I'll give the names of the guys who became franchise QBs.

 

It should also be noted this list does not include players such as Kurt Warner or Tony Romo who were undrafted QBs.

 

These stats were compiled from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/QB-1980-now.htm

 

 

1st: Players selected: 44

3 year starters: 29

Percentage: 65.9%

 

2nd: Players selected: 22

3 year starter: 7

Percentage: 31.8

Players: Drew Brees, Charlie Batch, Jake Plummer, Kordell Stewart, Tony Banks,

Brett Favre, Billy Joe Tolliver

 

3rd: Players selected: 25

3 year starter: 3

Percentage 12.0

Players: Matt Schaub, Brian Griese, Neil O'Donnell

 

4th: Players selected: 35

3 year starter: 4

Percentage 11.4

Players: Kyle Orton, David Garrard, Aaron Brooks, Scott Mitchell

 

5th: Players selected: 24

3 year starter: 1

Percentage: 4.1

Player: Mark Brunell

 

6th: Players selected: 36

3 year starter: 6

Percentage: 16.7

Players: Derek Anderson, Marc Bulger, Tom Brady, Matt Hasselbeck,

Jeff Blake, Rodney Peete

 

7th: Players selected: 41

3 year starter: 3

Percentage 7.3

Players: Matt Cassell, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Gus Frerotte

 

The draft had 8 rounds in 1993 and 12 rounds in the years before that. Since today's draft is only 7 rounds I added rounds 8-12 together.

 

8th-12th: Players selected: 33

3 year starter: 3

Percentage: 9.1

Players: Elvis Grbac, Trent Green, Brad Johnson.

 

So as you can see if a team is looking for a franchise starting QB the 1st round is by far your best bet with almost a 2 in 3 chance. The 2nd round still has some value with just under a 1 in 3 chance. After that the numbers drop precipitously so that the draft really becomes a "crap-shoot" if you are looking for a QB.

[RaNdom]

That's not too useful of a statistical analysis, as of course, a first rounder will be more successful than a later round player.

 

A more apt analysis would compare to success rates of becoming a 3 year starter in the specific round, i.e. comparing a qb from round 6 to position players success from round 6. A late round pick is rarely expected to be very successful as it is, so a 5-16% qb success rate might not be that low, relatively. As long as you're not relying on the player to be a starter/contributor right away, which nobody should be. Yes, it would be idiotic of a team to draft an expected first year starter in the later rounds.

 

It probably isn't that much greater of a risk to draft a qb at that stage, assuming you have adequate depth and ST/role players, which has not been the case for the Bills in a long time. And really, that gamble usually pays dividends as long as you can afford it (Like the Patsies/Packers with Cassel, Mallet, Flynn, etc). It did not work out for Levi Brown, but if the team trusts in Fitzy and we assume the team has sufficient depth (which I'm not sure it does), then a late round gamble on a project qb might be worthwhile.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Thanks to Mr. WEO for the inspiration.

 

I went through past drafts to compile a list of franchise QBs and in what round they were drafted in. The assumption I am going on is that a franchise QB needs to be a starter in the NFL for at least 3 years regardless if the team he played on drafted him or not. So Brett Favre was a franchise QB although being drafted by the Falcons. Also it doesn't take into account the quality of QB, so a David Carr (5 year starter) is considered a franchise QB just as Peyton Manning is.

 

 

You lost me right here at the bolded part.

 

Any analysis which considers David Carr (59.7% completion percentage, 71 INTs to 65 TD, lifetime QB rating 74.9) to be 1) a franchise QB 2) on the same footing for success/lack of success as Peyton Manning, fails the sanity check. Clue: the Texans didn't release Mr 1st round Carr and send 2 2nd round draft picks plus swap 1sts with Atl for Mr (3rd round) Matt Schaub in the 2007 off-season because they considered David Carr a successful NFL QB.

 

Dude, to be any kind of useful, an analysis MUST take into account the quality of the QB in question, not simply whether he started for 3 years.

Starting for 3 years simply means the team didn't have someone else they recognized as clearly better on the roster at the time, or that they felt playing time would help his development.

 

One also must consider whether the round where a guy is picked skews the duration of playing time as starter. A team is arguably more likely to stay with a QB in whom they have invested a 1st round pick and 1st round salary even if he is performing at a level that would release a later-round pick, in the hopes that he will "develop". Example: Colt McCoy is often spoken of as "not very good" and the Browns as needing a QB. He was drafted in the 3rd round. Sam Bradford is often spoken of as a promising franchise QB, and the Rams traded their chance to draft Luck or RGIII this year in favor of "Staying with Sam". Yet statistically, Bradford and McCoy are very similar in their 1st 2 years - McCoy is 58.4% completions, 74.5 QB rating, 6-15 QB record. Bradford is 57.6% completions, 74.2 QB rating, 8-18 QB record. (This phenomenon would be hard to account for statistically since it has to do with organizational psychology, but it highlights that years as starter are simply not a good sole measure of success)

 

I once asked on this board for people to explain what "Franchise QB" means. I have come to believe that "Franchise QB" means, whatever the person posting at the time wants it to mean.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Hopeful

[section122]

That's not too useful of a statistical analysis, as of course, a first rounder will be more successful than a later round player.

 

A more apt analysis would compare to success rates of becoming a 3 year starter in the specific round, i.e. comparing a qb from round 6 to position players success from round 6. A late round pick is rarely expected to be very successful as it is, so a 5-16% qb success rate might not be that low, relatively. As long as you're not relying on the player to be a starter/contributor right away, which nobody should be. Yes, it would be idiotic of a team to draft an expected first year starter in the later rounds.

 

It probably isn't that much greater of a risk to draft a qb at that stage, assuming you have adequate depth and ST/role players, which has not been the case for the Bills in a long time. And really, that gamble usually pays dividends as long as you can afford it (Like the Patsies/Packers with Cassel, Mallet, Flynn, etc). It did not work out for Levi Brown, but if the team trusts in Fitzy and we assume the team has sufficient depth (which I'm not sure it does), then a late round gamble on a project qb might be worthwhile.

This. The idea of whether or not to take a qb late has more to do with other positions success rate in the nfl not the qb position alone. Is it less likely a qb from round 6 will be a hof yes but the same can be said for a multitude of positions if not every one. Oh yeah eff Tom Brady and the Pats for getting Lucky!

[zow2]

My only argument against this is that it seems (only anecdotal evidence of course)...that draft choices in the past 3 years are expected to jump in and start more than ever. I'd say anyone drafted in rounds 1-3 is considered a near failure if they are not contributors in season #1. Cinci threw Dalton in there last year as a 2nd rounder. I guarantee Mallett could have started for someone if not behind Brady.

[simpleman]

This. The idea of whether or not to take a qb late has more to do with other positions success rate in the nfl not the qb position alone. Is it less likely a qb from round 6 will be a hof yes but the same can be said for a multitude of positions if not every one. Oh yeah eff Tom Brady and the Pats for getting Lucky!

 

I too was interested in QBs by Draft position. I found this link

 

Starting NFL QB's by Position in Draft

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This. The idea of whether or not to take a qb late has more to do with other positions success rate in the nfl not the qb position alone. Is it less likely a qb from round 6 will be a hof yes but the same can be said for a multitude of positions if not every one. Oh yeah eff Tom Brady and the Pats for getting Lucky!

 

Indeed! What was that quote - Bart Scott? - that Bill Belicheck was "one Mo Lewis hit away from the unemployment line"? Too true.

 

The point is well made that the success rate overall (at all positions) falls sharply as the draft progresses to higher rounds.

 

One could also make a case for a strategy of drafting a promising late-round QB or two every year, bringing him into training camp to compete against the incumbent backup, keeping the best, and repeat every year.

It costs the team very little - rookie minimum or PS salary - and if repeated often enough can result in a Matt Cassel, Matt Flynn, etcetera if not a Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner.

 

Sure, the odds that Mr 7th Round will turn into a star are low, but the downside to giving him a shot is also low, provided the team keeps looking and doesn't just keep a mediocre guy holding the clipboard forever.

[Maddog69]

This. The idea of whether or not to take a qb late has more to do with other positions success rate in the nfl not the qb position alone. Is it less likely a qb from round 6 will be a hof yes but the same can be said for a multitude of positions if not every one. Oh yeah eff Tom Brady and the Pats for getting Lucky!

 

So maybe we should trade away multiple lower round picks to get back into the first 2 rounds.

Or maybe we should stop drafting guys in RD1 and then trading them for 3rd and 4th round picks.

[PromoTheRobot]

QBs are a gamble in any round. Slightly less in round 1 but still a gamble.

 

PTR

[PDaDdy]

Basically all these stats say is that QBs drafted early are given more time to see if they are any good. As another poster pointed out it really says nothing about the success of the QB just that they started 3 or more years. All it speaks to is on average how long teams are willing to wait and see if he is THE guy.

[section122]

I too was interested in QBs by Draft position. I found this link

 

Starting NFL QB's by Position in Draft

I read that link in another thread (there are 2 of these running simultaneously mods) and found it interesting as well. My point however was more that all positions have a lower probability of success later in the draft not just qb. Also (as I will touch on lower) that there is no harm in taking a developmental qb later on as it works out or it doesn't same as with other positions. If it does maybe you hit the lotto and end up with Brady or maybe you get an asset that can be turned into a higher pick/contributing member of your team

 

Indeed! What was that quote - Bart Scott? - that Bill Belicheck was "one Mo Lewis hit away from the unemployment line"? Too true.

 

The point is well made that the success rate overall (at all positions) falls sharply as the draft progresses to higher rounds.

 

One could also make a case for a strategy of drafting a promising late-round QB or two every year, bringing him into training camp to compete against the incumbent backup, keeping the best, and repeat every year.

It costs the team very little - rookie minimum or PS salary - and if repeated often enough can result in a Matt Cassel, Matt Flynn, etcetera if not a Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner.

 

Sure, the odds that Mr 7th Round will turn into a star are low, but the downside to giving him a shot is also low, provided the team keeps looking and doesn't just keep a mediocre guy holding the clipboard forever.

Yes! I made the same comment in the other thread. Ron Wolf used to do this every year. If they were good he had a competent backup for cheap before they became a trade able asset. Then he would do it all over again

 

So maybe we should trade away multiple lower round picks to get back into the first 2 rounds.

Or maybe we should stop drafting guys in RD1 and then trading them for 3rd and 4th round picks.

In theory I wouldn't be opposed to this however you would need a dance partner. As for the second part of your post I think we would all agree that this is case however past regimes picks don't necessarily apply as they weren't the type of players to fit the current coaches style.

[Sisyphean Bills]

One might want to consider that the football brass of a team is far more motivated to get a 1st round pick, regardless of position, on the field and producing. It's likely ownership is going to get perturbed paying the big bucks to wasted top picks.

[Mr. WEO]

Thanks to Mr. WEO for the inspiration.

 

I went through past drafts to compile a list of franchise QBs and in what round they were drafted in. The assumption I am going on is that a franchise QB needs to be a starter in the NFL for at least 3 years regardless if the team he played on drafted him or not. So Brett Favre was a franchise QB although being drafted by the Falcons. Also it doesn't take into account the quality of QB, so a David Carr (5 year starter) is considered a franchise QB just as Peyton Manning is.

 

My sample size is from a 20 year period (1989-2008). Reason I stopped at 2008 is that would give QBs from that draft class a chance to establish themselves as a 3 year starter.

 

In each round I will give the number of QBs selected and the number of QBs who became 3 year starters and then the percentage for each. Also for each round (besides the 1st there being just too many) I'll give the names of the guys who became franchise QBs.

 

It should also be noted this list does not include players such as Kurt Warner or Tony Romo who were undrafted QBs.

 

These stats were compiled from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/QB-1980-now.htm

 

 

1st: Players selected: 44

3 year starters: 29

Percentage: 65.9%

 

2nd: Players selected: 22

3 year starter: 7

Percentage: 31.8

Players: Drew Brees, Charlie Batch, Jake Plummer, Kordell Stewart, Tony Banks,

Brett Favre, Billy Joe Tolliver

 

3rd: Players selected: 25

3 year starter: 3

Percentage 12.0

Players: Matt Schaub, Brian Griese, Neil O'Donnell

 

4th: Players selected: 35

3 year starter: 4

Percentage 11.4

Players: Kyle Orton, David Garrard, Aaron Brooks, Scott Mitchell

 

5th: Players selected: 24

3 year starter: 1

Percentage: 4.1

Player: Mark Brunell

 

6th: Players selected: 36

3 year starter: 6

Percentage: 16.7

Players: Derek Anderson, Marc Bulger, Tom Brady, Matt Hasselbeck,

Jeff Blake, Rodney Peete

 

7th: Players selected: 41

3 year starter: 3

Percentage 7.3

Players: Matt Cassell, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Gus Frerotte

 

The draft had 8 rounds in 1993 and 12 rounds in the years before that. Since today's draft is only 7 rounds I added rounds 8-12 together.

 

8th-12th: Players selected: 33

3 year starter: 3

Percentage: 9.1

Players: Elvis Grbac, Trent Green, Brad Johnson.

 

So as you can see if a team is looking for a franchise starting QB the 1st round is by far your best bet with almost a 2 in 3 chance. The 2nd round still has some value with just under a 1 in 3 chance. After that the numbers drop precipitously so that the draft really becomes a "crap-shoot" if you are looking for a QB.

 

Good analysis--nice to see someone doing the work!! Makes the debate more intersting, I think.

 

But I too would take issue with your use of the "franchise starter" tag. Being a 3 year starter may be a bit of a generous inclusion criteria for "franchise"--at least as we seem to use the term on this board and as it is commonly used.

 

I just posted elsewhere the results of drafts from 91-03. There were 48 QBs in the first round. I identified 16 as "franchise":

 

Newton (threw him in there)

Stafford

Ryan

Flacco

Bradford (being generous)

Cutler

Rogers

Manning

Rivers

Big Ben

Vick

McNabb

Culpepper

E. MAnning's brother

McNair

Bledsoe

 

I understand the term franchise is nebulous. We are not sure what it is, but we kno wit when we see it (like the Supreme Court regards "obsenity").

 

That's a 1 in 3 hit rate that costs a 1st rounder. Taking a flyer on an intriguing mid round pick is almost risk free, especially for a team with many picks.

[DrDawkinstein]

I dont think the argument can come down to "In the 1st round vs After the 1st round". Because who is to say that a GM isn't taking a 6th round talent in the 1st?

 

I think it comes down to the "Blue Chip Prospects" vs "2nd Tier".

 

For example, in the 2004 draft the Blue Chips were Manning, Rivers and Rothelisburger. JP Losman was always talked about as a 2nd Tier QB. There were many pieces done by ESPN about JP crashing other QBs work out days to try and get noticed.

 

More recently, last year it was clear the Newton was the only Blue Chip. After him it was a crap shoot between guys like Ponder, Locker, Dalton, Gabbert, etc.

 

That is why I argue that we should not look for a new starter outside of round 1. Because typically after the first 5 picks, all of the Blue Chip QBs are gone.

 

Once you start picking the 3rd, 4th, or 5th QB, the odds of him being a Franchise QB start dropping. Sure it's possible, but unlikely.

 

IMO, if/when we are truly looking to upgrade our starting QB, we will need to get into a draft position in the top 5.

 

Unfortunately, this argument has a lot more grey area than something as clearly defined as "Picked in the 1st, or not".

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

When I first read your post, I was shocked that 69% of 1st rounders were successful, then I saw you labeld David Carr a success and realized why the number is so high.

 

Here's where I see a fatal flaw in your logic. First rounders, i.e. David Carr are given much longer rope to prove successful. so it took three years for enough people to see him before they finally gave up on him. Where as a 5th round pick, you may give a few games to and then pul lthe plug if he doesn't look like the next Peyton Manning. Just curious, did Jamarcus Russell pass the three year test and is he labeled franchise?? He had to be close. Using your logic, one could argue there's no reason to even consider another QB as by the end of the 2012 Fitz will have three years under his belt starting, so therefore he'd make your list.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

These are the sort of acedemic revelations that always annoyed me in engineering school.

 

We have made an incredible discovery that the first players teams pick to add to their team have the highest probability of being 3 year starters when compared to the later picks.

 

So there turns out to be a vast conspiracy where teams are picking who they think are the better players with earlier picks? And those that are thought to be better players have a better chance of seeing the field?

 

Ground breaking

Edited March 29, 2012 by over 20 years of fanhood

[jjmac]

God forbid you should draft a Joe Montana or a Tom Brady.

[Mr. WEO]

These are the sort of acedemic revelations that always annoyed me in engineering school.

 

We have made an incredible discovery that the first players teams pick to add to their team have the highest probability of being 3 year starters when compared to the later picks.

 

So there turns out to be a vast conspiracy where teams are picking who they think are the better players with earlier picks? And those that are thought to be better players have a better chance of seeing the field?

 

Ground breaking

You went to school to drive a train?

[Cash]

I like the OP's case (and the Chiefs site's case linked to in this thread) because it's objective and quantifiable. The major flaw with the OP's is that first-round picks, by virtue of their draft position, are given disproportionate chances regardless of their quality of play. Upping the criterion from 3 years starting to something like 5 or 6 might help in that regard, but that's something we need to account for going in. For second-rounders and on, it's pretty good, though. Look at Jimmy Clausen if you think teams are willing to stand by second-rounders and keep giving them chances.

 

Another thing to keep in mind with any QB analysis is that the data pool is very small and will always be skewed. There are only 32 starting NFL QB jobs in the world, and in any given offseason, only 5-10 of them are open. So the 6th round seems disproportionately awesome, but it's usually only because of three guys: Brady, Bulger, and Hasselbeck. Does anyone really think that the 6th round is truly 4 times as likely to produce a good QB as the 5th round?

 

That's not too useful of a statistical analysis, as of course, a first rounder will be more successful than a later round player.

 

A more apt analysis would compare to success rates of becoming a 3 year starter in the specific round, i.e. comparing a qb from round 6 to position players success from round 6. A late round pick is rarely expected to be very successful as it is, so a 5-16% qb success rate might not be that low, relatively. As long as you're not relying on the player to be a starter/contributor right away, which nobody should be. Yes, it would be idiotic of a team to draft an expected first year starter in the later rounds.

 

It probably isn't that much greater of a risk to draft a qb at that stage, assuming you have adequate depth and ST/role players, which has not been the case for the Bills in a long time. And really, that gamble usually pays dividends as long as you can afford it (Like the Patsies/Packers with Cassel, Mallet, Flynn, etc). It did not work out for Levi Brown, but if the team trusts in Fitzy and we assume the team has sufficient depth (which I'm not sure it does), then a late round gamble on a project qb might be worthwhile.

That would be a very interesting analysis. The one counter to that is that most late-round picks do make the team and contribute right away on special teams, whereas QBs really only contribute to wins by playing QB. And even the successful late-round QBs have usually taken several years to develop. (Counter to that counter: it's impossible to tell how much of that delay was from the QB not being ready and how much was from the QB not being given a chance due to his low draft status. I think both factors are in play, but as to what the split is? No idea.)

 

Indeed! What was that quote - Bart Scott? - that Bill Belicheck was "one Mo Lewis hit away from the unemployment line"? Too true.

 

The point is well made that the success rate overall (at all positions) falls sharply as the draft progresses to higher rounds.

 

One could also make a case for a strategy of drafting a promising late-round QB or two every year, bringing him into training camp to compete against the incumbent backup, keeping the best, and repeat every year.

It costs the team very little - rookie minimum or PS salary - and if repeated often enough can result in a Matt Cassel, Matt Flynn, etcetera if not a Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner.

 

Sure, the odds that Mr 7th Round will turn into a star are low, but the downside to giving him a shot is also low, provided the team keeps looking and doesn't just keep a mediocre guy holding the clipboard forever.

It's not necessarily a bad strategy, especially if you already have a good QB. (If you don't, it's hard to justify buying lottery tickets in late-round QBs instead of just getting a job in the form of a high-round QB. The job might not make you rich, and you might get fired anyway, but there is a much better chance that the job will put food on the table for the next couple of years.) The caveat is that NFL teams have limited resources, especially in the form of practice reps, game time, and time with the coaches. It wouldn't be possible for a team to draft 5 QBs and get any kind of reasonable evaluation on them. Drafting one a year, maybe two if you've got more openings, is somewhat reasonable. You may miss out on Kurt Warner (cut by Green Bay as a rookie), but there's a good chance that Matt Flynn will show enough in camp that he'll beat out Brian Brohm for the backup job and make the team. And the following year, you can probably bring in one more low-round rookie to compete with Flynn, and hopefully get a good read on both of them.

 

QBs are a gamble in any round. Slightly less in round 1 but still a gamble.

 

PTR

I both agree and disagree. I agree that there's no such thing as a safe pick at QB -- it's really hard to become a good NFL starter, and even the safest prospects still carry a decent bit of risk. A lot of fans seem to want to wait for the "sure thing" to come along, but they don't realize that there's no such thing. A team MUST take a chance to get a good QB. But getting a good QB is so important, teams are willing to take those kinds of chances. First-round QBs will always bust at a much higher rate than first-round guards or safeties, because teams are willing to take much bigger chances for the potential payoff of an elite QB. An elite OG or S isn't that big of a jackpot, so teams aren't willing to roll the dice as much.

 

Having said that, I disagree with the notion that there's only a slight difference between rounds. Analyses like the OP's tend to show, over and over, regardless of their methodology, that NFL talent evaluators are pretty good at their jobs. First-round QBs pan out about a third of the time. Second-rounders pan out about a quarter of the time. Third-rounders go down to about 10-15%. Yes, the 6th round is an outlier, but that's skewed by three data points. That's not a lot to draw a conclusion from. Remember, you can think of every late-round QB that's ever panned out, but you've never heard of the vast majority of them whose careers played out more like Levi Brown -- cut in camp in either 1st or 2nd year, maybe given another shot with original or new team, never sees any regular season action, out of the league in 3-4 years. On the other hand, you can probably recite every single first-round bust from the last 20 years, because they're all famous.

 

I dont think the argument can come down to "In the 1st round vs After the 1st round". Because who is to say that a GM isn't taking a 6th round talent in the 1st?

 

I think it comes down to the "Blue Chip Prospects" vs "2nd Tier".

 

For example, in the 2004 draft the Blue Chips were Manning, Rivers and Rothelisburger. JP Losman was always talked about as a 2nd Tier QB. There were many pieces done by ESPN about JP crashing other QBs work out days to try and get noticed.

 

More recently, last year it was clear the Newton was the only Blue Chip. After him it was a crap shoot between guys like Ponder, Locker, Dalton, Gabbert, etc.

 

That is why I argue that we should not look for a new starter outside of round 1. Because typically after the first 5 picks, all of the Blue Chip QBs are gone.

 

Once you start picking the 3rd, 4th, or 5th QB, the odds of him being a Franchise QB start dropping. Sure it's possible, but unlikely.

 

IMO, if/when we are truly looking to upgrade our starting QB, we will need to get into a draft position in the top 5.

 

Unfortunately, this argument has a lot more grey area than something as clearly defined as "Picked in the 1st, or not".

Fully agree with this, but it's hard to make anything of it, because it's so subject to bias and interpretation. A lot of people (not me) thought that Gabbert and Newton were the blue-chippers last year, and everyone else was the 2nd tier. Not the way it played out, obviously, but if you think a guy is a blue-chipper next year, it's possible that you're actually a fan of the next Gabbert or Jimmy Clausen. Sometimes it plays out like in 2004, but sometimes foresight blue-chippers like Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, or Aaron Rodgers wind up slipping to the second tier. And it does seem like those guys usually bust, but then there's Rodgers. It's a tough nut to crack.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

You went to school to drive a train?

 

They make you wear that stupid effing pinstriped hat every day....