Hows drafting a 1st round QB looking NOW!!!

[GG]

Basically, if your team is in the SB, odds are they are being run by a QB taken in the first round of the NFL draft, more so by far than QB's taken in anyother round.

185683[/snapback]

 

What's the cause & what's the effect?

 

The fight between Yvel & Formerly RJ is ridiculous, because it sets out to prove or disprove that 1st round QBs are greater players, while ignoring the propensity of NFL teams to use higher draft picks on QBs. You cannot do a proper statistical analysis of success without looking at the general trends of where the QBs are picked relative to the available players in the draft.

 

NFL GMs have historically placed a higher premium on the QB position, that's why you will see an Akili Smith aberration more often than a Tony Mandarich. It also means that QBs with potential ability will be long gone by round 3. While this may "prove" the assertion that you need to draft a QB early to have success, all it says is that you better grab a player with no measurable prediction of success because other teams may grab him before his real value in round 4 or 5.

 

The deja vu sense of this argument, which is rooted in the pre-draft 2002 nonsense, is that RJ was apoplectic in us getting baby Joey, while Brady was calling for any scrap heap QB.

 

The truth is in between, where both are right and both are wrong. Brady is right in his conclusion that teams don't necessarily need to waste a top pick on a QB, nor spend 10% of the team's cap money on one. But, the general shortage of good QBs puts a chink in his Aisle 8 QB theory. Secondly, the only teams that can shuttle scrub QBs with any measure of success are teams that have gone through the motions of assembling a complete supporting cast that starts with the OL, and has a system in place that will allow for mediocre QBs to thrive. This list is very small, and that's why most teams will try to grab QBs early to get a quick start on the rebuilding process.

[ATBNG]

The basic problem with your analysis is that you anoint JP as a victory with no evidence whatsoever that he is so. Some 1st round QB's succeed and others don't - where JP falls on that list is entirely unknown right now.

 

As far as condemning Brady, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

 

Belichick's head coaching record before Brady: 41-57 Reg. , 1-1 playoffs

 

Belichick's record with Brady (also Brady's record): 47-14 Reg. , 6-0 (5-0 if you will) playoffs

 

Belichick himself has said several times that there is nobody he'd rather have at the quarterback position than Tom Brady.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

What's the cause & what's the effect?

 

The fight between Yvel & Formerly RJ is ridiculous, because it sets out to prove or disprove that 1st round QBs are greater players, while ignoring the propensity of NFL teams to use higher draft picks on QBs.  You cannot do a proper statistical analysis of success without looking at the general trends of where the QBs are picked relative to the available players in the draft. 

 

NFL GMs have historically placed a higher premium on the QB position, that's why you will see an Akili Smith aberration more often than a Tony Mandarich.  It also means that QBs with potential ability will be long gone by round 3.  While this may "prove" the assertion that you need to draft a QB early to have success, all it says is that you better grab a player with no measurable prediction of success because other teams may grab him before his real value in round 4 or 5.

 

The deja vu sense of this argument, which is rooted in the pre-draft 2002 nonsense, is that RJ was apoplectic in us getting baby Joey, while Brady was calling for any scrap heap QB.

 

Actually. my argument doesn't revolve around whether a player is a good player or not, but revolves around what it takes to build a good team.  There will always be some elementof both right and wrong to any statistical based proof because dumb luck as this oddly shaped ball bounces and therefs making seemingly random calls like messing up the coin flip will skew any statistical analysis which purports to confirm a particular theory.

 

My analysis is based on the simple factual occurence that for an amount of time around 15 years no team has won the SB by drafting a QB in the 1st round to bring them there since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989, In addition, this point is underscored since no first round drafted QB has brought the team which drafted him to the SB since McNair led TN there in 1999.

 

I'm not making these facts up and there are many reasons to explain this occurence which are relevant to the outcome including dumb luck and how the ball bounced.  In facct this pristine record since the drafting of Aikman could easily have been broken if a TN player had gotten a couple of extra yards as the clocked ticked down.

 

Nevertheless, even if mcNair and TN had broken the streak of failure to win the big dance or you include the fact that at least its only been 5 years since a 1st round drafted QB even brought his team to the final game, the conventional wisdom of investing big bucks into a 1st round drafted QB has been far better for business as it gives you a recognizable starto sell tickets around than it has been an on the field benefit which produces SB wins or even appearances.

 

The question I raise is more of a draft strategy question than a crediting or blaming players question.

 

Should the Bills have spent a 1st rounder on Losman or used another method?

 

For me its an open question rather  than the no-brainer it seems to be treated as by folks who I think place too much import on the QB position and on having a gun slinger there if your goal is to just win baby.

 

My question is answered by upur answer to questions like:

 

Did picking Losman do anything for the Bills on the field this year and might have picking a player who contributed not as much but something like what Evans contributed to the Bills this year been a better choice for a team which is incredibly close to a playoff appearance should have made?

 

Did picking Rivers do anything for SD this year?

 

Is it relevant at all that Peyton Manning finally surged ahead of Ryan Leaf last year in delivering playoff wins to the team which drafted him?

 

I think anyone interested in winning football games, getting to the SB, or winning the SB should take careful note of these types of questions.  Do you or others deny this?

 

The truth is in between, where both are right and both are wrong.  Brady is right in his conclusion that teams don't necessarily need to waste a top pick on a QB, nor spend 10% of the team's cap money on one.  But, the general shortage of good QBs puts a chink in his Aisle 8 QB theory.  Secondly, the only teams that can shuttle scrub QBs with any measure of success are teams that have gone through the motions of assembling a complete supporting cast that starts with the OL, and has a system in place that will allow for mediocre QBs to thrive.  This list is very small, and that's why most teams will try to grab QBs early to get a quick start on the rebuilding process.

185729[/snapback]

[JP-era]

185870[/snapback]

 

 

A eniterly different take is the one that I try to convince other of. Why in fact would GM's continue to draft QB's 1st and foremost? Are they simply ignorant? I think we know better. I think that the NFL draft is simply the fruition of a logical ranking of the importance and potential of players. GM's see what most see, the QB position may be the most critical to a teams success, and as such desrves the uptmost attention during the offseason when you need one.

 

It may not be that they draft QB's more often in the 1st round because they are so much better than other positions but rather that they need to do everything possible to try to get a really good one and since the draft is a gamble anyways, they figure they should take the least amount of risk by getting one who rates the highest.

 

Its about probablity of success and trusting your scouts. If they take a look at a player and say that he has a great chance to be something special and its at a crucial position like QB, it makes the choice easier on draft day.

 

GM's lean towards drafting QB's high because of the odds, its not a sure thing by any means. But the fact are the facts, there is usually a reason why your scouts rank a player in the 1st round. And quite often the ratings turn out to be true. If you can get the next Manning or Vick or McNabb and you need a QB, you do it, even when you have a shot at the next Pace or Kearse or Holt.

 

The point about the cap implications of drafting a stud QB is valid and is something no squad can overlook. But, you must build around key players at key positions and QB is one of the prime candidates for natural leadership.

 

GM's draft QB's high and will continue to do so because they know how much a premiere QB can mean to success and how much it could mean for revenue. It isnt solely about revenue though, team that lose usually blame the QB and then wont watch the team because of the crappy play.

 

This year we get to watch the NFL as it is supposed to be, highly drafted QB's leading their respective teams to the playoffs and beyond. It can be done differently withotu a doubt but your best chance for success is with a stud at the helm!!!

[JP-era]

The basic problem with your analysis is that you anoint JP as a victory with no evidence whatsoever that he is so. Some 1st round QB's succeed and others don't - where JP falls on that list is entirely unknown right now.

 

As far as condemning Brady, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

 

Belichick's head coaching record before Brady: 41-57 Reg. , 1-1 playoffs

 

Belichick's record with Brady (also Brady's record): 47-14 Reg. , 6-0 (5-0 if you will) playoffs

 

Belichick himself has said several times that there is nobody he'd rather have at the quarterback position than Tom Brady.

185847[/snapback]

 

 

It is unfair and untrue to claim that Belichecks success solely has to do with Brady starting or not starting. He is a head coach who, like all head coaches, learns on the job and adapts. Head coaches who dont no longer have jobs.

 

Brady is a decent QB who is surrounded by a talented team and an all-world coaching staff. Weiss is now gone and I bet you money Brady has a career worst year next year. Brady would flat out be average for any other team. He is JUST like Warner or Garcia who many here argued were all we need as far as talent level to make the playoffs or more. You can now see first hand how that worked out for teams that werent that good or didnt have a great supporting cast. Brady is no diffierent IMO. Anyone can of course argue that he is a stud and his numbers back that but we will never know how good he REALLY is until he is on a bad squad.

 

As far as JP goes, no one has any idea of what we have in JP. My arguement has always been that we know EXACTLY what we have in Drew and chances are VERY good that he isnt good enough! If in fact it turns out that Drew wont get us to the dance (and I honestly hope that ISNT true), then we must immediately find the guy who will. There is a possibility that its JP, and thats why we root for him. Its a lack of trsut in Drew and the unknown that is JP.

[SACTOBILLSFAN]

BTW, as far as Drew goes, he NOW is in the category of a Garcia or Warner where without a great supporting cast he sucks! He may have been a stud when younger with no supporting cast but not anymore. Age changes the whole equation.

 

So, Drew say 5 or more years ago fit the 1st round great QB mold, now a Drew on the decline fits the Warner or Garcia mold where he MUST have stars around him or he sucks! 

 

One more thing, our front office has basically admitted that he needs a great supporting cast to get us to the SB!

185512[/snapback]

 

Who's the assclown? I say JP Era. And here's why: Elway...didn't win until he had a "good cast". Manning has a great cast and has won sh*t, McNabb won nothing, Kelly never won anything, Marino no rings. Man you sure are a horse's ass. By the way, go look at JPs games from college and tell me when he beat a top 25 team...or even a decent team. I'll clue you in...he hasn't ever beat a good team, but he is still looked upon as a great talent. Maybe the reason he never beat a decent team was because he lacked a strong supporting cast? Despite this JP was a first rounder you should really do some research before you make assinine points.

[JP-era]

Who's the assclown? I say JP Era. And here's why: Elway...didn't win until he had a "good cast". Manning has a great cast and has won sh*t, McNabb won nothing, Kelly never won anything, Marino no rings. Man you sure are a horse's ass. By the way, go look at JPs games from college and tell me when he beat a top 25 team...or even a decent team. I'll clue you in...he hasn't ever beat a good team, but he is still looked upon as a great talent. Maybe the reason he never beat a decent team was because he lacked a strong supporting cast?  Despite this JP was a first rounder you should really do some research before you make assinine points.

185887[/snapback]

 

 

Ghee, sorry for cutting in on your endless bashing with a football related post.

[GG]

My analysis is based on the simple factual occurence that for an amount of time around 15 years no team has won the SB by drafting a QB in the 1st round to bring them there since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989, In addition, this point is underscored since no first round drafted QB has brought the team which drafted him to the SB since McNair led TN there in 1999.

 

No, but your analysis is totally lacking objectivity by ignoring the teams that used high draft picks to get their QBs. Thus, while you are correct in surmising that teams are usually better served in building up a complete roster instead of blowing it all on the QB, the data will show that it's likely that that QB will cost plenty in draft picks or salary.

 

I also noticed that you're not using salary cap data to back your points, because many of those bargain Aisle 8 QBs are now at the top of the pay charts.

[ATBNG]

It is unfair and untrue to claim that Belichecks success solely has to do with Brady starting or not starting. He is a head coach who, like all head coaches, learns on the job and adapts. Head coaches who dont no longer have jobs.

 

I am not making that claim in any way, shape or form. Belichick is a very bright man who gets better at his job as he has gained more experience. He's a terrific coach and GM. However, you cannot deny that that is his record. He doesn't have a prior history of being able to plug just anyone in at QB and be successful. So actual events contradict your claim that "anyone" would be successful with this coaching staff - the coaching staff had a chance to coach three or four others QB's

before Brady came along, and none of them were more than modestly successful in the system.

[VABills]

Okay, I haven't waded through the whole thing, but see a major issue with the initial post here pertaining to Warner. Warner was 5-2 with the Giants when he was bench and then their first rounder dumped them into the cellar. He had an 86.5 QB rating, which is higher than average, and his team on whole was doing far above their expected level. In comes "the first rounder" who proceeds to go 0-8 and has a whopping QB rating of 46.

 

Go back and try again, with some facts next time. Your current analysis is lacking and would get you fired if this was your job.

 

In fact, while I know it is a baseball book, go read the book "Moneyball". You'll find that people who think they know, don't really know.

[SACTOBILLSFAN]

Your post is somewhat football related but it still makes no sense. Who cares if 1st rounders are "more likely to succeed" they are supposed to that's why they were drafted in the first round. All QBs must have good players around them to be successful, just look at Elway and Marino. Elway didn't win until he had a DOMINANT running game to work with and Marino never won because he never had a running game.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Why in fact would GM's continue to draft QB's 1st and foremost?

185879[/snapback]

 

My sense is that a big part of the answer to this question is that the GM manages the business in addition to trying to win games. GMs aren't ignorant at all. They know that by drafting a highly touted QB, they can market their product around that player like no other player on the team.

 

A good QB who plays well puts butts in the seats and allows you to sell boxes. Even a QB who contributes little the team except promise allows you to market your product. I want him to win for sure, but ultimately my job is likely to be determined by how much money I made.

 

Drafting QBs in the first round simply has no record of winning the SB since Dalolas chose Aikman or even getting to the SB since McNair, However, Manning and McNabb have proved to be great investments fr my team even though we have never gotten to the Big Dance.

 

I for one was amused by seing SH and Indy duel last week. One should expect them to be in very different places having drafted one of the best QBs to ever play the game and having drafted one of the biggest busts of all time. However, i point out again that Manning finally stormed ahead of Leaf just last year in terms of delivering playoff wins to the team which drafted him.

 

The two teams are very close to each other in output this year and this includes SD blowing yet another 1st round pick on a QB who contributed zero to the the team this year.

[Ball'n]

Okay, I haven't waded through the whole thing, but see a major issue with the initial post here pertaining to Warner.  Warner was 5-2 with the Giants when he was bench and then their first rounder dumped them into the cellar.  He had an 86.5 QB rating, which is higher than average, and his team on whole was doing far above their expected level.  In comes "the first rounder"  who proceeds to go 0-8 and has a whopping QB rating of 46. 

 

Go back and try again, with some facts next time.  Your current analysis is lacking and would get you fired if this was your job. 

 

In fact, while I know it is a baseball book, go read the book "Moneyball".  You'll find that people who think they know, don't really know.

185948[/snapback]

 

 

I bet that whopping QB rating of 46 is much higher than the QB rating of QB's drafted in round 2 or later. Warner is an exception..

Add him into your data and you will still come up with 1'st rounders having a higher QB rating.

[VABills]

I bet that whopping QB rating of 46 is much higher than the QB rating of QB's drafted in round 2 or later. Warner is an exception..

Add him into your data and you will still come up with 1'st rounders having a higher QB rating.

186157[/snapback]

What? I honestly cannot understand what point you are attempting to make here.