Trading back was smarter than picking a QB – By the Numbers

[BisonMan]

For those who have bemoaned the Bills not selecting a QB with the 10^th pick, you have to look at the numbers to know why this was a good (great?) move. The reality is that there was an 85% chance that the Bills pick would be a failure had they pulled the trigger on a trigger man at 10.

 

First, the numbers. Since 2000, there have been 45 QBs taken in the first round. Of those, 21 were taken at the 10^th pick or later. Of these 21, only 3 are players I consider “franchise” quarterbacks (4 if you include Jay Cutler). They are:

• Ben Roethlisberger (11^th)
• Aaron Rodgers (24^th)
• Joe Flacco (18^th)

Some would argue that Flacco isn’t really one. Nonetheless, out of 21 selections made by teams across the NFL, less than 15% turned out to be franchise QBs. So, an 85%+ failure rate on those other picks (including a couple by the Bills). The odds aren’t great for players selected inside the top 10 either. Just 8 of the 24 QBs taken in the top 10 turned out to be franchise players. They include:

• Eli Manning
• Philip Rivers
• Carson Palmer
• Matt Ryan
• Matthew Stafford
• Alex Smith
• Cam Newton
• Andrew Luck

You can argue that some of these shouldn’t even be considered “franchise” at this point (Smith, Stafford). Aren’t the best QBs in the NFL mostly from the first round though? Probably not. Taking the QBR ratings from 2017, only about ½ of the QBs in the top half of the league were selected in the 1^st round. One clown was even drafted in the 6^th round!

 

So, if you want to argue (or bet money) that the Bills should have stayed at 10 and taken a shot at one of these QBs, I’d be happy to take the other side. History says you’d be wrong 6 out of 7 times.

 

What the Bills did yesterday was give themselves two 1st round picks in 2018. That is an arguably stronger QB class than this year. The Bills have the ammo now to move into the top 10 next year and take a shot at a QB. Even then, there is a 66% chance that won't work out, but it's much better odds than this year's draft.

 

EdW

[Mr. WEO]

True. Might as well blow it on a 3 year CB each yer.

 

 

I mean Eff it, right?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

For those who have bemoaned the Bills not selecting a QB with the 10^th pick, you have to look at the numbers to know why this was a good (great?) move. The reality is that there was an 85% chance that the Bills pick would be a failure had they pulled the trigger on a trigger man at 10.

 

First, the numbers. Since 2000, there have been 45 QBs taken in the first round. Of those, 21 were taken at the 10^th pick or later. Of these 21, only 3 are players I consider “franchise” quarterbacks (4 if you include Jay Cutler). They are:

• Ben Roethlisberger (11^th)
• Aaron Rodgers (24^th)
• Joe Flacco (18^th)

Some would argue that Flacco isn’t really one. Nonetheless, out of 21 selections made by teams across the NFL, less than 15% turned out to be franchise QBs. So, an 85%+ failure rate on those other picks (including a couple by the Bills). The odds aren’t great for players selected inside the top 10 either. Just 8 of the 24 QBs taken in the top 10 turned out to be franchise players. They include:

• Eli Manning
• Philip Rivers
• Carson Palmer
• Matt Ryan
• Matthew Stafford
• Alex Smith
• Cam Newton
• Andrew Luck

You can argue that some of these shouldn’t even be considered “franchise” at this point (Smith, Stafford). Aren’t the best QBs in the NFL mostly from the first round though? Probably not. Taking the QBR ratings from 2017, only about ½ of the QBs in the top half of the league were selected in the 1^st round. One clown was even drafted in the 6^th round!

 

So, if you want to argue (or bet money) that the Bills should have stayed at 10 and taken a shot at one of these QBs, I’d be happy to take the other side. History says you’d be wrong 6 out of 7 times.

 

What the Bills did yesterday was give themselves two 1st round picks in 2018. That is an arguably stronger QB class than this year. The Bills have the ammo now to move into the top 10 next year and take a shot at a QB. Even then, there is a 66% chance that won't work out, but it's much better odds than this year's draft.

 

EdW

 

......VERY thorough analysis.......but you'll probably rile up the masses with this "voice of reason" stuff........look at 1st round picks over the last decade.......other than Luck, Rodgers (2005), Smith (2005), and possibly Flacco (can't include The Cutlet), the rest probably would not even be UDFA's yesteryear......illustrates the decline in the position as the collegiate ranks no longer want to serve as the "minor league development" level.....filling seats and appeasing $$$ boosters is the priority IMO.......

Edited April 28, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[John from Riverside]

True. Might as well blow it on a 3 year CB each yer.

 

 

I mean Eff it, right?

Is that what we do each year?

 

It does not seem that we have done that?

[Mr. WEO]

 

......VERY thorough analysis.......but you'll probably rile up the masses with this "voice of reason" stuff........look at 1st round picks over the last decade.......other than Luck, Rodgers (2005), Smith (2005), and possibly Flacco (can't include The Cutlet), the rest probably would not even be UDFA's yesteryear......illustrates the decline in the position as the collegiate ranks no longer want to serve as the "minor league development" level.....filling seats and appeasing $$$ boosters is the priority IMO.......

 

Lazy hackey analysis. Same old clichés in that guy's post. It's about producing a starting QB, really, not a superstar.

 

Go through the list of QBs drafted and then started significant game numbers their fisrt year and you will see that today's "college game" does at least as well as it did 30 years ago at this.

[LABILLBACKER]

True. Might as well blow it on a 3 year CB each yer.

 

 

I mean Eff it, right?

Because 1st round cb's like McKelvin, Whitner and Gilmore did so much to vault us to the playoffs...White someday might be decent, but even if he is it won't guarantee we sign him 5 yrs from now. The trade down was great but the draft pick compensation was awful. A late 1st & late 3rd hardly justifies allowing a team to move up 17 slots for a qb....

[John from Riverside]

So everyone would be ok with whatever number 2 WR torching us every game?

[Malazan]

True. Might as well blow it on a 3 year CB each yer.

 

 

I mean Eff it, right?

 

Are you upset the pats didn't have a 1st round pick whose shaft you could shove down your throat?

[Santana]

For those who have bemoaned the Bills not selecting a QB with the 10^th pick, you have to look at the numbers to know why this was a good (great?) move. The reality is that there was an 85% chance that the Bills pick would be a failure had they pulled the trigger on a trigger man at 10.

 

First, the numbers. Since 2000, there have been 45 QBs taken in the first round. Of those, 21 were taken at the 10^th pick or later. Of these 21, only 3 are players I consider “franchise” quarterbacks (4 if you include Jay Cutler). They are:

• Ben Roethlisberger (11^th)
• Aaron Rodgers (24^th)
• Joe Flacco (18^th)

Some would argue that Flacco isn’t really one. Nonetheless, out of 21 selections made by teams across the NFL, less than 15% turned out to be franchise QBs. So, an 85%+ failure rate on those other picks (including a couple by the Bills). The odds aren’t great for players selected inside the top 10 either. Just 8 of the 24 QBs taken in the top 10 turned out to be franchise players. They include:

• Eli Manning
• Philip Rivers
• Carson Palmer
• Matt Ryan
• Matthew Stafford
• Alex Smith
• Cam Newton
• Andrew Luck

You can argue that some of these shouldn’t even be considered “franchise” at this point (Smith, Stafford). Aren’t the best QBs in the NFL mostly from the first round though? Probably not. Taking the QBR ratings from 2017, only about ½ of the QBs in the top half of the league were selected in the 1^st round. One clown was even drafted in the 6^th round!

 

So, if you want to argue (or bet money) that the Bills should have stayed at 10 and taken a shot at one of these QBs, I’d be happy to take the other side. History says you’d be wrong 6 out of 7 times.

 

What the Bills did yesterday was give themselves two 1st round picks in 2018. That is an arguably stronger QB class than this year. The Bills have the ammo now to move into the top 10 next year and take a shot at a QB. Even then, there is a 66% chance that won't work out, but it's much better odds than this year's draft.

 

EdW

Great post! I'm all the way with you on this man. The only thing that frustrated me with this organization was their total lack of urgency to keep drafting QB's over the years.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

Here is what I see.

 

Put the emotion aside, the Bills are trending towards another 6, 7, 8 win season.

 

That means next season the Bills will be picking in the 9th - 11th range.

 

The Chiefs were 12-4 last year. Say they drop 2 games, go to 10-6. They will be picking in the low 20's.

 

The 10th pick and 23rd pick will not be enough to get up to the top of the draft to get Darnold or Rosen.

 

 

Why do fans (and analysts who agree) say that "its a QB driven league" when the Bills NEVER DRAFT A QB?

 

When is the right time?

 

Because we are going on Year 3 with Baltimore's backup. Just like we did 3 years with Trent Edwards, and 3 more years with Ryan Fitzpatrick.

 

When are we going to get our QB?

[jeffismagic]

For those who have bemoaned the Bills not selecting a QB with the 10^th pick, you have to look at the numbers to know why this was a good (great?) move. The reality is that there was an 85% chance that the Bills pick would be a failure had they pulled the trigger on a trigger man at 10.

 

First, the numbers. Since 2000, there have been 45 QBs taken in the first round. Of those, 21 were taken at the 10^th pick or later. Of these 21, only 3 are players I consider “franchise” quarterbacks (4 if you include Jay Cutler). They are:

• Ben Roethlisberger (11^th)
• Aaron Rodgers (24^th)
• Joe Flacco (18^th)

Some would argue that Flacco isn’t really one. Nonetheless, out of 21 selections made by teams across the NFL, less than 15% turned out to be franchise QBs. So, an 85%+ failure rate on those other picks (including a couple by the Bills). The odds aren’t great for players selected inside the top 10 either. Just 8 of the 24 QBs taken in the top 10 turned out to be franchise players. They include:

• Eli Manning
• Philip Rivers
• Carson Palmer
• Matt Ryan
• Matthew Stafford
• Alex Smith
• Cam Newton
• Andrew Luck

You can argue that some of these shouldn’t even be considered “franchise” at this point (Smith, Stafford). Aren’t the best QBs in the NFL mostly from the first round though? Probably not. Taking the QBR ratings from 2017, only about ½ of the QBs in the top half of the league were selected in the 1^st round. One clown was even drafted in the 6^th round!

 

So, if you want to argue (or bet money) that the Bills should have stayed at 10 and taken a shot at one of these QBs, I’d be happy to take the other side. History says you’d be wrong 6 out of 7 times.

 

What the Bills did yesterday was give themselves two 1st round picks in 2018. That is an arguably stronger QB class than this year. The Bills have the ammo now to move into the top 10 next year and take a shot at a QB. Even then, there is a 66% chance that won't work out, but it's much better odds than this year's draft.

 

EdW

 

Your math is off. You said QB's taken top ten have a 8/24 chance for success. That is 1 out of 3. So you said the other side is 6/7, which is 85%. No. The other side of 33% is 66%. Then you use wrong percentage as your opening header.

 

Maybe change that to using a top ten pick on a QB in the top ten has a 33% chance of very high success. I like those odds. Give me QB at ten and if that isn't a franchise guy I take another shot the next year with a top ten.

 

Thanks for providing a great argument for using a high top ten pick on the QB position.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

 

Lazy hackey analysis. Same old clichés in that guy's post. It's about producing a starting QB, really, not a superstar.

 

Go through the list of QBs drafted and then started significant game numbers their fisrt year and you will see that today's "college game" does at least as well as it did 30 years ago at this.

 

......disagree......it provided a significant synopsis of the decline in the QB spot except for a very small few...."franchise QB" is a worn out cliche', a discussion crutch...."superstar"?.....once in a decade if you're lucky......just give me a solid, dependable starter who I can depend on to execute a 60/40 run offense OR if I need him to adjust to get the "W", a 40/60......if your offense does not have the flexibility to win in multiple ways, forget it................

[CEN-CAL17]

There are like a possible 6 1st round QBs in next years draft. Imagine getting the top QB or at least top 2 or 3.

 

There are like 4 no doubt QBs better than any QB this year.

[TDO'Kearney]

Because 1st round cb's like McKelvin, Whitner and Gilmore did so much to vault us to the playoffs...White someday might be decent, but even if he is it won't guarantee we sign him 5 yrs from now. The trade down was great but the draft pick compensation was awful. A late 1st & late 3rd hardly justifies allowing a team to move up 17 slots for a qb....

According to the NFL Draft Value Chart, it does: http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

10th pick - 1300 points.

 

Now lets assume the worst and say the Chiefs win the Super Bowl, because of course they will now that we gave them our pick.

 

27th pick - 680, 32nd pick next year - 590, last pick of 3rd round - 116. Total 1,386 points.

[ndirish1978]

 

Lazy hackey analysis. Same old clichés in that guy's post. It's about producing a starting QB, really, not a superstar.

 

Go through the list of QBs drafted and then started significant game numbers their fisrt year and you will see that today's "college game" does at least as well as it did 30 years ago at this.

 

For a Pats fan you sure do spend a significant amount of time on a Bills message board

[BisonMan]

 

Your math is off. You said QB's taken top ten have a 8/24 chance for success. That is 1 out of 3. So you said the other side is 6/7, which is 85%. No. The other side of 33% is 66%. Then you use wrong percentage as your opening header.

 

Maybe change that to using a top ten pick on a QB in the top ten has a 33% chance of very high success. I like those odds. Give me QB at ten and if that isn't a franchise guy I take another shot the next year with a top ten.

 

Thanks for providing a great argument for using a high top ten pick on the QB position.

 

Read carefully. I said QBs drafted at the 10th slot or later (the Bills were 10th this year) had only a 15% chance of being a franchise QB. For QBs drafted inside the top 10, there is a 33% chance. The Bills didn't have pick inside the top 10 but might next year if they trade up (or if they stink as some predict). That's why I brought up the top 10 data.

 

All told, it's really unrealistic to expect a team to get a franchise QB in the draft because there just aren't that many overall. You have to try but trying with some better odds is the way to go, IMHO.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BisonMan

[jeffismagic]

 

Read carefully. I said QBs drafted at the 10th slot or later (the Bills were 10th this year) had only a 15% chance of being a franchise QB. For QBs drafted in the top 10, there is a 33% chance. The Bills didn't have a top 10 pick but might next year if they trade up (or if they stink. That's why I brought up the top 10 data.

 

All told, it's really unrealistic to expect a team to get a franchise QB in the draft because there just aren't that many overall. You have to try but trying with some better odds is the way to go, IMHO.

 

So you moved the goalposts. You liked the 10th and later numbers better instead of inside the top ten numbers. You do realize the 10th pick could be either. The 10th pick is, by definition, inside the top ten.

Edited April 28, 2017 by jeffismagic

[ndirish1978]

 

So you moved the goalposts. You liked the 10th and later numbers betters instead of inside the top ten numbers. You do realize the 10th pick could be either. The 10th pick is, by definition, inside the top ten.

 

This is kind of right. I mean it's arbitrary both ways, but generally you look at the top 10 picks and don't just cut off at 9 for fun.

[xxxxxxxx]

Here is what I see.

 

Put the emotion aside, the Bills are trending towards another 6, 7, 8 win season.

 

That means next season the Bills will be picking in the 9th - 11th range.

 

The Chiefs were 12-4 last year. Say they drop 2 games, go to 10-6. They will be picking in the low 20's.

 

The 10th pick and 23rd pick will not be enough to get up to the top of the draft to get Darnold or Rosen.

 

 

Why do fans (and analysts who agree) say that "its a QB driven league" when the Bills NEVER DRAFT A QB?

 

When is the right time?

 

Because we are going on Year 3 with Baltimore's backup. Just like we did 3 years with Trent Edwards, and 3 more years with Ryan Fitzpatrick.

 

When are we going to get

 

Here is what I see.

 

Put the emotion aside, the Bills are trending towards another 6, 7, 8 win season.

 

That means next season the Bills will be picking in the 9th - 11th range.

 

The Chiefs were 12-4 last year. Say they drop 2 games, go to 10-6. They will be picking in the low 20's.

 

The 10th pick and 23rd pick will not be enough to get up to the top of the draft to get Darnold or Rosen.

 

 

Why do fans (and analysts who agree) say that "its a QB driven league" when the Bills NEVER DRAFT A QB?

 

When is the right time?

 

Because we are going on Year 3 with Baltimore's backup. Just like we did 3 years with Trent Edwards, and 3 more years with Ryan Fitzpatrick.

 

When are we going to get our QB?

The above "reasoning" is a primary example of not putting the emotion aside.

We might get our QB in the 3rd or 4th round this year

[BringBackFergy]

 

Are you upset the pats didn't have a 1st round pick whose shaft you could shove down your throat?

😆