QB success rate by draft position

[Alphadawg7]

8 hours ago, offsides#76FredSmerlas said:

Bulgers record a starter 41-54

 

Pennington 44-37

 

Foles has been a back up who got hot this year the last 5 games.

 

Leftwich wasn't as good as I thought he was after looking over the stats so I would agree he was a bust.

 

Agreed.  And actually, Foles only got hot the last 2 games with only 1 other good game.  In 6 games played, he had 10 TD's to 1 INT in 3 of them.  In the other 3 he had 0 TD's and 2 INT's and averaged 149 yards per game.  

 

I think the original poster has blurred the concept of a GM finding "value" in a draft slot and defining what an actual "hit" is in the NFL regarding the performance of a player.  A hit for a player is a quality starting QB with sustained success.  Not being a serviceable backup that a GM found value with in the later rounds (like Fitz).  So for me, the definition of a "hit" seems to be very loosely applied in some cases.  I get its all in the eye of the beholder, and doesn't make their list "wrong", but I just dont get the application of hit to some of the names they listed.  Plus, as others have pointed out, there are misses that are better than several of the "hits".  

 

For instance, why did he list Tannehill a hit?  Because he duped the Dolphins into a fat contract?  He has accomplished very little.  Every Dolphin fan I know wants Tannehill gone and prays to draft a QB this year.

 

Why is Fitz a hit?  Even in his one hot year with the Jets, he still single handedly cost them a chance at the Post season by being himself and turning the ball over like he always does to lose when it matters.  Every team he ever played for got rid of him, and all needed a QB when they had him, so I cant call that a "hit".  Getting value out of a 7th round pick is a "hit" for the GM, but that doesn't make that player a "hit" in the NFL.  

 

Some of these guys are better labeled as "serviceable" than "hits".  Again, I can see a GM viewing it as a hit, to get a serviceable player in late rounds, but that doesn't make that player a hit in the NFL when evaluating their career.  Once you step on the field, draft position no longer matters, its what you do on that field. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[Batman1876]

45 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Agreed.  And actually, Foles only got hot the last 2 games with only 1 other good game.  In 6 games played, he had 10 TD's to 1 INT in 3 of them.  In the other 3 he had 0 TD's and 2 INT's and averaged 149 yards per game.  

 

I think the original poster has blurred the concept of a GM finding "value" in a draft slot and defining what an actual "hit" is in the NFL regarding the performance of a player.  A hit for a player is a quality starting QB with sustained success.  Not being a serviceable backup that a GM found value with in the later rounds (like Fitz).  So for me, the definition of a "hit" seems to be very loosely applied in some cases.  I get its all in the eye of the beholder, and doesn't make their list "wrong", but I just dont get the application of hit to some of the names they listed.  Plus, as others have pointed out, there are misses that are better than several of the "hits".  

 

For instance, why did he list Tannehill a hit?  Because he duped the Dolphins into a fat contract?  He has accomplished very little.  Every Dolphin fan I know wants Tannehill gone and prays to draft a QB this year.

 

Why is Fitz a hit?  Even in his one hot year with the Jets, he still single handedly cost them a chance at the Post season by being himself and turning the ball over like he always does to lose when it matters.  Every team he ever played for got rid of him, and all needed a QB when they had him, so I cant call that a "hit".  Getting value out of a 7th round pick is a "hit" for the GM, but that doesn't make that player a "hit" in the NFL.  

 

Some of these guys are better labeled as "serviceable" than "hits".  Again, I can see a GM viewing it as a hit, to get a serviceable player in late rounds, but that doesn't make that player a hit in the NFL when evaluating their career.  Once you step on the field, draft position no longer matters, its what you do on that field. 

Some guys I included to help define what success means for that category. 

 

Fitz is far and away the best 7th round QB since 2000, so when you draft a QB in the 7th he is your best case scenario and that best case has a low probability of happening, in other words 7th round picks spent on QBs have been all but worthless. 

 

Schaub showed potential for a few year then fizzled, Foles is a hot commodity now will that matter? who knows. In other words you have a one case of Franchise player two cases of eh? and 19 cases where it is even worse. 

 

Tannahill is indeed marginal, but hes better than Lefwich, Locker, Leinert, and Gabbert. He was the best of his category (6-10) and I chose to always include the best within a category (which tells you how bad round 5 has been that there was no one at all to include, AJ Feely was the best of the bunch IMO).  I'd be just as happy to say that nothing good has come out of the 6-10 picks in 17 years Which was surprising for me but, but I'm not willing to argue very much in favor Tannahill .

Edited February 9, 2018 by Batman1876

[Alphadawg7]

30 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

Some guys I included to help define what success means for that category. 

 

Fitz is far and away the best 7th round QB since 2000, so when you draft a QB in the 7th he is your best case scenario and that best case has a low probability of happening, in other words 7th round picks spent on QBs have been all but worthless. 

 

Schaub showed potential for a few year then fizzled, Foles is a hot commodity now will that matter? who knows. In other words you have a one case of Franchise player two cases of eh? and 19 cases where it is even worse. 

 

Tannahill is indeed marginal, but hes better than Lefwich, Locker, Leinert, and Gabbert. He was the best of his category (6-10) and I chose to always include the best within a category (which tells you how bad round 5 has been that there was no one at all to include, AJ Feely was the best of the bunch IMO).  I'd be just as happy to say that nothing good has come out of the 6-10 picks in 17 years Which was surprising for me but, but I'm not willing to argue very much in favor Tannahill .

 

There is nothing wrong with what you directly said here...except you still are blurring the lines between value and a hit.  Being the best of all 7th rounders, doesn't make you a hit.  Fitz was not a hit as a starting caliber QB in the NFL.  To call a player a hit is to define them based on actual career performance, not value based analysis on where they were drafted.  Tannehill being better than those other guys (and I don't know that he actually is better than all of them) does not by default make him a "hit" as an NFL starting QB.  

 

For instance, finding a solid back up late in the draft is a good job by a GM for finding value late.  But by no means is that player a hit compared across all the guys at that position in the NFL.  

 

I don't think anyone in the NFL would consider Tannehill or Fitz a "hit" as a quality starting NFL QB.  That is the only thing I am disagreeing with really.  You need to change the word "hit" to be "value" based on how you are using your metric IMO...or completely change this thread to be about the grades of GM's drafts, not the quality of the actual player in comparison to their peers as being a "hit" or a "miss".  When evaluating the success or failure of a players personal performance, their draft position is irrelevant.  

 

That is why I said you are mixing up "hit" with draft "value" IMO.  I respect the research, just not on board with how you classifying a "hit" unless you are grading GM's performances instead of the players actual quality of play as a starting NFL QB.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[Batman1876]

40 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

There is nothing wrong with what you directly said here...except you still are blurring the lines between value and a hit.  Being the best of all 7th rounders, doesn't make you a hit.  Fitz was not a hit as a starting caliber QB in the NFL.  To call a player a hit is to define them based on actual career performance, not value based analysis on where they were drafted.  Tannehill being better than those other guys (and I don't know that he actually is better than all of them) does not by default make him a "hit" as an NFL starting QB.  

 

For instance, finding a solid back up late in the draft is a good job by a GM for finding value late.  But by no means is that player a hit compared across all the guys at that position in the NFL.  

 

I don't think anyone in the NFL would consider Tannehill or Fitz a "hit" as a quality starting NFL QB.  That is the only thing I am disagreeing with really.  You need to change the word "hit" to be "value" based on how you are using your metric IMO...or completely change this thread to be about the grades of GM's drafts, not the quality of the actual player in comparison to their peers as being a "hit" or a "miss".  When evaluating the success or failure of a players personal performance, their draft position is irrelevant.  

 

That is why I said you are mixing up "hit" with draft "value" IMO.  I respect the research, just not on board with how you classifying a "hit" unless you are grading GM's performances instead of the players actual quality of play as a starting NFL QB.

I'm not trying to assess value, many quality backups can be found in later rounds, there is value there.Fitz has better value than Tannehill but he is (arguably) not the better player.  If you feel Fitz wasn't a quality starter then for your interests there has been no quality starters found in the 7th round, that's a useful data point. 

 

I'm not convinced that Tannehill isn't a quality starter, but he is better than the other 4 in that pick range, twice as many yards and TDs as any of them and a better QB rating. But if you feel he isn't a quality starter and would not qualify him as a hit then again feel free to identify that there are no hits in the 6-10 range, another useful data point. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

The OP is close enough  to the overall trend to make some judgments though the exact percentages may not be perfect.

 

Here's one trouble. Guys who are not drafted with an eye towards being starters, do not get the practice that top picks do. And it can be a VERY big imbalance.

Maybe a drastic case but one summer in camp the Bills projected starter got maybe 50 reps in the main 11 on 11 drills. The third QB got 2.

 

2 reps in a 2 1/2 hour practice.

 

They don't get the coaching. They don't get the practice. A backup may well get ZERO regular season game time for years.

 

So it could be said, and is being said, because I am saying it, that NFL teams Blow at developing backups as a general rule. 

 

So a guy picked in the 5th round might be doomed from the start because he hasn't got it. Or he might be doomed because they do not get remotely the same opportunity to learn and grow and develop. 

 

I think that needs to be factored in to the numbers.

 

Don't worry if you don't read, pay attention to, or care whet I posted here! I will make the point again as part of another post I plan to make someday.

 

 

[KD in CA]

9 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Don't u remember when he juked eddie robinson?!!!

 

That was one of the five worst moments of the drought.   

[Alphadawg7]

31 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

I'm not trying to assess value, many quality backups can be found in later rounds, there is value there.Fitz has better value than Tannehill but he is (arguably) not the better player.  If you feel Fitz wasn't a quality starter then for your interests there has been no quality starters found in the 7th round, that's a useful data point. 

 

I'm not convinced that Tannehill isn't a quality starter, but he is better than the other 4 in that pick range, twice as many yards and TDs as any of them and a better QB rating. But if you feel he isn't a quality starter and would not qualify him as a hit then again feel free to identify that there are no hits in the 6-10 range, another useful data point. 

 

I guess I am struggling to understand the point of your original post accurately then and got a different impression of what you were looking to find.  The Bills are obviously looking for a good franchise starting QB (assuming they move on as expected from TT and also don't sign Cousins), not moderate value for a back up.  

 

I guess took it as identifying the ability to find a good QB to be our long term franchise starting QB to build around because you named the thread about QB success rate.  And having said that, I dont see marginal QB's or backup QB's as a "success" when grading QB's amongst themselves.  Which is why I am not connecting the same with the "hit" designation I guess.  All good, I respect the research and the dialogue, just the list to me reads more about a GM finding some value in draft rather than about the Bills actually finding a good starting NFL QB.  

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[Mango]

12 hours ago, offsides#76FredSmerlas said:

I think Leftwich and Pennington were better then some you had labeled as hits.

 

 

I came to say say the same thing. I wouldn’t consider Pennington a miss at all. Pre injury, his arm strength was very good. He lost a lot of strength because of it. Still had a long career. 

 

Leftwhich, he was a good passer and QB. Just wasn’t great. Looking back I feel like he kinda just hung it up, rather than bouncing around a ton. 

 

Speaking of Jags QB’s that flamed out. I’m always confused on what happened to David Garrard. I feel like he was good enough to be a decent stop gap or quality backup. Just stuck on absolutely horrid Jags teams. He just stayed there for like 10 years and disappeared. Sweet gig I guess. 

[OldTimer1960]

Nice job.  Qualitatively you have shown that once you get out of the very top of round one, it is pretty hard to find a good QB.  I think what you did shows that quite well.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Nice work, although I would say Pennington was about as good as Dalton.

 

(So Your Saying 6th Round Is The Sweet Spot )

 

 

15 hours ago, kdiggz said:

when was the last time we picked a QB top 5?  oh, never??  hmm that's weird that we have only had 1 good QB in our entire history.  i wonder why

 

Kemp , Ferguson, Flutie, Bledsoe, tyrod.

 

Maybe you meant to say only one great QB.

 

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

13 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Excellent job on this.  And please ignore everyone who is trying to pick apart your assumptions.

 

But...with that said...if what you discovered was the higher the draft pick, the more chance of success, I'm guessing you'd find that pretty much applies to every roster spot.

 

Yes but many stars can be found in most rounds with the other positions especially RB ,QBs not as much.

 

 

 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

Yes but many stars can be found in most rounds with the other positions especially RB ,QBs not as much.

 

 

 

 

Great QBs are able to play for soooo long.  There just aren't tons of examples of running backs playing for 15-20 years.  I don't care where you draft the guy, or sign the guy or whatever.  Just get it right.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

19 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

My goal was to be a platform for conversation.  We all have different metric for success so we will all have different charts.  Evidenced by the fact that the Bills haven't started a QB in 20 years without extensive fan debate about him.  

 

My First round criteria is that the players became long term starters in the league or in the case of younger players show every indication of doing so. My criteria for later round picks was did they develop into a starter, its a lower standard but is the highest reasonable expectation a team has when drafting a later round player. 

 

I feel quite confident that my breakdown of top 5 successes and failures would be pretty well agreed upon.  Beyond that I was being too generous if anything.

 

I think that's a cop-out.  There are certain QB performance metrics that correlate with successful QB performance, which can enable winning if the rest of the team is in place.  All charts and criteria are not equal.  Some can be shown to be more relevant than others.

 

The Bills haven't started a QB in 20 years without extensive fan debate because for 20 years, they haven't had a QB who wasn't debatable.

 

Being a long-term starter in the league is not necessarily what you want, unless the performance is such that the QB is enabling wins, or at worst not holding the team back.  Probably the worst "poison pill" QB for the drafting team have been Alex Smith and Sam Bradford, who showed just enough flashes of talent that the team didn't want to move on from them, but who failed to perform consistently and well enough to enable winning (the rest of the team being there is of course in question)

 

 

19 hours ago, simool said:

This is a much more thorough evaluation... Albeit still flawed.

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/6/28/15880748/success-rates-of-drafted-quarterbacks

 

See my other post - I'm not sure whether or not a guy starts for multiple years is a good criterion for success

[SouthNYfan]

19 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

The odds are not in his favor. 

 

May the odds be forever in his favor.

 

(Sorry I just watched hunger games with the wife and kid last night again... Which his start against the chargers looked pretty much like the deathmatch at the start of the games)

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think that's a cop-out.  There are certain QB performance metrics that correlate with successful QB performance, which can enable winning if the rest of the team is in place.  All charts and criteria are not equal.  Some can be shown to be more relevant than others.

 

The Bills haven't started a QB in 20 years without extensive fan debate because for 20 years, they haven't had a QB who wasn't debatable.

 

Being a long-term starter in the league is not necessarily what you want, unless the performance is such that the QB is enabling wins, or at worst not holding the team back.  Probably the worst "poison pill" QB for the drafting team have been Alex Smith and Sam Bradford, who showed just enough flashes of talent that the team didn't want to move on from them, but who failed to perform consistently and well enough to enable winning (the rest of the team being there is of course in question)

 

 

 

See my other post - I'm not sure whether or not a guy starts for multiple years is a good criterion for success

 

Agree.

 

Sometimes a guy keeps getting chances because he was either A) drafted high, so there was a lot of promise (and a lot of money/picks invested in him) so it's hard to just cut bait... Or B) they kept getting signed by terrible teams, where they were the best option available from the trash bin, yet their production was below replacement level

[simool]

31 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

See my other post - I'm not sure whether or not a guy starts for multiple years is a good criterion for success

 

I agree Hap, without a good metric to measure success it is going to be flawed.  A floating scale by round drafted is a good start. But other than that, it is pretty hard to wrap your head around.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by simool

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, simool said:

 

I agree Hap, without a good metric to measure success it is going to be flawed.  A floating scale seems to make the most sense by round drafted is a good start. But other than that, it is pretty hard to wrap your head around.

 

To blow my own horn, I thought in my Jan 13 post (linked above) I did a pretty good objective, uniform job.  Maybe I'm just salty because it drew so little attention.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

To blow my own horn, I thought in my Jan 13 post (linked above) I did a pretty good objective, uniform job.  Maybe I'm just salty because it drew so little attention.

 I copied my end of season QB ratings into a post yesterday and had this exact same line of thought

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

 I copied my end of season QB ratings into a post yesterday and had this exact same line of thought

 

I should have posted, Hokie.  I read it and thought it was a pretty good job.

[HOUSE]

Ryan Tannihill a hit?

 

The people down here near Miami would trade him for a 5th rounder

[simool]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

To blow my own horn, I thought in my Jan 13 post (linked above) I did a pretty good objective, uniform job.  Maybe I'm just salty because it drew so little attention.

 

It is the best I have seen for sure. All of it makes my head hurt so I shy away from in depth statistical analysis.  If you give me a dataset, I can write SQL queries to bend it and shape it anyway imaginable but assembling those datasets and coming up with meaningful ways of analyzing it... eh, I need like 6 figures a year at minimum to do that crap.