Jump to content

Reasons why we shouldn’t trade off our draft picks.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:

Nah I didn't forget, aside from QB the next most important position is your Bruce Smith, LT, Reggie White, JJ, & Bosa type pass rushers who can change the game in an instant by foring a fumble, getting a huge sack or forcing an early or bad bass that can result in an INT. Those are the 2 highest impact positions that can win or lose you games and really disrupt the other other.

 

Going back to 1990 most likely skews this data. Scouting and analytics has changed the game a lot, as well as the rule changes that now favor the offense and QBs as well as the rookie cap allows teams to take more risks and not cost them a ton of money - teams are now more willing than ever to move up and take a swing at a QB...

Well, the nature of the nfl changes every 5 years or so.    But wasn't Kelly a QB?  Hasn't the forward pass been around a while?  The college QB's are not perfect fits for the NFL of the day, but are pretty close.  You have to include a number of years in order for the sample size to be big enough to be meaningful.  That goes for a study like the one I wrote about as well as the seat of the pants BS or opinions that people float out there.

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 Brees.  Manning.  Smith if you give him that (x2)

Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2018 at 11:42 PM, maryland-bills-fan said:

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

 

A good read.  Note the following table, where "success" means they started for multiple years:

    QB's drafted 1990-2016  
pick success %
1-16 81%
17-32 65%
2nd round 48%
3rd round 25%
4th round 13%
5th round 6%
6th round 16%
7th round

6%

 

 

   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

 

Wonder if I saw you at the Rockpile?

 

In any case, any study where "success" means they started for multiple years is missing the point by a long ways. Losman, Tyrod, Holcomb, Trent, Fitz, all started for multiple years. Not all for the teams that drafted them but they all started and not one was a real success. And there are plenty more where those five came from. 

 

Starting for multiple years often means teams drafted them early and are hoping and giving them time to prove themselves good or bad. That's a poor definition for success.

 

In any case, they need to trade up if they can get a franchise QB. Give up all six picks if they need to, maybe even Glenn as well or some other little lagniappe. Yeah, they've got holes and won't fill them. But next year won't matter in the long run either way, and round about 2021 or so this team will look radically better if we got a franchise guy than if we didn't.

Edited by Thurman#1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2018 at 8:26 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Wonder if I saw you at the Rockpile?

 

In any case, any study where "success" means they started for multiple years is missing the point by a long ways. Losman, Tyrod, Holcomb, Trent, Fitz, all started for multiple years. Not all for the teams that drafted them but they all started and not one was a real success. And there are plenty more where those five came from. 

 

Starting for multiple years often means teams drafted them early and are hoping and giving them time to prove themselves good or bad. That's a poor definition for success.

 

In any case, they need to trade up if they can get a franchise QB. Give up all six picks if they need to, maybe even Glenn as well or some other little lagniappe. Yeah, they've got holes and won't fill them. But next year won't matter in the long run either way, and round about 2021 or so this team will look radically better if we got a franchise guy than if we didn't.

 I was the guy walking in with a 6 pack of Simon Pure in each hand.  Do you remember that they actually let you openly bring in a couple of 6 packs to the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...