List of every 1st round trade for Quarterbacks over the last 10 years

[Zebrastripes]

31 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:

I've shown you statistics that provide examples as to what other teams have done. Why not learn from the mistakes of other people so you don't make the same mistakes yourself?

 

33% chance at best to find a franchise QB if we trade the farm for to get into the top 5.

 

Or we could take those 5 picks in the top 65 selections and build our own version of the Legion of Boom.

And your odds become 0% when you don't draft one.  However you cannot breakdown odds of finding a franchise guy as a exact rate.  Unless you do not draft a qb because then your odds will remain a consistent 0%.

[Kemp]

50 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:

Well, take Goff, Wentz and Watson off the list then, which makes my reasoning behind this thread even more meaningful. Fans want to trade the farm for a QB when the odds of landing a franchise guy is 33% at best.

 

33% is 33% better than 0%.

 

Get Mayfield.

[xRUSHx]

1 minute ago, NewDayBills said:

This draft is loaded at just about every weakness we have. We could probably walk away with 2 LBs, 2 DTs that start Day 1. 

 

I'm not against QB in RD1, I'm not against trading up for one either, I just wouldn't trade the farm for one.

 

It comes down to the risk/reward ratio. Giving up 21 and a 1st next year to move to 7-10 is a lot more acceptable than trading 3 1st and 2 2nds to move up to #2 in a draft class where I just don't see a Peyton Manning or an Andrew Luck, I just don't see a prospect like that. Sure there are good prospects, but no generational talents. I really like Josh Allen and there are talks about him going #1 and that guy's bust potential is through the roof. I don't think the risk to reward ratio is good for a massive trade up.

 

 

Risk reward?

Reward is finding a talent at QB for the next 15 years. Risk is drafting a boat load of other positions that fail to make enough difference for your team to make them a powerhouse. You want a powerhouse you get a QB. Look at NE without a great QB the dynasty is nothing. Remember when we had a top D how did that go in our playoff hunt?

 

Like I said earlier you either stink up the league for a season to get one of the top QBs or you trade assets to move up but it still comes down to getting a better talent at QB because without one your team is just not good enough.

[FeelingOnYouboty]

I can’t get over that awful Trubisky opinion. WOW!

[Victory Formation]

Just now, Zebrastripes said:

And your odds become 0% when you don't draft one.  However you cannot breakdown odds of finding a franchise guy as a exact rate.  Unless you do not draft a qb because then your odds will remain a consistent 0%.

I never said we don't draft one, I'm firmly against trading the farm for one. I'd trade up in the right scenario. 21 + 53 could get us up to 10-12, would probably have to give up a 2019 pick as well. That's about as high as I'd like to see us go. Maybe Mayfield or Rosen slide a few spots due to character concerns.

[Zebrastripes]

2 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:

I never said we don't draft one, I'm firmly against trading the farm for one. I'd trade up in the right scenario. 21 + 53 could get us up to 10-12, would probably have to give up a 2019 pick as well. That's about as high as I'd like to see us go. Maybe Mayfield or Rosen slide a few spots due to character concerns.

What do the odds become of finding a guy as more and more qbs come off of the board?  Sitting back and waiting rarely works.  It's time to put our big boy pants on take control and do what this franchise has failed to do for far to long.  Go in at all costs and get their guy they see leading this team for many many years.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Zebrastripes

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Great...now do that for every other round.

[MrEpsYtown]

I interesting concept but I'm not sure it says much. Whether a guy was traded up for is really just statistics and semantics and has nothing to do with their success or lack of success. 

[Victory Formation]

11 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

Risk reward?

Reward is finding a talent at QB for the next 15 years. Risk is drafting a boat load of other positions that fail to make enough difference for your team to make them a powerhouse. You want a powerhouse you get a QB. Look at NE without a great QB the dynasty is nothing. Remember when we had a top D how did that go in our playoff hunt?

 

Like I said earlier you either stink up the league for a season to get one of the top QBs or you trade assets to move up but it still comes down to getting a better talent at QB because without one your team is just not good enough.

 

Why spend more than you have to? Nobody really distinguishes themselves this year. One of the top 4 will fall to 10, I call BS that 4 QBs go by the time Oakland is on the clock. Once again 21 + 53 and maybe our 3rd next year will get us to #10. Turn around take Baker Mayfield and be done with it. Trade down from 22 and recoup all the picks we lost in our trade up.

[JohnnyK]

I totally agree with not giving up the farm for a trade up, but if the front office identifies a QB as the one they think can be "The Guy" you have to go do what it takes to get him!

especially when u don't have a good QB.

ps I am also not sold on the top 3 or 4 of this draft, the next tier seems just as good to me

pps this draft will have many bust and surprises with all the QBs that will be taken

 

Go bills get it right!

[Steve O]

add 2010 Tim Tebow to the  list. Guess he would be a bust despite over 50% win record

[BuffaloBill]

1 hour ago, NewDayBills said:

Well, take Goff, Wentz and Watson off the list then, which makes my reasoning behind this thread even more meaningful. Fans want to trade the farm for a QB when the odds of landing a franchise guy is 33% at best.

 

 

Your issue is easy to understand.  The problem is that if you don’t go get a QB you are locked into perennial mediocrity at best.  The league has so set the rules in favor of the air game that it is hard to win consistently without a franchise QB.

[Pbomb]

1 hour ago, NewDayBills said:

Let's take the 33% odds for example and let's say you're playing scratch off tickets. Would you rather have 1 ticket at a 33% chance or 5 tickets with a 33% chance?

 

(Although the odds of finding a franchise QB is far slimmer than drafting other positions and our chances of finding starters would be greater than 33% along with 5x more chances to find good players.)

The payout for hitting on a qb is a lot bigger

[Buffalo Boy]

2 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

Fair enough, maybe I'm letting my personal opinion get in the way on that, but I really don't think so, he sucks.

Reminds me of the shade Goff was getting last year. You need to give these guys a couple years. The Beats sucked and Fox is a bad coach.

 

[Big Gun]

1 hour ago, NewDayBills said:

When is the last time we've had this many picks? We can literally load up and build a powerhouse. Trading that away for nothing, why do it? I could see moving up 8-10 spots because that would not put a dent in our capital, but moving in the top 10 like some want is irresponsible.

Because this is the year if there ever was one to trade up for a QB. 

 

IMO the Bills gathered 2 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd for the sole purpose of getting a QB because again this is the year to do it.

 

No one can ever be sure about anything but this is a talent rich QB draft and to be left out with all those assets would IMO get people questioning things and potentially fired. Not the goal with such a QB rich draft.  

[Boca BIlls]

2 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

Fair enough, maybe I'm letting my personal opinion get in the way on that, but I really don't think so, he sucks.

That part kind of destroyed your % part of the post. Looks like you are fine as long as you choose the right QB. And you aren't fine if you are a team like the Browns or Redskins.

[PrimeTime101]

2 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

Out of the teams that traded up for 1st round QBs in the past 10 years:

 

2017:

Chicago for Mitchell Trubisky

Kansas City for Patrick Mahomes

Houston for Deshaun Watson

 

2016:

Los Angeles for Jared Goff

Philadelphia for Carson Wentz

 

2015: no one.

 

 

2014:

Johnny Manziel

Teddy Bridgewater

 

2013: no one.

 

2012:

Washington gave up the farm for RG3.

 

2011: nobody.

 

2010: nobody.

 

2009:

Tampa Bay traded to #17 for Josh Freeman.

 

2008: Nobody

 

So out of the 9 QBs taken:

33% have been great.

(Wentz, Goff, Watson)

 

44% have been busts.

(Freeman, RG3, Trubisky, Manziel)

 

22% the jury is still out on.

(Bridgewater, Mahomes)

So look.. instead of mocking the obvious issue with this post like every other clone, I will keep this real simple.

 

If you don't buy a lottery ticket then how can you win? This years lottery happens to be within the first 10 rounds. Do we want to play a lottery with at least 22% odds and move up with the probability of a total of 40% being better then Taylor? Roll the dice I say.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

Out of the teams that traded up for 1st round QBs in the past 10 years:

 

2017: Chicago for Mitchell Trubisky Kansas City for Patrick Mahomes Houston for Deshaun Watson

2016: Los Angeles for Jared Goff. Philadelphia for Carson Wentz

2015: no one.

2014: Johnny Manziel Teddy Bridgewater

2013: no one.

2012: Washington gave up the farm for RG3.

2011: nobody.

2010: nobody.

2009: Tampa Bay traded to #17 for Josh Freeman.

2008: Nobody

 

So out of the 9 QBs taken:

33% have been great. (Wentz, Goff, Watson)

44% have been busts. (Freeman, RG3, Trubisky, Manziel)

22% the jury is still out on. (Bridgewater, Mahomes)

 

NewDay, it is really not realistically possible to pronounce upon the 2017 QB class yet.  Watson is not a success based upon 6 games and 19 TD.  Trubisky is not a bust based on 12 games and 7 TD/7 INT.  The one looks more promising than the other, but it's early days for both.

 

Taking out those 3, you have 6 QB. 

Goff, Wentz, and RGIII were taken at the top of the draft.    At worst, that appears to be 2 out of 3 success, and RGIII had an amazing year and what (for other QB) would be seen as a good year before injury derailed him.  2/3 success (66%)  is within the observed success rate of top 2 picks (analyzed over 20 years) whether by trade up or not

 

Bridgewater, Manziel, and Freeman were taken later in the draft.  Freeman gave Tampa Bay a meh rookie season then 3 promising years before addiction or whatever wiped him out.  His second year in particular was EXCELLENT, and he passed for >4000 yds and 27 TDs in his 4th season.  And we have 2 years of data on Bridgewater pre-injury; how many are we going to give the new QB we draft?  I would call him "OK" - not a bust, but not The Man either.  So let's call that two partial successes, at least 1 of which may still prove out if he can return from a horrific injury - that would be 1/3 success.  33% success is within the observed success rate of the rest of the 1st round (analyzed over 20 years) whether by trade up or not.

 

Drafting a QB is not an exact science.  In particular, it's hard to predict injuries and their impact, or whether someone's head will implode as Freeman's did when silly amounts of money are placed at his disposal. 

 

My bottom line: Trade ups are neither more or less risky than owning the pick in question.  The risk comes from the uncertainties of the player personnel evaluation.  Some you can see coming (Manziel) but some teams think that the talent makes them worth the risk (or have meddlesome owners who have hopefully learnt their lesson)

 

Trading up is not a sure route to a franchise QB, but the probabilities of success are still significantly higher at the top of the 1st (1st 2 picks) than elsewhere in the draft.

 

[SoTier]

 

1 hour ago, PeterGriffin said:

Because this is the year if there ever was one to trade up for a QB. 

 

IMO the Bills gathered 2 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd for the sole purpose of getting a QB because again this is the year to do it.

 

No one can ever be sure about anything but this is a talent rich QB draft and to be left out with all those assets would IMO get people questioning things and potentially fired. Not the goal with such a QB rich draft.  

 

Famous last words.  2011 and 2012 were both supposed to be "QB rich drafts", too, except that they really weren't when NFL reality bit. 

 

2011 had 4 QBs taken in the first 12 picks, but only #1 pick Cam Newton wasn't a bust ... and he's a good NFL starting QB but not a great one.  The only other successful NFL QBs from 2011 were 2nd rounder Andy Dalton and 6th rounder Tyrod Taylor.  This success rate is pretty much par for most drafts in terms of successful QBs since 2000.

 

2012 also had 4 QBs taken in the first round, 3 in the first 8.  Andrew Luck as the supposed "greatest prospect ever" at #1 has been somewhat of a disappointment in living up to his expectations, and he's been hurt the past season plus.  If his shoulder prevents him from playing again, then he will definitely not be the best QB from 2012.  Robert Griffin III had a good rookie season in an offense that was tailored to him, but he was injured and never regained his rookie season form, which was mostly, IMO and contrary to legend, because he didn't/couldn't develop or master the skills a successful NFL QB needs.  Ryan Tannehill has been a fairly successful NFL QB but as rumors persist that Miami is looking to upgrade the position, that suggests he's been a disappointment not unlike Jay Cutler who was Denver's pick at #11 in 2006 -- too good to jettison but not quite good enough.  Brandon Weeden was a bust.

 

The real value in 2012 came in the rounds after the first.  Seattle hit the jackpot with Russell Wilson, easily the most successful QB from that draft, and definitely the epitome of a franchise QB who "carries" his team.   Kirk Cousins came out of the 4th round in that draft, and "super sub" Nick Foles became a "legend in his own time" with his 2017 playoff heroics.  Any semblance of success that Washington has had since 2013 has come from the arm of Kirk Cousins BTW. 

 

The lesson from both these drafts is that contrary to myth, the world doesn't necessarily end if a team doesn't "mortgage the future" to trade up in a supposedly "QB rich draft".

 

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

NewDay, it is really not realistically possible to pronounce upon the 2017 QB class yet.  Watson is not a success based upon 6 games and 19 TD.  Trubisky is not a bust based on 12 games and 7 TD/7 INT.  The one looks more promising than the other, but it's early days for both.

 

Taking out those 3, you have 6 QB. 

Goff, Wentz, and RGIII were taken at the top of the draft.    At worst, that appears to be 2 out of 3 success, and RGIII had an amazing year and what (for other QB) would be seen as a good year before injury derailed him.  2/3 success (66%)  is within the observed success rate of top 2 picks (analyzed over 20 years) whether by trade up or not

 

Bridgewater, Manziel, and Freeman were taken later in the draft.  Freeman gave Tampa Bay a meh rookie season then 3 promising years before addiction or whatever wiped him out.  His second year in particular was EXCELLENT, and he passed for >4000 yds and 27 TDs in his 4th season.  And we have 2 years of data on Bridgewater pre-injury; how many are we going to give the new QB we draft?  I would call him "OK" - not a bust, but not The Man either.  So let's call that two partial successes, at least 1 of which may still prove out if he can return from a horrific injury - that would be 1/3 success.  33% success is within the observed success rate of the rest of the 1st round (analyzed over 20 years) whether by trade up or not.

 

Drafting a QB is not an exact science.  In particular, it's hard to predict injuries and their impact, or whether someone's head will implode as Freeman's did when silly amounts of money are placed at his disposal. 

 

My bottom line: Trade ups are neither more or less risky than owning the pick in question.  The risk comes from the uncertainties of the player personnel evaluation.  Some you can see coming (Manziel) but some teams think that the talent makes them worth the risk (or have meddlesome owners who have hopefully learnt their lesson)

 

Trading up is not a sure route to a franchise QB, but the probabilities of success are still significantly higher at the top of the 1st (1st 2 picks) than elsewhere in the draft.

 

 

I disagree with this primarily because the risk in a trade up is magnified by the number and quality of the picks given up.   Swapping first round picks and throwing in one or two additional picks is much less risky than swapping a higher first for 2 firsts and additional Day 2 picks (rounds 2 or 3), and both are infinitely more risky than already having the target pick (say #2 or #3).

 

[/dev/null]

4 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

Out of the teams that traded up for 1st round QBs in the past 10 years:

.

.

.

 

33% have been great.

In baseball, batting .330 can get you into the Hall of Fame