Drafting a QB Myths and Facts

[Batman1876]

There seems to be a lot of myths surrounding drafting a QB. These are the ones I could think of please add your own.

 

Myth- Its just throwing darts and hoping for a bulls-eye.

Fact- Its not random chance it is a hypothesis. In fact NFL front offices have been very successful at picking the more promising prospects first. When it comes to First round Qbs its rare that a successful QB is picked after a bust.

 

Myth-Drafting a Bust at QB sets your team back 4 years.

Fact- Not having a QB is what sets your team back. The rookie wage scale has reduced the impact of drafting a bust. Without the long term high dollar contracts of the past it is easier to move on from a bust.

 

Myth- Building a roster is better than Trading multiple picks to move up for a QB

Fact- The median coaching tenure in the NFL is 3 years. When coaches change the roster changes with it to fit the new scheme and approach. The number one reason coaches are fired is poor QB play. Meaning if you build a roster and hope to solve the QB problem later its likely that your roster will be broken up when a new coach is hired.

 

Myth- Wait till the later rounds and develop a Guy, its an equally good option

Fact- Over the past 20 years quality QBs have been found in the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th rounds. A single QB has been found in the 5^th 6^th and 7^th rounds. The odds of success however are very low. 20% of Qbs from the 2^nd 3^rd and 4^th rounds become long term starters and about 5% have become franchise guys. In the last three rounds there is Brady and no one else. The odds are negligible.

 

Myth- Let him sit and develop, he'll be just as good as a top guy.

Fact- QBs rarely develop, they mostly just acclimate.  They don't pick up new skills they simply translate their old ones.  Players who relied on being freak athletes and never even truly learned the college game are the clearest example. 

[billsfan5121]

The only thing that matters.......

 

FACT:  you can only hit on a qb if you take a chance at getting one. 

 

FACT:  you will never hit on a qb if you keep pushing it to future years. 

 

I don’t think gore advocating not getting one but I just want to try.

[KDIGGZ]

Fact: we have never picked a QB with our 1st pick

Fact: we have never picked a QB in the top 10

Fact: most of the successful QB's come from a team using their first pick in the top 10 picks of the draft

 

This pretty much sums up the entire mediocre existence of the Buffalo Bills franchise

[MJS]

I don't want to nit-pick, but many of your facts are actually opinions.

[Batman1876]

5 minutes ago, MJS said:

I don't want to nit-pick, but many of your facts are actually opinions.

data based interpretations. ;-) 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, Batman1876 said:

There seems to be a lot of myths surrounding drafting a QB. These are the ones I could think of please add your own.

 

Myth- Its just throwing darts and hoping for a bulls-eye.

Fact- Its not random chance it is a hypothesis. In fact NFL front offices have been very successful at picking the more promising prospects first. When it comes to First round Qbs its rare that a successful QB is picked after a bust.

 

Myth-Drafting a Bust at QB sets your team back 4 years.

Fact- Not having a QB is what sets your team back. The rookie wage scale has reduced the impact of drafting a bust. Without the long term high dollar contracts of the past it is easier to move on from a bust.

 

Myth- Building a roster is better than Trading multiple picks to move up for a QB

Fact- The median coaching tenure in the NFL is 3 years. When coaches change the roster changes with it to fit the new scheme and approach. The number one reason coaches are fired is poor QB play. Meaning if you build a roster and hope to solve the QB problem later its likely that your roster will be broken up when a new coach is hired.

 

Myth- Wait till the later rounds and develop a Guy, its an equally good option

Fact- Over the past 20 years quality QBs have been found in the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th rounds. A single QB has been found in the 5^th 6^th and 7^th rounds. The odds of success however are very low. 20% of Qbs from the 2^nd 3^rd and 4^th rounds become long term starters and about 5% have become franchise guys. In the last three rounds there is Brady and no one else. The odds are negligible.

 

Myth- Let him sit and develop, he'll be just as good as a top guy.

Fact- QBs rarely develop, they mostly just acclimate.  They don't pick up new skills they simply translate their old ones.  Players who relied on being freak athletes and never even truly learned the college game are the clearest example. 

 

...pick the one that comes with a warranty, money back guarantee and a full refund of all draft capital if he busts.......maybe it's too simplified, but I STILL like Steve Young's perspective that "more QB collegians fail versus succeed at the NFL level because of the speed and complexity of the game"......principally mental first and realistically working with a 5 second window to read/process.....physical attributes can be developed with the S&C gang......pretty tall task to equate his mental abilities on the collegiate level and how they may translate to the NFL.....allegedly, the NFL has parity for the 1,696 chosen few versus colleges loading schedules with "puffs", non-conference "lesser puffs" and then their conference....so does a guy perform well against the puffs and semi-puffs but stumble in the conference because of ability or because of limited exposure to higher quality opponents?.....FACT: draft has not been, is not and never will be an exact science.......and I think the wild landscape of prognostications is indicative..just take the Allen kid.....Brycleam Mel has him as his #1......yet others say he is 2nd, 3rd or (?) round material.....clear as mud I would say..............

[Rocky Landing]

Myth or Fact:

Starting a quarterback right out of college, or too early, even a really good one, can damage their career and likelihood of developing into a franchise QB.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

23 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

There seems to be a lot of myths surrounding drafting a QB. These are the ones I could think of please add your own.

 

Myth- Its just throwing darts and hoping for a bulls-eye.

Fact- Its not random chance it is a hypothesis. In fact NFL front offices have been very successful at picking the more promising prospects first. When it comes to First round Qbs its rare that a successful QB is picked after a bust.

 

Myth-Drafting a Bust at QB sets your team back 4 years.

Fact- Not having a QB is what sets your team back. The rookie wage scale has reduced the impact of drafting a bust. Without the long term high dollar contracts of the past it is easier to move on from a bust.

 

Myth- Building a roster is better than Trading multiple picks to move up for a QB

Fact- The median coaching tenure in the NFL is 3 years. When coaches change the roster changes with it to fit the new scheme and approach. The number one reason coaches are fired is poor QB play. Meaning if you build a roster and hope to solve the QB problem later its likely that your roster will be broken up when a new coach is hired.

 

Myth- Wait till the later rounds and develop a Guy, its an equally good option

Fact- Over the past 20 years quality QBs have been found in the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th rounds. A single QB has been found in the 5^th 6^th and 7^th rounds. The odds of success however are very low. 20% of Qbs from the 2^nd 3^rd and 4^th rounds become long term starters and about 5% have become franchise guys. In the last three rounds there is Brady and no one else. The odds are negligible.

 

Myth- Let him sit and develop, he'll be just as good as a top guy.

Fact- QBs rarely develop, they mostly just acclimate.  They don't pick up new skills they simply translate their old ones.  Players who relied on being freak athletes and never even truly learned the college game are the clearest example. 

This whole post smack of an agenda. "QBs rarely develop..." 

Really???

[Batman1876]

1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said:

Myth or Fact:

Starting a quarterback right out of college, or too early, even a really good one, can damage their career and likelihood of developing into a franchise QB.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

I think it depends. Joey Harrington has said his early struggles shook his confidence and made him like football less and hindered his development. Getting sacked 80 times as a rookie like David Carr has to have an impact as well. 

4 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

Myth or Fact:

Starting a quarterback right out of college, or too early, even a really good one, can damage their career and likelihood of developing into a franchise QB.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

This whole post smack of an agenda. "QBs rarely develop..." 

Really???

Most QBs are who they are the growth comes from acclimating to the game. They won't get much quicker, they wont get much stronger and its hard to change muscle memory and habits developed by repeating things thousands of times.  

[keepthefaith]

22 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

data based interpretations. ;-) 

 

Yes.  Last night I looked up all the QBs drafted over the past 12 years or so.  It's easy to do right here.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

 

Paging through the picks over the years clearly shows that higher 1st round picked QBs are better than those picked below them and the deeper you go in the draft the less likely it is to find a keeper.  Past the 2nd round there aren't many.  You can argue that some of the guys drafted didn't get as much opportunity as others.  However, there are plenty of 1st round QB's that never played up the expectations so there is risk picking anywhere, just less risk in the first half of the 1st round. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by keepthefaith

[MTBill]

Fact - doing real analysis of 20 years of QB data takes time & money.  things fans rarely have time to do.  That said - the analysis you offered was nice and seems logical.

 

To really hit on this there is a lot of subjectivity.  What is "successful"?  If you measure it by SB wins - there are very few successful QBs in the league.  Including some who many feel were very good - or certainly better than their SB W-L record is - and there are a couple who won a SB that most people would categorize as lousy.

 

What is your measuring stick for success in drafting a QB?  What metrics are you going to measure?  And - are we going to discount parts of the past because they don't apply any longer - or are there lessons to be learned from Marino, Montana, Young, Kelly, Elway, and further back Bradshaw, (my memory is really failing today - but I think you get the picture - 70's QBs who were successful).  The NFL of those days was certainly different - however they were the best at their craft when they played and we should maybe not judge them against recent QBs - Brady is great, don't get me wrong, but it is not completely fair to say he's the GOAT.  I say this because he plays in a pass heavy league which has 32 teams instead of 26 or fewer.

 

I would be fascinated to read a thorough data analysis on this - if time were no object, I might even write it myself.  To do this rigorously requires standards and objectivity - with subjective metrics defined for debate.

5 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Yes.  Last night I looked up all the QBs drafted over the past 12 years or so.  It's easy to do right here.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

 

Paging through the picks over the years clearly shows that higher 1st round picked QBs are better than those picked below them and the deeper you go in the draft the less likely it is to find a keeper.  Past the 2nd round there aren't many.  You can argue that some of the guys drafted didn't get as much opportunity as others.  However, there are plenty of 1st round QB's that never played up the expectations so there is risk picking anywhere, just less risk in the first half of the 1st round. 

 

I'm not sure 12 years is a long enough window - depending on your measuring stick - because some of those QBs have only played 1 or 2 seasons and is it fair to judge them by the same standards as someone who has had more opportunities?  (that's a question - not a judgement)

 

What might work best is to identify all of the "successful" QBs of the past 20 years - then look for common threads - how long did it take for them to shine?  How good was the defense on their teams?  How good were their receivers?  How good were their RBs?  When were they drafted (round & how many QBs were taken above them)?  How do they stack against other QBs drafted the same year?

[jaybee]

Myth:  I really dont need a beer

Fact:  I'm gonna go grab one right damn now.

[Tyrod's friend]

1 hour ago, kdiggz said:

 

Fact: most of the successful QB's come from a team using their first pick in the top 10 picks of the draft

 

ummm ... no. 26 of the starting  38  Super Bowl QBs since in this millennia were drafted after #10. Take out Tom's six, you've still got 20 out of 32. Go further and talk about simple playoff appearances and it would be predominantly players NOT drafted in the top 10 - by far.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[Solomon Grundy]

7 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

ummm ... no. 26 of the starting  38 QBs since in this millennia were drafted after #10. Take out Tom's six, you've still got 20 out of 32. Go further and talk about simple playoff appearances and it would be predominantly players NOT drafted in the top 10 - by far.

You are now my friend too!! 

[Tyrod's friend]

23 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

....

 

Paging through the picks over the years clearly shows that higher 1st round picked QBs are better than those picked below them and the deeper you go in the draft the less likely it is to find a keeper.  ...
 

This is clearly survivor-ship bias. I mean, I get the numbers and I understand where it comes from, but it's survivorship.

Let's consider this: how many QBs are given a chance to start, unless one of these two things happen:
* the starter gets injured or

* he's drafted at the least in the 2nd round. 
Those are the ONLY avenues to starting in the NFL. If you have no opportunity, you won't start PARTICULARLY at QB. In fact, it is a miracle - a miracle indeed - that Wilson and Prescott got starting gigs in their rookie years. 

I mean, just think this through. Kurt Warner and Tom Brady in our past; current examples, include a guy with one of the five best seasons in the HISTORY of football, and he got that chance only because Bradford got injured. Then he went on to win the Super Bowl only because another starter got injured, and he STILL doesn't have the pedigree apparently to start. How about Colin Kaepernick? There's more but why bother.

Meanwhile, absolutely miserable starting QBs that were drafted in the first round get chance after chance. Think of the money Sam Bradford has made as the #1 pick in the draft; exactly how long of a leash does Zak Prescott get if he had his track record? 

Let's use us as an example - if Nate Peterman was drafted in the first round and had a game like he did last year, do you suppose he'd have been benched, never to be seen from again?

Here's my last example. The Cowboys went through Henson, through Chad Hutchinson, they brought in Vinny, they brought in Drew Bledsoe. All the while they had this undrafted guy on the roster. After Tony Romo had a horrible first game ... and I remember this clearly ... everyone was shocked, SHOCKED that Parcells would continue to give a shot to the unknown guy. That's why Parcells is a Hall of Famer. 

We'll find out this year, right here in Buffalo. If McCarron is successful at all, look at the guy he apparently couldn't unseat. Dalton simply wouldn't get injured for a long enough time to give him a shot.



 

[Batman1876]

56 minutes ago, MTBill said:

Fact - doing real analysis of 20 years of QB data takes time & money.  things fans rarely have time to do.  That said - the analysis you offered was nice and seems logical.

 

To really hit on this there is a lot of subjectivity.  What is "successful"?  If you measure it by SB wins - there are very few successful QBs in the league.  Including some who many feel were very good - or certainly better than their SB W-L record is - and there are a couple who won a SB that most people would categorize as lousy.

 

What is your measuring stick for success in drafting a QB?  What metrics are you going to measure?  And - are we going to discount parts of the past because they don't apply any longer - or are there lessons to be learned from Marino, Montana, Young, Kelly, Elway, and further back Bradshaw, (my memory is really failing today - but I think you get the picture - 70's QBs who were successful).  The NFL of those days was certainly different - however they were the best at their craft when they played and we should maybe not judge them against recent QBs - Brady is great, don't get me wrong, but it is not completely fair to say he's the GOAT.  I say this because he plays in a pass heavy league which has 32 teams instead of 26 or fewer.

 

I would be fascinated to read a thorough data analysis on this - if time were no object, I might even write it myself.  To do this rigorously requires standards and objectivity - with subjective metrics defined for debate.

 

I'm not sure 12 years is a long enough window - depending on your measuring stick - because some of those QBs have only played 1 or 2 seasons and is it fair to judge them by the same standards as someone who has had more opportunities?  (that's a question - not a judgement)

 

What might work best is to identify all of the "successful" QBs of the past 20 years - then look for common threads - how long did it take for them to shine?  How good was the defense on their teams?  How good were their receivers?  How good were their RBs?  When were they drafted (round & how many QBs were taken above them)?  How do they stack against other QBs drafted the same year?

Its impossible to find an objective measurement of success, the key is to pick a level of success and fairly apply it across all picks, the high tide raises all boats and the proportions of successes to failures on a round by round basis remain consistent. 

[Batman1876]

43 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

ummm ... no. 26 of the starting  38  Super Bowl QBs since in this millennia were drafted after #10. Take out Tom's six, you've still got 20 out of 32. Go further and talk about simple playoff appearances and it would be predominantly players NOT drafted in the top 10 - by far.

so 12 starts from the top 10, or 1.2 starts per pick.  26 starts from the remaining 243 picks or .1 starts per pick. 12x more likely on a per pick basis that the starting QB was top 10. 

[Doc Brown]

32 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

so 12 starts from the top 10, or 1.2 starts per pick.  26 starts from the remaining 243 picks or .1 starts per pick. 12x more likely on a per pick basis that the starting QB was top 10. 

That was my first thought when reading that stat.  He provided evidence contradicting the point he was trying to make.  Your best chance to win a Superbowl is picking a QB in the top 10.

[Tyrod's friend]

1 hour ago, Batman1876 said:

so 12 starts from the top 10, or 1.2 starts per pick.  26 starts from the remaining 243 picks or .1 starts per pick. 12x more likely on a per pick basis that the starting QB was top 10. 

If you ignore that coaches never give anyone that isn't a 1st or 2nd round draft choice an opportunity to start, you can come up with a whole world of poor conclusions.

Including using things like dividing the number of starts by the total number of picks. You might be asking yourself of those players not drafted 1st or 2nd - and starting in the NFL - what is the likelihood of those players getting into the playoffs? Why is it that there are so many 1st or 2nd round QBs in the NFL ... but so few playing in the playoffs??

It's actually hidden right in the middle of your "facts". The average lifetime of a HC is three years. That should tell you all you need to know about someone that is willing to take a chance on anyone the GM didn't draft a QB highly.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[apuszczalowski]

You could probably come to some of those conclusions for every position, the higher the player is drafted the more likely of a success they will be, cause usually the better players get drafted early.

 

The problem here is that it doesn't matter if they are drafted in the top 10 or top 100, if they aren't good they won't be successful. There may be a bunch of good prospects available this year, but are these guys true franchise guys or just the best of whats available this year?  Every year QBs get drafted earlier then they should because teams are desperate to try and get one. Would everyone here be willing to do whatever it takes to move up to #2 so they could draft Jameis Winston? or Trubisky? Or Marriotta? Does anyone see those guys as 10-15 year franchise starters? Every year there are guys who are viewed as potential franchise QBs that flop. Bradford, Kaepernick, Smith, Were #1 overall picks that were supposed to be franchise guys, RGIII was supposed to be another franchise guy that was talked about as a potential #1st overall. He looked really good in his first year then flopped out of the league. Thats why it may still be early to be praising the Rams, Texans, and Eagles for finding their franchise guy.

 

Its understandable that everyone wants a franchise elite QB, but you can't get one (no matter where you move up to draft from) if there isn't one there. There would be no arguements from anyone about moving up if there was a clear cut elite franchise guy available, but right now you can't find anyone who can even agree on the ranking of the top 4-5 guys this year.

[Augie]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

I don't want to nit-pick, but many of your facts are actually opinions.

 

I have a sister in law like that.....