THE FALLACY OF DRAFT BUST HISTORY or TRADE UP DUH!

[theRalph]

Since the Colts-Jets trade, the debate has shifted to the wisdom of trading up further with say, the Giants at a giant cost. Specifically, there is the argument that history shows selecting a quarterback with a top pick doesn't usually work out. Its a 30% - 50% hit rate depending on whom you ask. So if the hit rate is so low, why trade the farm for a high risk bet? Because the risk isn't really as high as it would seem. Right now it might be at an all time low.

 

From the 1998 draft to present, there have been 26 quarterbacks selected within the top five picks of the 20 drafts held. Only once has there been 3 quarterbacks picked in the top five picks, and 2 being picked in the first five has occurred just 8 times. I listed the 27 names and decided that I would consider 14 or 15 as "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Manning, Rivers, etc. That's more than half that were worth the risk of a top five pick. And if that stat isn't telling enough, look at the other 12 non-franchise prospects and their respective teams.  These teams - that were bad enough to get the high draft pick in the first place - certainly ruined a number of perfectly sound prospects with terrible training and coaching that got them to a top-five pick. 

 

So here we have a perhaps historical quarterback draft, the best since '83, with the possibility of four quarterbacks being taken with the first five picks. And you're a decent team with a good coach, smart GM, and a war chest of draft picks, and at least four top-rated quarterbacks in a league that sees so few drafted at the top. And you're going to shy away from trading into maybe the #2 pick because why???

 

The historical hit rate for getting it right on a highly selected quarterback is maybe precise, but is highly inaccurate. 

 

Seems like Beane knows what he's doing. I give them a great shot at selecting a future star if they believe one is worth the trade up to #2. Somehow it feels like Josh Allen or Darnold.

Edited March 22, 2018 by theRalph
typo

[EmotionallyUnstable]

Where is the list you speak of? 

 

Id like to look at it. You make many interesting points 

[Thurman#1]

It "is maybe precise, but is highly inaccurate"?

 

And what does your headline mean?

 

From what I can figure you're supporting trading up, correct? I'm with you there. Hope they can get to #2, and I don't mind giving up an awful lot if they get a guy they really like.

[4merper4mer]

Are these magical secrets known to the Bills and nobody else?  Given your narrative, why would any team ever consider trading out of the #2 pick they earned by being crappy?

[BillsFan4]

I'd be more interested in an analysis of the QBs taken with a top 5 pick, but without including the 1st overall picked QBs (since we are talking about drafting somewhere between 2-6). 

 

I bet the hit rate rate goes down significantly... 

 

 

Just to be clear I am all for trading up for a QB, even though it is definitrly a big gamble. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

7 hours ago, theRalph said:

Since the Colts-Jets trade, the debate has shifted to the wisdom of trading up further with say, the Giants at a giant cost. Specifically, there is the argument that history shows selecting a quarterback with a top pick doesn't usually work out. Its a 30% - 50% hit rate depending on whom you ask. So if the hit rate is so low, why trade the farm for a high risk bet? Because the risk isn't really as high as it would seem. Right now it might be at an all time low.

 

From the 1998 draft to present, there have been 26 quarterbacks selected within the top five picks of the 20 drafts held. Only once has there been 3 quarterbacks picked in the top five picks, and 2 being picked in the first five has occurred just 8 times. I listed the 27 names and decided that I would consider 14 or 15 as "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Manning, Rivers, etc. That's more than half that were worth the risk of a top five pick. And if that stat isn't telling enough, look at the other 12 non-franchise prospects and their respective teams.  These teams - that were bad enough to get the high draft pick in the first place - certainly ruined a number of perfectly sound prospects with terrible training and coaching that got them to a top-five pick. 

 

So here we have a perhaps historical quarterback draft, the best since '83, with the possibility of four quarterbacks being taken with the first five picks. And you're a decent team with a good coach, smart GM, and a war chest of draft picks, and at least four top-rated quarterbacks in a league that sees so few drafted at the top. And you're going to shy away from trading into maybe the #2 pick because why???

 

The historical hit rate for getting it right on a highly selected quarterback is maybe precise, but is highly inaccurate. 

 

Seems like Beane knows what he's doing. I give them a great shot at selecting a future star if they believe one is worth the trade up to #2. Somehow it feels like Josh Allen or Darnold.

So your analysis depends on your subjective assessment of a franchise QB.

 

The draft is a crap shoot.  Always has been, always will be.  Beane and co. will amass all the data they possibly can, and decide if they want to move up to 1 or 2, maybe move up to somewhere ebetween 4-11, or stay put.  May take a QB, may not.  It all depends on their evaluation, and hopefully they make the right call.

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, theRalph said:

Since the Colts-Jets trade, the debate has shifted to the wisdom of trading up further with say, the Giants at a giant cost. Specifically, there is the argument that history shows selecting a quarterback with a top pick doesn't usually work out. Its a 30% - 50% hit rate depending on whom you ask. So if the hit rate is so low, why trade the farm for a high risk bet? Because the risk isn't really as high as it would seem. Right now it might be at an all time low.

 

From the 1998 draft to present, there have been 26 quarterbacks selected within the top five picks of the 20 drafts held. Only once has there been 3 quarterbacks picked in the top five picks, and 2 being picked in the first five has occurred just 8 times. I listed the 27 names and decided that I would consider 14 or 15 as "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Manning, Rivers, etc. That's more than half that were worth the risk of a top five pick. And if that stat isn't telling enough, look at the other 12 non-franchise prospects and their respective teams.  These teams - that were bad enough to get the high draft pick in the first place - certainly ruined a number of perfectly sound prospects with terrible training and coaching that got them to a top-five pick. 

 

So here we have a perhaps historical quarterback draft, the best since '83, with the possibility of four quarterbacks being taken with the first five picks. And you're a decent team with a good coach, smart GM, and a war chest of draft picks, and at least four top-rated quarterbacks in a league that sees so few drafted at the top. And you're going to shy away from trading into maybe the #2 pick because why???

 

The historical hit rate for getting it right on a highly selected quarterback is maybe precise, but is highly inaccurate. 

 

Seems like Beane knows what he's doing. I give them a great shot at selecting a future star if they believe one is worth the trade up to #2. Somehow it feels like Josh Allen or Darnold.

 

First off, this is NOT an "historical quarterback draft", and it's certainly NOT the best since 1983.  It has a lot of prospects, every single one of whom has serious faults that could easily short circuit an NFL career.  Even the draft mavens' favorite, Darnold, has serious issues with ball security.  Others have questions about their accuracy, ball placement, footwork, etc.  The more I find out about this crop, the more I'm convinced that the only 1 without big red flags is Mayfield, and he has shortcomings as well.  This draft is more the product of media driven hype and desperation than real analysis.

 

Plain and simple, drafting a QB in the first round or even in the top five, doesn't determine whether a QB prospect becomes a good/great NFL QB.  A mediocre QB prospect remains mediocre whether he's taken in the first round or later in the draft.  NONE of the QB prospects in 2018 are as good prospects as any of the top three QBs from 2004.  NONE are as good as Newton or Luck.  They are ALL much more like Leinart, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, etc.

 

 

FYI --

Historically, drafts featuring a bevy of first round QB prospects don't produce all that many successful NFL QBs.  Again, these QB heavy drafts seem to be more the result of a combination of hype and desperation.  The relatively recent phenomenon of successful QBs coming out of the draft from rounds after the first further supports the idea that hype and desperation play a bigger role in drafting QBs than it should.

• Six QBs were taken in 1983, including #1 pick John Elway.  This was also the greatest QB draft ever, yielding 3 HOFers (Elway, Kelly, Marino) who were taken #1, #14, and #27 respectively.  Ken O'Brien (#24) was also a decent starter for several years.
• Five QBs were taken in 1999, including the first three picks, but only Donovan McNabb became a "franchise QB" while Daunte Culpepper became a decent starter for about 6 seasons with Minnesota.  The other 3 QBs , including #1 pick Tim Couch, were busts.
• Four QBs were taken in 1987, 2003, 2004, 2011, and 2012 for a total of 20 QBs:
• 87's only success was #1 pick Vinnie Testaverde who, like Alex Smith, found success later in his career with the New York Jests. 
• Only Carson Palmer, another #1, was the only successful QB from 2003.
• 2004 was another historically great year with 3 future HOFers coming out of the first round -- Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger (#11)
• Four QBs came out of 2011, too, but only Cam Newton, #1, became a successful NFL QB.
• In 2012, four more QBs were taken, including the much heralded Andrew Luck at #1.  The only other successful starter taken from the first round was Tannehill (#8)

That's 14 successful NFL QBs out of 31 draft picks or about 45% success rate.  Taking all drafts since 2000, the success rate for first round QBs is about 50%. If you take out the outlier truly great 1983 and 2004 drafts, which produced 7 successful QBs from 10 prospects, the success rate for the other years drops to around 33% .... 7 out of 21 picks.  Of those 7 first rounders, 4 were the #1 picks, 1 was a top five pick, 1 was a top ten pick, and 1 was taken outside the top ten.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

22 minutes ago, SoTier said:

NONE are as good as Newton or Luck.  They are ALL much more like Leinart, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, etc.

 

 

I do not agree.  Josh Rosen is a better prospect than Cam Newton was.  And he is nothing like Ponder or Gabbert.  

[Buffalo Ballin]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I do not agree.  Josh Rosen is a better prospect than Cam Newton was.  And he is nothing like Ponder or Gabbert.  

Wow. Just no. ESPN gave Cam Newton some hype. Rosen is not getting any compared to Cam. Newton was the undisputed number one pick while Rosen has question marks about his commitment to the game. Cam is bigger, faster, stronger, and has a cannon arm. Rosen, on a physical level, does not have any of those tools. Otherwise, Rosen would be the number one undisputed pick over Dahnold.

3 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

First off, this is NOT an "historical quarterback draft", and it's certainly NOT the best since 1983.  It has a lot of prospects, every single one of whom has serious faults that could easily short circuit an NFL career.  Even the draft mavens' favorite, Darnold, has serious issues with ball security.  Others have questions about their accuracy, ball placement, footwork, etc.  The more I find out about this crop, the more I'm convinced that the only 1 without big red flags is Mayfield, and he has shortcomings as well.  This draft is more the product of media driven hype and desperation than real analysis.

 

Plain and simple, drafting a QB in the first round or even in the top five, doesn't determine whether a QB prospect becomes a good/great NFL QB.  A mediocre QB prospect remains mediocre whether he's taken in the first round or later in the draft.  NONE of the QB prospects in 2018 are as good prospects as any of the top three QBs from 2004.  NONE are as good as Newton or Luck.  They are ALL much more like Leinart, Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, etc.

 

 

FYI --

Historically, drafts featuring a bevy of first round QB prospects don't produce all that many successful NFL QBs.  Again, these QB heavy drafts seem to be more the result of a combination of hype and desperation.  The relatively recent phenomenon of successful QBs coming out of the draft from rounds after the first further supports the idea that hype and desperation play a bigger role in drafting QBs than it should.

• Six QBs were taken in 1983, including #1 pick John Elway.  This was also the greatest QB draft ever, yielding 3 HOFers (Elway, Kelly, Marino) who were taken #1, #14, and #27 respectively.  Ken O'Brien (#24) was also a decent starter for several years.
• Five QBs were taken in 1999, including the first three picks, but only Donovan McNabb became a "franchise QB" while Daunte Culpepper became a decent starter for about 6 seasons with Minnesota.  The other 3 QBs , including #1 pick Tim Couch, were busts.
• Four QBs were taken in 1987, 2003, 2004, 2011, and 2012 for a total of 20 QBs:
• 87's only success was #1 pick Vinnie Testaverde who, like Alex Smith, found success later in his career with the New York Jests. 
• Only Carson Palmer, another #1, was the only successful QB from 2003.
• 2004 was another historically great year with 3 future HOFers coming out of the first round -- Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger (#11)
• Four QBs came out of 2011, too, but only Cam Newton, #1, became a successful NFL QB.
• In 2012, four more QBs were taken, including the much heralded Andrew Luck at #1.  The only other successful starter taken from the first round was Tannehill (#8)

That's 14 successful NFL QBs out of 31 draft picks or about 45% success rate.  Taking all drafts since 2000, the success rate for first round QBs is about 50%. If you take out the outlier truly great 1983 and 2004 drafts, which produced 7 successful QBs from 10 prospects, the success rate for the other years drops to around 33% .... 7 out of 21 picks.  Of those 7 first rounders, 4 were the #1 picks, 1 was a top five pick, 1 was a top ten pick, and 1 was taken outside the top ten.

 

 

 Yup. Nicely done. This is the major reason why Beane is not trading up. We're not getting Giants' number 2. If he trade those picks for one unknown guy and that QB doesn't work out, he's fired along with McDermott. I wouldn't trade up either.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Buffalo Ballin

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

Wow. Just no. ESPN gave Cam Newton some hype. Rosen is not getting any compared to Cam. Newton was the undisputed number one pick while Rosen has question marks about his commitment to the game. Cam is bigger, faster, stronger, and has a cannon arm. Rosen, on a physical level, does not have any of those tools. Otherwise, Rosen would be the number one undisputed pick over Dahnold.

 

Rosen is a better passer than Cam in every facet other than arm strength.  I don't care about hype machines.... I care about tape.  

[Buffalo Ballin]

50 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Rosen is a better passer than Cam in every facet other than arm strength.  I don't care about hype machines.... I care about tape.  

Then you're crazy.  I hope Rosen goes number one now so that the Cleveland Browns ruin his career. 

[GunnerBill]

23 minutes ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

Then you're crazy.  I hope Rosen goes number one now so that the Cleveland Browns ruin his career. 

 

No, no I'm not. 

[DrDawkinstein]

Looking back at previous drafts and how the QBs panned out, and basing your draft strategy around it, is as useful as using the history board to play Roulette. None of the past results matter to what is going to happen right now and in the future. It's a reset every time.

[ddaryl]

4 hours ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

 

 Yup. Nicely done. This is the major reason why Beane is not trading up. We're not getting Giants' number 2. If he trade those picks for one unknown guy and that QB doesn't work out, he's fired along with McDermott. I wouldn't trade up either.

 

 

And if he fails to address the QB position with a franchise arm and McCarron proves ot be what he is a back up thne he wil be fired just the same. The GM has NO CHOICE but to identify a franchise worthy arm(s) and make the bold moves ot get them in here.

 

If he sits back at #12 or even #22 and waits for a QB to fall to him and that fails he wil be fired as well.

 

If he trades up and mortagages the future and drafts a QB and that fails he will be fired.

 

The moral of the story indetify the franchise QB trust your scouts/coaches and yourself and make the move... because if you fail to get a franchise QB you will be fired, and sitting back and waiting is playing russian roulette with your career if you have indetiifed a player worth takin you got ot make the move

Edited March 22, 2018 by ddaryl

[Buffalo Ballin]

3 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Looking back at previous drafts and how the QBs panned out, and basing your draft strategy around it, is as useful as using the history board to play Roulette. None of the past results matter to what is going to happen right now and in the future. It's a reset every time.

No. I'm not ignoring history IF I'm thinking about giving up all of those picks for an unknown player. There is nothing wrong to base my draft plan around a QB, but not when I'm trading all of that crap away. That's just stupid.  The Eagles didn't give up a lot to get Wentz from the Browns. Eagles were already stacked. However, Wentz is still a question mark because he did not lead the Eagles to the Superbowl. It was Nick Foles.

 

We do not have a top 10 pick to trade with the Giants. That's another reason why the trade is not happening. It's laughable that many of you are panicking and claiming that Beane HAS to trade up into the top 5. He does not HAVE to do anything because he doesn't have enough to trade into the Top 5. The dream scenarios are stupid at this point. Let the QB land naturally at number 12 (or 22) and move the eff on. 

 

It's gonna be Lamar Jackson.

[DrDawkinstein]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo Ballin said:

No. I'm not ignoring history IF I'm thinking about giving up all of those picks for an unknown player. There is nothing wrong to base my draft plan around a QB, but not when I'm trading all of that crap away. That's just stupid.  The Eagles didn't give up a lot to get Wentz from the Browns. Eagles were already stacked. However, Wentz is still a question mark because he did not lead the Eagles to the Superbowl. It was Nick Foles.

 

We do not have a top 10 pick to trade with the Giants. That's another reason why the trade is not happening. It's laughable that many of you are panicking and claiming that Beane HAS to trade up into the top 5. He does not HAVE to do anything because he doesn't have enough to trade into the Top 5. The dream scenarios are stupid at this point. Let the QB land naturally at number 12 (or 22) and move the eff on. 

 

It's gonna be Lamar Jackson.

 

This is one of the more incoherent posts Ive seen in a while. I'd like to engage in a conversation, but Im not even sure where or how to start. Especially since I wasnt arguing one way or another in my post. All I said was past performance and historical outcomes have zero effect on the future performance of current draft picks. Which is true.

 

It's like arguing that we should never draft/hire a QB who grew up in California because of one bad experience with Rob Johnson almost 20 years ago. That makes zero logical sense.

[Elite Poster]

For those that say this isn't as great of a QB class as we are lead to believe, why does the entire league say otherwise? It's not me and you going to these pro days and having private workouts with all these guys, it's the 32 professional organizations. For goodness sake, even Miami and Houston had guys in for workouts and you wouldn't expect them to draft QB high.

 

This is a historic class. Will it end up being a historic pro football draft? That part of the story is not yet written.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Elite Poster

[Buffalo Ballin]

23 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

This is one of the more incoherent posts Ive seen in a while. I'd like to engage in a conversation, but Im not even sure where or how to start. Especially since I wasnt arguing one way or another in my post. All I said was past performance and historical outcomes have zero effect on the future performance of current draft picks. Which is true.

 

It's like arguing that we should never draft/hire a QB who grew up in California because of one bad experience with Rob Johnson almost 20 years ago. That makes zero logical sense.

So you didn't add anything  and just resorted to dumb poster insults. Cliches, too.

 

It's not a reset. If it was, then why is history being recorded? Why did the poster "SoTier" pointed out this history in his post? History is recorded for many reasons. People can learn from it. I take it that History wasn't your strongest class in high school.

 

Getting a QB to become a successful one, SHOWN BY HISTORY, has a low success rate. AND that's with a GM naturally drafting one without having to trade anything. So now you guys want Beane to trade the farm knowing this?

 

SoTier posted: If you take out the outlier truly great 1983 and 2004 drafts, which produced 7 successful QBs from 10 prospects, the success rate for the other years drops to around 33% .... 7 out of 21 picks.  Of those 7 first rounders, 4 were the #1 picks, 1 was a top five pick, 1 was a top ten pick, and 1 was taken outside the top ten.

 

Those are facts, not fake news. I don't know why you brought up Rob Johnson. He sucks. I knew from Game One. We didn't draft him. What the hell? You tried to cover your ass with "draft/hire" nonsense. He was a retread.

 

 

[ColoradoBills]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 5:01 AM, EmotionallyUnstable said:

Where is the list you speak of? 

 

Id like to look at it. You make many interesting points 

 

Here is the Top 5 picks for the last 20 years (all I extracted for myself a while back about this subject).

It's got my observations that I was using.........you make your own. LOL

 

YEAR	RD	SEL #	PLAYER	POSITION	SCHOOL	TEAM
2016	1	1	Jared Goff	QB	California	Los Angeles Rams
2015	1	1	Jameis Winston	QB	Florida State	Tampa Bay Buccaneers
2012	1	1	Andrew Luck	QB	Stanford	Indianapolis Colts
2011	1	1	Cam Newton	QB	Auburn	Carolina Panthers
2010	1	1	Sam Bradford	QB	Oklahoma	St. Louis Rams
2009	1	1	Matthew Stafford	QB	Georgia	Detroit Lions
2007	1	1	JaMarcus Russell	QB	Louisiana State	Oakland Raiders
2005	1	1	Alex Smith	QB	Utah	San Francisco 49ers
2004	1	1	Eli Manning	QB	Mississippi	San Diego Chargers
2003	1	1	Carson Palmer	QB	USC	Cincinnati Bengals
2002	1	1	David Carr	QB	Fresno State	Houston Texans
2001	1	1	Michael Vick	QB	Virginia Tech	Atlanta Falcons
1999	1	1	Tim Couch	QB	Kentucky	Cleveland Browns
1998	1	1	Peyton Manning	QB	Tennessee	Indianapolis Colts
2017	1	2	Mitchell Trubisky	QB	North Carolina	Chicago Bears
2016	1	2	Carson Wentz	QB	North Dakota State	Philadelphia Eagles
2015	1	2	Marcus Mariota	QB	Oregon	Tennessee Titans
2012	1	2	Robert Griffin	QB	Baylor	Washington Redskins
1999	1	2	Donovan McNabb	QB	Syracuse	Philadelphia Eagles
1998	1	2	Ryan Leaf	QB	Washington State	San Diego Chargers
2014	1	3	Blake Bortles	QB	Central Florida	Jacksonville Jaguars
2008	1	3	Matt Ryan	QB	Boston College	Atlanta Falcons
2006	1	3	Vince Young	QB	Texas	Tennessee Titans
2002	1	3	Joey Harrington	QB	Oregon	Detroit Lions
1999	1	3	Akili Smith	QB	Oregon	Cincinnati Bengals
2004	1	4	Philip Rivers	QB	North Carolina State	New York Giants
2009	1	5	Mark Sanchez	QB	USC	New York Jets

[EmotionallyUnstable]

Thanks for posting. I like my chances at 1 overall