QBs drafted since 1990: success %.

[PIZ]

 

[4merper4mer]

Trade up and pick Laluleaulealetta at 2!  This gives him a 57.6% chance of being the answer.  If we wait and take him at 12 or 22 we are screwed.

[dpberr]

I don't know why they went back to 1990.  Wholly irrelevant IMO unless there's a rationale that just isn't detailed there.  

 

The quarterback of 1991 isn't the one you needed in 2000.  The QB of 2000 isn't the one you need in 2018.

 

A guy like Jeff George would be a 2nd round pick today.  Sure, can throw the ball a country mile but very inaccurate. 

 

 

 

 

[PlayoffsPlease]

1990 is a different era.  So that is a bit far to go back. 

 

But more importantly, the bar for success for QB should be applied to all positions.  As best I can tell, most people think a QB that does not become a top 10 player at the position for an extended period of time is a failure.  

 

If you apply the same standard to other positions, I suspect that that you will find similar levels of success.  

Edited March 26, 2018 by PlayoffsPlease

[Seventeen]

25 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I don't know why they went back to 1990.  Wholly irrelevant IMO unless there's a rationale that just isn't detailed there.  

 

The quarterback of 1991 isn't the one you needed in 2000.  The QB of 2000 isn't the one you need in 2018.

 

A guy like Jeff George would be a 2nd round pick today.  Sure, can throw the ball a country mile but very inaccurate. 

 

 

 

 

 

But somehow stayed in the NFL for 11-12 years 

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

***TL; DR version: The Bills are in a good position, and should move up for a top QB prospect, but nothing is guaranteed.***

 

I've been posting this picture in Facebook posts for a couple of weeks now, as a counter to the "stay put, fill the roster, and wait for a QB" people. It's a good way to put things into perspective, but as always, numbers don't lie, but they don't always tell the full truth either.

 

There's several factors that can play a role in those statistics. As with all averages, there's outliers on both ends of the spectrum. The numbers are telling, but they do not go in depth into each individual case. 

 

Football is still a team game. Many of those QBs may not have had a good team around them, hindering their success. Several QBs have had their careers hindered by a GM that did not do a good job of building the team around them. Coaching plays a role. Injuries play a role. 

 

Most teams that have drafted QBs in the top 5 are drafting there because their team sucked the previous year. Sometimes it's a lack of talent issue, and sometimes it's a poor FO structure issue. Some teams get those corrected after 2-3 years, some don't. The teams that have traded up into the top 5 for the QB haven't always had a good roster already, and some have. Some of those teams had extra draft capital to afford them the ability to still build a better roster, some haven't. Some of those teams with extra or few draft assets already had a good roster, some didn't. 

 

Not every QB draft class is created equal. Example: the Bills drafted EJ Manuel in the middle of the first round in 2013. It was clearly a reach (even more evident in retrospect), but they needed a QB after not re-signing Fitz. Kolb wasn't going to be the savior, but was considered a decent bridge to allow Manuel to sit and learn. That plan obviously was thwarted by a rubber mat, and Manuel was thrust into action, perhaps well before the staff would have liked. No one knows for sure (although I know what most will say), but it's possible that his career could have been at least a little more successful had he been afforded time to sit and learn. But the point of using this example is that his situation is one that plays into those statistics, and there's been several other QBs that had similar situations that may have altered their careers, for better or worse. 

 

The main point of those statistics, however, is that most of the QBs drafted early aren't necessarily drafted there due to teams reaching. They're slotted to be drafted there based on their talent, and expected results. Guys like Levi Brown don't go early, because they're not expected to be any good. Guys like Goff and Wentz are, and are drafted at the top. But again, other factors play a role. Goff was considered by many to be a bust after his rookie season. Jeff Fisher isn't exactly considered to be a QB or offensive guru, though. A new, young, offensive minded coach comes in, and suddenly Goff is looking like the player the Rams thought they were getting.

 

Bottom line, if the Bills want to increase their chances of landing a good QB, they'll need to move up. They might get lucky at 12, but the numbers show that the chances aren't nearly as good. "Might" and "lucky" aren't two words you want in the same sentence when you're a GM on a QB search. The good thing is that the Bills can afford to do so, while still having plenty of draft picks to have a normal draft this year and next. They have holes, but the roster isn't that far off. Their drafted QB won't be thrust into a terrible situation, be it this year, or after sitting behind AJ. His level of success comes down to a couple of factors, as opposed to many factors: how well will the team be built around him (especially in offense, in regards to stats, Pro Bowls, etc.), how well a defensive minded HC can allow his offense and OC to operate, and most important, that QB's actual talent.

2 hours ago, dpberr said:

I don't know why they went back to 1990.  Wholly irrelevant IMO unless there's a rationale that just isn't detailed there. 

 

 

 

 

 

The data isn't comparing QBs from different eras based on individual statistics. Its simply breaking down the overall level of "success". It doesnt, however, show any details that may have played a role in those averages.

 

The way I interpret it is simple: Its not an exact science, but you tend to get what you pay for.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[hondo in seattle]

46 minutes ago, dpberr said:

I don't know why they went back to 1990.  Wholly irrelevant IMO unless there's a rationale that just isn't detailed there.  

 

The quarterback of 1991 isn't the one you needed in 2000.  The QB of 2000 isn't the one you need in 2018.

 

A guy like Jeff George would be a 2nd round pick today.  Sure, can throw the ball a country mile but very inaccurate. 

 

 

 

 

 

You go back to 1990 because you want a big enough sample size to produce meaningful numbers.

 

QBs may be somewhat different now but scouting them is pretty much the same.  Personnel departments these days aren't particularly better or worse at figuring out which college signal callers will be good NFL starters.  

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

You go back to 1990 because you want a big enough sample size to produce meaningful numbers.

 

QBs may be somewhat different now but scouting them is pretty much the same.  Personnel departments these days aren't particularly better or worse at figuring out which college signal callers will be good NFL starters.  

 

Exactly, although I would say that today's scouts may have more resources at their disposal to make a better determination than they had 30 years ago. There's all kinds of technological metrics that can be used today that didn't exist back then. How much they use, and how much emphasis is put on those metrics is unknown to us, but they're there. Things like velocity, lbs. of force, etc. In the end though, I would say that the tape and "eye test" still matters far more than those things, but it doesn't hurt to have a computerized visual detail of a QB's throwing motion, arm speed, and things of that nature.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

1. The sample size is important.

2. Era isn't that big a problem because the decision is a simple success/unsucc.

[TheFunPolice]

so it's 50/50 for a top 5 QB becoming a Pro Bowl caliber player.

 

That's better than I would have thought

[What a Tuel]

5 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Trade up and pick Laluleaulealetta at 2!  This gives him a 57.6% chance of being the answer.  If we wait and take him at 12 or 22 we are screwed.

 

I know you are joking but I don't think the idea is that just drafting them in the 1st round makes them successful. It is that the consensus first rounders are more successful. We don't have many surprise 1st round qb picks.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Consensus top 5 QB picks, by the Professionals, not us: are 3x as likely to be successful as the others.