DRAFTING TOP 5 QBs NOT REALLY A "CRAPSHOOT"

[theRalph]

1 hour ago, Tyrod's friend said:

 Eli Manning??? Eli??? He won two Super Bowls but has never, ever been a "Franchise QB". If you asked Bills fans at any point in Eli's career if they wanted him on our team the answer was at best, "feh". 

Thx! But...um...Eli is most certainly a franchise quarterback.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I did a deep deep into this because I wanted to know what it meant. 

 

Intestringly, in this same draft pick ‘analysis’, probably omitted  because it doesn’t fit the narrative originally intended, QBs drafted 6-32 started and won twice the number of Super Bowls as the top 5.

 

So if you want a probowler, top 5

looks promising

 

if you want to build a better shot at a championship team, you’ll have to be smarter 

 

Ediut:  Fair point, but I think we can debate the appropriateness of the two metrics And not come to definitive conclusion

Edited March 27, 2018 by N.Y. Orangeman

[reddogblitz]

3 hours ago, theRalph said:

At least 14 - 16 of these are what I would term "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Vick, Manning, Rivers, Smith, Ryan, Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Mariota, Goff Wentz, Trubisky

 

First off, I gotta scratch 7 names off of your list

 

Smith - really. I was told over and over Smifh was not when I wanted to trade for him.

Stafford - How many times has he gone to playoffs.

Bradford -  

Mariota - he's not that good. Hotrod like.

Goff Wentz True Biscuit. How can you possibly say with such a short career so far?

 

Now you're at 33%. Trading 3#1s+ for a 33% chance seems crapshotish to me.

 

[Tyrod's friend]

32 minutes ago, Coach55 said:

Top 5 QB's since 2000.  There is roughly a 40-50% success rate in getting a quality QB.  

 

Newton 11-1 – Won a super bowl.  Perennial MVP candidate

 

 

So long as "perennial" doesn't mean this year.
So long as "perennial" doesn't mean last year. 

Cam Newton is one of the most overrated QBs in football; take out a single year, and he's just barely a .500 QB, with a completion rate south of 60% and a QB rating of around 84. 

He had a moment. The moment is gone.

 

Cam Newton Passing Statistics for Career Games 2016 to 2017

 

		Games		Passing																Passing
Year	Tm	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	QBR	Sk	Yds	NY/A	ANY/A	Sk%	4QC	GWD
2016-2017	CAR	31	30	17-13-0	561	1002	56	6811	41	4.1	30	3	88	6.8	6.3	12.1	219.7	78.2		71	519	5.86	5.37	6.6

You Couldn't Wait to Get Rid of Me Passing Statistics for Career Games 2015 to 2016

 

		Games		Passing																Passing
Year	Tm	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	QBR	Sk	Yds	NY/A	ANY/A	Sk%	4QC	GWD
2015-2016	BUF	29	29	14-14-0	511	816	62.6	6058	37	4.5	12	1.5	84	7.4	7.7	11.9	208.9	94.2		78	404	6.32	6.55	8.7

[reddogblitz]

46 minutes ago, Coach55 said:

Newton 11-1 – Won a super bowl.  Perennial MVP candidate

 

When did Cam win a SB?

 

Why is Rivers on all these lists? One of the criteria for FQ is being competitive for 10-15 years. Chargers have been competitive with Rivers maybe 5 years.

Edited March 27, 2018 by reddogblitz

[DrDawkinstein]

It is a crap shoot, but the Bills never take a shot, so they're just crap.

[Batman1876]

When people keep upping the standards of what a hit is they are also decreasing the hits in other parts of the draft. I think we are down to 3 draft hits outside of the first round, Brady, Brees and Wilson. So is it crazy  to trade the farm for a 33% chance when the alternative is a 3% chance.

[HappyDays]

2 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

When people keep upping the standards of what a hit is they are also decreasing the hits in other parts of the draft. I think we are down to 3 draft hits outside of the first round, Brady, Brees and Wilson. So is it crazy  to trade the farm for a 33% chance when the alternative is a 3% chance.

 

Well because the standards actually do change. Case in point would you rather spend multiple 1st and 2nd round picks in a big trade up for Cam Newton, or spend one 3rd round pick on Russell Wilson? It's a no-brainer. It's not just about how much more likely a top pick is to succeed, you have to factor in the cost of getting there. This is such a QB heavy draft it will be a shock if someone outside the top 10 doesn't turn into a franchise QB. If the Bills think they can identify that guy that's the best opportunity we have for long term success.

[Batman1876]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Well because the standards actually do change. Case in point would you rather spend multiple 1st and 2nd round picks in a big trade up for Cam Newton, or spend one 3rd round pick on Russell Wilson? It's a no-brainer. It's not just about how much more likely a top pick is to succeed, you have to factor in the cost of getting there. This is such a QB heavy draft it will be a shock if someone outside the top 10 doesn't turn into a franchise QB. If the Bills think they can identify that guy that's the best opportunity we have for long term success.

3 shots at the top takes 6-9 years 33 later round shots takes 60-90 years.  

[Foxx]

3 hours ago, N.Y. Orangeman said:

 

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

It's really hard to find a QB.

 

This is why I never understand why people talk themselves into flawed prospect like they're doing with Josh Allen. 

lets try to look at that chart in a bit of a different light...what that chart says to me anyways is that drafting a qb in the top 5 is over 300% more successful than drafting one at any other point in the first round. also, if you want to go further with it, the success rate of a qb drafted within the top 5 picks has a success rate of over 700% of most any other point outside of the first round. 

 

you go get your qb, damn the torpedos. insanity is doing the same damn thing you have been doing forever and expecting different results.

 

go.

get.

your.

QB.

 

[Dadonkadonk]

50 % succes rate and at least 3 high picks to get into top 5

They better be right or McD will be gone before 2020.

[theRalph]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Intestringly, in this same draft pick ‘analysis’, probably omitted  because it doesn’t fit the narrative originally intended, QBs drafted 6-32 started and won twice the number of Super Bowls as the top 5.

Seriously?? SMH. In response:

1. QBs drafted 6 - 32 also outnumber those drafted 1 - 5. 

2. QBs drafted 1 - 5 go to poorer teams, so less SBs is natural

3. Picks 1 - 5 were used, since that's been the basis of the Bill's trade-up scenario

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, N.Y. Orangeman said:

 

Ediut:  Fair point, but I think we can debate the appropriateness of the two metrics And not come to definitive conclusion

 

It keeps getting splashed up as telling me something, but I’m not sure what. 

 

In almost 30 years half the guys picked top 5 were probowlers. We just ran one off that was a probowler but not good enough to do what the regime wants. (I accept that conclusion, but now it has to mean the probowler bit, probably the only difference that would pass statistical significance testing doesn’t matter anyway) 

 

 

I’d love to see this breakdown by other positions to see if the bust propensity is higher or lower for all top 5 prospects. 

44 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

lets try to look at that chart in a bit of a different light...what that chart says to me anyways is that drafting a qb in the top 5 is over 300% more successful than drafting one at any other point in the first round. also, if you want to go further with it, the success rate of a qb drafted within the top 5 picks has a success rate of over 700% of most any other point outside of the first round. 

 

you go get your qb, damn the torpedos. insanity is doing the same damn thing you have been doing forever and expecting different results.

 

go.

get.

your.

QB.

 

 

Anyone accuding the bills of operating as they always have isn’t paying attention...  at all

Edited March 27, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

It keeps getting splashed up as telling me something, but I’m not sure what. 

 

In almost 30 years half the guys picked top 5 were probowlers. We just ran one off that was a probowler but not good enough to do what the regime wants. (I accept that conclusion, but now it has to mean the probowler bit, probably the only difference that would pass statistical significance testing doesn’t matter anyway) 

 

 

I’d love to see this breakdown by other positions to see if the bust propensity is higher or lower for all top 5 prospects. 

 

Anyone accuding the bills of operating as they always have isn’t paying attention...  at all

oh, i'm paying attention. perhaps you missed the gist of my post.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

5 minutes ago, theRalph said:

Seriously?? SMH. In response:

1. QBs drafted 6 - 32 also outnumber those drafted 1 - 5. 

2. QBs drafted 1 - 5 go to poorer teams, so less SBs is natural

3. Picks 1 - 5 were used, since that's been the basis of the Bill's trade-up scenario

 

 

1. Marginally- 33 vs 36 isn’t a big difference but there are twice the guys out of the 36 with rings than the 33. Twice, more than twice actually 

 

2. I see so drafting a QB top 5 isn’t necessarily how you rebuild a team to turn a corner and it’s not the only thing that matters... fair point. I think I support that view

 

3.  Sure maybe, so what’s the point? 

[N.Y. Orangeman]

6 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

It keeps getting splashed up as telling me something, but I’m not sure what. 

 

In almost 30 years half the guys picked top 5 were probowlers. We just ran one off that was a probowler but not good enough to do what the regime wants. (I accept that conclusion, but now it has to mean the probowler bit, probably the only difference that would pass statistical significance testing doesn’t matter anyway) 

 

 

I’d love to see this breakdown by other positions to see if the bust propensity is higher or lower for all top 5 prospects. 

 

3

The file, as you know, has three fairly comprehensive metrics: superbowl appearances, pro bowl appearances and tenures as a starter.  I get that you would prefer SB wins, but it doesn't diminish the comprehensive nature of the file.  I'd be more than willing to consider an alternative, but while the three metrics aren't what you want (i.e., SB wins), the three categories listed above aren't misleading in any way when considered over a static population over a 17 year period.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

15 minutes ago, Foxx said:

oh, i'm paying attention. perhaps you missed the gist of my post.

 

I get what you are trying to say but it’s not correct. 

 

This front office is very different from the past and they are operating the franchise in different ways from top to bottom. If they are staying objective and don’t blow 5-6 good to great starters worth to play blackjack, we should be good with it. 

9 minutes ago, N.Y. Orangeman said:

The file, as you know, has three fairly comprehensive metrics: superbowl appearances, pro bowl appearances and tenures as a starter.  I get that you would prefer SB wins, but it doesn't diminish the comprehensive nature of the file.  I'd be more than willing to consider an alternative, but while the three metrics aren't what you want (i.e., SB wins), the three categories listed above aren't misleading in any way when considered over a static population over a 17 year period.

 

27.  It tells me the odds that there are 3-4 studs in the draft is extremely remote. I do infer that. It likely only one pans out and Darnold is likely the least risk based on the grades out there. But every staff has their own model. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I get what you are trying to say but it’s not correct. 

 

This front office is very different from the past and they are operating the franchise in different ways from top to bottom. If they are staying objective and don’t blow 5-6 good to great starters worth to play blackjack, we should be good with it. 

 

...

and that is only your opinion

 

and each and every front office has been different than the one before it and that one different than the onebefore it and that one different than the one before it and that one... the one constant... thinking they could get by without a franchise qb. insanity.

 

would you change your tune if we suddenly traded up to go get our boy?

Edited March 27, 2018 by Foxx

[Jerome007]

What feels more like a crapshoot THIS year, is how the evaluation of the top QBs are all over the place. Nobody is a definite #1, and many fall below Top 10 quality according to many "experts". Usually the first or first two QB picks are clear candidates. Even if it means picking Manning or Leaf, both were the top guys ( we know how that one panned out LOL 50% right there)

 

 

 

 

[Coach55]

2 hours ago, Coach55 said:

Top 5 QB's since 2000.  There is roughly a 40-50% success rate in getting a quality QB.  

Trubisky 17-2 – Too early to tell

Goff – 16-1 – Looks promising

Wentz – 16-2 – solid

Winston 15-1 – jury is still out

Bortles – 14-3 - Way too high

Luck – 12-1 – Good player, not a once in a generation QB as originally dubbed

RG III – 12-2 – Bust

Newton 11-1 – Won a super bowl.  Perennial MVP candidate

Bradford 10-1 – Injury prone.  Close to a bust.

Stafford – 09-1 – Decent QB, 3^rd rounder at best in hindsight

Sanchez – 09-5 – Bust

Ryan – 08-3 – Solid

Russell – 07-1 – Bust

Young – 06-3 – Had a great start then fell off a cliff.  Would rule a bust overall

Alex Smith – 05-1 – Decent QB, 2^nd rounder at best in hindsight

Eli Manning – 04-1 – Probably a Hall of Famer

Rivers – 04-4 – Perennial all pro.  Potential Hall of Famer.

Palmer – 03-1 – Solid QB, Injuries really hampered his career.

David Carr – 02-1 – Bust

Harrington – 02-3 – Bigger Bust

Vick – 01-1 – Great running quarterback, huge offensive weapon

 

Yeah.  I have no excuse blowing the Cam Newton comment. Drag me out to the street and shoot me.  I’m done.