DRAFTING TOP 5 QBs NOT REALLY A "CRAPSHOOT"

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

21 minutes ago, Foxx said:

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?

 

No insanity is obstinately insisting that the only possible path is trading into the top 5 of this draft. That’s insane. 

 

If they bet they farm on one guy it sure as hell better get it right. But historically I don’t see many  examples of teams betting on a guy to be their franchise at any cost based on their college resume that I want to see the bills emulate .  That is my opinion 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Foxx]

16 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

No insanity is obstinately insisting that the only possible path is trading into the top 5 of this draft. That’s insane. 

 

If they bet they farm on one guy it sure as hell better get it right. But historically I don’t see many  examples of teams betting on a guy to be their franchise at any cost based on their college resume that I want to see the bills emulate .  That is my opinion 

it's not the only path, but it is a statistically proven better path. franchise QB's make your franchise competitive for years and can mask many other weaknesses. statistically, qb's chosen in the top 5 have a success rate of 300% better than anyone chosen in the rest of the first round. the odds are exponentially greater the deeper you go in the draft.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Foxx

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, theRalph said:

The excitement of a possible trade into the top five has given way to the discussion of the dangers of trading up...only done by desperate teams. A certain WGR afternoon host is calling trading up just plain dumb. I beg to differ:

 

Since 1998 there have been 27 quarterbacks selected amongst the top five picks of each of the 20 drafts that have occured. 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. So "crap shoot" is a bit strong of a term to describe about a 50 - 60% hit rate on top five picks at QB.

Additionally, you must give consideration to the fact that top five QB picks have been made by teams that did poorly the previous season. Sending top picks to bad teams has resulted in making busts of many other QBs that may well have excelled in better systems.  Brady's success  - being selected in the 6th round - isn't so much about the marvel of a low pick being undiscovered as it is about him going to a franchise that wasn't broken in the first place.

The fact is only 8 times have 2 QBs been selected in the 1st round and just once have 3 of the first 5 picks been QBs (1999). So in a draft where perhaps an unprecedented 6 QBs may be taken in the first round, it would seem that taking one in the top five (if you can get there) is a pretty good bet. Not a crap shoot.

 

Why didn't you just resurrect the previous thread that you started on this very same topic last week since you've essentially made the same arguments almost verbatim? 

 

In response to your recycled arguments about top QBs, I'll recycle my original reply. 
 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

11 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it's not the only path, but it is a statistically proven better path. franchise QB's make your franchise competitive for years and can mask many other weaknesses. statistically, qb's chosen in the top 5 have a success rate of 300% better than anyone chosen in the rest of the first round. the odds are exponentially greater the deeper you go in the draft.

 

Setting aside the “proven” comment.. I’ll bite. 

 

If your measure is probowl appearances then ok, but Tyrod was successful as he was a probowler. 

 

Was tyrod worth the same 5 draft picks to move to a top five pick ever? Is he now? Surely after the nod, it’s a sure thing over a possibility. But he is obviously successful, correct? Maybe the bills should have gotten more for him? 

 

If that’s how you feel than I now understand the basis for your opinion 

5 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Why didn't you just resurrect the previous thread that you started on this very same topic last week since you've essentially made the same arguments almost verbatim? 

 

In response to your recycled arguments about top QBs, I'll recycle my original reply. 
 

 

 

 glad you did. It’s a good take on the other posters argument and help highlight the consuming hysteria group think drowning the board.  

Edited March 27, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Bing Bong]

50/50 IMO, so no not a crapshoot. Totally worth it. Still risky. 

[OldTimer1960]

6 hours ago, K-GunJimKelly12 said:

I know QB's can develop post college, but I don't really buy into ****ty teams ruining highly selected QB's.  I believe if a QB is good enough to be a star in the NFL, they will find a way on the field.  Of course there are guys like Jeff Fischer who likes to run an antiquated offensive system but for the most part I believe if you are good enough, it will be shown somewhere along the way.  

 

For example, I hear all the time that David Carr was ruined by being selected to the Texans and having to play behind their horrible offensive line.  Yes that was a bad situation for Carr, but I just kind of believe he sucked and the the best offensive line in the league wasn't going to make him good.  

It is very easy for me to believe that a young QBcould be ruined.  If he is getting pummeled with no chance to get passes off to receivers who haven’t had time to run their routes - that would seem like it could lead to injuries, poor decisions, poor mechanics and destroyed confidence.

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, Jerome007 said:

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)

 

 

 

 

 

This is the red flag for me with these QBs.   Most of them have serious flaws, and not minor ones.  Darnold has issues with turn overs, and many analysts think he needs to sit for a year.  Rosen lacks mobility and has already had 2 concussions ... that's a time bomb.   Allen has  big  questions about his accuracy, and he will definitely need to sit for a year in most analysts' opinion.  Mayfield is the only one who doesn't have obvious question marks but he's shorter than the pros would like.  Jackson is probably another project, plus he has issues with accuracy and style as well.

 

49 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it's not the only path, but it is a statistically proven better path. franchise QB's make your franchise competitive for years and can mask many other weaknesses. statistically, qb's chosen in the top 5 have a success rate of 300% better than anyone chosen in the rest of the first round. the odds are exponentially greater the deeper you go in the draft.

 

The odds for a top five QB being even modestly successful are not significantly better than for all QBs taken in the first round.  The QBs who have been taken with the #1 pick since 2000 have hit at about 80%.  The QBs picked from #2-#5 don't even hit at a 50% rate.   The high success rates for the #1 picks make the success rate for #2-#5 seem much higher than it really is.  Of the 10 #1s, 8 were at least modestly successful.  Of the 7 QBs taken between #2-#5, only 3 have been modestly successful.

 

Since 2000, these QBs were drafted in the Top Five:

  2001 - #1 Michael  Vick

  2002 - #1 David Carr

  2002 - #3 Joey Harrington

  2003 - #1 Carson Palmer

  2004 - #1 Eli Manning

  2004 - #4 Phillip Rivers

  2005 - #1 Alex Smith

  2006 - #3 Vince Young

  2007 - #1 JaMarcus Russell

  2008 - #3 Matt Ryan

  2009 - #1 Matthew Stafford

  2009 - #5 Mark Sanchez

  2010 - #1 Sam Bradford

  2011 - #1 Cam Newton

  2012 - #1 Andrew Luck

  2012 - #2 Robert Griffin III

  2014 - #3 Blake Bortles 

 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I wouldn't call 50 to 60% success rate that great.

 

If the Bills owned a top 5 pick and used it on a QB and failed  wouldn'r be so bad, but likely they'll end up trading other picks that could be used to solidify other positions too.  So if you emd up[ failing and give away other picks, that 50% success rate looks much worse.

[Batman1876]

13 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

This is the red flag for me with these QBs.   Most of them have serious flaws, and not minor ones.  Darnold has issues with turn overs, and many analysts think he needs to sit for a year.  Rosen lacks mobility and has already had 2 concussions ... that's a time bomb.   Allen has  big  questions about his accuracy, and he will definitely need to sit for a year in most analysts' opinion.  Mayfield is the only one who doesn't have obvious question marks but he's shorter than the pros would like.  Jackson is probably another project, plus he has issues with accuracy and style as well.

 

 

The odds for a top five QB being even modestly successful are not significantly better than for all QBs taken in the first round.  The QBs who have been taken with the #1 pick since 2000 have hit at about 80%.  The QBs picked from #2-#5 don't even hit at a 50% rate.   The high success rates for the #1 picks make the success rate for #2-#5 seem much higher than it really is.  Of the 10 #1s, 8 were at least modestly successful.  Of the 7 QBs taken between #2-#5, only 3 have been modestly successful.

 

Since 2000, these QBs were drafted in the Top Five:

  2001 - #1 Michael  Vick

  2002 - #1 David Carr

  2002 - #3 Joey Harrington

  2003 - #1 Carson Palmer

  2004 - #1 Eli Manning

  2004 - #4 Phillip Rivers

  2005 - #1 Alex Smith

  2006 - #3 Vince Young

  2007 - #1 JaMarcus Russell

  2008 - #3 Matt Ryan

  2009 - #1 Matthew Stafford

  2009 - #5 Mark Sanchez

  2010 - #1 Sam Bradford

  2011 - #1 Cam Newton

  2012 - #1 Andrew Luck

  2012 - #2 Robert Griffin III

  2014 - #3 Blake Bortles 

 

So is the argument that the Bills front office should not go for the QB they think is best because the one they think is good enough is probably better? 

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

I wouldn't call 50 to 60% success rate that great.

 

If the Bills owned a top 5 pick and used it on a QB and failed  wouldn'r be so bad, but likely they'll end up trading other picks that could be used to solidify other positions too.  So if you emd up[ failing and give away other picks, that 50% success rate looks much worse.

It's offset by the value of a quarterback of other positions imo. 50-60% for a 10 year QB is worth a TON of draft picks in my mind.

 

And because they're QBs, draft misses get sensationalized. I mean look at Joeckel and Robinson recently...how many people are shouting from the rooftops how crazy risky it is to draft a tackle in the top5? You gotta take your shot.

[SoTier]

10 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

So is the argument that the Bills front office should not go for the QB they think is best because the one they think is good enough is probably better? 

 

Where did I say that the Bills shouldn't grab the QB they want?  I was specifically arguing against the posters claiming the Bills need to trade up into the top five to grab a QB, literally, any QB the media mavens claim is a top QB prospect because top five QBs are statistically more successful than other first round QBs.  That's simply untrue.  Only QBs taken as #1 picks are statistically better than other first round QBs, and lumping the QBs taken between #2-#5 with them makes "top five QBs" look much more statistically successful.

 

10 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

It's offset by the value of a quarterback of other positions imo. 50-60% for a 10 year QB is worth a TON of draft picks in my mind.

 

And because they're QBs, draft misses get sensationalized. I mean look at Joeckel and Robinson recently...how many people are shouting from the rooftops how crazy risky it is to draft a tackle in the top5? You gotta take your shot.

 

It's not the risk of taking a QB in the top five that's risky.  It's trading up into the top five to get that QB is what is truly risky because of the cost.  The sample size of teams that did this between 2000-2014 are very tiny, about 3 trades: the Giants swapping Eli for Rivers and picks in 2004; the Jets trading up for Mark Sanchez in 2009; and the Redskins trading up for Robert Griffin III in 2012.  If either or both Goff and Wentz turn into franchise QBs, it will totally change the statistics simply because of the tiny sample size.