The Reason We're Seeing The False Rise of QBs

[Tyrod's friend]

13 hours ago, YodaMan79 said:

... I think it's harder now than ever to know if a QB with translate into the pro game ...

First, with the computer analytics that are available today I think this is wrong. I see the success rate of drafted QBs in the last five years as pretty remarkable. Say what you want about quality, but Trevor Siemian was picked in the 7th round and since the 2015 draft has 24 NFL starts. He's not alone. 

Second, the unusual success of backups and the willingness of GMs to treat the position as disposable across the league has devalued the position generally. If teams believe they can be quite competitive by investing in Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford and Case Keenum (not to mention AJ McCarron, Teddy Bridgewater and Josh McCown), what does that say about the position?

And I think the coincidence of these two elements is important and not a little bit related. QB doesn't mean to the FO what it means to you.

[BuffaLoko]

13 hours ago, YodaMan79 said:

If capped contracts on rookies, specifically QBs weren't in place, do you think this many would be going in the first round this year?  We've seen teams that have had success with QBs on rookie contracts take advantage of their low cap number and load up on talent in other areas.  Before if a team made a mistake at QB in RD #1 it would set them back years, from a cap perspective.  It's a copy-cat league and these teams want to get away with having control of a QB for 4-5 years with a bargain cap number.  Not that I disagree with this philosophy, but I think we're seeing a false rise up the boards of these QBs, potentially due the positive financial implications if you're lucky enough to hit on a starter.    I hope they'er lucky enough to find one of the 1-2 guys that will actually pan out.  I think this crop of QBs would be spread between rounds 1-3, if not the precedent that's starting to show itself.  We need to dodge the fools gold, and if we can't get QB they're 100% confident in, draft BPA.  Stud players in other positions are dropping due to the false inflation of some guys that in other drafts that would be lucky to be picked before the second round.  I know some of you think we should sell the farm no matter what.  But what if the talent this year doesn't justify it?  Just an FYI, when the eagles drafted Wentz, they did so because all their scouts and consultants indicated the QB crop from college was progressively going to get worse.  This is due to running gimmicky offenses, always being shotgun, emphasis on the screen game and defensive looks.  I think it's harder now than ever to know if a QB with translate into the pro game.  Buyer beware.  

 

*League rank of starting QB cap hit for protected starters in 2018. (From PFT.com)

 

23. Mitch Trubisky: $7.258 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2017, as the No. 2 pick.

24. Jared Goff: $6.984 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2016, as the No. 1 pick.

25. Carson Wentz: $6.669 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2016, as the No. 2 pick.

26. Jameis Winston: $6.337 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2015, as the No. 1 pick.

27. Marcus Mariota: $6.053 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2015, as the No. 2 pick.

28. Patrick Mahomes: $4.1 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2017, as the No. 10 pick.

29. Deshaun Watson: $3.463 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2017, as the No. 12 pick.

30. Dak Prescott: $680,000. By rule, he can’t sign a new deal until after 2018.

 

*The list doesn’t include 32 quarterbacks, given the possibility that one or more rookie quarterbacks will be Week One starters. 

Great post! the financial factor, nobody seemed having in  mind in the dozens of threads about the draft...YouAreDaMan!!

[Chuck Wagon]

13 hours ago, YodaMan79 said:

If capped contracts on rookies, specifically QBs weren't in place, do you think this many would be going in the first round this year?  We've seen teams that have had success with QBs on rookie contracts take advantage of their low cap number and load up on talent in other areas.  Before if a team made a mistake at QB in RD #1 it would set them back years, from a cap perspective.  It's a copy-cat league and these teams want to get away with having control of a QB for 4-5 years with a bargain cap number.  Not that I disagree with this philosophy, but I think we're seeing a false rise up the boards of these QBs, potentially due the positive financial implications if you're lucky enough to hit on a starter.    I hope they'er lucky enough to find one of the 1-2 guys that will actually pan out.  I think this crop of QBs would be spread between rounds 1-3, if not the precedent that's starting to show itself.  We need to dodge the fools gold, and if we can't get QB they're 100% confident in, draft BPA.  Stud players in other positions are dropping due to the false inflation of some guys that in other drafts that would be lucky to be picked before the second round.  I know some of you think we should sell the farm no matter what.  But what if the talent this year doesn't justify it?  Just an FYI, when the eagles drafted Wentz, they did so because all their scouts and consultants indicated the QB crop from college was progressively going to get worse.  This is due to running gimmicky offenses, always being shotgun, emphasis on the screen game and defensive looks.  I think it's harder now than ever to know if a QB with translate into the pro game.  Buyer beware.  

 

*League rank of starting QB cap hit for protected starters in 2018. (From PFT.com)

 

23. Mitch Trubisky: $7.258 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2017, as the No. 2 pick.

24. Jared Goff: $6.984 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2016, as the No. 1 pick.

25. Carson Wentz: $6.669 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2016, as the No. 2 pick.

26. Jameis Winston: $6.337 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2015, as the No. 1 pick.

27. Marcus Mariota: $6.053 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2015, as the No. 2 pick.

28. Patrick Mahomes: $4.1 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2017, as the No. 10 pick.

29. Deshaun Watson: $3.463 million. Slotted rookie deal from 2017, as the No. 12 pick.

30. Dak Prescott: $680,000. By rule, he can’t sign a new deal until after 2018.

 

*The list doesn’t include 32 quarterbacks, given the possibility that one or more rookie quarterbacks will be Week One starters. 

 

 

Gabbert, Ponder, Manuel.  Sure, there are cases of QBs being overdrafted.  I don't think anyone the last couple drafts was overdrafted.  If what you are postulating is correct, Mahomes and Watson would have gone top ~5 last year.

 

I just think you are way off base.  You may have personally decided these QBs are overrated, but the reality is there's 4 guys this year who would have been the #1 or #2 QB picked in most every year out of the last 10+ drafts.  

 

As per your point on offenses, NFL offenses have begun a dramatic shift.  RPOs are all over the league now.  Offensive principles are flowing up from the college ranks because they work.  The days of NFL teams needing a 6'5" guy who lines up under center, stands in the pocket and delivers a 12 yard out are gone.  Teams are seeing the prospects that are being delivered and adjusting to put them in a best position to succeed.

 

Bottom line, all analysis about caution on moving up is rendered completely null and void if they actually hit on a QB.  Make no mistake, it's a boom or bust move though your point is applicable in that a bust doesn't hurt as bad anymore.

[PromoTheRobot]

The big reason is it's easy to job the system. You have the entire sports world hungry for news from the Super Bowl until the draft. Couldn't be easier to hype a player who might be your client. 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, DCOrange said:

The rookie cap has certainly had an impact in a few ways:

 

1. Rookie QBs don't cost a ton more than any other position like they used to in the past

2. It's easier to justify trading up when you don't have to trade all your draft picks plus make your choice the highest paid player at his position

3. It's easier to justify gambling on a raw prospect because you're not completely screwed if a draft pick doesn't pan out anymore

 

What evidence do you have that teams are doing #2 (trading up) or #3 (gambling on raw prospects) more now than prior to the rookie salary structure was put into place in 2011, and are doing so because of the rookies salary cap?  I just don't see it.  IMO, it's the media draft mavens and fans obsessed with the idea that getting a top QB solves all their teams problems that drive these ideas.   The pros are doing pretty much what they always have done: drafting QBs they like when they get the chance, including trading up on occasion or taking raw prospects.

 

2 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

First, with the computer analytics that are available today I think this is wrong. I see the success rate of drafted QBs in the last five years as pretty remarkable. Say what you want about quality, but Trevor Siemian was picked in the 7th round and since the 2015 draft has 24 NFL starts. He's not alone. 

Second, the unusual success of backups and the willingness of GMs to treat the position as disposable across the league has devalued the position generally. If teams believe they can be quite competitive by investing in Kirk Cousins, Sam Bradford and Case Keenum (not to mention AJ McCarron, Teddy Bridgewater and Josh McCown), what does that say about the position?

And I think the coincidence of these two elements is important and not a little bit related. QB doesn't mean to the FO what it means to you.

 

IMO analytics haven't yet proven accurate in predicting QBs' NFL success. 

- First of all, there's the definition of "success".  I don't count "success" as a QB merely being a starting QB for a team.  Trevor Siemian starting 24 games might be "success" but only for a 7th rounder, not for a first rounder.  If we're talking first rounder, then I want him to be a bonafide franchise QB at least on the level of Jay Cutler, Ryan Tannehill, Andy Dalton or Joe Flacco -- a competent starter who can shine with the right supporting cast and occasionally show flashes of brilliance, and do this for multiple seasons.  Your definition of "success" seems much less rigorous than mine.

- The second problem is the small sample size.  In order to test the assumptions used to develop the number crunching algorithms, you have to have lots of data.  QBs generally take time to develop, so there's going to be a time lag between the time they're drafted and when the successful ones come into their own.  More importantly, one year of good/great play does not make a QB "success".   This means that while the QBs in the 2011, 2012, and 2013 classes have shaken out, the story of the 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 classes remain mostly incomplete.  There were  9 first round QBs, 4 second rounders, 4 third rounders, and 5 fourth rounders taken between 2011-2013, for a total of 22.  If you go back 3 more years, (2008-2010) you get 7 first rounders, 4 second rounders, 2 third rounders, and 2 fourth rounders for a total of 15.  Thirty seven QBs is simply too small a sample, and even if you add in the 43 QBs taken in rounds 5, 6, and 7 between 2008 and 2013, you still only have 80 QBs, probably 60% of whom never got an opportunity to even play in a regular season NFL game.

- Finally, I think the increase in the number of QBs coming out of the rounds below the first in recent years suggests that analytics is missing the keys to QB success just like the human scouts have been doing for years.

[DCOrange]

15 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

What evidence do you have that teams are doing #2 (trading up) or #3 (gambling on raw prospects) more now than prior to the rookie salary structure was put into place in 2011, and are doing so because of the rookies salary cap?  I just don't see it.  IMO, it's the media draft mavens and fans obsessed with the idea that getting a top QB solves all their teams problems that drive these ideas.   The pros are doing pretty much what they always have done: drafting QBs they like when they get the chance, including trading up on occasion or taking raw prospects.

I didn't say that the results have been borne out re: #2 and #3; simply that it's easier to justify doing it since the cost is relatively much lower.

 

#3 in particular would be impossible to prove. For example, I'd say that the EJ Manuel selection probably doesn't happen if the rookie scale didn't exist because Buffalo knew he was a project when they took him and most intelligent organizations wouldn't want to pay a project as if he's a top 5-10 QB in the NFL, which is essentially what was happening before the rookie scale.

 

As far as #2 goes, again, I didn't say it's been borne out in the results, but for what it's worth, the number of QBs taken in the 1st round and the number of trade-ups for QBs in the 1st round have both increased since the rookie scale was put in place, especially in the last few years. From 2005 to 2010, there was a total of 7 trade-ups for QBs in the first round. In the past 2 years, we've had 6 (and counting this year's draft, we already have one with the Jets and almost certainly will see others).

[Tyrod's friend]

59 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

What evidence do you have that teams are doing #2 (trading up) or #3 (gambling on raw prospects) more now than prior to the rookie salary structure was put into place in 2011, and are doing so because of the rookies salary cap?  I just don't see it.  IMO, it's the media draft mavens and fans obsessed with the idea that getting a top QB solves all their teams problems that drive these ideas.   The pros are doing pretty much what they always have done: drafting QBs they like when they get the chance, including trading up on occasion or taking raw prospects.

 

 

IMO analytics haven't yet proven accurate in predicting QBs' NFL success. 

- First of all, there's the definition of "success".  I don't count "success" as a QB merely being a starting QB for a team.  Trevor Siemian starting 24 games might be "success" but only for a 7th rounder, not for a first rounder.  If we're talking first rounder, then I want him to be a bonafide franchise QB at least on the level of Jay Cutler, Ryan Tannehill, Andy Dalton or Joe Flacco -- a competent starter who can shine with the right supporting cast and occasionally show flashes of brilliance, and do this for multiple seasons.  Your definition of "success" seems much less rigorous than mine.

Do you think? I've got a long list of very, very successful QBs since 2012. A RoY that got injured and had his career ended. A Super Bowl MVP. Four or five franchise QBs of the first order - the guys mostly likely to supplant names like Ben and Tom. No, I don't think I'm using a low bar here. Trevor is merely the least usable example. 

I think we'd be hard pressed to come across a group of so many starts coming out of five year stretch, many of the starts from really good QBs without a true "bust". I mean, of course, outside of '83. 
 

- The second problem is the small sample size.  In order to test the assumptions used to develop the number crunching algorithms, you have to have lots of data.  QBs generally take time to develop, so there's going to be a time lag between the time they're drafted and when the successful ones come into their own.  More importantly, one year of good/great play does not make a QB "success".   This means that while the QBs in the 2011, 2012, and 2013 classes have shaken out, the story of the 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 classes remain mostly incomplete.  There were  9 first round QBs, 4 second rounders, 4 third rounders, and 5 fourth rounders taken between 2011-2013, for a total of 22.  If you go back 3 more years, (2008-2010) you get 7 first rounders, 4 second rounders, 2 third rounders, and 2 fourth rounders for a total of 15.  Thirty seven QBs is simply too small a sample, and even if you add in the 43 QBs taken in rounds 5, 6, and 7 between 2008 and 2013, you still only have 80 QBs, probably 60% of whom never got an opportunity to even play in a regular season NFL game.

Now here I think you are way off base if you think the sample size is small. They are analyzing literally thousands of passes by multiple QBs. In point of fact the amount of data they are likely crunching would hurt our brain. You are using 37 QBs; I am saying they analyze the underlying data around that QB. No, this isn't a small sample size. Heck that report recently that goes over all the QBs in this draft ... you think that is small sample size? Do you think his work is unique, that it can't be found for multiple years by analysts of billion dollar organizations? Sounds naive to me. 

 

 

- Finally, I think the increase in the number of QBs coming out of the rounds below the first in recent years suggests that analytics is missing the keys to QB success just like the human scouts have been doing for years.

Each his own.

Cheers,
Alex.

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[Bing Bong]

Maybe. But if you look back on every draft I don't see a spike in QBs drafted since the cap. Always around 2 or 3 I'd say. This year will probably be an aberration but it's quite far from when the cap was set. I don't want to do it right now but I guarantee I can tell you that the affect of cap is statistically insignificant in the number of first round QBs.

 

Actually I kind of do want to do it. You pose an interesting point.. I just don't think teams are taking advantage of it (if that's what you think is or should be happening)

[Chuck Schick]

I think the cap does remove some negative incentives (disincentives?) for drafting QBs high, but probably not enough to swing the tide one way or the other. 

 

The bigger impact  has come from the relatively high recent success rates of the first few QBs taken, even when trading away the farm for them.  

 

If the Redskins/RGIII  and the Eagles/Wentz drafts were flip-flopped chronologically, opinions might be a little different.  As an example.