Another off year for 1st round drafted QBs

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Based on the fever pitch many fans seem to have about drafting a QB one would suspect that a team MUST draft a franchise QB in the 1st round if they expect to have any chance whatsoever of even making it to not to say winning the SB.

 

However a look at the playoff teams once again is consistent with the FACT that no team has won an SB with a QB they chose in the 1st round since Dallas chose Aikman in 1989 and he led them to consecutive SB victories during his career.

 

Last year was actually a banner year for team looking for SB glory and drafting a QB in the 1st as their mechanism for getting there. However, McNabb's appearance for Philly in a losing cause marked the first time since McNair led the Titans to a loss in the 1999 game that a 1st round drafted QB even led his team to a berth in the final game.

 

It is simply a fact that if you bet against a team who picked a QB in the 1st round to win the SB you'd have over a decade of correct choices. The closest a 1st round choice has come in that time of being a key part to an SB run is none other than Drew Bledsoe who did play QB in the majority of a must win game during the SB run of a team that was actually led by a 6th round drafted QB.

 

I'm not saying that all 1st rounders suck, I;m simply saying that they are better found and trained through other mechanisms such as Trent Dilfer leading the Ravens or delivered to you when Indy 1st round choice Elways fiorced his way out of town.

 

This year's playoff gang includes the usual retinue of 1st round drafted QB studs like Peyton Manning, but as is typical in almost all years the majority of playoff teams are led by QBs acquired through some other means than spending a 1st round pick on that player.

 

Go figure.

[Ramius]

This year's playoff gang includes the usual retinue of 1st round drafted QB studs like Peyton Manning, but as is typical in almost all years the majority of playoff teams are led by QBs acquired through some other means than spending a 1st round pick on that player.

 

548895[/snapback]

 

Ummm, P.Manning, Palmer, Leftwich, Roethlisberger, E.Manning, and Grossman

 

6/12 = .500 != majority

 

I know 1st round QB's arent the end all be all to a playoff spot or super bowl win, but they certainly go a long way in helping.

 

A lot of people like to say that for every peyton manning, there are 5 akili smith's, cade mcknown's, etc, but for every tom brady and matt hasselbeck, there are 50 late round drafted QB's that do nothing.

 

Smart teams draft a QB is every draft. Its worth it to spend a 6th or 7th rounder on a QB every season, and that will increase your odds on finding the next gem, as opposed to drafting and hoping with a 1st rounder.

[SDS]

Smart teams draft a QB is every draft. Its worth it to spend a 6th or 7th rounder on a QB every season, and that will increase your odds on finding the next gem, as opposed to drafting and hoping with a 1st rounder.

548917[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but then you have to hire Jeff Gillooly to collapse the lung of your starting QB in order to see the gem you have...

[Bear]

Yeah, but then you have to hire Jeff Gillooly to collapse the lung of your starting QB in order to see the gem you have... 

548919[/snapback]

 

Or you can just ignore the Oline and wait for them to get him killed.

[SDS]

Or you can just ignore the Oline and wait for them to get him killed.

548927[/snapback]

 

again, this is bull sh--. TD did NOT ignore the line. Drafting MW as your highest pick in 20 years is not ignoring the line. Jennings, Sullivan, Williams, Pucillo, Sobieski, Preston, Geisinger, McFarland, Anderson, Villarrial, Peters, Teague, Gandy.... etc....

 

That is not ignoring the line. TD may have been unsuccessful in putting a line together, but it is not because he ignored it like you are claiming.

[JDG]

Yeah, but then you have to hire Jeff Gillooly to collapse the lung of your starting QB in order to see the gem you have... 

548919[/snapback]

 

Or Marvin Lewis for that matter.....

[Bear]

again, this is bull sh--.  TD did NOT ignore the line.  Drafting MW as your highest pick in 20 years is not ignoring the line. Jennings, Sullivan, Williams, Pucillo, Sobieski, Preston, Geisinger, McFarland, Anderson, Villarrial, Peters, Teague, Gandy.... etc....

 

That is not ignoring the line.  TD may have been unsuccessful in putting a line together, but it is not because he ignored it like you are claiming.

548943[/snapback]

 

Okay, for starters...I was joking.

 

But, now that you bring it up:

 

I have always defended the MW pick. I agree that it was a good pick, and that the MW bust is not a fault of TD.

 

That said, other than that pick, I don't consider bringing in a bunch of no talent hacks "addressing the line". He has had no reguard for talent...just bodies. Jennings is the only other one of those guys that can be put into this category. He was a third round draft choice (after what positions?) that played solid at his position. And, as always, was surrounded by no other talent.

Preston remains to be seen, and there is no way you can mention Peters in that group. They lucked in to him. He was brought in as a TE.

 

1 high pick in how long? After how many years of CRAP o line, who was our first draft pick last year? Second???

Who was brought in in FA??? Anderson and Gandy. Those are the players TD has used to "fix" this line. Nothing but mediocre castoffs.

[VABills]

again, this is bull sh--.  TD did NOT ignore the line.  Drafting MW as your highest pick in 20 years is not ignoring the line. Jennings, Sullivan, Williams, Pucillo, Sobieski, Preston, Geisinger, McFarland, Anderson, Villarrial, Peters, Teague, Gandy.... etc....

 

That is not ignoring the line.  TD may have been unsuccessful in putting a line together, but it is not because he ignored it like you are claiming.

548943[/snapback]

Scott, I agree, but then the problem has to be elsewhere. What you say then is that coachingincluding Oline coaching was terrible, and if you are I agree. Mcnally has done little to help this line and it's time for him to go also.

[MDH]

This year's playoff gang includes the usual retinue of 1st round drafted QB studs like Peyton Manning, but as is typical in almost all years the majority of playoff teams are led by QBs acquired through some other means than spending a 1st round pick on that player.

 

Go figure.

548895[/snapback]

 

Manning 1st

Plummer 2nd

Palmer 1st

Brady 6th

Rothlesberger 1st

Leftwich 1st

 

Hasselback 6th

Grossman 1st

Manning 1st

Simms 3rd

Delhomme undrafted

Brunell 6th

 

Seven of the 12 playoff teams sport QBs that were drafted in the first round (granted Leftwhich may or may not reclaim his starting spot this year if/when healthy).

 

I'm not going to argue that there aren't other ways of getting a QB, obviously there are but I think you're undervauling grabbing a guy with a good pedigree coming out of school. That beging said it seems to be about a 50/50 shot with any QBs drafted in the 1st but the same can pretty much be said of any other position.

[Ramius]

Manning 1st

Plummer 1st

Palmer 1st

Brady 6th

Rothlesberger 1st

Leftwich 1st

 

Hasselback 6th

Grossman 1st

Manning 1st

Simms 3rd

Delhomme undrafted

Brunell 6th

 

Seven of the 12 playoff teams sport QBs that were drafted in the first round (granted Leftwhich may or may not reclaim his starting spot this year if/when healthy).  Of these seven only Plummer wasn't drafted by the team he currently plays for.

 

I'm not going to argue that there aren't other ways of getting a QB, obviously there are but I think you're undervauling grabbing a guy with a good pedigree coming out of school.  That beging said it seems to be about a 50/50 shot with any QBs drafted in the 1st but the same can pretty much be said of any other position.

548987[/snapback]

 

I'm with you in my above post, but plummer was a 2nd round pick.

[MDH]

I'm with you in my above post, but plummer was a 2nd round pick.

548988[/snapback]

 

Yeah I fixed that after I realized the mistake, thx.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Manning 1st

Plummer 2nd

Palmer 1st

Brady 6th

Rothlesberger 1st

Leftwich 1st

 

Hasselback 6th

Grossman 1st

Manning 1st

Simms 3rd

Delhomme undrafted

Brunell 6th

 

Seven of the 12 playoff teams sport QBs that were drafted in the first round (granted Leftwhich may or may not reclaim his starting spot this year if/when healthy).

 

I'm not going to argue that there aren't other ways of getting a QB, obviously there are but I think you're undervauling grabbing a guy with a good pedigree coming out of school.  That beging said it seems to be about a 50/50 shot with any QBs drafted in the 1st but the same can pretty much be said of any other position.

548987[/snapback]

 

The point I am making has been misunderstood before so I'm not surprised that the evidence you site and seem to indicate that it goes against my view actually supports my point.

 

The key is that rather than drafting a QB in the 1st, it seems a team is better off spending a late pick for their QB and hope they catch Tom Brady as lightening in a bottle or if he sucks at least he is cheap. Then. if you decide to go with 1st round or a highly drafted QB, there will likely be a Plummer, Dilfer, Steve Young or favre on the market and you can get the advantage of someone else going through their growing pains and losing and you can get them and win.

 

Of the 12 playoff teams only 4 ) the Mannings, Palmer, and RoboQB in Pitts can honestly be said to have been led by their 1st round QB pick. The other two 1st round QB choices are the damaged Leftwich and Grossman who were useful cannot be pointed to as essential facets of the team's making the playoff run.

 

I think the key here is that folks seem to get so exercised about the importance of QB that they many must judge your 50/estimate as being too low. One of the Bills major problems since the loss of Jimbo is an over-focus on the QB position. This false sense of importance has led to us:

 

1. Over-reaching in spending a 2nd rounder on Collins and then rushing him a long to start before the happy-feet were trained out of him as best could be done.

2. Spending a 3rd in desperation for Billy Joe Idiot when Butler realized TC was not the man.

3. Paying a huge bonus to RJ before he proved himself and giving the QB jpb to RJ without competition even though he had promised Flutie a fair shot. it got even stupider when it turned out Butler had agreed to roll DF's achieved incentives into his base pay which forced us into a $10 million cap hit at QB.

4. Resigning Bledsoe after his horrendous 03 when TD should have just accepted this as a wash allowing for cutting Bledsoe after he had a good 02.

 

One need only look at the dozen or so teams to appear in the SB to see that drafting a QB in the first round is not a necessary or even a good strategy for getting to (much less winning) the SB.

 

Peyton may well do it this year with the help of Harrison, James, a great D coached by Dungy and a great ST assembled by Polian and giftred with that idiot Vanderjagt, bot it seems clear to me that the record of success indicates that one builds a winning team in some other manner than drafting a stud QB in the first and Peyton is little more than the exception that proves this rule.

[Ramius]

FFS, the point is that good teams have good quarterbacking play. Look at the good teams this season and the terrible ones. There may be a few exceptions, but the biggest difference is the play of the QB. A good QB can lead a team, while a bad QB will kill one.

 

That being said, you have a better chance at getting a good QB in the 1st round than you do in any other round or by picking up free agents. You can always point out exceptions, such as brady, delhomme, and hasselbeck, but the point remains that your best chance for getting a good QB is by drafting 1 in the first round.

 

Since the '99 draft there have been 64 QB's taken in rounds 2-7 (not counting the '05 draft), and out of them, Tom Brady, Marc Bulger, and Chris Simms are the only ones starting. You could count aaron brooks too if you wish, but i'm not counting bollinger, who was forced to start due to injury.

Thats 3/64 = 4.6%

 

Out of the 18 first rounders taken in 99-04, you have 12 starting (counting 1/2 harrington and 1/2 losman, and counting pennington who was one til his injury)

12/18 = 66%

 

Sure a good number of 1st rounders are busts, and some are starting ONLY because they were first rounders, but the numbers show that you have a better chance at drafting a good QB in round 1 than hoping to catch a 1 in 100 longshot like brady.

[Adam]

I think Brady Quinn will be a stud QB....to bad for him that facing Ted Ginn Jr. is the equivalent of facing a 10,000 foot tall Wooley Mamoth. Nobody can stop him- ever! He is the football equivalent of Andre!

[finknottle]

The point I am making has been misunderstood before so I'm not surprised that the evidence you site and seem to indicate that it goes against my view actually supports my point.

 

The key is that rather than drafting a QB in the 1st, it seems a team is better off spending a late pick for their QB and hope they catch Tom Brady as lightening in a bottle or if he sucks at least he is cheap.  Then. if you decide to go with 1st round or a highly drafted QB, there will likely be a Plummer, Dilfer, Steve Young or favre on the market and you can get the advantage of someone else going through their growing pains and losing and you can get them and win.

 

:

549091[/snapback]

 

I agree, the real reason being the fact that most first rounders do not make it as NFL quarterbacks. I crunched the numbers a while back and found that something like 50% don't make it after their contract is up, 25% make it as journeymen, and only 25% become long-term starters for the team that drafted them.

 

Given those odds, I think every year or two you take a QB in rounds 3-6 (when they are cheap) and keep him on the bench. If after a few years holding the clipboard you are confident he has what it takes, great. If not you cut him and move on with the other guys. If the guy develops slower or never really shows you what he's got, big deal - it was a throwaway pick. You do not blow season after season while he learns on the job (and as likely as not proves a bust), and you do not kill yourself cap-wise.

[GG]

The point I am making has been misunderstood before so I'm not surprised that the evidence you site and seem to indicate that it goes against my view actually supports my point.

549091[/snapback]

 

Your point was not misunderstood before, even though you feel it has, and that's why you post the same tired thread in each off season.

 

I do find it very interesting that you dropped the salary cap defense of your "theory" since in the last two seasons, the playoff teams are represented by high $$ QBs. Could that be a sign that when you came up with your cheap QB theory, there was the Tom Brady aberration? This year's top 9 of 10 highest paid QBs have led their teams to playoffs in the last 2 years, while 3 of top 5 highest paid QBs are in the playoffs. The pay data is a bit schewed because it lists the top 10 paid by NFLPA for transition tag designation.

 

But, no matter how many times a logical post like Ramius's comes across this space, you ignore that evidence. No matter that every single NFL personnel man says that the first place to start in building a team is at the QB position, you go back to your cheap Aisle 8 QB theory.

 

Again, your theory works well in a vacuum, where you don't have other teams drafting players and you also have Amazing Kreskin running your draft, because you know that in round 6 you are going to get a Tom Brady and not Gus Frerotte.

 

You forget that for every Tom Brady there are dozens Gus Frerottes and hundreds of Dan Manuccis.

 

Because the QB spot is the most important on the team, and because it is very difficult to get a really good one, teams often reach for a player if he has an inkling of potential.

 

It is not as easy as it sounds to build a solid OL & running game that you can plug a Travis Brown in there and expect to reach the playoffs. Without a good QB, the defenses will eat the OL alive, even if you stack it with Boselli, Pace & Ogden.

[Orton's Arm]

I agree,  the real reason being the fact that most first rounders do not make it as NFL quarterbacks.  I crunched the numbers a while back and found that something like 50% don't make it after their contract is up,  25% make it as journeymen,  and only 25% become long-term starters for the team that drafted them.

549250[/snapback]

That 25% chance is good enough. Compare what Jim Kelly did for this franchise to what first round CBs have done for it. Antoine Winfield was here for four years, Nate Clements looks like he'll be here for five, Thomas Smith was a first rounder who was here for four or five years. Imagine another first round CB who's like those guys: meets expectations, stays for 4 - 5 years, then he leaves.

 

On one side of the equation, you have the 13 years of good quarterback play Jim Kelly gave this franchise. On the other side, you have the 16 - 20 years of good cornerback play those four first round CBs collectively gave to the franchise. Which is better? While the years of good CB play are useful, clearly Jim Kelly brings much more to the table.

 

So a 25% chance of getting a very good QB is better than a 100% chance of getting the next Nate Clements. So you go through a little bit of a drought while you're going through the bad first round QBs to get to the good one. But once you find the guy you're looking for, you can make higher percentage draft picks at other positions, put a team together, and go for a Super Bowl run.

[Orton's Arm]

Sure a good number of 1st rounders are busts, and some are starting ONLY because they were first rounders, but the numbers show that you have a better chance at drafting a good QB in round 1 than hoping to catch a 1 in 100 longshot like brady.

549209[/snapback]

Great post.

[finknottle]

That 25% chance is good enough. Compare what Jim Kelly did for this franchise to what first round CBs have done for it. Antoine Winfield was here for four years, Nate Clements looks like he'll be here for five, Thomas Smith was a first rounder who was here for four or five years. Imagine another first round CB who's like those guys: meets expectations, stays for 4 - 5 years, then he leaves.

 

On one side of the equation, you have the 13 years of good quarterback play Jim Kelly gave this franchise. On the other side, you have the 16 - 20 years of good cornerback play those four first round CBs collectively gave to the franchise. Which is better? While the years of good CB play are useful, clearly Jim Kelly brings much more to the table.

 

So a 25% chance of getting a very good QB is better than a 100% chance of getting the next Nate Clements. So you go through a little bit of a drought while you're going through the bad first round QBs to get to the good one. But once you find the guy you're looking for, you can make higher percentage draft picks at other positions, put a team together, and go for a Super Bowl run.

549267[/snapback]

 

I would still draft later and draft often, but your reasoning and the approach are legit. Minor point: the odds are lower for lower picks and UDA's, but you can afford to sign them in bunches. Cutting a 5th round qb every season is no big setback.

 

Where I would disagree (and I'm using you as a strawman here since I don't know if you advocate this) is whether you start a guy to accelerate his assessment and development simply because he's a first rounder. I say no. If you invest three seasons each starting first rounders who are the solution 25% of the time, you can expect to finally realize you've hit on a guy by the end of the third try, or after almost a decade of amaturish play from the most important spot. Sound right Cincy?

[SHOUTBOX MONSTER!]

Smart teams draft a QB is every draft. Its worth it to spend a 6th or 7th rounder on a QB every season, and that will increase your odds on finding the next gem, as opposed to drafting and hoping with a 1st rounder.

548917[/snapback]

 

 

Completely agree with this. It was used by Ron Wolf with the Packers and proved successful. Granted he didn't need any quarterbacks as Farve was there, but the list of those he discovered in late rounds is impressive.

 

Matt Hasselback

Mark Brunell

Aaron Brooks

Kurt Warner

 

Why don't more teams do this?!?!?