A Lesson to Be Learned?

VaporTrail

@mld-woody said:
Alright, but what are the percentages that it is the #2 guy taken, or #3, #4, etc.? If it is #1 taken vs every other guy taken, then yeah, I would rather have the option between every other guy. But getting it right 42% of the time sounds more than good enough for me.

This. Ten bucks says that the percentage decreases with the ranking of the QB.

Flyin J

Exponentially. I bet theres more hits on the first QB, than the next three combined over the last 20 years. But the question is what you consider a hit.

hoorta

What Gips list goes to show it's bullshit to think there's a franchise qb in every draft. So by all means, go draft a qb @ #4 even if the FO thinks "it's what we have to do".

bbedward

Whatever. Only 1 QB left was drafted in the first round.

jeffinwv

^{Were at where we are at.}

Flyin J

@hoorta said:
What Gips list goes to show it's bullshit to think there's a franchise qb in every draft. So by all means, go draft a qb @ #4 even if the FO thinks "it's what we have to do".

id say 75% have productive QB's taken somewhere.

The Gipper

2009 Matt Stafford.....probably the best...but only about equally productive so far as Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman

What?

Yea, believe it or not, both Sanchez and Freeman exceed Stafford on the productivity scale........but note, that is an objective scale. Stafford has been hurt by his absences due to injury....plus both Sanchez and Freeman have taken their teams to some playoffs.

It is not an objective thing.....or a future predictive thing. Right here, right now those two have done more than Stafford.....but yes, Stafford seems the better QB and likely will have the better future.

The Gipper

My point is simply this: Let's say Teddy Twatwater is the first QB taken in the next draft: There is a 60% chance that some other QB taken later than he will have a better career.

OK, so, let's say the Browns don't get Bridgewater.....that they get maybe Bortles instead. There is simply a reasonably fair chance that Bortles could turn out to be as good as Bridgewater.

E.g. in 2004 the Steelers couldn't get at Eli or Rivers....and maybe, sorta had to settle for BR.

Maybe the Browns will be lucky....and instead of taking or getting a McGwire/Marinovich with a high pick....they get that year's Brett Favre.

The Gipper

I must make one retraction from above. I stated that in the 1972 draft it was a crap year for QBs......but for my original research I only checked the first 7 rounds of each draft. But in 1972 the Browns got the very best QB taken in that draft......in the 13th round....by the name of Brian Sipe. I mean, Jerry Tagge, John Reaves, Joe Gilliam were the other QBs taken that year, and they were crapola.

And that year was a year in which the Browns got lucky by taking a QB down the list of those drafted who far outperformed those taken higher.

Unfortuneatley.....that was 42 years ago.....and the last time the Browns have gotten lucky like that.

Flyin J

@the-gipper said:

My point is simply this: Let's say Teddy Twatwater is the first QB taken in the next draft: There is a 60% chance that some other QB taken later than he will have a better career.

OK, so, let's say the Browns don't get Bridgewater.....that they get maybe Bortles instead. There is simply a reasonably fair chance that Bortles could turn out to be as good as Bridgewater.

E.g. in 2004 the Steelers couldn't get at Eli or Rivers....and maybe, sorta had to settle for BR.

Maybe the Browns will be lucky....and instead of taking or getting a McGwire/Marinovich with a high pick....they get that year's Brett Favre.

Very true, but youre comparing his chances for success against the next 10 guys picked. Chances are, were only drafting one guy. Without a doubt, the first guy picked is the safest and best play. So the first guy taken is he best 40% of the time, how about the second? Third? Fourth? Etc...

The Gipper

XxDaBuckeyexX said:
Very true, but youre comparing his chances for success against the next 10 guys picked. Chances are, were only drafting one guy. Without a doubt, the first guy picked is the safest and best play. So the first guy taken is he best 40% of the time, how about the second? Third? Fourth? Etc...

You ask the question, you answer it. We look forward to the results of your research.

Sienn13

All this talk about QB's is irelavent. Who ever the Browns draft, will start on opening day and be hurt by week fuking 8.

The Gipper

As a couple of you noted....in some years there was NO franchise type QB drafted. I will highlight in red which years those are.

I will highlight in blue whom I think are clear franchise guys.

1970 Bradshaw #1....and he is the #1 best QB of that year

1971 Jim Plunkett .....but 3 4 other QBs that year are almost equal: Archie Manning/Dan Pastorini/Joe Theisman/Ken Anderson

1972 Jerry Tagge....may as well consider him best because that year produced crap at QB

1973 Bert Jones....but Dan Fouts and better career and Joe Ferguson and Ron Jaworski equal

1974 Danny White #1 and he was the best that year

1975 Steve Bartkowski.....but Steve Grogan had a much better career

1976 Richard Todd #1 and #1

1977 Steve Pisarkewisc....but Tommy Kramer had a much better career

1978 Doug Williams #1 and #1

1979 Jack Thompson....but Joe Montana and Phil Simms had better careers

1980 Marc Wilson.....but, arguably Eric Hipple had a better career

1981 Neil Lomax #1 and #1

1982 Art Schlichter....but Jim McMahon had a much better career (duh!)

1983 John Elway #1...and probably #1, though arguably Marino and Kelly were about equal

1984 Boomer Esiason #1 and #1

1985 Randall Cunningham #1 and #1 (note....not counting Kosar taken in Supp. draft)

1986 Jim Everett #1 and #1

1987 Vinny Testaverde.....but actually Rich Gannon may have had a more productive career

1988 Tom Tupa....but Chris Chandler and Stan Humphries had better careers

1989 Troy Aikman #1 and #1

1990 Jeff George.....but Neil O'Donnell probably had a better career

1991 McGwire/Marinovich......top two taken that year can't compare to Brett Favre

1992 David Klingler....but Jeff Blake had a more productive career

1993 Drew Bledsoe #1 and #1

1994 Heath Shuler....but both Trent Dilfer and Gus Frerotte had more productive careers

1995 Steve McNair #1 and #1

1996 Tony Banks #1 and #1

1997 Jim Druckenmiller....but Jake Plummer had a better career

1998 Peyton Manning #1 and #1

1999 Tim Couch....but Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper had better careers

2000 Chud Pennington....but Mark Bulger and Tom Brady (duh) had better careers

2001 Michael Vick....but Drew Brees has a more productive career

2002 David Carr....but David Garrard had a better career

2003 Carson Palmer #1 and #1

2004 Eli Manning.....debatable whether he/Rivers/Roethlisberger has better career

2005 Alex Smith....but Aaron Rodgers has better career

2006 Vince Young/Matt Leinert....top 2 choices can't match #3 Jay Cutler

2007 Jamarcus Russell....bad year....best QB out of group is Trent Edwards

2008 Matt Ryan.....but most consider Joe Flacco to be having more productive career

2009 Matt Stafford.....probably the best...but only about equally productive so far as Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman

2010 Sam Bradford #1 and #1 (only competition: Tebow/McCoy)

2011 Cam Newton #1 and #1 (but so far Dalton close)

2012 Andrew Luck #1.....and pretty clearly seems to be the #1 guy...though RGII and Russell good.

You are welcome to add/subtract/argue with my designations.

hoorta

@the-gipper said:

As a couple of you noted....in some years there was NO franchise type QB drafted. I will highlight in red which years those are.

I will highlight in blue whom I think are clear franchise guys.

1970 Bradshaw #1....and he is the #1 best QB of that year

1971 Jim Plunkett .....but 3 4 other QBs that year are almost equal: Archie Manning/Dan Pastorini/Joe Theisman/Ken Anderson

1972 Jerry Tagge....may as well consider him best because that year produced crap at QB

1973 Bert Jones....but Dan Fouts and better career and Joe Ferguson and Ron Jaworski equal

1974 Danny White #1 and he was the best that year

1975 Steve Bartkowski.....but Steve Grogan had a much better career

1976 Richard Todd #1 and #1

1977 Steve Pisarkewisc....but Tommy Kramer had a much better career

1978 Doug Williams #1 and #1

1979 Jack Thompson....but Joe Montana and Phil Simms had better careers

1980 Marc Wilson.....but, arguably Eric Hipple had a better career

1981 Neil Lomax #1 and #1

1982 Art Schlichter....but Jim McMahon had a much better career (duh!)

1983 John Elway #1...and probably #1, though arguably Marino and Kelly were about equal

1984 Boomer Esiason #1 and #1

1985 Randall Cunningham #1 and #1 (note....not counting Kosar taken in Supp. draft)

1986 Jim Everett #1 and #1

1987 Vinny Testaverde.....but actually Rich Gannon may have had a more productive career

1988 Tom Tupa....but Chris Chandler and Stan Humphries had better careers

1989 Troy Aikman #1 and #1

1990 Jeff George.....but Neil O'Donnell probably had a better career

1991 McGwire/Marinovich......top two taken that year can't compare to Brett Favre

1992 David Klingler....but Jeff Blake had a more productive career

1993 Drew Bledsoe #1 and #1

1994 Heath Shuler....but both Trent Dilfer and Gus Frerotte had more productive careers

1995 Steve McNair #1 and #1

1996 Tony Banks #1 and #1

1997 Jim Druckenmiller....but Jake Plummer had a better career

1998 Peyton Manning #1 and #1

1999 Tim Couch....but Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper had better careers

2000 Chud Pennington....but Mark Bulger and Tom Brady (duh) had better careers

2001 Michael Vick....but Drew Brees has a more productive career

2002 David Carr....but David Garrard had a better career

2003 Carson Palmer #1 and #1

2004 Eli Manning.....debatable whether he/Rivers/Roethlisberger has better career

2005 Alex Smith....but Aaron Rodgers has better career

2006 Vince Young/Matt Leinert....top 2 choices can't match #3 Jay Cutler

2007 Jamarcus Russell....bad year....best QB out of group is Trent Edwards

2008 Matt Ryan.....but most consider Joe Flacco to be having more productive career

2009 Matt Stafford.....probably the best...but only about equally productive so far as Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman

2010 Sam Bradford #1 and #1 (only competition: Tebow/McCoy)

2011 Cam Newton #1 and #1 (but so far Dalton close)

2012 Andrew Luck #1.....and pretty clearly seems to be the #1 guy...though RGII and Russell good.

You are welcome to add/subtract/argue with my designations.

From around 2008 too early to say. Cam Newton, Stafford, Flacco, and Kaepernic have the potential. But your list does go to prove- there may well not be "The Guy" in this draft.

The Gipper

@hoorta said:

From around 2008 too early to say. Cam Newton, Stafford, Flacco, and Kaepernic have the potential. But your list does go to prove- there may well not be "The Guy" in this draft.

In point of fact, very few drafts probably have THE guy, if by that you mean HOF potential. In history a HOF caliber QB is only drafted really once every 2-3 years of that.

Here are all the HOF QBs drafted in each decade since the draft began in 1936:

1930s: Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman (2 HOFers)

1940s: Bob Waterfield, Otto Graham, YA Tittle, Bobby Layne, George Blanda, Norm Van Brocklin (6 HOFers)

1950s: John Unitas, Bart Starr, Sonny Jurgenson, Len Dawson (4 HOFers)

1960s: Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach, Joe Namath, Bob Griese (4 HOFers)

1970s: Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Joe Montana (3 HOFers)

1980s: John Elway, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Troy Aikman (5 HOFers)

1990s: Probables: Brett Favre, Peyton Manning. (Possibles: Steve McNair/Drew Bledsoe) (2-3 HOFers

2000s: Probables: Tom Brady, Drew Brees. (Possibles: Eli, Rivers, BR, Rodgers) (2-6 HOFers)

Note: Moon already in would have been drafted circa 1979/1980. He went undrafted and played like 5 years in Canada.

Also possible HOFer Kurt Warner came out of college mid 1990s, went undrafted, played Arena League some.

Thus, on average a HOF caliber QB only comes up 4-5 times per decade. I know you can have "franchise" QBs that are not HOFers...but pretty darn good. ....like a Stabler/Kosar/ etc.

Point is: really good to great QBs don't grow on trees.

Flyin J

If were waiting until the next Andrew Luck to invest in a QB, chances are we'll all be dead by the time it happens. And your list does prove one thing.....through all the scouting, evaluations, combines, interviews, nobody can guess which QB's will succeed.

slimdawg

@mld-woody said:

Alright, but what are the percentages that it is the #2 guy taken, or #3, #4, etc.? If it is #1 taken vs every other guy taken, then yeah, I would rather have the option between every other guy. But getting it right 42% of the time sounds more than good enough for me.

What?

I thought the same thing LOL..... Stafford is hands down better than those 2 scrubs combined, just been blessed to be on horrible teams

Osiris

@the-gipper said:

My point is simply this: Let's say Teddy Twatwater is the first QB taken in the next draft: There is a 60% chance that some other QB taken later than he will have a better career.

OK, so, let's say the Browns don't get Bridgewater.....that they get maybe Bortles instead. There is simply a reasonably fair chance that Bortles could turn out to be as good as Bridgewater.

E.g. in 2004 the Steelers couldn't get at Eli or Rivers....and maybe, sorta had to settle for BR.

Maybe the Browns will be lucky....and instead of taking or getting a McGwire/Marinovich with a high pick....they get that year's Brett Favre.

I'm no statistician but I know enough about stats to know you guys are making some logical flaws in your comparisons.

Of course there is more likelihood that some QB chosen later than #1 will have a better career, because the chances of one superior-talent QB succeeding is less than the chances of at least one of a pool of ten average-talent QBs succeeding.

Now let's say for the sake of argument the Browns follow your logic and pass on the #1 QB because there is a 60% chance some other QB will be better in the later rounds. Now lets say there are again, 10 possible QBs to look at in the later rounds, one of which is said diamond in the rough. The Browns will have a 1 in 10 chance of picking said diamond in the rough, and a 9 in 10 chance of picking a dud. So, the odds of the BROWNS picking a good QB in the later rounds is still worse than if they were to pick one of the top guys.

Let's instead do this. Let's look at QBs from now and historically who have a passer rating of 85 or higher. You can see them listed here: from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

From this list, the # of players per round turns out like this:

Rnd QBs Selected

1 13

2 3

3 2

4 1

5 0

6 1

7 0

8 1

UDFA 4

Therefore, you have a 52% chance of drafting a QB who will go on to have a career passer rating of 85+ if he is selected in the 1st round, a 12% chance if selected in the 2nd round, an 8% chance if drafted in the third round, and a 4% or less chance in any of the subsequent rounds.

As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty definitive proof that the best chance of getting a franchise QB is by selecting him in the first round. Obviously the Browns fall way short of this 52% chance, but that's because of factors such as horrible front-offices and scouting.

slowburn

nice analysis

thanks Gipper!

Flyin J

@osiris said:

I'm no statistician but I know enough about stats to know you guys are making some logical flaws in your comparisons.

Of course there is more likelihood that some QB chosen later than #1 will have a better career, because the chances of one superior-talent QB succeeding is less than the chances of at least one of a pool of ten average-talent QBs succeeding.

Now let's say for the sake of argument the Browns follow your logic and pass on the #1 QB because there is a 60% chance some other QB will be better in the later rounds. Now lets say there are again, 10 possible QBs to look at in the later rounds, one of which is said diamond in the rough. The Browns will have a 1 in 10 chance of picking said diamond in the rough, and a 9 in 10 chance of picking a dud. So, the odds of the BROWNS picking a good QB in the later rounds is still worse than if they were to pick one of the top guys.

Let's instead do this. Let's look at QBs from now and historically who have a passer rating of 85 or higher. You can see them listed here: from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

From this list, the # of players per round turns out like this:

Rnd QBs Selected

1 13

2 3

3 2

4 1

5 0

6 1

7 0

8 1

UDFA 4

Therefore, you have a 52% chance of drafting a QB who will go on to have a career passer rating of 85+ if he is selected in the 1st round, a 12% chance if selected in the 2nd round, an 8% chance if drafted in the third round, and a 4% or less chance in any of the subsequent rounds.

As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty definitive proof that the best chance of getting a franchise QB is by selecting him in the first round. Obviously the Browns fall way short of this 52% chance, but that's because of factors such as horrible front-offices and scouting.

nice findings but your next to last paragraph is wrong. Out of all the QBs you found with a career passer rating of 85, 52% were picked first round. Doesnt mean there's a 52% chance of a QB picked in the first round having that career rating...in fact its probably closer to 20%.