A Lesson to Be Learned?
-
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.
2009 Matt Stafford.....probably the best...but only about equally productive so far as Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman
What?
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
-
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.
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 Selected1 132 33 24 15 06 17 08 1UDFA 4Therefore, 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.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
nice analysis
thanks 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.
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 Selected1 132 33 24 15 06 17 08 1UDFA 4Therefore, 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%.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%.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.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
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%.
Oh yeah, you are right, I think... anyway, point still stands, 52% of QBs with 85+ career rating are 1st round picks.
-
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.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
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.
I don't think we will be dead.....but its possible that a HOF caliber QB may not be taken til next year. EJ Manuel and Gino Smith from last year? Probably not HOF caliber. Anyone from this year? Certainly no sure fire.
Next year: Winston/Mariota etc.? Maybe. One every third year.
But then perhaps once every 15-20 years you get a 1971....1983...2004 type year where 3 or so QBs really make it great.
-
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 Selected1 132 33 24 15 06 17 08 1UDFA 4Therefore, 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.
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 Selected1 132 33 24 15 06 17 08 1UDFA 4Therefore, 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.
I think you are missing my point: I am simply saying that the best QB to come out of a draft is more often not the first QB taken in that draft. That guy could certainly still be a first round pick...maybe even a high first round pick.
If you are saying that the chances of getting a great QB go down exponentially the further you go down the draft, I agree.
The third round Joe Montana/6th round Tom Brady are indeed rare anomallies. But seeing an Aaron Rodgers do better than an Alex Smith? Not so rare.. In any number of cases it is not that the later QB taken is all that great....it is that that #1 guy became a complete bust. Trent Edwards is better than Jamarcus Russell....but that ain't saying much. Dilfer and Frerotte better than Shuler, Yea. So?
Getting a Brett Favre later when McGwire/Marinovich were taken ahead of him is also probably fairly rare.
And, naturally the real point I am making is that if the Browns get Bortles/Manziel we should not feel we were shortchanged. The Browns may get the best of the bunch.
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
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.
I don't think we will be dead.....but its possible that a HOF caliber QB may not be taken til next year. EJ Manuel and Gino Smith from last year? Probably not HOF caliber. Anyone from this year? Certainly no sure fire.
Next year: Winston/Mariota etc.? Maybe. One every third year.
But then perhaps once every 15-20 years you get a 1971....1983...2004 type year where 3 or so QBs really make it great.
I meant that there was a cant miss prospect that was the clear #1 guy and we were picking in a position to get him.I don't think we will be dead.....but its possible that a HOF caliber QB may not be taken til next year. EJ Manuel and Gino Smith from last year? Probably not HOF caliber. Anyone from this year? Certainly no sure fire.
Next year: Winston/Mariota etc.? Maybe. One every third year.
But then perhaps once every 15-20 years you get a 1971....1983...2004 type year where 3 or so QBs really make it great.
-
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.
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.
Farve, Manning, & Brady, are mortal locks to get in. Brees is 95%+ probable. and Rodgers only needs another good year or two to join the club.
I suggest you save this post for the next time Shep starts spouting off about the great qb potential in the 2014 draft.
-
Considering how many QBs are taken per draft I think 42% is in fact a very high percentage of getting the best of the lot if picking first.
I'd take that as a sign to go up and get one rather than the opposite.
-
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.
Farve, Manning, & Brady, are mortal locks to get in. Brees is 95%+ probable. and Rodgers only needs another good year or two to join the club.
I suggest you save this post for the next time Shep starts spouting off about the great qb potential in the 2014 draft.
Farve, Manning, & Brady, are mortal locks to get in. Brees is 95%+ probable. and Rodgers only needs another good year or two to join the club.
I suggest you save this post for the next time Shep starts spouting off about the great qb potential in the 2014 draft.
Well, here I guess we have to figure out what we mean by "franchise" QB. Perhaps a guy can be a franchise QB....but not necessarily a HOF QB.
Take the 1970s......which produced only 3 HOF QBs: Bradshaw/Fouts/Montana. But a number of other very good QBs came out in those years: Plunkett, Anderson, Pastorini, Theismann, Simms, Bert Jones, Joe Ferguson.
Same with the 90s: Only Favre and Manning are locks, but the likes of McNair, Bledsoe were very good.
And take 2004: Do you think any of Eli, Rivers, BR will make the HOF? Or all of them? If you just take pure stats Rivers probably has been every bit as productive a QB as Eli and BR. But what about those 2 titles each of them holds? Is that a by far plus factor that gets Eli and BR HOF credit that Rivers doesn't get because he has no title?
-
I guess, what I am saying is that I am going to go out on a limb: Bridgewater seems likely to be the first QB taken.....possibly/probably even the #1 overall pick of this draft.
I predict that 10 years from now we will look back and 1 or 2 of the lower QBs will be seen to be having better careers than Bridgewater.
The way I see it I have about a 58% chance of being right.
-
I guess, what I am saying is that I am going to go out on a limb: Bridgewater seems likely to be the first QB taken.....possibly/probably even the #1 overall pick of this draft.
I predict that 10 years from now we will look back and 1 or 2 of the lower QBs will be seen to be having better careers than Bridgewater.
The way I see it I have about a 58% chance of being right.
Now you just have to figure out which one....you have about a 15% chance of being right.I guess, what I am saying is that I am going to go out on a limb: Bridgewater seems likely to be the first QB taken.....possibly/probably even the #1 overall pick of this draft.
I predict that 10 years from now we will look back and 1 or 2 of the lower QBs will be seen to be having better careers than Bridgewater.
The way I see it I have about a 58% chance of being right.
-
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.
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.
The number of rounds in the draft is an important point, Gip. The pack for a wunderkind to emerge from was bigger in the past than it is now.
- Since '94 we've had 12 rounds;
- in '93 there were 8;
- from '77 thru '92 there were 12;
- 17 from '76 thru '91.
There were 20 rounds in the 60's and even earlier there were 30+.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
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?
Taken with your insistence that organizations cannot guess which QBs will succeed (see below), it would seem that you really do believe that the QB picked first turns out to be good because he was picked first, rather than he is picked first because he is good.
Do you also put your cart before your horse?
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
And your list does prove one thing.....through all the scouting, evaluations, combines, interviews, nobody can guess which QB's will succeed.
They're not guessing... and your own position as stated in the previous quote shows that. If they were guessing, then the probability of success at QB would be equal regardless of when the QB is drafted. Yet you maintain the earlier one is tabbed, the greater that QBs chance of success is. Which is it?
Have you ever read Moneyball? Or at least seen the movie? Scouting is simply as flawed in football as it historically has been in baseball.
But whether flawed or guesswork, mistakes are compounded when need is allowed to influence rational thought.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
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.
The number of rounds in the draft is an important point, Gip. The pack for a wunderkind to emerge from was bigger in the past than it is now.
- Since '94 we've had 12 rounds;
- in '93 there were 8;
- from '77 thru '92 there were 12;
- 17 from '76 thru '91.
There were 20 rounds in the 60's and even earlier there were 30+.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
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?
Taken with your insistence that organizations cannot guess which QBs will succeed (see below), it would seem that you really do believe that the QB picked first turns out to be good because he was picked first, rather than he is picked first because he is good.
Do you also put your cart before your horse?
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
And your list does prove one thing.....through all the scouting, evaluations, combines, interviews, nobody can guess which QB's will succeed.
They're not guessing... and your own position as stated in the previous quote shows that. If they were guessing, then the probability of success at QB would be equal regardless of when the QB is drafted. Yet you maintain the earlier one is tabbed, the greater that QBs chance of success is. Which is it?
Have you ever read Moneyball? Or at least seen the movie? Scouting is simply as flawed in football as it historically has been in baseball.
But whether flawed or guesswork, mistakes are compounded when need is allowed to influence rational thought.
wow dude, is that really what you think I meant? Yes, I know theyre not guessing and I know guys aren't going to be good because of a draft slot. My point was made to dispute the OP. And I was just saying that scouts are wrong more than theyre right. If the Jets dont draft OBrien do the Dolphins take him instead of Marino? Scouting is not flawed, pretty sure they do everything they can conceivably do to evaluate these players and rank em. But scouting is an inexact science because there are too many variables. Pretty sure the Patriots would have taken Brady in the first round if they knew he was going to be as good as he is....so they got lucky.The number of rounds in the draft is an important point, Gip. The pack for a wunderkind to emerge from was bigger in the past than it is now.
- Since '94 we've had 12 rounds;
- in '93 there were 8;
- from '77 thru '92 there were 12;
- 17 from '76 thru '91.
Taken with your insistence that organizations cannot guess which QBs will succeed (see below), it would seem that you really do believe that the QB picked first turns out to be good because he was picked first, rather than he is picked first because he is good.
Do you also put your cart before your horse?
They're not guessing... and your own position as stated in the previous quote shows that. If they were guessing, then the probability of success at QB would be equal regardless of when the QB is drafted. Yet you maintain the earlier one is tabbed, the greater that QBs chance of success is. Which is it?
Have you ever read Moneyball? Or at least seen the movie? Scouting is simply as flawed in football as it historically has been in baseball.
But whether flawed or guesswork, mistakes are compounded when need is allowed to influence rational thought.
-
But you cant deny that history has proven, the higher a guy is drafted, the higher his chances for success are. They are not better magically because they were drafted higher. They evaluate these players and put the best at the top. Im not saying if we draft Carr #1 he has a 42% chance of being great, Im saying that 42% of the time, the QB taken first has been the best historically.
-
wow dude, is that really what you think I meant? Yes, I know theyre not guessing and I know guys aren't going to be good because of a draft slot. My point was made to dispute the OP. And I was just saying that scouts are wrong more than theyre right. If the Jets dont draft OBrien do the Dolphins take him instead of Marino? Scouting is not flawed, pretty sure they do everything they can conceivably do to evaluate these players and rank em. But scouting is an inexact science because there are too many variables. Pretty sure the Patriots would have taken Brady in the first round if they knew he was going to be as good as he is....so they got lucky.The number of rounds in the draft is an important point, Gip. The pack for a wunderkind to emerge from was bigger in the past than it is now.
- Since '94 we've had 12 rounds;
- in '93 there were 8;
- from '77 thru '92 there were 12;
- 17 from '76 thru '91.
Taken with your insistence that organizations cannot guess which QBs will succeed (see below), it would seem that you really do believe that the QB picked first turns out to be good because he was picked first, rather than he is picked first because he is good.
Do you also put your cart before your horse?
They're not guessing... and your own position as stated in the previous quote shows that. If they were guessing, then the probability of success at QB would be equal regardless of when the QB is drafted. Yet you maintain the earlier one is tabbed, the greater that QBs chance of success is. Which is it?
Have you ever read Moneyball? Or at least seen the movie? Scouting is simply as flawed in football as it historically has been in baseball.
But whether flawed or guesswork, mistakes are compounded when need is allowed to influence rational thought.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
wow dude, is that really what you think I meant? Yes, I know theyre not guessing and I know guys aren't going to be good because of a draft slot. My point was made to dispute the OP.
There is no "disputing" the OP. I am the OP and what I said there is indisputable. It is pure fact, not opinion. In more years than not the first QB taken in a draft is NOT the best QB taken in that draft. Don't overcomplicate what I said. Sure, the better QB could be the 2d or the 10th or 12th...and he may have been taken one slot behind the first QB taken....or he could have been taken in the 17th(Starr), 13th(Sipe), 6th(Brady) round.
And I was just saying that scouts are wrong more than theyre right. If the Jets dont draft OBrien do the Dolphins take him instead of Marino? Scouting is not flawed, pretty sure they do everything they can conceivably do to evaluate these players and rank em. But scouting is an inexact science because there are too many variables. Pretty sure the Patriots would have taken Brady in the first round if they knew he was going to be as good as he is....so they got lucky.
-
But you cant deny that history has proven, the higher a guy is drafted, the higher his chances for success are. They are not better magically because they were drafted higher. They evaluate these players and put the best at the top. Im not saying if we draft Carr #1 he has a 42% chance of being great, Im saying that 42% of the time, the QB taken first has been the best historically.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
But you cant deny that history has proven, the higher a guy is drafted, the higher his chances for success are. They are not better magically because they were drafted higher. They evaluate these players and put the best at the top. Im not saying if we draft Carr #1 he has a 42% chance of being great, Im saying that 42% of the time, the QB taken first has been the best historically.
Yea, sure. I never claimed otherwise. I am only trying to cling to some hope that the Browns could get lucky and get the best QB available in this draft....even if they don't get the top choice.
-
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.
The number of rounds in the draft is an important point, Gip. The pack for a wunderkind to emerge from was bigger in the past than it is now.
- Since '94 we've had 12 rounds;
- in '93 there were 8;
- from '77 thru '92 there were 12;
- 17 from '76 thru '91.
There were 20 rounds in the 60's and even earlier there were 30+.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
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?
Taken with your insistence that organizations cannot guess which QBs will succeed (see below), it would seem that you really do believe that the QB picked first turns out to be good because he was picked first, rather than he is picked first because he is good.
Do you also put your cart before your horse?
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
And your list does prove one thing.....through all the scouting, evaluations, combines, interviews, nobody can guess which QB's will succeed.
They're not guessing... and your own position as stated in the previous quote shows that. If they were guessing, then the probability of success at QB would be equal regardless of when the QB is drafted. Yet you maintain the earlier one is tabbed, the greater that QBs chance of success is. Which is it?
Have you ever read Moneyball? Or at least seen the movie? Scouting is simply as flawed in football as it historically has been in baseball.
But whether flawed or guesswork, mistakes are compounded when need is allowed to influence rational thought.
The number of rounds in the draft is an important point, Gip. The pack for a wunderkind to emerge from was bigger in the past than it is now.
- Since '94 we've had 12 rounds;
- in '93 there were 8;
- from '77 thru '92 there were 12;
- 17 from '76 thru '91.
There were 20 rounds in the 60's and even earlier there were 30+.
Where did you get your draft round info? I ask because I Googled it a week or so ago, and didn't get any immediate hits. Not anywhere that had a simple summary anyways.
And am I missing something, because wouldn't the number of rounds be affected by the number of teams? Less teams = more rounds. So total number of players drafted might not have been more plentiful.
My draft history knowledge is for shit so I'm asking, not debating your statements.
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
wow dude, is that really what you think I meant? Yes, I know theyre not guessing and I know guys aren't going to be good because of a draft slot. My point was made to dispute the OP.
There is no "disputing" the OP. I am the OP and what I said there is indisputable. It is pure fact, not opinion. In more years than not the first QB taken in a draft is NOT the best QB taken in that draft. Don't overcomplicate what I said. Sure, the better QB could be the 2d or the 10th or 12th...and he may have been taken one slot behind the first QB taken....or he could have been taken in the 17th(Starr), 13th(Sipe), 6th(Brady) round.
And I was just saying that scouts are wrong more than theyre right. If the Jets dont draft OBrien do the Dolphins take him instead of Marino? Scouting is not flawed, pretty sure they do everything they can conceivably do to evaluate these players and rank em. But scouting is an inexact science because there are too many variables. Pretty sure the Patriots would have taken Brady in the first round if they knew he was going to be as good as he is....so they got lucky.
Dispute was a strong word....shoulda used counter.XxDaBuckeyexX said:
wow dude, is that really what you think I meant? Yes, I know theyre not guessing and I know guys aren't going to be good because of a draft slot. My point was made to dispute the OP.
There is no "disputing" the OP. I am the OP and what I said there is indisputable. It is pure fact, not opinion. In more years than not the first QB taken in a draft is NOT the best QB taken in that draft. Don't overcomplicate what I said. Sure, the better QB could be the 2d or the 10th or 12th...and he may have been taken one slot behind the first QB taken....or he could have been taken in the 17th(Starr), 13th(Sipe), 6th(Brady) round.
And I was just saying that scouts are wrong more than theyre right. If the Jets dont draft OBrien do the Dolphins take him instead of Marino? Scouting is not flawed, pretty sure they do everything they can conceivably do to evaluate these players and rank em. But scouting is an inexact science because there are too many variables. Pretty sure the Patriots would have taken Brady in the first round if they knew he was going to be as good as he is....so they got lucky.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login