A Lesson to Be Learned?
-
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.
-
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.
Being a Browns fan Im sure you know that we want as little luck involved as possible....its not really on our side.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.
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