First vs. Best
-
2004 Eli Manning....vs. Phillip Rivers or Ben R. debateable
Out of 50 years, only 19 times did the first QB taken in the draft turn out to be the best QB to come out of that draft. In 5 other years I think it is debateable (1971, 1980, 1987 2004, 2013) leaving at least 26 times where clearly the better QB was not the first QB taken.
So that means that, historically, we have a 38% to get the best QB in this draft, if we take one at #2 .
Food for thought.
Bold= HOF or certain HOF.
Not debatable to me. Big Ben, as much as I and many loathe him, is superior to both.
Not debatable to me. Big Ben, as much as I and many loathe him, is superior to both.
Phillip Rivers is actually, statistically the most productive of those 3 2004 QBs. But he is the one without titles. The other two have two each.....so they have that edge.
Of course....what would Rivers have done with the Steelers defenses over the years? Possibly just as good or better.
-
your logic is flawed.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
your logic is flawed.
I didn't apply any logic. I simply recited facts and statistics. If I had applied logic, I would have been right in the logic I applied.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
I don't disagree with that at all. But it is still an historical statistical fact that the first QBs taken in all the previous drafts had only a 38% chance of being the best QB taken in that draft.
And don't be surprised if that happens again.
Its just a cautionary note.
-
your logic is flawed.
I didn't apply any logic. I simply recited facts and statistics. If I had applied logic, I would have been right in the logic I applied.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
I don't disagree with that at all. But it is still an historical statistical fact that the first QBs taken in all the previous drafts had only a 38% chance of being the best QB taken in that draft.
And don't be surprised if that happens again.
Its just a cautionary note.
While duly noted as a cautionary tale, historical facts also say that the 1st QB taken has the best chance of being good, and has far more relevance.your logic is flawed.
I didn't apply any logic. I simply recited facts and statistics. If I had applied logic, I would have been right in the logic I applied.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
I don't disagree with that at all. But it is still an historical statistical fact that the first QBs taken in all the previous drafts had only a 38% chance of being the best QB taken in that draft.
And don't be surprised if that happens again.
Its just a cautionary note.
-
Not debatable to me. Big Ben, as much as I and many loathe him, is superior to both.
Phillip Rivers is actually, statistically the most productive of those 3 2004 QBs. But he is the one without titles. The other two have two each.....so they have that edge.
Of course....what would Rivers have done with the Steelers defenses over the years? Possibly just as good or better.
Phillip Rivers is actually, statistically the most productive of those 3 2004 QBs. But he is the one without titles. The other two have two each.....so they have that edge.
Of course....what would Rivers have done with the Steelers defenses over the years? Possibly just as good or better.
I guess I should elaborate.
I don't see Rivers or Eli escaping the hits Big Ben has taken, and extending the play. The guy is built to withstand a beating, and in his absence (games he hasn't started), Pitt suffers a tad (although Maddox filled in for him well in 2002).
You're correct on the Pitt D for the most part, as it's been stellar, especially early on in his career. The guy will be a 1st ballot HOFer, and maybe Eli as well. Rivers probably gets there in time.
-
While duly noted as a cautionary tale, historical facts also say that the 1st QB taken has the best chance of being good, and has far more relevance.your logic is flawed.
I didn't apply any logic. I simply recited facts and statistics. If I had applied logic, I would have been right in the logic I applied.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
I don't disagree with that at all. But it is still an historical statistical fact that the first QBs taken in all the previous drafts had only a 38% chance of being the best QB taken in that draft.
And don't be surprised if that happens again.
Its just a cautionary note.
While duly noted as a cautionary tale, historical facts also say that the 1st QB taken has the best chance of being good, and has far more relevance.
OK.....but, as noted....so many on here are saying..."If now instead of taking the dregs of the first round....like JMZ/Weeden/Quinn...we can now get the top prospect at QB because of our #2 position, ergo, we are going to get a great franchise QB!! Hallelujah, Glory Be, Va Va Voom"......well
yea, we are in a better position than we have been in the past with those guys......but our chances go up to having the franchise player we want from like 10-15% to 38%. Better, yes. A sure thing...by no means.
-
While duly noted as a cautionary tale, historical facts also say that the 1st QB taken has the best chance of being good, and has far more relevance.
OK.....but, as noted....so many on here are saying..."If now instead of taking the dregs of the first round....like JMZ/Weeden/Quinn...we can now get the top prospect at QB because of our #2 position, ergo, we are going to get a great franchise QB!! Hallelujah, Glory Be, Va Va Voom"......well
yea, we are in a better position than we have been in the past with those guys......but our chances go up to having the franchise player we want from like 10-15% to 38%. Better, yes. A sure thing...by no means.
Haha well hopefully were all well aware theres no such thing as a sure thing.OK.....but, as noted....so many on here are saying..."If now instead of taking the dregs of the first round....like JMZ/Weeden/Quinn...we can now get the top prospect at QB because of our #2 position, ergo, we are going to get a great franchise QB!! Hallelujah, Glory Be, Va Va Voom"......well
yea, we are in a better position than we have been in the past with those guys......but our chances go up to having the franchise player we want from like 10-15% to 38%. Better, yes. A sure thing...by no means.
-
Perhaps here is the point that some of you are trying to make:
The first QB drafted was the best 19 times in the last 50 years, by my count
The second QB drafted was the best 11 times in the last 50 years, by my count
The third QB drafted was the best 4 times in the last 50 years. Cutler, Grogan, Favre, Bridgewater.
The 4th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Stabler, Montana, Hipple
The 5th QB drafted was the best 2 times in the last 50 years....Garrard, O"donnel
The 6th QB drafted was the best 6 times in the last 50 years. (Wilson, edwards, Frerotte, Fouts, Anderson, and arguably Marino)
The 7th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Brady, Gannon, Harris
The 12th QB drafted was the best one time in the last 50 years.....Sipe
The 13th was the best drafted one time in the last 50 years....Brad Johnson
So, yes, getting the first QB is still best....but getting #2 is not far behind.
-
your logic is flawed.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
your logic is flawed.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
Yup... it's a "1st vs. The Field" exercise. Among many factors that render it useless. Does not mean it is uninteresting, however.
"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 -
Perhaps here is the point that some of you are trying to make:
The first QB drafted was the best 19 times in the last 50 years, by my count
The second QB drafted was the best 11 times in the last 50 years, by my count
The third QB drafted was the best 4 times in the last 50 years. Cutler, Grogan, Favre, Bridgewater.
The 4th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Stabler, Montana, Hipple
The 5th QB drafted was the best 2 times in the last 50 years....Garrard, O"donnel
The 6th QB drafted was the best 6 times in the last 50 years. (Wilson, edwards, Frerotte, Fouts, Anderson, and arguably Marino)
The 7th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Brady, Gannon, Harris
The 12th QB drafted was the best one time in the last 50 years.....Sipe
The 13th was the best drafted one time in the last 50 years....Brad Johnson
So, yes, getting the first QB is still best....but getting #2 is not far behind.
Looks to me your chances of getting the best almost double by taking the first, and quadruple over the third!Perhaps here is the point that some of you are trying to make:
The first QB drafted was the best 19 times in the last 50 years, by my count
The second QB drafted was the best 11 times in the last 50 years, by my count
The third QB drafted was the best 4 times in the last 50 years. Cutler, Grogan, Favre, Bridgewater.
The 4th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Stabler, Montana, Hipple
The 5th QB drafted was the best 2 times in the last 50 years....Garrard, O"donnel
The 6th QB drafted was the best 6 times in the last 50 years. (Wilson, edwards, Frerotte, Fouts, Anderson, and arguably Marino)
The 7th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Brady, Gannon, Harris
The 12th QB drafted was the best one time in the last 50 years.....Sipe
The 13th was the best drafted one time in the last 50 years....Brad Johnson
So, yes, getting the first QB is still best....but getting #2 is not far behind.
-
Bortles is better than Twatty
-
-
Zombo said:
Carr is better than both.
Z
Debatable
-
your logic is flawed.
You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.
If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.
Yup... it's a "1st vs. The Field" exercise. Among many factors that render it useless. Does not mean it is uninteresting, however.
Yup... it's a "1st vs. The Field" exercise. Among many factors that render it useless. Does not mean it is uninteresting, however.
Sure, there is no real practical use for this other than as I said....knowing that the first QB taken is more often than not not the best QB to come out of a particular draft.
I mean....if a team has the opportunity to take the top QB available, and if they need one....they should take him regardless of the above statistic. That team should not wait around and say "oh, we will wait to take the 2d QB in this draft because the first one taken has only a 38% chance of success". You take that QB if you want him.....provided that there is not a more talented prospect to take at another position that you need as well. Then, if you get that other more talented player you might be willing to take a chance on the 2d/3rd/6th QB taken
-
Zombo said:
Carr is better than both.
Z
So far in their short careers the Transvestite has the better stats by just a bit. Of course it remains to be seen who will ultimately come out the best. Carr could be it....but my money would go with Bortles.
-
Zombo said:
Carr is better than both.
Z
So far in their short careers the Transvestite has the better stats by just a bit. Of course it remains to be seen who will ultimately come out the best. Carr could be it....but my money would go with Bortles.
So far in their short careers the Transvestite has the better stats by just a bit. Of course it remains to be seen who will ultimately come out the best. Carr could be it....but my money would go with Bortles.
Not sure what you mean by better stats.
Carr is 698 completions 1,172 attempts 7,257 yards 53 TDs 25 Int
Bridgewater is 551 completions 841 attempts 6,150 yards 28 TDs 21 Ints
Carr has more yards, more yards per start, more yards per attempt, nearly twice as many TDs, lower int %, much lower sack % ...
The only meaningful stat that Bridgewater is better is completion percentage, which is easily attributable to the fact that plays a much more conservative game on a better team with the leagues 4th ranked running game (Raiders were 29th).
Zombo
-
So far in their short careers the Transvestite has the better stats by just a bit. Of course it remains to be seen who will ultimately come out the best. Carr could be it....but my money would go with Bortles.
Not sure what you mean by better stats.
Carr is 698 completions 1,172 attempts 7,257 yards 53 TDs 25 Int
Bridgewater is 551 completions 841 attempts 6,150 yards 28 TDs 21 Ints
Carr has more yards, more yards per start, more yards per attempt, nearly twice as many TDs, lower int %, much lower sack % ...
The only meaningful stat that Bridgewater is better is completion percentage, which is easily attributable to the fact that plays a much more conservative game on a better team with the leagues 4th ranked running game (Raiders were 29th).
Zombo
Zombo said:
Not sure what you mean by better stats.
Carr is 698 completions 1,172 attempts 7,257 yards 53 TDs 25 Int
Bridgewater is 551 completions 841 attempts 6,150 yards 28 TDs 21 Ints
Carr has more yards, more yards per start, more yards per attempt, nearly twice as many TDs, lower int %, much lower sack % ...
The only meaningful stat that Bridgewater is better is completion percentage, which is easily attributable to the fact that plays a much more conservative game on a better team with the leagues 4th ranked running game (Raiders were 29th).
Zombo
Bridgewater has a better CA....for what that's worth. But by all means I agree with you that if I were picking one of them now for the future I would take Carr over Bridgewater (and why is it that when you type Bridgewater now it comes out right instead of Twatwater?
This is actually one of those too soon to tell cases. Or too close to call cases. Arguable. But I think the basic concept of the first QB taken in a draft of having about a 35-40% chance of being the best QB in a draft still holds.
Though...in some cases it doesn't matter.
You would take either a John Elway #1 taken....or a Dan Marino #6 taken.
And you would want no part really of an EJ Manuel #1 taken or a Geno Smith #2 taken.
As someone said....this exercise is just interesting entertainment.
-
Let's apply this to another position: Wide Receiver. I will list the first WR taken in drafts (this time only going back to 1990), then the best WR taken in that draft....at their position....and compare. # means first WR taken was the best:
2015 Amari Cooper # so far
2014 Sammy Watkins....Odell Beckham, 3rd WR picked (or could be too soon to tell)
2013 Tavon Austin....D'Andre Hopkins, 2d pick
2012 Justin Blackmon...Alshon Jeffrey 7th pick
2011 AJ Green/Julio Jones#....These guys picked 1 and 2 have almost identical statistics
2010 Demaryious Thomas.....Antonio Brown 23rd pick WR picked
2009 Darius Heyward-Bey....Mike Wallace 11th
2008 Donnie Aubrey....DeSean Jackson 7th
2007 Calvin Johnson #
2006 SAntonio Holmes...Brandon Marshall 14th
2005 Braylon Edwards...Roddy White 6th
2004 Larry Fitzgerald#
2003 Charles Rogers...Andre Johnson 2d
2002 Donte Stallworth...Deion Branch 11th
2001 David Terrell....Reggie Wayne 6th
2000 Peter Warrick...Plaxico Burris 2d
1999 Tori Holt#
1998 Kevin Dyson....Randy Moss 2d
1997 Ike Hilliard ...Derek Mason 9th
1996 Keyshawn....Marvin Harrison/Terrelle Owens 6th and 12th
1995 Michael Westbrook...Joey Galloway 2d
1994 Charles Johnson....Isaac Bruce 6th
1993 Curtis Conway#
1992 Desmond Howard...Jimmy Smith
1991 Herman Moore#
1990 Alexander Wright....Terence Mathis 17th pick
Only 6-7 of the first WRs taken since 1990 turned out to be the best of their WR class. About 25%. This is worse than QBs.
So...perhaps there are a couple of lessons there for the Browns this season:
A. Taking a WR further down the list may not be all that bad
B. Never take a Michigan receiver as the first WR taken in a draft...Howard, Terrelle, Braylon all flunkies as first WR taken. At least Howard has some decent kick returning skills.
Also note: just because a WR (or QB or anyone else) taken first at their position may not turn out to be the best at their position in their draft class does not mean they are a bust.
Like Sammy Watkins, Demarious Thomas, Santonio Holmes, Keyshawn Johnson. All good...perhaps even outstanding players....just someone else surpassed them.
Though, also there have been plenty of outright busts at the 1st WR position: Charles Rogers, Justin Blackmon, Braylon imo, etc.
-
Zombo said:
Not sure what you mean by better stats.
Carr is 698 completions 1,172 attempts 7,257 yards 53 TDs 25 Int
Bridgewater is 551 completions 841 attempts 6,150 yards 28 TDs 21 Ints
Carr has more yards, more yards per start, more yards per attempt, nearly twice as many TDs, lower int %, much lower sack % ...
The only meaningful stat that Bridgewater is better is completion percentage, which is easily attributable to the fact that plays a much more conservative game on a better team with the leagues 4th ranked running game (Raiders were 29th).
Zombo
Bridgewater has a better CA....for what that's worth. But by all means I agree with you that if I were picking one of them now for the future I would take Carr over Bridgewater (and why is it that when you type Bridgewater now it comes out right instead of Twatwater?
This is actually one of those too soon to tell cases. Or too close to call cases. Arguable. But I think the basic concept of the first QB taken in a draft of having about a 35-40% chance of being the best QB in a draft still holds.
Though...in some cases it doesn't matter.
You would take either a John Elway #1 taken....or a Dan Marino #6 taken.
And you would want no part really of an EJ Manuel #1 taken or a Geno Smith #2 taken.
As someone said....this exercise is just interesting entertainment.
Bridgewater has a better CA....for what that's worth. But by all means I agree with you that if I were picking one of them now for the future I would take Carr over Bridgewater (and why is it that when you type Bridgewater now it comes out right instead of Twatwater?
This is actually one of those too soon to tell cases. Or too close to call cases. Arguable. But I think the basic concept of the first QB taken in a draft of having about a 35-40% chance of being the best QB in a draft still holds.
Though...in some cases it doesn't matter.
You would take either a John Elway #1 taken....or a Dan Marino #6 taken.
And you would want no part really of an EJ Manuel #1 taken or a Geno Smith #2 taken.
As someone said....this exercise is just interesting entertainment.
Ya, agreed on all.
If they redrafted it would probably go Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater with all of them going in the top half of the first round, Bortles and Carr Top 5 for sure.
The guy we took ahead of Bridgewater AND Carr would go undrafted.
We are Retard. At least we were Retard. Very Recently.
We could have stayed right where we were in that draft, no draft day trades and taken:
#4 Khalil Mack
#26 Derek Carr
and still had the pick for
#35 Joel Bitionio
Instead, we got Gilbert and Manziel, and the Raiders, who were slated one spot behind us, got Mack and Carr
Pro Bowlers Mack and Carr.
It is just criminal how we draft.
It deserves its own 30 for 30 just on our drafts the past five years. It is mind blowing.
Zombo
-
Bridgewater has a better CA....for what that's worth. But by all means I agree with you that if I were picking one of them now for the future I would take Carr over Bridgewater (and why is it that when you type Bridgewater now it comes out right instead of Twatwater?
This is actually one of those too soon to tell cases. Or too close to call cases. Arguable. But I think the basic concept of the first QB taken in a draft of having about a 35-40% chance of being the best QB in a draft still holds.
Though...in some cases it doesn't matter.
You would take either a John Elway #1 taken....or a Dan Marino #6 taken.
And you would want no part really of an EJ Manuel #1 taken or a Geno Smith #2 taken.
As someone said....this exercise is just interesting entertainment.
Ya, agreed on all.
If they redrafted it would probably go Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater with all of them going in the top half of the first round, Bortles and Carr Top 5 for sure.
The guy we took ahead of Bridgewater AND Carr would go undrafted.
We are Retard. At least we were Retard. Very Recently.
We could have stayed right where we were in that draft, no draft day trades and taken:
#4 Khalil Mack
#26 Derek Carr
and still had the pick for
#35 Joel Bitionio
Instead, we got Gilbert and Manziel, and the Raiders, who were slated one spot behind us, got Mack and Carr
Pro Bowlers Mack and Carr.
It is just criminal how we draft.
It deserves its own 30 for 30 just on our drafts the past five years. It is mind blowing.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Ya, agreed on all.
If they redrafted it would probably go Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater with all of them going in the top half of the first round, Bortles and Carr Top 5 for sure.
The guy we took ahead of Bridgewater AND Carr would go undrafted.
We are Retard. At least we were Retard. Very Recently.
We could have stayed right where we were in that draft, no draft day trades and taken:
#4 Khalil Mack
#26 Derek Carr
and still had the pick for
#35 Joel Bitionio
Instead, we got Gilbert and Manziel, and the Raiders, who were slated one spot behind us, got Mack and Carr
Pro Bowlers Mack and Carr.
It is just criminal how we draft.
It deserves its own 30 for 30 just on our dafts the past five years. It is mind blowing.
Zombo
And what happened to Retard for Retard. Gettin's soft on us are you?
Or, do you think that since it appears the Browns are turning a new leaf, that you should do so as well.
For all we know, you are going to give Vagitron and the other Steeler fan vermin on here their real names back.
(err...wait....in the quoted part it does say Retard).
Still....do you want to turn that leaf.
(otherwise I agree with what you say)
-
Zombo said:
Ya, agreed on all.
If they redrafted it would probably go Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater with all of them going in the top half of the first round, Bortles and Carr Top 5 for sure.
The guy we took ahead of Bridgewater AND Carr would go undrafted.
We are Retard. At least we were Retard. Very Recently.
We could have stayed right where we were in that draft, no draft day trades and taken:
#4 Khalil Mack
#26 Derek Carr
and still had the pick for
#35 Joel Bitionio
Instead, we got Gilbert and Manziel, and the Raiders, who were slated one spot behind us, got Mack and Carr
Pro Bowlers Mack and Carr.
It is just criminal how we draft.
It deserves its own 30 for 30 just on our dafts the past five years. It is mind blowing.
Zombo
And what happened to Retard for Retard. Gettin's soft on us are you?
Or, do you think that since it appears the Browns are turning a new leaf, that you should do so as well.
For all we know, you are going to give Vagitron and the other Steeler fan vermin on here their real names back.
(err...wait....in the quoted part it does say Retard).
Still....do you want to turn that leaf.
(otherwise I agree with what you say)
And what happened to Retard for Retard. Gettin's soft on us are you?
Or, do you think that since it appears the Browns are turning a new leaf, that you should do so as well.
For all we know, you are going to give Vagitron and the other Steeler fan vermin on here their real names back.
(err...wait....in the quoted part it does say Retard).
Still....do you want to turn that leaf.
(otherwise I agree with what you say)
I haven't changed anything, when I type as an Admin those changes don't apply.
But it still should be Twatwater and Retard for the masses.
Z
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