hahaha geno is a lesson though. IIRC he had a college game where he threw more TDs than incompletions. Just a reminder about college stats and live arm mark sanchez???
You can cherry pick exceptions to the rule all you want. It doesn't change the fact that in most cases, your chances of getting a good QB are higher the higher you draft one.
People keep talking about facts or a rule but not showing them or proving them. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...quarterbacks-rarely-transform-bad-franchises/ https://bleacherreport.com/articles...-of-drafting-a-quarterback-in-the-first-round -- oldie. goes back a long way. 30% success rate for QBs in round 1. QBs take 1-4 more busts than success (oddly enough VInce Young was considered a success because of when this was written https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/6/28/15880748/success-rates-of-drafted-quarterbacks here's something recent which has the benefit of compiling QBs and where they were picked from 1990-2017. I used a conservative bust-meter. 33% bust rate for number 1 pick QBs. picking in the top 4 yielded 41% bust rate (and i included Marcus and Carson as non-bust; if they're bust it's more like 50% bust; there are 6 number 2 picks -- 7 if you update to include Trubitsky. It is not hard to make the case that the bust rate at 2 is between 57-86% depending on how you feel about Marcus and Carson https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2015/04/success_for_quarterbacks_picke.html more of same I'd be happy to be enlightened and feel more comfortable about drafting a QB
These links don't disprove my point. Go look up how often QB's bust after being taken 10-15th, 15-32nd, in the 2nd round, etc. It's higher than the rate for guys taken earlier. They also don't address my point that it's very unlikely we'll pick as high as 2nd overall next year or anytime soon. Not really sure why you made your post. Check out this link: https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015...e-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round It's by round rather than by pick, but you get the gist. Here's an excerpt: Of the 122 QBs drafted in the last 10 years only 25 have been starters for at least half of their career. The first round gives you a 63% chance of finding a starter. The second round gives you a 27% chance, the third a 17% chance, then it really plummets from there with 8% in the fourth and 6% in the 7th. In the last 10 years, 38 QBs have been drafted in the 5th and 6th rounds and not one has become a starter.
Bingo! We have a winner! If anybody doesn't get it after seeing these stats, it's because they don't want to get it and/or live in La-La land (and I don't mean Los Angeles!) and aren't in touch with reality.
Agree. The jets would have to give up the farm to get Watson and that is not the solution. Sam is only 23 years old. Wilson played on a lollipop schedule. Fields didn't look good against the good teams. Lance another project. So what does that leave the Jets. That is why alot of teams are calling the jets on posssibly trading for Sam. They realize outside of Lawrence he is far better than the rest of the group. Get another tackle and draft a center and legit #1 receiver and give him a year and see how he does.
what's so hard to grasp? Picking a QB at 2 is far from a lock. Of course one could argue those other 6 or 7 teams who failed were dummies and we're not, but those are the facts. Sorry https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/6/28/15880748/success-rates-of-drafted-quarterbacks here's something recent which has the benefit of compiling QBs and where they were picked from 1990-2017. I used a conservative bust-meter. 33% bust rate for number 1 pick QBs. picking in the top 4 yielded 41% bust rate (and i included Marcus and Carson as non-bust; if they're bust it's more like 50% bust; there are 6 number 2 picks -- 7 if you update to include Trubitsky. It is not hard to make the case that the bust rate at 2 is between 57-86% depending on how you feel about Marcus and Carson And picking in the third slot is even worse ANd if you check some of the other reports you'll also see that picking so many QBs at the top of the draft is a relatively recent thing. It was more evenly distributed. What does this suggest? it suggests that more and more teams are reaching for, and over-drafting, QBs, ending up with (not surprisingly) more lemons. Drafting them higher didn't make them better simply by being drafted higher. So the first thing is to calibrate expectations. 57-86% bust rate at 2
Nobody is saying picking a QB at #2 is a lock. We're saying that picking one at 2 gives you a higher chance of it working than picking one at 6, 10, 15, 20 etc. The link you posted is actually evidence for that point itself.
where do you draw that from? did you do the math and see if the bust rate was worse than 57-86%. Seems like you're guilty of cherry-picking. 11 slot for example looks much better: Ben, Cutler, Daunte-- 100% success there are also articles out there demonstrating that picking so many QBs at the top is a relatively recent trend. Now it could be the case that for whatever reason QBs are increasingly becoming the better BPAs. Or it could be that positional value is driving their slot up (my guess). But that doesn't mean the odds of success are any better. It means the value of successfully picking them is worth more so people are gambling more (and losing). Also consider for the 57% number guys like Marcus and Carson are counted as successes. ANd they may be in some eyes but they're not the type of successes people are envisioning when they're saying we MUST pick Wilson or Fields or whoever. (even 1 has a high bust rate and i vividly remember the hype surrounding guys like Jeff George and J. RUssell -- literally called the best prospect ever at the time) All this counsels the following: 1) Be as disciplined and objective as you can be with your drafting. Yes you might not be able to pick # 2 frequently (hopefully the case). But that doesn't mean deviate from discipline. there's no reason to overdraft a QB. History is not on your side. 2) there is definitely a value/premium to thinking about a vet as he's a more known quantity. How much that premium is worth is up for debate So I'm all ears when you show these facts, or the rule, you mention.
First, thanks for these. They make a compelling case - on the surface - for NOT taking a QB first. But looking at the links you provided from what I see it looks like there's a 81% chance of getting a "successful" QB in the first half of the first round, and a 65% chance of success in the second half of the first round, these are far higher than any other round. Even in the Cleveland .com article they show a 50% success rate. While some may say "That's no better than a coin flip!", the reality is that it's much higher than most picks. And in the first article "showing" that it's a bad gamble for a bad team to take a QB with a first pick, that's taken out of context. In most of these "failures" the team that did this was not only bad, but they remained bad, not because of the QB they drafted but because they failed to surround that QB with good talent and coaching - and note, that they could have provided those ingredients AFTER drafting their QB but most failed to do even that. See Sam Darnold for Exhibit A. IOW, those failed QBs didn't necessarily have to fail. Sure, some of them would have probably failed anyway because they just weren't good to begin with, but these statistics are tilted towards the conclusion that bad teams waste their first pick on bad QBs, which isn't necessarily true. In the Jets case now, I believe they have the right GM and CS, and have already been improving the talent level. Yes, they still have much more to do, but if they were to add a QB this draft, AND allow him to sit and learn for the first year (or the better part of it), that QB would have have a higher probability of success vs. QBs taken by "traditionally bad" teams.
As a team there is so much stink attached to it over the last two yrs and Sam is the poster child for it. With a new coach and a new direction for the team , I think you have to get either rid of Sam, or if you keep him we need the hope of a franchised replacement. I can not imagine Sam playing like Sam for the first 4 games, maybe with a 1-3 record. I would go mad. Knowing how hard and expensive it is to get a qb when they are not available when you are drafting., I hope we draft a qb at 2
one thing to keep in mind is that they have some weird definitions for success -- like starting some games. Sam would be a success on some of these lists (honestly) none of them are using Impactfulness as a metric. If you're looking for things like Pro Bowl or top 10 things get real ugly some of the links have the list of players by pick etc. I used that. It's very sobering. I recall a lot of these guys when getting drafting thinking they were going to be SUPER. Not so. Winston could throw a baseball 90mph (before Mahomes). Mariotta had winner all over him. etc. Look at the 3 slot sucks-ville Look at the 11 slot -- we should trade back if we think 3 is an adequate sample size. Of course some guys were a "victim of circumstance" to borrow a 3 stooges phrase. But some were just not good. It could be they weren't surrounded by talent -- sounds plausible enough. Or it could be they were faced against more talent -- and it was a lot harder to find the weak link in the opponent and continue to exploit that Two things emerge to my eyes 1) this is why you want lots of picks. It's hard to hit. You have a better chance of success by having more picks than by thinking yours odds of success at picking will be so much better. Add to that we attribute successful drafting to skill but there's a huge element of luck, see, e.g., Brady 2) Picking a successful vet is worth some form of premium just for the extra certainty that the guy can contribute at the NFL level 100% agree with your comments on having a solid team to improve odds of success for whenever we bring in a new QB. Also agree re sitting and learning. I mean quite literally some of the best defenders these guys faced in college (think Wilson, or Wentz, or Allen) might be a JAG or worse at the NFL. Even a shit team like the Jets will have a defense way better than what they faced in college. It's as much a factor of the opponents being that much better, as is their own team sucking ass. Even if the team is solid, it's still tough for the QB to adjust to the speed, power and depth and breadth of talent of the opponent.
100% hear you. i have a sense this will be the most important decision JD ever makes as a GM. Not to put more pressure on the situation. there are tons of logical arguments leading to different conclusions and the spectrum of outcomes is huge On our side: he seems to have his head screwed on right; and if luck has anything to do with it we're due! not sure i agree about using 2 on QB just because you have 2 and need a QB. If he's worth it, fine. IF not think about a vet
I can't argue with the bold guidelines. But as the saying goes: "The devil is in the details". What does "overdrafting" mean? I'd bet that most, if not all, of the GMs that took "overdrafted" QBs would've thought they were overdrafted at the time. It's only usually in hindsight that we can say: "Well he was overdrafted". And even if there were other GMs or people who at that time said "Bad pick. Overdrafted", they weren't THAT GM that made the selection. What is really clear - or should be - is that even professional evaluators of talent have been widely wrong in their evaluations of QBs. I've posted on this subject before, and from my perspective GMs/evaluators need to be using some different criteria in addition to what they have used in the past. As for the idea of trading or signing a vet QB, yes that CAN reduce the chance of failure, but: A. You still have the same problems with correct evaluations of even vet QBs. B. Even if you properly identify a good QB, he may cost too much, he may be older than you want, he may get injured more easily because of the "mileage" or age. So taking the "vet QB option" is not necessarily the better one either. At this point I trust Douglas to take the right option. If he thinks one of the college QBs can be a FQB, he'll take him. But I have no idea what his thinking is, or if he would even take that QB with the #2 pick. I hope he does, but I wouldn't be surprised if he rolls with Sam for another year - I won't be surprised, but I don't think he will.
100% agreed with the bolded. Drafting a QB at top of draft just because you need a QB is a perfect recipe to set a team back for years. The question should always be, is there a QB that the FO absolutely loves? If yes, then draft. If not, you simply cannot force it just because of need, especially with draft capital that valuable. Personally, I'm not convinced that either Fields or Wilson is an upgrade over Darnold. I really like Lance, but at #2 overall he would have to blow away JD at pro day and interviews. All options should be on table, not just making a need based draft selection.
Totally agree as well. Top front offices operate that way. All options are on the table and evaluated based on best value for the team. They do their homework, they establish player value and draft or sign free agents accordingly. They look at long term implications as a factor and formulate a plan to meet the vision. They don’t over reach for someone because of need, even if it’s the most important position on the team. That’s a desperation move. If they are sold on one of the QBs at two, and love what they see they will pull the trigger, but if there are doubts they will go elsewhere and not risk pissing away a top pick because of need. We have no idea what the FO plans for Sam are, may be they have not reached that conclusion yet for this year. That is not to say they will not miss on a top candidate or miss judge his potential, but they have a long term plan to capture key players based on their value ranking and they will go from there.
overdrafting could be from over-hyping the prospects talents, or from over-valuing the effect of drafting that one guy. for example let's say the odd of hitting on a QB is realistically 50% and the QB value is 1 (to keep math simple). the expected value on that draft is 0.5. that's your simplified measure of BPA. But now let's say you think the value of hitting on a QB is 1.1. You can accept a lower odds and still get that same expected value. This is consistent with the report that more teams are picking QBs at the top of the draft than they used to. I'm not saying that's crazy. teams throw more. Maybe QBs are worth more. But it also means teams will take more gambles and feel the extra gamble is compensated by the impact. On the flip side consider a punter. You can have the most sure thing punter who ever lived -- no bust potential -- but the value of the pick is still limited by the value of the position. if the guy has bust potential he's probably not even going to get drafted. it's the opposite situation but illustrates the point So the bottom line is busting or lower odds of success on picking are NOT all that surprising and not necessarily bad evaluation either. We might suck as much now as we used to in evaluating. We're just drafting QBs higher because we think they're worth more. that said, mssing on a QB when high seems to hurt all the more i'm saying all of this because (a) i think a number of posters don't realize how bad the odds really are [and getting worse] and (b) think because you're rarely picking 2 you must go for it on QB -- which is just amplifying the issue more. Historically speaking and anyone can look it up in the links if they want Donovan McNabb is probably the best #2 QB pick ever. Not Brady, Mahomes, ROdgers etc. next best is either short career of Robert Griffin or Carson Wentz. If you pick 3 there is honestly no one to mention. Honestly depending on how you feel about Vince Young, it's either him or Sam freaking Darnold. People can look it up. it's very sobering it's undeniable you have more choices at the top but finding sustained impactful QBs is super rare. Number 1 has the best odds and even then 33% bust rate; #2 it's greater than 50 and maybe closer to 90 bust rate depending on your standard, number 3 looks worse. VInce Young or Sam as best ever at 3 having a good team seems like a much stronger indicator of success unless you're lucky enough to get #1, and this makes sense to me. Either a good team provides the synergistic effects for success (BTW a lot of these guys came from very good college teams where they enjoyed such effects -throwing to open receivers, protected by college's best linemen, etc). Or you get that rare unicorn who is rarer than we want to admit
I have zero interest in a self absorbed prima Donna like juju and even less interest in a guy who’s only healthy season came when he got busted for PEDs...”they called me...Mr.glass...”
I said before what also gets lost in this....see Trubisky draft, is that the top qb is a top talent....thats not always the case. Just because we say best qb in draft doesn't mean best ever. This overhype gets worse and worse every year it seems. Like forget the qb draft before this one they suck compared to this qb draft. Seems like this is what's happening with sams draft class. A case of overhype. Mayfield and Allen show growth. Im still out on Lamar till he shows me more as a passer. Vick was a much better passer. Sam just sucks. Way too much overhype. Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
