I don't know if this has been posted but according to Sportscenter last night, in the past 20 NFL drafts only 3 of the QBs taken in the first round have won super bowls as starters. These are Troy Aikman, Big Ben, and mighty Trent Dilfer. This shows that we should trade our draft away to move up for Leinart, and then reaching for Young or Cutler would be a mistake. I think the only way we draft a QB in the first round is if Leinart falls to #4, and even then we're not being guaranteed a franchise QB. Mario Williams, D'Brick, and Hawk would fit this team much better with the 4th selection.
Nice fact, but I dont think that it SHOWS anything but the Past. To believe the past dictates to future is a bad stance. I mean you guys passed on Marino, would you do it again? Just becuase 1st rounders don't get rings doesn't mean their not studs. And studs give you the best chance. McNabb, Manning, Palmer, Vick are ringless 1st rounders who are on top of the league and still have SB shots.
"To believe the past dictates to future is a bad stance."....it's called trends and statistics and it's a great stance. And should we point out all the teams that passed on MULTIPLE chances at Brady? No. It's a crap shoot at best so it makes perfect sense to look at the past. what other indicator do you have other than luck?
I guess you to never heard the old adage that history repeats itself which is why up to now we have been a bottom feeding team in the NFL cause we make the same mistakes year after year no matter if it is coaches or players .
While we're throwing out sayings about history, here's one you probably know from Harry Truman: "The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know."
You know when you go to a casino and play On all the casino behind the scene shows, they tell you the biggest gimic in it is the big board that they have that tell you the last 30 or so numbers. People think that "O, a red hasn't happened in 30 turns, its bound to come up soon" or "Every other number has been even, there must be something to it", and that's the purpose of it. To make you feel like you have found some pattern some trend or something that will EFFECT the future outcome. The truth is it doesn't. You can use trends, and learn from the past to help you try PREDICT the future, but it does not, in any way, DICTATE the futue. Example, a trend that all WRs that come out of FSU suck in the Pros. That could mean there is something wrong with FSU's WR program. Make you investigate and it may weight in your choice, but it doesn't mean a WR will suck becuase he's from FSU. If that was the case, why not just let Cutler fall to the 2nd? Let's say for some crazy Aaron Rodgers reason he does. Do you really think if you pick Cutler up in the 2nd he will be a better QB, or have more of a chance at a SB than if you took him in the 1st?
I've heard that, but it doesn't mean much to me. The number of Superbowls where a first round quarterback has played is actually quite high. I could just as easily point out that, since 1975, only a handful of Superbowls were played without a quarterback chosen in the first round. And, of course, you have to be in it to win it.
Well said Bucky!!! :beer: And that my friends is looking at it from another perspective. Nice NYJATW!!! :up:
Trent Dilfer.... But you can't deny the fact that it helps... a lot.... Like its really really nice to have.....
:lol: yes, yes indeed well...look at the 00 Ravens...really it's 1.Defense 2.RB/OL 3.QB... atleast that's my opinion:up: but yeah, of course it helps...
I think we forked off with the meaning of dictate in your post mexican....If you are saying that you can not "impose" the future by looking at the past, then you are right. But then again, that doesn't make much sense. We are not talking about changing the future.
Good try, but it doesn't quite work that way with the draft. The problem with your analogy is that the numbers that come up in roulette are completely random, and draft picks are not random at all. If history shows that x% of qbs taken in the first round will win super bowls, it probably has more credence than roulette (which has none). That said, I don't think it's the sole responsibility of a qb to win a championship. It takes a whole team and a lot of first round qbs have gone to really crappy teams and still made them competetive (see Dan Marino). Other than that, how many 2nd round qbs have won super bowls? We could go on and on with this.
Half of the 1st rounders in a draft tend to be busts. Obviously, its really hard to tell or else they wouldn't be first rounders. But yea, there's a lot of information to go on when drafting, but a lot of times it just doens't work out. Back on the QB notion, you're right. How many 2nd round QB have won? 3rd? 4th? 5th? 6th? 7th? Undrafted? If it turns out 4th has the higher % does that mean you should take a QB in the 4th and that will give him a better chance? I've said it a million times. WHERE a player is drafted doesn't matter once the season starts. It doesn't effect or tell anything about their future. The REASONS why they were drafted there could be made into points (ie Brady was a 6th rounder becuase ________. And its becuase of _____ that he won't be any good). But to say Brady was drafted in the 6th so he won't be any good, or Tim was drafted before McNabb so he'll be better, is total BS!
