Drafting QB in 1st Round: Bad Idea?

FreeTedWilliams said:

The Packers traded the Falcons a 1st round pick for Favre (so technically he is a 1st rounder)

Click to expand...

So technically Randy Moss was a fourth rounder? Favre was drafted in the second round, so he was a second round draft pick.

newton_tom_cat said:

if you use QB that became starter as your measure of success, you are biasing the analsysis heavily in favor of 1st rounders. their teams must play them and give them at least 2 years worth of chance.

Click to expand...

teams play them b/c they are better, not b/c they are more famous/make more.

anybody who saw Brady vs Bledsoe should realize this. low priced 6th rounder wins job over the face of the franshise, huge money guy

anyways, the point is correct, you need to look at QB's in every round to see where the most success is typically found.

with regard to the money you need to pay them, you're 100% wrong. since QB's make the most money anyways, you might as well pay them 1st round money. this will screw up your salary cap far less than any other position

fester said:

I think the more interesting question is what percentage of 1st round quarterbacks are competent starting quality quarterbacks by year 3. And then do the same analysis [competent/bust] for each additional round. Even going off of your chart, it looks like 1st round QBs have a higher probability of being competent or better starters than quarterbacks drafted in the 6th round. Once a team either finds a competent QB or builds/coaches up a competent QB, then draft status matters less. But the 1st rounders should have more physical tools as a rookie, all else equal, than low round picks who might need a couple of years in the weight room, or practicing from under center, or who knows what....

Click to expand...

What's interesting is that as you get to lower rated QB's the # of 1st rounders rises dramatically. In 1 thru 10, 30% were 1st rounders. Here's 11 - 20:

Warner - undrafted
Schaub - 3
McNabb - 1
Palmer - 1
Pennington - 1
Anderson - 6
Kitna - undrafted
Rivers - 1
Campbell - 1
Harrington - 1

That's 60%. I think in a number of cases those guys are in there not because of talent, but because they were drafted in 1st round and thus cut a lot of slack. McNabb and Palmer I consider quality QBs, Pennington, Rivers, Campbell and Harrington I do not. And of those 3 all but Rivers probably won't be a starter anywhere by the end of next year.

newton_tom_cat said:

if you use QB that became starter as your measure of success, you are biasing the analsysis heavily in favor of 1st rounders. their teams must play them and give them at least 2 years worth of chance. given the added exposure they get versus late rounders, if their talent were that much better than late rounders, you'd barely see a QB drafted past the 2nd round. in that most starting QBs were taken past round 3, that makes the case for not taking a QB too high all the more compelling

Click to expand...

So as long as you get to make up your own personal "measure of success", it'll work out just the way you like it. Great job working that out.

23 Modern Era Quarterbacks have made the Hall Of Fame

Aikman (1st round)
Blanda (12th round)
Bradshaw (1st round)
Dawson (1st round)
Elway (1st round)
Fouts (3rd round)
Graham (1st round)
Griese (1st round)
Jurgensen (4th round)
Kelly (1st round)
Layne (1st round)
Marino (1st round)
Montana (3rd round)
Moon (not drafted)
Namath (1st round)
Starr (17th round)
Staubach (10th round)
Tarkenton (3rd round)
Tittle (1st round)
Unitas (9th round)
Van Brocklin (4th round)
Waterfield (3rd round)
Young (1st round)


So, 12 out of 23 Hall Of Fame quarterbacks from the modern era were first round draft picks, and only 6 were drafted lower than the 3rd round. By that standard, greatness is, as expected, usually found at the top.

Deus Irae said:

So as long as you get to make up your own personal "measure of success", it'll work out just the way you like it. Great job working that out.

23 Modern Era Quarterbacks have made the Hall Of Fame

Aikman (1st round)
Blanda (12th round)
Bradshaw (1st round)
Dawson (1st round)
Elway (1st round)
Fouts (3rd round)
Graham (1st round)
Griese (1st round)
Jurgensen (4th round)
Kelly (1st round)
Layne (1st round)
Marino (1st round)
Montana (3rd round)
Moon (not drafted)
Namath (1st round)
Starr (17th round)
Staubach (10th round)
Tarkenton (3rd round)
Tittle (1st round)
Unitas (9th round)
Van Brocklin (4th round)
Waterfield (3rd round)
Young (1st round)


So, 12 out of 23 Hall Of Fame quarterbacks from the modern era were first round draft picks, and only 6 were drafted lower than the 3rd round. By that standard, greatness is, as expected, usually found at the top.

Click to expand...

you can't use HOF as a barometer b/c the HOF favors guys who were drafted in the first round.

/sarcasm

Deus Irae said:

So as long as you get to make up your own personal "measure of success", it'll work out just the way you like it. Great job working that out.

23 Modern Era Quarterbacks have made the Hall Of Fame

Aikman (1st round)
Blanda (12th round)
Bradshaw (1st round)
Dawson (1st round)
Elway (1st round)
Fouts (3rd round)
Graham (1st round)
Griese (1st round)
Jurgensen (4th round)
Kelly (1st round)
Layne (1st round)
Marino (1st round)
Montana (3rd round)
Moon (not drafted)
Namath (1st round)
Starr (17th round)
Staubach (10th round)
Tarkenton (3rd round)
Tittle (1st round)
Unitas (9th round)
Van Brocklin (4th round)
Waterfield (3rd round)
Young (1st round)


So, 12 out of 23 Hall Of Fame quarterbacks from the modern era were first round draft picks, and only 6 were drafted lower than the 3rd round. By that standard, greatness is, as expected, usually found at the top.

Click to expand...

Let's see how that applies now:
- of 2 active QBs I see only two as shoo-ins for HOF (Brady & Favre.) Neither one a 1st round pick;
- The only other one currently on a trajectory to have HOF #'s is Tony Romo (undrafted.)

Put them in and less than half are #1's.

Anyway, you can chase HOF'ers if you want. I'm interested in what the best draft strategy is now, measured by what makes my team the most competitive. And current realities of top-rated QB's clearly does not point to drafting them high. Could have something to do with salary cap and huge penalty a team suffers wasting #1 pick (and money) on a QB. Whatever it is, I don't want it.

newton_tom_cat said:

Let's see how that applies now:
- of 2 active QBs I see only two as shoo-ins for HOF (Brady & Favre.) Neither one a 1st round pick;
- The only other one currently on a trajectory to have HOF #'s is Tony Romo (undrafted.)

Put them in and less than half are #1's.

Anyway, you can chase HOF'ers if you want. I'm interested in what the best draft strategy is now, measured by what makes my team the most competitive. And current realities of top-rated QB's clearly does not point to drafting them high. Could have something to do with salary cap and huge penalty a team suffers wasting #1 pick (and money) on a QB. Whatever it is, I don't want it.

Click to expand...

dude you really need to pay attention to the people telling you how bad your analysis is.

go and do this:

go find every QB drafted in the last X number of years. doesn't matter.

list what round they were drafted in.

then list how many games they started.

then report back.


giving Brady & Romo as examples of late/UDFA guys is terrible logic b/c it ignores the hundreds of guys who didn't make it. finding those guys in a needle in a haystack. good luck if your strategy is "hope to find needle in haystack"

newton_tom_cat said:

Let's see how that applies now:
- of 2 active QBs I see only two as shoo-ins for HOF (Brady & Favre.) Neither one a 1st round pick;
- The only other one currently on a trajectory to have HOF #'s is Tony Romo (undrafted.)

Put them in and less than half are #1's.

Anyway, you can chase HOF'ers if you want. I'm interested in what the best draft strategy is now, measured by what makes my team the most competitive. And current realities of top-rated QB's clearly does not point to drafting them high. Could have something to do with salary cap and huge penalty a team suffers wasting #1 pick (and money) on a QB. Whatever it is, I don't want it.

Click to expand...

The fact that you don't put Manning as a definite Hall of Fame quarterback makes further discussion a waste of time. Your argument was wrong. It was proven wrong. It'll be wrong tomorrow. It'll be wrong in the next decade.

Deus Irae said:

The fact that you don't put Manning as a definite Hall of Fame quarterback makes further discussion a waste of time. Your argument was wrong. It was proven wrong. It'll be wrong tomorrow. It'll be wrong in the next decade.

Click to expand...

you're right, manning was an oversight. doesn't change the conclusion

I blame scouts. Horrible teams have high picks, look to QB as savior (or drawing card) look at flashy running, passing skills in college as criteria and get burned.

Good teams do not have high picks and salary cap money, but know that judgment, intelligence and character cannot be developed or overcome, while skinniness, foot speed problems can (Brady).

newton_tom_cat said:

you're right, manning was an oversight. doesn't change the conclusion

Click to expand...

Ummm.... actually, it destroys it.

I'd like to break down Deus' HoF list a little further:


Moon was undrafted and Young was a supplemental draft pick.

Here they are by round:

Deus Irae said:

I am of the opinion that the salary cap era and the short leash that coaches are put on are killing first round quarterbacks. They are being thrown into games in their first season, and almost no quarterback is ready that quickly. They get put in on bad teams and take a pounding. Then many of them, like David Carr, they learn bad habits and become gun shy. Carr, Joey Harrington, Alex Smith and others would probably have been far better served learning the ways of the NFL behind seasoned veterans for a year or more before ever getting on the field.

Click to expand...

And Derek Anderson may be the best thing that ever happened to Brady Quinn. He can sit, learn and play when he is ready, whether in Cleveland or somewhere else. i'd like to see the data on QBs who sat for a year or two (See Brady, Tom) and then got the starting nod. Granted for every Aikman or Peyton Manning who took thir lumps and prospered , there are more than a few Alex Smiths and David Carr... who got thrown in and haven't

makewayhomer said:

dude you really need to pay attention to the people telling you how bad your analysis is.

go and do this:

go find every QB drafted in the last X number of years. doesn't matter.

list what round they were drafted in.

then list how many games they started.

then report back.


giving Brady & Romo as examples of late/UDFA guys is terrible logic b/c it ignores the hundreds of guys who didn't make it. finding those guys in a needle in a haystack. good luck if your strategy is "hope to find needle in haystack"

Click to expand...

ok "duude", again im interested in how draft strategy effects competitivess. so let's look at it from the perspective of team ranking and QB draft position (these are from ESPN last week's power rankings):

Pats - 6
Boyz - undrafted
Colts - 1
Packers - 2
Giants - 1
Jags - 4
Steelers - 1
Seahawks - 6
Chargers - 1
Browns - 6

So there's 40% 1st rounders, 50% 4th round or higher. And let's look more closely at who the #1's are:

P Manning - no argument he's a top QB that's vital to his team
E Manning - I want no part of him. Only there due to his last name and Giants high commitment when drafting him.
Big Ben - no argument he's a top QB that's vital to his team
Rivers - want no part of him, only there due Bolts high commitment when drafting him.

So after removing the relatively inexperienced E Manning & Rivers who are riding the fumes of their team's commitment to them and would likely otherwise be riding the bench, you have 2 of the top 10 teams with a #1 pick @ QB. What this shows me is that over time the cream rises to the top, and QBs that earn their spot - Brady, Gerrard, Romo, Anderson, Hasselback - show up on the best teams. What's all the more impressive is that none of those guys came in with any expectations and very little chance to prove themselves relative to #1 picks.

newton_tom_cat said:

ok "duude", again im interested in how draft strategy effects competitivess. so let's look at it from the perspective of team ranking and QB draft position (these are from ESPN last week's power rankings):

Pats - 6
Boyz - undrafted
Colts - 1
Packers - 2
Giants - 1
Jags - 4
Steelers - 1
Seahawks - 6
Chargers - 1
Browns - 6

So there's 40% 1st rounders, 50% 4th round or higher. And let's look more closely at who the #1's are:

P Manning - no argument he's a top QB that's vital to his team
E Manning - I want no part of him. Only there due to his last name and Giants high commitment when drafting him.
Big Ben - no argument he's a top QB that's vital to his team
Rivers - want no part of him, only there due Bolts high commitment when drafting him.

So after removing the relatively inexperienced E Manning & Rivers who are riding the fumes of their team's commitment to them and would likely otherwise be riding the bench, you have 2 of the top 10 teams with a #1 pick @ QB. What this shows me is that over time the cream rises to the top, and QBs that earn their spot - Brady, Gerrard, Romo, Anderson, Hasselback - show up on the best teams. What's all the more impressive is that none of those guys came in with any expectations and very little chance to prove themselves relative to #1 picks.

Click to expand...

so, what is the implication? that it's ideal strategy to wait until the 6th round to draft a QB, and hope you extremely lucky? or, draft a QB high, were the %'s are higher that you'll find a good QB?

you seriously think that's a good idea?

also, stop saying "4th round or higher". you need to separate by distinct round. by saying "4th and rounder" you are saying that a team can spend it's 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th round pick on a QB and hope they get lucky. it doesn't work like that - they will normally spend (at most) 1 of those picks on a QB. and normally that pick won't make the team.

If you had to pick one guy for one season next year to lead your team next year, the list would probably start (and this order is only APPROXIMATE):

Brady -- low pick
Manning -- #1 overall
Romo -- undrafted
Roethlisberger -- 1st half of 1st round
Favre -- ?
Palmer -- # 1 overall
Brees -- early 2nd round
Garrard -- ?
Hasslebeck -- ?
Culter -- 1st half of 1st round
Rivers -- #4 overall (hey, he MIGHT bounce back)
Anderson -- ?

Spending high picks on the most important position on the field is NOT a terrible idea.

newton_tom_cat said:

ok "duude", again im interested in how draft strategy effects competitivess. so let's look at it from the perspective of team ranking and QB draft position (these are from ESPN last week's power rankings):

Pats - 6
Boyz - undrafted
Colts - 1
Packers - 2
Giants - 1
Jags - 4
Steelers - 1
Seahawks - 6
Chargers - 1
Browns - 6

So there's 40% 1st rounders, 50% 4th round or higher. And let's look more closely at who the #1's are:

P Manning - no argument he's a top QB that's vital to his team
E Manning - I want no part of him. Only there due to his last name and Giants high commitment when drafting him.
Big Ben - no argument he's a top QB that's vital to his team
Rivers - want no part of him, only there due Bolts high commitment when drafting him.

So after removing the relatively inexperienced E Manning & Rivers who are riding the fumes of their team's commitment to them and would likely otherwise be riding the bench, you have 2 of the top 10 teams with a #1 pick @ QB. What this shows me is that over time the cream rises to the top, and QBs that earn their spot - Brady, Gerrard, Romo, Anderson, Hasselback - show up on the best teams. What's all the more impressive is that none of those guys came in with any expectations and very little chance to prove themselves relative to #1 picks.

Click to expand...

Wait.... did you just arbitrarily decide to remove 2 #1 draft picks just to improve your argument when it was, otherwise, a tenuous argument at best?

Oh, yes, you did. Cheating by removing players who help disprove/weaken your argument in your very own sample set.... tsk, tsk....

Oh, and Favre was taken at #33, which is not exactly a late draft pick.

makewayhomer said:

so, what is the implication? that it's ideal strategy to wait until the 6th round to draft a QB, and hope you extremely lucky?

Click to expand...

what i conclude is that drafting a QB in the 1st round is when you need to be extremely lucky. because in most cases it doesn't work out. and given the money, time and foregone draft opportunities, it's a very costly mistake for a team.

newton_tom_cat said:

what i conclude is that drafting a QB in the 1st round is when you need to be extremely lucky .

Click to expand...

well, this is a bad conclusion, considering you need to be even luckier later on. even your #'s show this, but you don't want to see it.

newton_tom_cat said:

and given the money, time and foregone draft opportunities, it's a very costly mistake for a team.

Click to expand...

the money is going to be spent anyway.
time? what? you are going to need to develop a QB anyways.

re: a costly mistake, sure ALL high draft picks that don't work out are costly mistakes. somehow you think that QB bust is much worse than a LT bust. you're wrong. they cost the same draft cap capital and same real money against the cap.

makewayhomer said:

well, this is a bad conclusion, considering you need to be even luckier later on. even your #'s show this, but you don't want to see it.



the money is going to be spent anyway.
time? what? you are going to need to develop a QB anyways.

re: a costly mistake, sure ALL high draft picks that don't work out are costly mistakes. somehow you think that QB bust is much worse than a LT bust. you're wrong. they cost the same draft cap capital and same real money against the cap.

Click to expand...

Ask Lions (Harrington), Bills (Losman), Ravens (Boller), among others, how "uncostly" 1st round QB busts are.