Is O'Connell a go at #2 backup? Or do we need a solid vet QB?

[Synovia]

winner of flawed logic of today.......something like the micheal bishop comparison

how so? You're arguing that because Matt Cassel was a 7th round pick, and O'Connel was a 3rd, he'll be better. By that logic, O'Connel should be much better than Brady, a 6th round comp pick.


Seriously, there are two 2nd and 3rd round quarterbacks from the last 15 years who are capable of being starters: Drew Brees (2nd) and Jake Plummer (2nd). Thirty or so have been drafted. Most of them serve as QB2 or QB3 for 3 years, and then are out of football. I would love O'Connel to be the next Brady, but chances are, he'll never amount to anything, like the vast majority of other QBs drafted in the 2nd and 3rd.

 

[Synovia]

winner of flawed logic of today.......something like the micheal bishop comparison

Here's an example.


Let say the average chance of a 3rd round picked QB being able to be a good NFL starter is 6.5%. (2/31 players picked in the 2nd or 3rd round were succesful in the last 15 years).

The success rate of 7th round picks is obviously lower. Lets say 3%.

6.5% is greater than 3%. So, therefore, a 3rd round pick has more of a chance of succeeding than a 7th round pick.



The problem is, we now know that Matt Cassel is one of those rare 3%. We're still hoping O'Connel is one of those 6 out of 100. Theres a 93.5% chance hes not.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Here's an example.


Let say the average chance of a 3rd round picked QB being able to be a good NFL starter is 6.5%. (2/31 players picked in the 2nd or 3rd round were succesful in the last 15 years).

The success rate of 7th round picks is obviously lower. Lets say 3%.

6.5% is greater than 3%. So, therefore, a 3rd round pick has more of a chance of succeeding than a 7th round pick.



The problem is, we now know that Matt Cassel is one of those rare 3%. We're still hoping O'Connel is one of those 6 out of 100. Theres a 93.5% chance hes not.

you might be right if NFL QB's were ping-pong balls, but they're not.......hence your logice is flawed

 

[Synovia]

you might be right if NFL QB's were ping-pong balls, but they're not.......hence your logice is flawed

No, they're not.


But other NFL teams aren't stupid. Theres a reason that O'Connel made it to the 3rd round: He wasn't that good.

Now, the Patriots may be able to up those odds. Say they're twice as good as other teams at evaluating QBs, and developing, his chances are still only 13%. Not good.



The only way his chances are good, is if natural talent is almost irrelevant, and coaching is everything, which is, of course, is somewhat possible. But, if thats the case, why are we paying a QB 15M a year, if we can just train anyone up.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

O'C was playing against the scrubs while Cassel played the starters in pre-season.
O'C also was given rookie free reign while Cassel was runing specific plays NOT necessarily appropriate for the defense the O was facing.

It's the 'Michael Bishop' phenomena where an athletic young QB free of strictures gets to showcase his innate ability vs future Home Depot stocking clerks.

Cassel also played with the 1st offense. For the record, I loved watching Cassel play. It was a treat to see his education and maturity develop as the season progressed. With Pioli and Cassel, the Chiefs have become my #2 team. As long has their interests don't conflict with the Pats, I'll be rooting for them.

Michael Bishop is a terrible comparison.

Bishop was a short, athletic, college-type, run-first QB that was a holdover from the Bobby Greer regime.

O'Connell was scouted by BB and Co. Moreover, he's a tall, athletic, and experienced pocket passer coming out of SD St. He also played behind a terrible O-line in college. For these reasons, O'Connell is head of the curve. The team wouldn't have drafted him in the 3rd round unless they were very high on his potential. O'Connell could be Brady's replacement in 3-4 years.

 

[Synovia]

O'Connell was scouted by BB and Co. Moreover, he's a tall, athletic, and experienced pocket passer coming out of SD St. He also played behind a terrible O-line in college. For these reasons, O'Connell is head of the curve. The team wouldn't have drafted him in the 3rd round unless they were very high on his potential. O'Connell could be Brady's replacement in 3-4 years.

I completely agree with all this, but it doesn't change the fact that hes still a long shot.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

But other NFL teams aren't stupid. Theres a reason that O'Connel made it to the 3rd round: He wasn't that good.

Now, the Patriots may be able to up those odds. Say they're twice as good as other teams at evaluating QBs, and developing, his chances are still only 13%. Not good.

Well, if we're just making up numbers . . . Belichick drafted four QBs before O'Connell: Brady, Cassel, Davey, and Kingsbury. Two of those four are expected to be starters. So one could argue that there's at least a 50% chance O'Connell's going to be a keeper.

And, BTW, if talent is the only thing that matters, why the he** did Brady Quinn get past the LOLphins?

 

[Synovia]

Two of those four are expected to be starters. So one could argue that there's at least a 50% chance O'Connell's going to be a keeper.

No, it can't, and thats the whole crux of this thing. Anecdotal events are not statistically significant.

With a sample size of 4, absolutely nothing can be induced. You're assuming future success based on passed success. In betting terms, this is akin to saying "my bet on the Pats last week won, so I should put everything I own on them tonight because they're going to win, because they won last week"

 

[tanked_as_usual]

No, they're not.


But other NFL teams aren't stupid. Theres a reason that O'Connel made it to the 3rd round: He wasn't that good.

Now, the Patriots may be able to up those odds. Say they're twice as good as other teams at evaluating QBs, and developing, his chances are still only 13%. Not good.



The only way his chances are good, is if natural talent is almost irrelevant, and coaching is everything, which is, of course, is somewhat possible. But, if thats the case, why are we paying a QB 15M a year, if we can just train anyone up.

yeah, teams are stupid.......at least when it comes to evaluating talent which is why a guy like tim couch can be taken with the first pick and akili smith can be taken with the 3rd pick in the draft while aaron brooks is taken with the 131'st pick....why ryan leaf is taken with the 2nd pick while matt hasselback is taken with the 187th....why was rick mirer taken with the 2nd pick while mark brunell with the 118th....this kind of QB evaluation foolishness happens more often than it doesn't.......so given the random nature of this, you logic is indeed flawed.......you try to link this to statistics when there is no link..........things statistically start at zero with every prospect......o'connells chances have nothing to do with previous QB's........zero,zippo,nada

 

[Synovia]

yeah, teams are stupid.......at least when it comes to evaluating talent which is why a guy like tim couch can be taken with the first pick and akili smith can be taken with the 3rd pick in the draft while aaron brooks is taken with the 131'st pick....why ryan leaf is taken with the 2nd pick while matt hasselback is taken with the 187th....why was rick mirer taken with the 2nd pick while mark brunell with the 118th....this kind of QB evaluation foolishness happens more often than it doesn't.......so given the random nature of this, you logic is indeed flawed.......you try to link this to statistics when there is no link..........things statistically start at zero with every prospect......o'connells chances have nothing to do with previous QB's........zero,zippo,nada

O'Connel's chances have everything to do with previous prospects with his talent level. Previous prospects with his talent level and profile typically don't turn into quality nfl players.


Again, you're using the appeal to authority, which is not a valid argument. You can't simply say "its the patriots, so he'll be a stud". I want him to be, but chances are, they'll draft another guy in the 2nd or 3rd next year or the year after.



What you do not seem to understand is that something being random does not mean that statistics can not be applied to it. A Coin Flip is a perfectly random event, but we still know the probability at which it will land on one side. Picking QBs is not a totally random event, and we don't know the exact probability, but we do know that the probability for EVERY QB is rather low, and for everyone outside the first round, extremely low.


Kevin O'Connel, like you said, is no different from any other QB prospect, and that means he has little chance of success.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

No, it can't, and thats the whole crux of this thing. Anecdotal events are not statistically significant.

With a sample size of 4, absolutely nothing can be induced. You're assuming future success based on passed success. In betting terms, this is akin to saying "my bet on the Pats last week won, so I should put everything I own on them tonight because they're going to win, because they won last week"

Your assumption is also flawed. As an analogy, saying that "50% of marriages end in divorce" is not the same thing as saying "Your marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce."

What you do not seem to understand is that something being random does not mean that statistics can not be applied to it. A Coin Flip is a perfectly random event, but we still know the probability at which it will land on one side. Picking QBs is not a totally random event, and we don't know the exact probability, but we do know that the probability for EVERY QB is rather low, and for everyone outside the first round, extremely low.

Kevin O'Connel, like you said, is no different from any other QB prospect, and that means he has little chance of success.

You can quote all the statistics you want about the overall success rate, that doesn't mean that O'Connell necessarily has that particular success rate.

And some of us believe there's a lot of evidence to suggest that O'Connell's likely success rate is much higher than that of the average QB. [In particular, if the Patriots have found successes in two of the four QBs they've drafted on day two, that suggests they may have a method of predicting which QBs will work well in their system. That doesn't guarantee O'Connell will be a stud, but the probability that O'Connell himself is a success--which at this point is necessarily subjective--is probably higher than the single-digit numbers you suggest.]

 

[Synovia]

That doesn't guarantee O'Connell will be a stud, but the probability that O'Connell himself is a success--which at this point is necessarily subjective--is probably higher than the single-digit numbers you suggest.]

Again, I agree with almost everything your saying, but this whole "K'OC is the next Brady" is utterly ridiculous. Chances are, hes a long shot.




Look, I honestly do think that KOC is a decent prospect, and I think the Pats do a great job of picking up on the things that are actually important to QBs (not just having a cannon). I think hes got a much better shot than an average 3rd, but that doesn't mean hes the next big thing. Don't forget, BB has said that he picked Brady as essentially roster filler. Sometimes you just get lucky.

 

[BradyBranch39]

Here's a question: Why are Boller, Grossman and Losman all unsigned? Heck, I think he kinda stinks, but you could stick Leftwich in there too, as there were reports in Feb that he would be heavily pursued.

Boller is solid, IMO - but has been injured as of late. I think I remember reading that Baltimore didn't need to put him on IR last year, but did anyways for the roster spot.

Grossman is Grossman, but sometimes that's good.

And Losman is a guy I was really high on up until his epic fails in 2008. There's got to be a few head coaches in the league who could get him back to where he was a couple years ago when him and Evans were lethal.