Best QBs since 1998: Just a little pre-draft exercise and QB discussion

[SammyBlueCat]

@Tony2046 , Nice Chart. Trent Dilfer won with the Ravens.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Bill will NEVER give up 4 quality picks for the chance to get just one guy, even if he is a QB.

I believe that and most of the members here do too. However there are a few good posters that believe in magical thinking.

 

[RDS11]

But that's going to be true of all players who get drafted after the so-called blue chips, right? A guy runs a slow time at the combine, and he's suddenly not a first round pick anymore. The question for GMs and scouts is how to look at a player who deviates from the perceived standard and know whether or not he's still worth taking. When does it matter than the QB is only 6' tall, or that the RB runs a bit too upright for a team's taste, or that the WR was busted by the police a few times in college?

Absolutely, it's true for most players, therefore the complimentary exercise we could do related to your starting question in this topic is what is the 'bust' level for QB drafted in the 1st round compare to other positions ? My feeling is that is probably higher than most positions, which would tell me that the 'standard' way for NFL execs to evaluate QB prospects is flawed, with the end results that teams are placing 1st round grade on QBs at a much higher rate than they should.

The result on that tendency is that there are even less 'good' QB available in the later rounds because some teams have overdrafted these players. And as such, teams want to grab any QB showing some potential rather sooner than later because they won't be available in later rounds...it's a downward spiral losing team cannot get out of.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Absolutely, it's true for most players, therefore the complimentary exercise we could do related to your starting question in this topic is what is the 'bust' level for QB drafted in the 1st round compare to other positions ? My feeling is that is probably higher than most positions, which would tell me that the 'standard' way for NFL execs to evaluate QB prospects is flawed, with the end results that teams are placing 1st round grade on QBs at a much higher rate than they should.

The result on that tendency is that there are even less 'good' QB available in the later rounds because some teams have overdrafted these players. And as such, teams want to grab any QB showing some potential rather sooner than later because they won't be available in later rounds...it's a downward spiral losing team cannot get out of.

Here's a (badly formatted) table of first round pick bust rates from 1986 and 2010 by position. A "Bust" is defined as a player who never makes the Pro Bowl and starts fewer than 50 games in his career. You are correct in the fact that QBs are near the top of the list; only one position is higher.

Bust rates among first-round picks, 25-year sample
Position Drafted Busts Bust rate
RB 96 45 46.9%
QB 57 23 40.4%
DL 170 60 35.3%
WR 99 30 30.3%
CB 91 24 26.4%
G 32 7 21.9%
LB 87 19 21.8%
TE 28 6 21.4%
OT 84 16 19.0%
S 35 5 14.3%
C 12 1 8.3%

Which Positions Are the Safest, Riskiest at the Top of the NFL Draft?

Some other tables in that link as well (I know it's BR but they're just compiling some basic numbers so it's a decent overview).

 

[Deus Irae]

Absolutely, it's true for most players, therefore the complimentary exercise we could do related to your starting question in this topic is what is the 'bust' level for QB drafted in the 1st round compare to other positions ? My feeling is that is probably higher than most positions, which would tell me that the 'standard' way for NFL execs to evaluate QB prospects is flawed, with the end results that teams are placing 1st round grade on QBs at a much higher rate than they should.

The result on that tendency is that there are even less 'good' QB available in the later rounds because some teams have overdrafted these players. And as such, teams want to grab any QB showing some potential rather sooner than later because they won't be available in later rounds...it's a downward spiral losing team cannot get out of.

Here's one man's take on it:

Which Positions Are the Safest, Riskiest at the Top of the NFL Draft?

Here's another:

Which positions are the safest to draft in the first round?

I absolutely agree that the QB position has become one which gets overdrafted all too often. It makes sense, because the modern rules have made having a QB the most important part of winning football games.

I would also suggest that one of the real problems with evaluating recent QB draft success is longevity. In football, your best QBs and kickers can stay around forever, relatively speaking. When you combine that with the fact that QBs aren't subbed for, and the fact that there can be only one on the field at a time (exceptions proving the rule), and the trend towards only keeping 2 QBs on the roster, it's a huge limiting factor. Without the turnover, there are fewer jobs for new guys to develop in, and fewer Steve DeBergs (long term journeyman who could actually put up numbers and play a bit) and Rich Gannons (late bloomer) will be found, as a result.

In other words, and IMO, one of the things impacting the modern "bust" rate of QBs is the fact that the Tom Brady/Peyton Manning/Drew Brees group are both high quality and long lasting.

 

[RDS11]

Bill will NEVER give up 4 quality picks for the chance to get just one guy, even if he is a QB.

One of the first pieces of advice I got when I got my first HCing job. It was, "football is a numbers game". It's not only what talent you have, but also how MUCH you have of it. I didn't understand it at the time, but you eventually come to realize the truth of that small saying.

Right now the Pats are on the edge another critical reboot, just like they had in 2010. That is why Bill eschewed picks last season to go for it all, and now wants to accumulate them this year. the Pats need to start to build that new layer of core players, and they have 5 good picks to do that.

So in the end, its a simple matter of players vs one, and the one isn't a sure thing. Its just not how Bill (or any other good program) builds a football team

I agree Bill would never do that, and if I was given a GM job I wouldn't either. But then again, it's very difficult to imagine what life is without a good QB. Here, we have been set at QB since 1993 (I don't want to start another debate on Bledsoe's value, I'm just stating that he was drafted #1 and was serviceable for a while), but some teams have been looking at getting an above average QB for years, so when the occasion to get one arises, they overpay.

Most GMs and coaches are on a year to year basis, so they probably think they need a franchise QB not matter what the cost is. A good QB can hide a lot of team deficiencies, while a bad QB can sink a good team by himself...

 

[TB_Helmet]

Here's one man's take on it:

Which Positions Are the Safest, Riskiest at the Top of the NFL Draft?

Here's another:

Which positions are the safest to draft in the first round?

I absolutely agree that the QB position has become one which gets overdrafted all too often. It makes sense, because the modern rules have made having a QB the most important part of winning football games.

I would also suggest that one of the real problems with evaluating recent QB draft success is longevity. In football, your best QBs and kickers can stay around forever, relatively speaking. When you combine that with the fact that QBs aren't subbed for, and the fact that there can be only one on the field at a time (exceptions proving the rule), and the trend towards only keeping 2 QBs on the roster, it's a huge limiting factor. Without the turnover, there are fewer jobs for new guys to develop in, and fewer Steve DeBergs (long term journeyman who could actually put up numbers and play a bit) and Rich Gannons (late bloomer) will be found, as a result.

In other words, and IMO, one of the things impacting the modern "bust" rate of QBs is the fact that the Tom Brady/Peyton Manning/Drew Brees group are both high quality and long lasting.

Yeah it was interesting to see the distribution of QBs picked across rounds that I posted earlier. It's pretty sparse in rounds 2-4 and then picks up below that, where they are more development projects / camp fodder / GOATs. My guess is other positions are more evenly distributed across rounds. That is in part due to the lack of turnover that you mentioned. Either a team is rebuilding takes a QB in round 1, or they're set at QB and just needs a new backup, which they can get at the end of the draft. Not much in between.