History of QBs taken in round 1

[TBR]

What is it about "bringing them up" you don't understand? It's about learning and not being thrown in.

I wonder what kind of careers Tim Couch or David Carr might have had? A year to learn, or a 56 or 76 sack year while learning? I think it makes a big difference.

"Bringing them up" slowly sounds nice in theory but it doesn't guarantee anything. You think Rodgers would've been a bust if he got sacked 50 times in his rookie year? All that talent suddenly goes away because he was sacked? Conversely, you think Tim Couch or David Carr would've lived up to their draft status and been great QBs if only they got to sit behind Favre for 3 years like Rodgers did?

Obviously, getting sacked a bunch as a rookie is not ideal.

 

[reflexblue]

Combine that with the new rules:

1. No lowering your helmet.
2. And a new rule in the works stating not to give anyone a "boo boo".

If you can draft one of the top 4 QBs this year, you're in pretty good shape. You'll have a good QB for 40+ years.

Don't worry no matter which one the rats select his career will be circling the drain the minute hes drafted.

 

[RayClay]

"Bringing them up" slowly sounds nice in theory but it doesn't guarantee anything. You think Rodgers would've been a bust if he got sacked 50 times in his rookie year? All that talent suddenly goes away because he was sacked? Conversely, you think Tim Couch or David Carr would've lived up to their draft status and been great QBs if only they got to sit behind Favre for 3 years like Rodgers did?

Obviously, getting sacked a bunch as a rookie is not ideal.

That's a strange argument. Rodgers is a great qb who didn't get sacked 50 times. Well, you made my argument. Who the hell knows what would have happened if everyone did the opposite? I sure don't.

The fact is, Couch and Carr were #1 overall picks who did get sacked a lot and didn't amount to much. Rodgers was a #24 pick who did.

Sacks are an indicator of not being up to speed [throwing away if in trouble a sign of maturity]. Sacks are also factors in developing bad habits, loss of confidence etc.

 

[Observer]

Looking at that list you can see what a crap shoot taking a QB in the 1st round really is. A few good ones that start contributing right away, but also many busts or disappointments who don't live up to the hype.

I don't quite see it that way. Any pick in any round is a crap shoot but looks like QB picks in the first half of the first round have a decent shot of becoming decent QBs. The second half (with the notable exception of Rodgers) on the other hand does not look good at all.

 

[patchick]

It’s not a QB thing.....every position is like that

Yep. First-round QBs get so much attention that we all notice their bust rate, but it's actually pretty average. (OL and LB are the safest bets in round one; WR, RB and DL the riskiest.)

I'll bet just about everybody here knows that QB Ryan Leaf was a bust at #2 overall, but does anybody remember that DL Andre Wadsworth was taken with the pick right after him?

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I admire the hell out of the hardcore season ticket holders who keep showing up, watching their team win a total of one game in the past two years. They seemed friendly enough when I went for the Brady return from suspension game, and they definitely haven’t given up on their team. They still have the Indians and Cavs, I guess. I’m very interested in checking out the rock and roll HOF, and I don’t think the pro football HOF is too far from there—maybe an hour or two. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea of spending a weekend in Cleveland.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Woody Johnson - a guy who, in spite of his own nickname, insisted on naming one of his sons "Jack Wood Johnson."

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I think he said the uniform color scheme was hard on his eyes - “if I could play somewhere with silver helmets”. This is one of the reasons the flying Elvis scheme includes silver helmets.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

What is it about "bringing them up" you don't understand? It's about learning and not being thrown in.

I wonder what kind of careers Tim Couch or David Carr might have had? A year to learn, or a 56 or 76 sack year while learning? I think it makes a big difference.

"Mr. Gastineau...I'm just gonna duck and cover, OK?

 

[maineman209]

That's a strange argument. Rodgers is a great qb who didn't get sacked 50 times. Well, you made my argument. Who the hell knows what would have happened if everyone did the opposite? I sure don't.

The fact is, Couch and Carr were #1 overall picks who did get sacked a lot and didn't amount to much. Rodgers was a #24 pick who did.

Sacks are an indicator of not being up to speed [throwing away if in trouble a sign of maturity]. Sacks are also factors in developing bad habits, loss of confidence etc.

Stating the obvious, there are a lot of factors beyond a prospect's control that can contribute to determining how well and quickly the prospect develops into an NFL player, and whether or not he does so at all.

Owners have played an enormous role, since, for many teams, they are effectively the decision-makers on 1st-round selections in general, and especially QBs. They'll often insist on taking a prospect due to his pre-draft acquired fame (puts fannies in the seats), whether he's a scheme fit or not, and then insist on having him start immediately, whether he's ready or not.

I know of at least one team that (long ago) drafted a running QB out of college (in the top 10), at the owner's insistence, because he was the Heisman winner. And then the owner insisted that he start as a rookie in an offense that required him to be a pure drop-back passer, even though they had reasonably adequate, experienced drop-back passers already on the roster.

It didn't go well. Bad habits became ingrained. The player obviously lost confidence in himself, ended up injured a lot, and was out of the league within five years.

And, it didn't help that this owner also regularly dictated many other football decisions over the objections of knowledgeable coaches and FO personnel (who, not surprisingly, didn't usually stick around very long).

The point being that a team that is willing to allow a 1st-round QB to carry the clipboard for a couple of seasons in order to learn the pro game and develop the required skills is probably one that's better managed to begin with, has better consistency and continuity, and one that's run by "football people" for football reasons rather than impatient ego.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I guess the glass is half empty or half full.

Yeah, a lot of those guys were busts or no better than average.

But, another way of looking at it is that the list starts in the 1990's.

If you look at the 28 Super Bowls that have been played since 1990 and include Aikman, Elway, Kelly and Young who were drafted in first rounds before 1990, then a QB picked in the First Round appeared in those games 29 times (more than 28 because first rounders played against each other in several) and won 14 (50%).

So, yes, as others have observed, a "crap shoot," but I like the odds when 14 of the last 28 SB's have been won by QB's picked in the First Round.

 

[maust]

If you can draft one of the top 4 QBs this year, you're in pretty good shape. .

At a cursory glance you might think that but a more detailed examination would yield a critical piece of information that does not bode well for all 4 of their futures. Two of them are likely to be selected by the Browns & Jete thus guaranteeing they are doomed to be abject failures.

 

[dafoe2016]

I don't think the Pats are taking a QB in the first round. I wonder if they are going to trade those two picks to move up into the top 10. Is there some defensive stud they could be looking at?

Absolutely no way those two picks gets you into the top ten.

 

[Off The Grid]

Absolutely no way those two picks gets you into the top ten.

How very GDT of you to think so.

 

[Off The Grid]

Absolutely no way those two picks gets you into the top ten.

The Book Value of the 2 Picks is #9 plus a 7th Rounder. The Market will'f course dictate what those Picks can fetch ~ and most trade talk we'll never even hear about ~ but it's incalculably foolish to declare that there's "Absolutely no way those two picks gets you into the top ten."

 

[Deus Irae]

"Bringing them up" slowly sounds nice in theory but it doesn't guarantee anything. You think Rodgers would've been a bust if he got sacked 50 times in his rookie year? All that talent suddenly goes away because he was sacked?

It can ruin QBs. We've all seen it. David Carr is just one example.

 

[Marqui]

It can ruin QBs. We've all seen it. David Carr is just one example.

Was Carr ruined or did he just always suck?

 

[Deus Irae]

Was Carr ruined or did he just always suck?

He was ruined. He's not the only example, but he's an obvious one. We'll never know if he would have been worth a damn, because he got so gun shy that he was permanently sped up and always dropping his eyes to see the rush. You don't even have to go that far back to see what can happen. You can just go back and watch Cassel become gun shy in K.C..