Interesting perspective on picking a QB with a high draft pick...

[DarrylS]

From a tweet of Jacob Robinson who posted this, he is a writer from The Athletic & Morning Huddle up.
Validates why so many of us are skeptical on using our draft capital with pick #3...

Chart accompanying today's Scoop City newsletter, which looked at the success rate of QBs drafted in the Top-10.It's not a perfect measurement (see Jared Goff, Blake Bortles), but helps determine the odds of success when drafting a QB this early.
It's not a perfect measurement (see Jared Goff, Blake Bortles), but helps determine the odds of success when drafting a QB this early.

 

[Wozzy]

The draft is a crapshoot.... you still can't be afraid to draft.

 

[Force Zero Boomer]

So 7 stars out of 28 picks? I like those odds, especially in a QB rich draft like this. We won't be reaching at #3.

We'll see if Wolf really knows what he's doing. If he does, the odds improve a lot, probably to better than a coin flip. Most important position in football. You've got to take the risk.

 

[borg]

So 7 stars out of 28 picks?

But 0 for 3 when drafting QB at #3
Bortles
Darnold
Lance

 

[Trocadile]

For all the people insisting that you need to draft a QB at #3 to become a Super Bowl contender, do you know how many times in the last 37 years a QB drafted between 2 and 9 in the draft has won a Super Bowl?

I believe the answer is once. Trent Dilfer, who was drafted 5th but didn't win with the team that drafted him, so no team in the last 37 years has done it with a QB they drafted between 2 and 9.

If anything, history says don't take the QB at 3.

 

[Force Zero Boomer]

Sure, but you'd have to look at how many great QB prospects there were in those drafts, at the very least. There isn't something magic about #3: if there are only two stellar prospects in the draft, you are much more likely to bust at 3. If there are 4-5, your odds improve. If your team sucks at evaluation, you are much more likely to draft a bust. Just look at the Manning/Leaf draft. The Chargers never even considered what a head case Leaf was (all the signs were there), or they thought he would mature. Big mistake taking Leaf at #2. All the physical talent you could ask for (rocket arm, could make all the throws), but it didn't matter. The hard part for the Chargers is that they needed a QB and there wasn't another first round talent, so perhaps they felt they had to take the risk.

BTW, why are you triggered? We're just having a pleasant conversation here, aren't we? Sorry if I said anything that set you off.

 

[Force Zero Boomer]

For all the people insisting that you need to draft a QB at #3 to become a Super Bowl contender, do you know how many times in the last 37 years a QB drafted between 2 and 9 in the draft has won a Super Bowl?

I believe the answer is once. Trent Dilfer, who was drafted 5th but didn't win with the team that drafted him, so no team in the last 37 years has done it with a QB they drafted between 2 and 9.

If anything, history says don't take the QB at 3.

That's a bad metric. It takes a lot to get to the SB, and even more to win one. Marino never got one, and he was one of the greats. Elway won back to back, but only at the tail end of his career. It's a team game, and even though QB is the most important position, you don't win a SB unless a lot of other things go right (for example, you have kicker named Vinatieri).

 

[Trocadile]

That's a bad metric. It takes a lot to get to the SB, and even more to win one. Marino never got one, and he was one of the greats. Elway won back to back, but only at the tail end of his career. It's a team game, and even though QB is the most important position, you don't win a SB unless a lot of other things go right (for example, you have kicker named Vinatieri).

? This seems more in agreement with my post than any kind of refutation. If you believe in the team game emphasis, then taking a QB high is less of a priority. And neither Marino or Elway was drafted between 2 and 9 so not sure of their relevance. Todd Blackledge was the QB from that 1983 draft taken in that range. The most successful QBS were Elway, Kelly and Marino, all outside the range. My point is that, historically, 2-9 is a sort of dead zone for Super Bowl QBs.

 

[hornetfb85]

DRAFT A F***ING QB AT 3!!!!!!!

 

[signbabybrady]

This seems to confirm that taking one is worth it.

Unless my math is bad which it usually is:

We have a 1/4 chance at getting a star.
And better than a 1/2 chance at a starter.

Because this is a deep class you could then maybe even play with the numbers because it's probably less likely for a Major reach and if we take those off the chart the odds go up even more.

By the way:

 

[Force Zero Boomer]

? This seems more in agreement with my post than any kind of refutation. If you believe in the team game emphasis, then taking a QB high is less of a priority. And neither Marino or Elway was drafted between 2 and 9 so not sure of their relevance. Todd Blackledge was the QB from that 1983 draft taken in that range. The most successful QBS were Elway, Kelly and Marino, all outside the range. My point is that, historically, 2-9 is a sort of dead zone for Super Bowl QBs.

I won't restate my original opinion, but let me add that teams picking 2-9 tend be bad. It's safe to infer their talent evaluation is also bad on average, otherwise they would have better teams. That factor alone sheds light on why there have been so many busts in that range.

I believe in team emphasis, for sure. But I also believe you need a great QB to be elite in the NFL. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. I might feel differently about this draft if Wolf and the new Patriots leadership had a proven track record.

 

[Force Zero Boomer]

But 0 for 3 when drafting QB at #3
Bortles
Darnold
Lance

* Note: this reply posted to the main thread for some reason, and I'm too much of a boomer to figure out how to delete posts. If anyone call clue me in, I would appreciate it.

Sure, but you'd have to look at how many great QB prospects there were in those drafts, at the very least. There isn't something magic about #3: if there are only two stellar prospects in the draft, you are much more likely to bust at 3. If there are 4-5, your odds improve. If your team sucks at evaluation, you are much more likely to draft a bust. Just look at the Manning/Leaf draft. The Chargers never even considered what a head case Leaf was (all the signs were there), or they thought he would mature. Big mistake taking Leaf at #2. All the physical talent you could ask for (rocket arm, could make all the throws), but it didn't matter. The hard part for the Chargers is that they needed a QB and there wasn't another first round talent, so perhaps they felt they had to take the risk.

BTW, why are you triggered? We're just having a pleasant conversation here, aren't we? Sorry if I said anything that set you off.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

So where should you draft a QB that has won the most super bowls? 6th round looks good, anyone go through the stats to see where the QB has been drafted that won the most super bowls? The whole thing is silly, it's a crapshoot, its like saying these lottery numbers come up the most so I'll play them in powerball and increase my chances of winning.

 

[mgteich]

This seems to confirm that taking one is worth it.

Unless my math is bad which it usually is:

We have a 1/4 chance at getting a star.
And better than a 1/2 chance at a starter.

Because this is a deep class you could then maybe even play with the numbers because it's probably less likely for a Major reach and if we take those off the chart the odds go up even more.

By the way:

QUESTION
How much worse is it to draft a QB 6-10 compared to 2-5?

It seems that there is often a QB that is rated well above the rest and is then drafted at #1.

 

[Ivan]

From a tweet of Jacob Robinson who posted this, he is a writer from The Athletic & Morning Huddle up.
Validates why so many of us are skeptical on using our draft capital with pick #3...

Chart accompanying today's Scoop City newsletter, which looked at the success rate of QBs drafted in the Top-10.It's not a perfect measurement (see Jared Goff, Blake Bortles), but helps determine the odds of success when drafting a QB this early.
It's not a perfect measurement (see Jared Goff, Blake Bortles), but helps determine the odds of success when drafting a QB this early.

View attachment 57331

It’s irrelevant unless he applies the same measurements to every other round in the draft. And if the argument is that your % chance of getting a franchise QB in the first round is low then that means that you need to keep taking that chance every year until you find one, because the bottom line is that you are still going to have to find one to win Championships.

If he just wants to go on your chance of getting a great QB at a certain pick I can make it easy for him, just take a QB with the 199th pick in the draft every year, that gives you the best odds based on prior performance of QB’s picked there.

 

[Ivan]

QUESTION
How much worse is it to draft a QB 6-10 compared to 2-5?

It seems that there is often a QB that is rated well above the rest and is then drafted at #1.

When it comes to winning SB’s 5-10 has to fare pretty well, Mahomes, Roethlisberger, and Flacco were all drafted in that range, ,

 

[lancerman]

From a tweet of Jacob Robinson who posted this, he is a writer from The Athletic & Morning Huddle up.
Validates why so many of us are skeptical on using our draft capital with pick #3...

Chart accompanying today's Scoop City newsletter, which looked at the success rate of QBs drafted in the Top-10.It's not a perfect measurement (see Jared Goff, Blake Bortles), but helps determine the odds of success when drafting a QB this early.
It's not a perfect measurement (see Jared Goff, Blake Bortles), but helps determine the odds of success when drafting a QB this early.

View attachment 57331

There's some added context to this. RG3 was a stud his first year, then he got a serious injury that derailed his career and a lot of people blame his coach for that. Winston is another weird one in that he is sort of a mixed bag but is almost the exact same player he was in college. Like he translated one to one as a player in the league, it's just without a stacked team he was never that big.

The other issue is that we are looking at top 10 picks and you have 17 stars/starters being picked over the last 12 years.

If you do that for any other round in the draft you won't get those results.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

Thanks, I found it interesting. Sure, it's easy to pick apart, but still provides a pause. Better really be in love with that top 10 quarterback or trade back and take the haul.

 

[TomPatriot]

Take the QB you love at 3 and trade down from No. 34 to add draft capital.

 

[javajunky]

The stock market has the meme T.I.N.A.: There Is No Alternative