kungfoodude

Well Ron did have a 9 year playing career that cannot be understated. But he was an NFL coach/staff member in some capacity for about 13 years before taking our HC job, 6 as a DC. By comparision, DC has been an NFL coach/staff member in some capacity for 14 years prior to taking our HC job, only 1 as an OC. So, in theory, Dave really shouldn't be super far behind the curve when compared to Ron. Although, I think Ron obviously had a much better grasp of what it takes to be a successful NFL player/Coach.

Ron's two seasons he took to figure it out would be massive successes compared to the 2018-Present period. Those 6 and 7 win seasons look pretty great now. Do you honestly think he will jump up to a 10+ win year in 2026? That's what Ron did.

You might want to look at that table again. Round 2 has the least QB's taken in that time period. What is more interesting is how the "darts at a dart board" happens in the 6th and 7th round. Those are the 2nd and 3rd most frequently drafted rounds for NFL QB's. If you are strictly using my criteria for "success" it does lend credence to that not being an awful strategy. At 17-21% chance to get a bare minimum of 30+ starts OR a 5+ year career. That's pretty good for a very throwaway pick. I don't know how that would compare to other positions. I would maybe have to adapt what I have done to something like PFR's Career AV to set a line that accomplished roughly the same result as I have from the spreadsheet. If I can get to a number value, applying this to each position wouldn't be that hard. Not sure how "fair" that is without making some adjustment based on averages for each position. I would have to do that as well, I think. A positional "handicap" of sorts.

I suspect regardless of QB playing you will see 3+ total TO's from the QB position versus one of the past pass rushing attacks in the NFL and a very weakened offensive line.

I think he gets minimally outcoached frequently. That doesn't get enough air time.

No, I take no account at all for college production. It has no value to NFL success. What you did before the NFL is irrelevant. That would be more of an "expectation vs. result" thing. That's SUPER difficult to quantify and going to be extremely subjective. It's not about predicting future success, I am just trying to show which NFL Draft Rounds generally have more "success" drafting a QB. The way it is currently built and using the 1994-2018 dataset this is the result using my criteria:

As an initial test, I applied your 1st round criteria to that group(65 QB's of which 32 passed my "success" criteria). As an ADDITIONAL component to the original criteria it added: Chad Pennington, Sam Bradford, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Marcus Mariota As a REQUIREMENT for BOTH it, Added: Chad Pennington, Sam Bradford, Marcus Mariota Removed: Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Michael Vick, Byron Leftwich, Eli Manning, Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Joe Flacco, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Jameis Winston, Sam Darnold Remaining after: Peyton Manning, Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater, Marcus Mariota, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, Baker Mayfield, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson As an EITHER/OR REQUIREMENT component to the original criteria it, Added: Chad Pennington, Sam Bradford, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Marcus Mariota Removed: Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Byron Leftwich, Vince Young, Jameis Winston Remaining after: Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater, Marcus Mariota, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson Conclusion: Of the different ways that I attempted to include the 1st round criteria it essentially adds some backup QB's or guys that were out of the league VERY quickly at the expense of some players that had by almost all measures very, very successful careers. I would say that is going to be a difficult requirement to add because of the people that get either added or subtracted as a result. Take a look at the results and give me your thoughts.

Any significant time on just about any social media platform makes you realize how the world has been trending the way it has. There are a lot more stupid people than most realized and now they have global clubhouses.

Well the entire intent of this is based on success of the pick based on the performance of the QB for an "expected" minimum return. I think that is where maybe I am not explaining what I am doing as well as I need to. The intent of all of this is to spit out a percentage of "success" for QB's picked in each round. The specific QB's are just lines of data in the spreadsheet that's feeding the minimums. So what I am attempting to do is build out/fine tune a reasonable set of minimums you would expect to see given the round drafted(cost, if you will). My logic is basically this: 1st Rounders Hall of Fame - No explanation needed. This was an all time great player. MVP/All Pro/Pro Bowl - Achievement that even if only happened once, this was a worthy investment. The player was able to reach near or league best play, even if briefly. IMO, using just one as a threshold is fair. Even though it might only happen once, they reached their potential. This also filters out some other elements like injury shortened careers. Guys like Andrew Luck and RGIII pass as "successful" without being filtered out by the next minimum. 8+ Years as a Starter: This is a bit more debateable but I have included it as a function to catch some guys that might be a "soft success." The logic here being that perhaps a lengthy NFL starting career is "good enough" to be a success. Much more so than a failure. A drafted QB that was able to be a long term NFL starter is very desired, even if elite status was not ever truly reached. The only example of this that DOESN'T include some previously listed accolades in the almost 300 data points is.....Joe Flacco. And I think anyone at this point would have a hard time arguing that he was not a successful 1st round pick. I am just gonna explain the first round logic but the rest of the rounds are similar. If you achieve any of these things, I would consider you a "success." Perhaps that will make it my thought process more clear. Once again, very grateful to have all the debates and input on this. I do want to make this a meaningful thing I can keep updating.

The Bryce fanbois there are annoying AF. I assume a bunch of "Bryce only" guys.

You lower your standards based on investment. A 6th or 7th round investment is massively lower than. 1st or 2nd. If that wasn't the case, why would it matter if Burns was offered at a two 1st's and a 2nd instead of what we got for him?

I think you do change criteria based on round, TBH. The expectations should differ.

Okay. I will apply those to the metric tomorrow and see what the result is(who is exluded and who isn't).

Well, one generally assumes based on round that a player is "worth" more based soley on investment. So, this controls for the rank in each position group or whatever other things that don't relate to where they are selected.

Yeah but I am not after school vs. draft pick. That's a whole different thing. I can do that but that isn't what I am after with this specifically.

No, it's ridiculous the amount of homerism. Like some of the sunshiners here, the team is not always right, the players are not always perfect, etc. Be reasonable.

Well, it is based on cost invested. It's draft pick. Would it not be reasonable to assume a 1st round QB should have a higher threshold for "success" than QB's drafted in rounds after him? It is a measure of amount invested versus amount gained That is fine but I need those levels for the categories you are suggesting adding so I can test them. That is why I asked. Give me: 1st Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum 2nd Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum So on and so forth. I have to at least test them and see if they even move the current model at all. Also, as I asked before, are you suggesting these(Comp% and TD:INT) and hard minumums or, like the OP, additional things to elevate a QB to being a "success?"

Well, it's a function of range drafted. Not so hyperfocused or maybe more so? I am attempting to define a REASONABLE metric for success based on where a QB was drafted. So, a 1st round QB SHOULD have much higher expectations than rounds lower, right?

The homer count is way too high. It's bananas

Yeah, take a look at it and maybe a gander at Pro Football Reference to test out some of the variables(or I can publish them here if you guys want). I just want to be VERY clear, this is less about judging an overall QB career vs. other QB's careers as it is "What is a reasonable expectation for SUCCESS for a given QB based on the round they were drafted in?" Additionally, "What are REASONABLE measures to judge QB success given the above statement?"

I guess I would ask, for a QB career, why would that matter based on the variables in the OP? I would ask that you consider the OP and how you think it relates to your personal opinion of "success." Do these criteria seem reasonable? Is this a fair measure of "QB draft pick based on round drafted" success? If no, what is not fair? What can be added/improved on?

Well, look back at the original list. See that I have criteria for each level. But, again, I am basing this on a "any of this level" basis. That's why I am asking for "thresholds." I don't on the surface disagree with your additions but I need more input to test them. So, what is the 1st round threshold for Comp% or TD:INT? I need to be able to test it out and see if it is reasonable.

He doesn't at all. He ticks the boxes above him. In fact, based on what I have so far, the later rounds have higher "success" than predicted. But, keep in mind that threshold(rounds 4-7) is 30+ games started OR 5+ year career. I don't really think that is unfair, though. If we got a 5+ year backup in the 4-7th round, wouldn't you be pumped? How about 30+ starts? Same. My thresholds could be off. Open to all debate on that.

I don't really account for that because I am making an assumption based on the factors I have included(Accolades, Career Length, Starting Length) that it would largely control for those ups and downs of draft class strength. So, if your career was lengthy, that should eliminate class strength. Same with HOF, All Pro, MVP, Pro Bowl, etc. Same with starting length. If you came from a weak or a strong class, time will sort that out.

@LinvilleGorge So what exactly is the source of the server crashes?