To those wanting a "Top 10" quarterback...

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, stbugs said:

This is the type of post that shows you are manipulating numbers that aren’t there.

How can more than half the SBs in the past 30 years be won by first round picks and yet somehow it’s 99.5% of first round QBs not win a SB?

60s first round QBs in the 2000s. I’m going to drop off 12 of them taken in the last 3 years because we are nowhere near saying Allen, Murray, Burrow and Jackson won’t win one. So out of the 48 first round QBs who’ve played at least 3 full seasons, 6 won a SB (Wentz started 13 of 13 games to get the 1 seed, gotta give him credit) and 4 lost in the SB. 6 of 48 <> 0.5%.

That’s pretty good odds when history shows us that 50% of 1st rounders bust anyway. 20% of 1st round QBs appear to make or win the SB and in all cases they were a key contributor not just a backup on a Tom Brady team. Considering that Tom himself captured 6 of 20 SBs, 1st round QBs seem to do pretty well.

Wait....wut? I never said that. 

[stbugs]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This. If you don't have a franchise QB and you think there's a franchise QB available, draft him. Pretty much that simple.

There is no position more valuable where if you make the right choice in the first, you reap multiple years of playoffs. Did we make a bad choice on taking Cam? According to this, he’s a bad player and we should have taken someone else. Look at Luck, Wilson was drafted his year and won a SB. Do we really think that if Luck was playing in Seattle with that defense and Walter Jones and Lynch that he had no shot at winning a SB?

It’s funny because QBs taken early in the first usually go to rebuilding teams without a ton of talent. Mahomes got lucky to go to a playoff team.

[Harbingers]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I hate getting caught up in this round, that position, overall spot discussions.

Look, if you think the guy is the right one for your offense, take him. If not, don't. .

If you overthink it, there's a pretty good chance you're gonna get it wrong

I think everyone can agree with his.

[Harbingers]

7 minutes ago, stbugs said:

This is the type of post that shows you are manipulating numbers that aren’t there.

How can more than half the SBs in the past 30 years be won by first round picks and yet somehow it’s 99.5% of first round QBs not win a SB?

Apparently you are just ignoring the "In the top 10" part.

[Jorgie]

So what youre saying is that youre 10 times more likey to find a superbowl winner in the first round as you are to find a Tom Brady.

If one of the top 4 guys are there when we pick take them, then go CB/LB/DL/OL from the 2nd round on depending on what we do in free agency and BPA

If none of the QBs are there that means either Micah Parsons or one of the top two CBs will be availble and you go in that direction and probably build the defense around Teddy or a free agent/trade(Darnold will probably be on the block), cause its very unlikely we draft top 10 in 2022

[PhillyB]

26 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

This isn't a projection, its raw facts, its not open for interpretation. Removing 1 from 99 does not make that 99 = 100. You claim 6 out of 21 is an outlier, it is not, unless you want to pretend 6 super bowls didn't happen. Which if you want to more power too you. I still know Cotchery caught it, but at the end of the day its simply not true.

you're so stupid lmao

[WUnderhill]

These kinds of arguments fundamentally misunderstand how to compare and analyze data.

You can’t draw meaningful conclusions by comparing #1 pick to the field, or top 10 pick to the field, it doesn’t make any sense. 
 

Comparing # of SB winning QBs round by round would be better and you almost got there but instead chose to compare # of Super Bowls won which is problematic as well.

Comparing a single player at one position (QB) to a whole defense is all sorts of nonsensical.

If you want to say picking QB top 10 is bad then you have to compare to another 10 pick range, not the rest of the field plus UDFAs. Even then there are plenty of problems: sample size issues, teams picking 20-30 typically being better than teams picking 1-10, injuries, trades, etc. Maybe if you compared QBs in the top 10 to QBs picked between picks 1 and 10 of every round thereafter you could account for the sample size and team quality issue.

But I think in general it’s kind of a pointless argument. QB is the most important single position in football and you take the most talented one you can find when you need one, period.

[GoobyPls]

Brady skews the numbers

 

 

Here’s a fun fact, first round QBs overwhelming make up the HOF, first round QBs have made more pro bowls, all pros and won more mvps than every other round combined.

Look at the current top 5 QBs outside of Wilson all were first round picks. 
 

you never wait for a QB in the later rounds, that usually blows up in your face. For every Wilson drafted in the third there are 10 Will Grier’s.

[Harbingers]

9 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This. If you don't have a franchise QB and you think there's a franchise QB available, draft him. Pretty much that simple.

I don't disagree and like i've already said without a top 10 defense and top 10 offense you could draft the best quarterback and still be poo. The point was about top 10 defenses = > Offenses and Offenses as a whole = > the QB but everyone wants to just focus on QB. This team is not one franchise QB away from being competitive. Like I've said before i'd much rather target a QB(That UNC QB you mentioned isn't a bad option and looks like he'd fit Brady's scheme) in the 2022 draft or even 2023 and have a solid team already together by then. 

 

32 minutes ago, Varking said:

A top 10 defense that usually features many first rounders compared to one QB being taken top ten to an awful team? That’s the comparison? 

Because ya, a lot of these QB's taken by in the top 10 and first round without a team around them fail miserably even if they are suppose to be the second coming. 

[NanuqoftheNorth]

30 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

What draft position yielded the best panthers qb in franchise history? 

Cam achieved 3 winning seasons in 9 years.

Franchise QBs are no guarantee of a championship. 

I'd love to have a top 10 defense, a capable offensive line and a franchise QB.

However, if I had to sacrifice any one of those three things, it would be the franchise QB for a capable game manager.

[stbugs]

Just now, Harbingers said:

7 top 10's out of the 65 picked since 1990 have won Superbowls. 89.24% of those picks didn't win a Super Bowl.

 

.

Again, you are lopping off Elway and Aikman because they won 5 SBs in the 90s but weren’t picked in the 90s. You also lop off Roethlisberger taken 11th in a great QB class. He goes top 10 every other year. I’m not even going to go through the Simms, Wentz, Cam, Ryan, Luck, Young, etc. folks who in your simplistic set of data are somehow bad picks.

Are you also still including a ton of recent top 10 picks?

[Harbingers]

6 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

Comparing # of SB winning QBs round by round would be better and you almost got there but instead chose to compare # of Super Bowls won which is problematic as well.

 

7 top 10's out of the 65 picked since 1990 have won Superbowls. 90.24% of those picks didn't win a Super Bowl.

Could do that with first rounds overall, still got a minute before the game.

[Harbingers]

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Again, you are lopping off Elway and Aikman because they won 5 SBs in the 90s but weren’t picked in the 90s.

Their draft years were included, I worded it wrong . But thanks for trying.

[1of10Charnatives]

18 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

You should list all the panthers qbs in franchise history by draft position and success level. We will see if we can come to some kind of conclusion. 

Consensus best qb in franchise history: Cam Newton. Draft position: 1st overall. Number of SB played in: 1, which he lost.

Consensus 2nd best qb in franchise history: Jake Delhomme. Draft position: undrafted FA. Number of SB played in: 1, which he lost

Not seeing a conclusion.