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

[WUnderhill]

4 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

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.

Same with Luke though, and Julius Peppers, etc. etc. We’re talking about drafting just one player, not drafting whole units. Would you pass up on a franchise QB for any other single position?

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

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.

Thanks. I just didn't have the patience to type all this out.

[stbugs]

4 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

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.

Not just the Brady’s, the Bradshaw’s, Manning’s, Elway’s, Aikman’s and Roethlisberger’s do too. 17 of the past 30 SBs have been won by 6 QBs.

Just going off of SB wins drops so many successful QBs. Manning beat Newton, Brady beat Goff, Brady beat McNabb, Brady beat Ryan. Just off the top of my head that’s 4 top 10 pick QBs who all just missed out due to the top QBs of all time. Yes, I know the refs and bad coaching beat us but hey if we are just going stats here Manning won.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, WUnderhill said:

Same with Luke though, and Julius Peppers, etc. etc. We’re talking about drafting just one player, not drafting whole units. Would you pass up on a franchise QB for any other single position?

You've still gotta build a team.

Peyton Manning may well have been the best quarterback in history. Same could have been said years ago of Dan Marino.

Manning won a couple of championships, but was thwarted repeatedly by a team starting a sixth round pick, among others.

Marino? One unsuccessful trip to the Super Bowl and never went back.

Heck, Peyton's dad Archie was one of the best in the league for years, but played on terrible Saints teams.

Having the best quarterback in the league isn't enough. You have to have a winning team.

[stbugs]

13 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

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.

Exactly. The dumbest argument on the planet is not taken 1st round QBs when even just taking statistics shows that 16 of the last 30 SBs were won by 1st round QBs. I don’t care how you manipulate that, a small pool of overall QBs is winning the SBs.

[Harbingers]

23 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.

90% on the dot for the first round. so... 1/10 first rounders win a Super Bowl.

It should be noted only 4/10 won without a top 10 defense.

[1of10Charnatives]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Thanks. I just didn't have the patience to type all this out.

tl:dr

[Harbingers]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You've still gotta build a team.

Peyton Manning may well have been the best quarterback in history. Same could have been said years ago of Dan Marino.

Manning won a couple of championships, but was thwarted repeatedly by a team starting a sixth round pick, among others.

Marino? One unsuccessful trip to the Super Bowl and never went back.

Heck, Peyton's dad Archie was one of the best in the league for years, but played on terrible Saints teams.

Having the best quarterback in the league isn't enough. You have to have a winning team.

The fact people are missing this point and latching on to the QB part of the post is beyond me.

[stbugs]

7 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

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

Lol. Thanks for trying? How about telling me how your stats have an answer for what I posted before?

30 SBs since 1990

16 won by first rounders, 6 by Brady, 2 by backups of 1st rounders who played at least 13 games, 2 by QBs taken in the 1st two picks of the 2nd round

And 4 SBs won by 34th+ picks who weren’t backups who basically only played in the playoffs after getting seeded with byes.

You spend years building up your D and OL and find that game manager. I’ll keep trying to find a franchise QB and then build around them even if it takes years like Peyton and Elway.

[Mr. Scot]

This reminds me of some of the arguments we've had about Marty.

Defenders say "but he picked this great player, and that great player, and the other great player, and so on and so on..."

Cool , but that's not good enough.

The NFL is full of teams that have a bunch of great players, but they're still not a great team. Heck, that's probably a pretty solid portion of the league.

It's the organizations who build a complete team that win.

[SmokinwithWilly]

17 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

 

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.

I have to disagree with you. No other GM was taking Grier in the 3rd. 

Or the 4th. 

Even the 5th.

Maybe the 6th.

Probably the 7th.

We could probably have gotten him as an UDFA.

[WUnderhill]

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

90% on the dot for the first round. so... 1/10 first rounders win a Super Bowl.

It sounds like you have a point you want to make and are just presenting whatever random data you find that looks like it supports your point, instead of understanding what the data actually says...or what I said for that matter.

[stbugs]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

This reminds me of some of the arguments we've had about Marty.

Defenders say "but he picked this great player, and that great player, and the other great player, and so on and so on..."

Cool , but that's not good enough.

The NFL is full of teams that have a bunch of great players, but they're still not a great team. Heck, that's probably a pretty solid portion of the league.

It's the organizations who build a complete team that win.

Duh and how’s that an argument against franchise QBs. You know what happens when you get a franchise QB and build a good team around them? Multiple SB wins. There’s more of a history of finding a QB, building a team and winning SBs than their is of building an amazing D and winning with a game manager. For every McMahon and Dilfer there are multiple Aikman, Elway, Bradshaw, Brady, Mannings and Roethlisbergers.

I mean we get hung up on Brady as a 6th rounder but is there a single other 6th rounder that has done anything of note? Same with Wilson and Montana in the 3rd. All I know is that the SB winners and losers are littered with first round picks.

[WUnderhill]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

This reminds me of some of the arguments we've had about Marty.

Defenders say "but he picked this great player, and that great player, and the other great player, and so on and so on..."

Cool , but that's not good enough.

The NFL is full of teams that have a bunch of great players, but they're still not a great team. Heck, that's probably a pretty solid portion of the league.

It's the organizations who build a complete team that win.

But the argument isn’t pick 1 player vs. build a great team. It’s always pick 1 player vs. pick a different 1 player. You can only pick 1 player per pick. If you want to argue that a franchise DT or LT or DE is more important than a franchise QB, that’s one thing and that’s an opinion you can have as wrong as it is. I don’t get where the draft a whole team vs. draft a single QB argument is coming from unless I missed some talk about trading up.