Playoff QBs and where they were drafted

[WarHeel]

7 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Drafting a guy in the first doesn't guarantee success, but drafting him after the first almost guarantees no success.

 

Also true. My argument is for not trading the house to move up from 8. Sit tight and aim for realistic options or trade back and get more value if your guy is gone.

[WarHeel]

1 minute ago, PootieNunu said:

That depends on who the new GM, coaching staff, and owner decides is "our guy". If they think he will be gone, they trade up, if not we stay put. 

The general consensus is that we have 1-2 elite prospects and then a few potential franchise guys after that. We can scratch he first two off of the board where we are at 8. So really it’s not about even getting our guy at that point but grabbing the best guy that’s left and asking yourself is it worth giving up a Kuechly, Burns, CMC caliber player to reach for him. That’s just my opinion.

[Wes21]

Its a distorted message if you just look at where a guy got picked.  You have to look at the cost of acquisition to correct for part of the distortion.  Who cares if Alex Smith was the 1st overall pick, thats not how Washington got him.  Who cares about Tannehill at 8th, thats not how Tennessee got him.  The same for Philip Rivers, Drew Brees and Tom Brady.

[BrianS]

57 minutes ago, Wes21 said:

Its a distorted message if you just look at where a guy got picked.  You have to look at the cost of acquisition to correct for part of the distortion.  Who cares if Alex Smith was the 1st overall pick, thats not how Washington got him.  Who cares about Tannehill at 8th, thats not how Tennessee got him.  The same for Philip Rivers, Drew Brees and Tom Brady.

The point isn't how any QB gets to wherever he might be insofar as team goes.

What you're trying to do is project the success of any given QB based on where he is drafted.  What percentage of QB's drafted in the first round become long term starters in the league?  What percentage of QB's drafted elsewhere do the same?

That's what the argument should be.  Here's the answer for 20 years worth of drafts:

To clarify, I chose 80+ games played in the NFL as a "successful" drafted QB.  Basically, did he start for at least five years.  I also chose to go backwards from 2015 as I was using 80 games.  Players drafted more recently were unlikely to have gotten those games whether they were succeeding or not.

What this says is that if the guy is graded as a first round talent, it's a coin flip.  If you believe in him, you take him.  End of story.

Once you get outside the first round, just close your eyes and throw the dart.  For every Russell Wilson, you get 9 Pickles.

 

 

[Wes21]

9 hours ago, BrianS said:

The point isn't how any QB gets to wherever he might be insofar as team goes.

What you're trying to do is project the success of any given QB based on where he is drafted.  What percentage of QB's drafted in the first round become long term starters in the league?  What percentage of QB's drafted elsewhere do the same?

That's what the argument should be.  Here's the answer for 20 years worth of drafts:

To clarify, I chose 80+ games played in the NFL as a "successful" drafted QB.  Basically, did he start for at least five years.  I also chose to go backwards from 2015 as I was using 80 games.  Players drafted more recently were unlikely to have gotten those games whether they were succeeding or not.

What this says is that if the guy is graded as a first round talent, it's a coin flip.  If you believe in him, you take him.  End of story.

Once you get outside the first round, just close your eyes and throw the dart.  For every Russell Wilson, you get 9 Pickles.

What I'm saying is that you have to correct for the distortion in how you view the data, or else you are left with exactly what has happened in this thread.  "Oh, we need to pick a guy in the draft X high or else we can't make the playoffs!"  No - that is not the true price of acquisition. 

That's before discussing the distortion of 1st round QBs getting significantly more opportunity than lower picks.  Someone just like Josh Rosen as a 4th round pick might never see the field, and if he played like Josh he probably doesn't get another shot.  But because Josh was a high pick, he gets another shot.  The same with Haskins.  Once you've gotten enough hype to go in the 1st round, particularly early...you get more opportunity than someone who was picked where Tom Brady got picked.  In fact it took iron balls for Belichick to stick with Brady over the golden boy Drew Bledsoe, who just signed a $100M contract and was only 29 years old.  Darn near every other coach would have sat Brady back down on the bench and we might not have ever seen him again.  That's also how we got Wilson.  Most teams would have stuck with Flynn because of the contract he just signed, and Wilson would have been relegated to Seneca Wallace status.  But Flynn burned out his arm trying to prove he was worth the contract, and the coaching staff trusted their gut and went with the 3rd round rookie right out of the gates that season.

Tua is another example of how draft status can impact opportunity.  If he was a 4th round pick he never see's the field over Fitzpatrick when he did.  And if by some miracle he was put out there...when he threw for 94, 93 and 83 yards his butt would have been put back on the bench and he might not see another start in his career minus a catastrophic injury to the guys in front of him.  But as is - he's being force fed opportunity.

[imminent rogaine]

Umm okay? How meaningful is this? Of the 14,Trubisky is bad and 5 of the teams got their QB via free agency.

So, to recap, to make the playoffs, make sure to draft your QB in the first even though almost 40% of the playoff teams didn’t do that very thing and one of those QBs was actually already replaced and is trash (Mitch).

[BrianS]

52 minutes ago, Wes21 said:

What I'm saying is that you have to correct for the distortion in how you view the data, or else you are left with exactly what has happened in this thread.  "Oh, we need to pick a guy in the draft X high or else we can't make the playoffs!"  No - that is not the true price of acquisition. 

Actually, it kinda is exactly the price.

Because QB is so hit or miss there is no guarantee regardless of where a QB is drafted.  First round QB's have a MUCH higher success rate than others.  Not because of where they are drafted, that's not it at all.  Rather, it's not the cause.  It's the effect.

QB's are drafted in the first round because many evaluators view them as having a high opportunity for success in the NFL.  It takes a huge consensus for a guy to get projected, and ultimately be selected, in the first round.  Yes, there are outliers.  Daniel Jones comes to mind.  But they are the exception.

In the end, the effect of so many evaluators seeing the potential in that QB is that the QB ends up being selected in round one.  The further effect is that because so many people saw that potential, those QB's do in fact get force fed opportunities.

However, if anyone believes that there is some bias against later round QB's, they're wrong.  NFL coaches DO NOT CARE where a guy is drafted.  If he can play, he will play.  Look at Gardner Minshew.  Look at Dak Prescott.

I don't think anyone here is saying we need to draft our QB high or we can't make the playoffs.  What everyone is saying is that the analytics indicate our best opportunity to do so is with a QB who has that consensus of opinion.  A QB who many people think can be "the guy".

Sure, it's possible to find that guy through free agency, but it's far less likely.  Sure, it's possible to find that guy in later rounds, but it's far less likely.  Highly touted draft picks are a 50/50 proposition.  Later round picks and free agents are FAR less likely to succeed.

 

[Carolina Cajun]

It is interesting looking at the list and trying to flesh out who is who, but FWIW, Alex smith is starting, but Dwayne Haskins could have easily been the person, or hell if Allen hadn't gotten injured, you could very easily have a UDFA on that list.

[Shotgun]

Wow! What a shocker....the higher up the draft you go, the more likely you are to have a playoff caliber qb. Crazy

[PanthersATL]

As I mentioned over in that other QB draft-related thread...
 

more than half of the current roster of starting quarterbacks this season have been picked higher than #10 on the draft list, (the majority going in the #24-53 range).  Five were #1 picks, 14 were picked 8th or earlier.  

Just trying to suggest that picking the right draft person has proven to be more the trend moreso than picking the right draft number.

[cookinbrak]

Not to soil the collective cornflakes, but we have had 2 #1s and a #2 qb. Let me go count those trophies.

[Shotgun]

41 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

Not to soil the collective cornflakes, but we have had 2 #1s and a #2 qb. Let me go count those trophies.

Grier and Tony Pike were better than those scrubs...we should always wait until the later rounds to get our qbs.

[Wes21]

2 hours ago, BrianS said:

Actually, it kinda is exactly the price.

...

Highly touted draft picks are a 50/50 proposition. 

If I didn't spend the #1 overall pick on the guy...no...its absolutely not the price of acquisition.  And if you think a "highly touted" draft pick is a 50/50 proposition...I've got a great investment opportunity for you...just send me your stimmy check.

[SOJA]

20 hours ago, WarHeel said:

Of the 14 listed your average is around pick 29. So deep in the first. So does this crush the notion that we need to trade up to “get our guy?”

Median is a better indicator for this type of data, and the median is actually 9 (8-10)

Panther's pick 8th