Clausen and the Problem of Picking Second-Round Quarterbacks

[Jcdawg23]

I like how people think they can determine a players career by where they were taken in the draft. All #1 picks turn into HOF's right?

[Mr. Scot]

I like how people think they can determine a players career by where they were taken in the draft. All #1 picks turn into HOF's right?

Absolutely.

Take this guy, for example.

Or how about this one?

[Future of the Funchise]

Why am I even bothering with this? It wasn't even your point.

I mean, you are bringing up a good and very valid point, but my main response is: no poo!

yep... i want my 15 minutes i've spent in this thread back.

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

I'm more worried about the statistics the current staff has had with 2nd rounders than the statistics of 2nd round QBs.

Deshaun Foster

Bruce Nelson

Keary Colbert

Eric Shelton

Richard Marshall

Dwayne Jarrett

Everette Brown

Sherod Martin

Lots of busts there with Marshall and to a lesser degree Foster as the best picks, with Brown and Martin still up in the air.

[ncbobcat]

yep... i want my 15 minutes i've spent in this thread back.

That goes for 90% of the threads since mini-camp ended.

I've gotten to the point unless the title sounds interesting I don't even open the threads anymore. This being one of the few.

[Cyberjag]

No it doesn't predict anything about him in particular or about his chance to start. For example do you think that Matt Ryan had a 25% of being the starter in Atlanta 2 years ago? He was named the starter before the season started. The likelihood that a first or second rounder in general will be a starter is a far different matter than saying that a particular guy will be a starter for his team at some point because looking at all the first and second rounder over the past 20 years there was a 25% success rate. And that is the point. For example saying that over 50% of running backs never make it to their 4th year doesn't mean that Stewart for example only has a 50% to make it to his fifth year. One is descriptive while the other is predictive. They are very different. The difference is extrapolating a general statistic which assumes everything is equal to a specific scenario with a particular player.

I think it does. Ryan was made the starter after minicamp, right? And he was given the chance to shine and he did. Other QBs were put in the same situation and never amounted to much. Look at Jamarcus Russel and Joey Harrington as good examples there.

All I'm saying is that there have been 68 QBs drafted high in the past 20 years, and only 17 of them made themselves into good NFL quarterbacks. That's a 1/4 ratio. It's not bad, it's probably better than the same number for WRs. But it gives you a rough idea of the odds that these guys face.

And I know there are also external circumstances at work. For instance, most new QBs won't have the benefit of our running game. And most won't have the advantage of our coaching staff (look at how many great NFL QBs we've developed! ). And many won't be given adequate time to develop--think Aaron Rodgers would be great if he was forced to start on day one?

But the odds are against all of them, and some more than others. I'm happy with a 1/4 chance, personally. It's higher than I thought, once I actually took a look at the results.

What do you think the odds are that he become a quality starter for the Panthers? And once you tell me that, how about telling me what you're basing your supposition on?

[Mr. Scot]

I'm more worried about the statistics the current staff has had with 2nd rounders than the statistics of 2nd round QBs.

Deshaun Foster

Bruce Nelson

Keary Colbert

Eric Shelton

Richard Marshall

Dwayne Jarrett

Everette Brown

Sherod Martin

Lots of busts there with Marshall and to a lesser degree Foster as the best picks, with Brown and Martin still up in the air.

Fair number of those were pre-Don Gregory.

[MadHatter]

One thing to remember about QB's being taken high.....most of those that fail were taken by really bad teams. Take a young QB...throw him on a team with no weapons....he gets the poo kicked out of him over and over....loses his confidence...never recovers.

Many of those who have shown to be the real deal....Ryan (so far), Roethlisberger, Flacco, Rivers, etc were taken by good teams.

The mental aspect of the game is critical to becoming a top QB. Lose that edge, and many never regain it.

[Cyberjag]

Is that what happened to Brady Quinn? Brian Brohm? John Beck, Drew Stanton, or Kellen Clemens?

That's a double-edged sword, because if you're a high pick there's pressure to play right away, and if you're not the lack of pressure could translate to lack of opportunity. I would say that if Clausen does NOT work out in Carolina, it's more likely than not that it will be due to a lack of opportunity because Moore is playing well.

[panthers55]

I think it does. Ryan was made the starter after minicamp, right? And he was given the chance to shine and he did. Other QBs were put in the same situation and never amounted to much. Look at Jamarcus Russel and Joey Harrington as good examples there.

All I'm saying is that there have been 68 QBs drafted high in the past 20 years, and only 17 of them made themselves into good NFL quarterbacks. That's a 1/4 ratio. It's not bad, it's probably better than the same number for WRs. But it gives you a rough idea of the odds that these guys face.

And I know there are also external circumstances at work. For instance, most new QBs won't have the benefit of our running game. And most won't have the advantage of our coaching staff (look at how many great NFL QBs we've developed! ). And many won't be given adequate time to develop--think Aaron Rodgers would be great if he was forced to start on day one?

But the odds are against all of them, and some more than others. I'm happy with a 1/4 chance, personally. It's higher than I thought, once I actually took a look at the results.

What do you think the odds are that he become a quality starter for the Panthers? And once you tell me that, how about telling me what you're basing your supposition on?

I understand your argument and while it has no statistical relevance to predicting success it makes for a good story. The point remains that looking at historical data such as you did has little relevance to determining whether a specific player will be successful or not. Much like looking at the number of quarterbacks in the NFL who come from Notre Dame for example and extrapolating the likelihood that he will be successful solely on that connection. Or a WR from USC for that matter. There is no question that quarterback is the hardest position to play and under some systems even more difficult.

If you were looking to predict success for example there are a number of factors more relavent than where they were picked. How about measurables like height, weight, arm strength for example. What type of system did they play in. What team were they drafted to? All these factors and many more I haven't thought of, would provide a better format for predicting success.

What do I think about his chances to be a quality starter? At this point with a lame duck coaching staff, a surrounding cast of young inexperienced players, and no clue as to what changes the team are going to go through in the next 12 months and who will ultimately be here, I don't think you can predict much at this point.

But If I were to predict his odds of playing in the NFL, I would put them at 60-40 for his playing based on his prototypical size, arm strength, the fact he came from a pro quarterback system, he is reported to have leaderships intangibles already and he won't likely be forced to start right away. Yeah I will take all of those as a much better measure of his success than where he was selected in the draft.

[panthers55]

Is that what happened to Brady Quinn? Brian Brohm? John Beck, Drew Stanton, or Kellen Clemens?

That's a double-edged sword, because if you're a high pick there's pressure to play right away, and if you're not the lack of pressure could translate to lack of opportunity. I would say that if Clausen does NOT work out in Carolina, it's more likely than not that it will be due to a lack of opportunity because Moore is playing well.

How can you make any evaluation of guys drafted in the last 2 or 3 years. There are a number of guys who sat behind guys for years before they got a chance to start consistently and most of that was due to injury. All we can say is that these guys were not pressed to start immediately and are still learning the role. Lets look in 3 or 4 more years and then we can better evaluate them.

And I would say if you decide Clausen didn't work out before the next 4 or 5 years, you are not given him a chance to learn the game. Not everyone comes in right away and shines. I would think the case for starting too soon and busting is higher than it is for not playing enough and never getting an opportunity.

[MadHatter]

Is that what happened to Brady Quinn? Brian Brohm? John Beck, Drew Stanton, or Kellen Clemens?

That's a double-edged sword, because if you're a high pick there's pressure to play right away, and if you're not the lack of pressure could translate to lack of opportunity. I would say that if Clausen does NOT work out in Carolina, it's more likely than not that it will be due to a lack of opportunity because Moore is playing well.

It was not meant to be an absolute. Just that alot of failures could be attributed to guys going to really bad teams.

[Cyberjag]

I'll go along with that, and I chose those guys because they're fresh in everyone's mind. But I also think that while statistics may not be perfect predictors of success, they're a great indicator of the probability. And external factors do come into play. That's why someone with perfect measurables may become the greatest bust in draft history, but undrafted guys go on to become stars. The bottom line is, the odds are not with our shiny new QB, but it's not terrible.

I'm very, very happy we have Clausen. I think he's got all the tools, he has the size, he has the pedigree, and reportedly he has the temperament. Now if only he becomes the next Peyton Manning and not the next Tim Couch, right?

[panthers55]

It was not meant to be an absolute. Just that alot of failures could be attributed to guys going to really bad teams.

I think you are right. There obviously is no one team that is always terrible and is a pit for quarterbacks but certain franchises seem to have more than their share. How many great quarterbacks have come out of Detroit or Cleveland lately. Look what happened to Cassel in KC. Even supposedly great quarterbacks like Cutler go to Chicago and have their worst year ever. When was the last year that Tampa had a great quarterback? Yeah even Steve Young had to escape Tampa in order to finally be an All-pro years later. Going to a bad team has done in alot of quarterbacks. No telling if they would have sucked everywhere they went or not. Some definitely and some maybe not.