#1 Overall Draft Picks in the Last 20 Years ... Boom or Bust

[OchoNueve]

Just wanted to share the stats of NFL draft history with the #1 overall pick. Many people argue that they dont' want the Panthers to pick a QB because it is a bigger risk to "bust" than other positions. The point I am trying to show is that there is the same risk involved with every player no matter the position. I understand that being labeled a bust is an opinionated topic and a few players that I have labeled a bust below have had long serviceable careers... but with the #1 overall pick, if you never went to a pro-bowl, you are a bust.

Info below is compiled since 1990 and does not include the last two #1 selections (Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford) because I feel it is too early in their career to label either a Boom or Bust.

QB: 10 (12 including Stafford and Bradford)

Boom - 5 (D. Bledsoe, P. Manning, C. Palmer, M. Vick, E. Manning)

Bust - 5 (J. George, T. Couch, D. Carr, A. Smith, J. Russell)

Boom Rate - 50%

DT: 3

Boom - 1 (Russel Maryland)

Bust - 2 (S. Entman, D. Wilkinson)

Boom Rate - 33%

OT: 2

Boom - 2 (Orlando Pace, Jake Long)

Bust - 0

Boom Rate - 100%

DE: 2

Boom - 1 (Mario Williams)

Bust - 1 (Courtney Brown)

Boom Rate - 50%

RB: 1

Boom - 0

Bust - 1 (Ki-Jana Carter)

Boom Rate - 0%

WR: 1

Boom - 1 (Keyshawn Johnson)

Bust - 0

Boom Rate- 100%

And before you guys say it, no I am not suggesting that we draft a OT or a WR just because they have perfect "Boom Rates" (i have copyrighted this fictious stat by the way)

[CatMan72]

Not to bust your bubble, but this is a deeply flawed statistical analysis.

[HSCBandit07]

Vick is considered a boom to you? I'm not sure I could really go either way with him

[OchoNueve]

As mentioned, Boom or Bust is black and white for the data above... Pro Bowl or Not

[DaveThePanther2008]

Jeff George wasn't really a bust. He wasn't really a boom either. He was more of a whiney baby than anything but played for 11 season and on rosters for an additional 5 more.

[The Saltman]

[paulSM]

I get the point of your post. "anybody can boom or bust" but the reality is that over-hyped poorly scouted players bust more often then well-scouted level headed players. (I did not copy-write those classifications so feel free to use them).

The point I think you indirectly made is that having the first pick SUCKS. it's a 50-50 proposition no matter what position you go for. That being said, I think we can improve our odds by scouting well and taking the bad apples out of the basket... Bowers, Newton, and probably Fairley (even though I think he'd make a perfect UT for us.)

I actually think we've done a good job at this in the past. so fingers crossed. hopefully Newton's stock will sky-rocket and we can get rid of the stupid pick all together.

[Catalyst]

Yeah, I'm confident whoever we end up with will not be a bust. Hurney's 1st round record is as solid as any GM in the league.

But I do think that, if the pick is 50/50 pretty much regardless then it makes the most sense to take the player with the highest ceiling for success long-term. To me, that player is Cam Newton.

[paulSM]

I think the safest picks at the top of the draft are peterson and Green. Just so happens that we need both of those positions. We can load up on DTs later in the draft.

Drafting a QB: here's a question for everyone. Since QB has become by far the most important position for winning a championship, and given the apparent randomness of success (anywhere from first to seventh round, etc); should NFL teams without a franchise signal caller simply keep drafting intruiging QBs until they get one that works out. if they get more even better. Kind of like what detroit did with WRs a few years back. So with us, we struck out on pike last year, and probably on clausen. so this year should we draft Newton, Dalton, and somebody in the seventh... and if that doesn't work, try it all over again next year until we get OUR GUY? just a thought

[OchoNueve]

I think the safest picks at the top of the draft are peterson and Green. Just so happens that we need both of those positions. We can load up on DTs later in the draft.

Drafting a QB: here's a question for everyone. Since QB has become by far the most important position for winning a championship, and given the apparent randomness of success (anywhere from first to seventh round, etc); should NFL teams without a franchise signal caller simply keep drafting intruiging QBs until they get one that works out. if they get more even better. Kind of like what detroit did with WRs a few years back. So with us, we struck out on pike last year, and probably on clausen. so this year should we draft Newton, Dalton, and somebody in the seventh... and if that doesn't work, try it all over again next year until we get OUR GUY? just a thought

As crazy as it sounds, with the way the NFL has evolved into a QB league, I agree with the logic.

[zebrainz]

Without considering "boom" or "bust", 8 out of the last 10 years a QB has been taken first overall. The exceptions were Jake Long and Mario Williams. Also, the National Football Post article I'm referencing was written yesterday, so, no, he didn't steal it from the OP.

Pretty good little chart at the end of the article breaks down the first round picks over the last ten years in a simple, understandable format. I don't particularly like the idea (I don't think Hurney does either), but we could very well reach for a QB given our need at the position. Boom or bust notwithstanding, sometimes your options are so limited that you have to pick the best of the bad ones.

In a recent interview that Steve Reed broke down into a 5 part series, Hurney made it clear that with the first overall pick, he was looking for "an impact player and an impact position". I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about what that means, but QB definitely falls into the category he described.

NFP Link (analysis of the last 10 years vice 20)

QUARTERBACKS

Total Selected: 27 (8th most out of 14 positions)

Average Per Year: 2.7

Most Selected: 4 (2003, 2004)

Least Selected: 1 (2001)

First Overall Selections: 8 (S. Bradford in ‘10, M. Stafford in ‘09, J. Russell in ‘07, A. Smith in ‘05, E. Manning in ‘04, C. Palmer in ’03, D. Carr in ’02, M. Vick in ’01)

[TarPanther9180]

Let's be innovative and draft a kicker with the first pick.

[Urrymonster]

I think the reason why the #1 pick is a poisoned chalice is simply because some teams select the best player potentially, rather than the best player. It's difficult logic to select someone with a lower potential ceiling, but a higher current ability as it seems like there could be a better player a few years down the line.

In my opinion a franchise can't survive on those picks, you have to make the first round count and by which you take the player who is most likely to succeed at the next level. Who really cares if 2-3 players turned out to be a bit better around 4-5 years later...

[hepcat]

80% of the 1st round picks this past decade were QBs...I'd be surprised if we didn't follow that trend since QB is the biggest need on the roster.