The argument for drafting QB at the #4 pick

[nelsonal]

I used a consistent definition that a pick was a star if they went to the pro bowl at least once, and were a bust if they started less than 3 years for both QBs and O linemen. I think both are flawed (particularly the pro bowl since 1st rounders are more likely to be marketed and receive votes even if they're not the best at their position) but it's better than nothing. Because of that I looked at first team All Pro selections for better evidence of true excellence at a position.

Of the 43QBs drafted in the first round from 1980 to 2002 16 were busts, while 18 were stars. That's roughly a 40% chance of drafting a bust QB and a 40% chance of drafting a star (if you look harder at the pro bowlers and only take All-NFL first team selections you have roughly a 10% chance).

Of the 22 QBs drafted in the second round 11 were busts, and 7 were future pro bowlers, while 4 were first team all pros. So the talent evaluation of future all pros isn't very good at all (there were more all pros taken in the second round than the first even though far fewer QBs were taken). There is a trade off of about a 10% worse chance of drafting a bust and a 10% better chance of drafting a pro bowler in the first round.

Now focusing on the O Line. During the same period there were 72 first round Linemen selected. Of those just 15 didn't start more than 2 years, while 28 became pro bowlers (and 15 were all NFL first team selections). So 20% were busts, 40% were future pro bowlers and half of the pro bowlers were also all pros. The remaining 40% were starters for more than 2 years but never made the pro bowl.

Dropping back to the second round. There were 43 linemen selected. Of those 17 were busts, while only 5 were future pro bowlers and only Matt Light became a first team All Pro selection. That means the odds of drafting a lineman bust rise to 40% in the second round, and the odds of drafting a future star (pro bowl player) fall to 10%.

This indicates to me that talent scouts are surprisingly good at evaluating offensive line talent, but not nearly as good at evaluating "franchise QB" talent. That was the biggest surprise to me, that the odds of drafting a superstar QB don't really change between the first and second round, even though the odds of drafting a good QB decline somewhat between the first and second rounds.

Everyone knows that you're going to get worse options in the second round, but the options are clearly worse (if you're looking for a star to drop from the first round to the second round for o-linemen). So the cost of waiting on a QB is less than waiting for O line men.

Finally, I think it's important to separate QBs who were taken #1 in the draft from the rest of the first round. There is a marked difference in results between those taken first overall and everyone taken in the first round. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been more pro bowlers taken in the second round than the first round excluding #1 picks.

I'm not certain picking the first qb in a draft is good enough. If the QB is not clearly the best player coming out in a given draft, it seems there is a steep decrease in NFL output.

Also, the Ravens and Jets both advanced in the playoffs, and 3 of the to five passing offenses are quarterbacked by non-first round draft picks.

[dreamboater]

He's talking about Jake Locker might change his mind and enter the draft this yr...

If Mort knows that Locker must be considering it

[Ghost of]

Also, the Ravens and Jets both advanced in the playoffs, and 3 of the to five passing offenses are quarterbacked by non-first round draft picks.

Brees was 32nd. Though that was, at the time, second round, it would now qualify for first round status.

The problem in relying on finding non-first rounders is that they are typically total surprises. As far as I know, the bust rate for 2nd and beyond is much higher than you suggest. But in any case, you can't simply hope that one of your developmental picks becomes much more than you thought, not if you are faced with the choice of an actual top-shelf QB.

[wildbill1952]

nelsonal, very good research for a relatively new poster. Do not expect to change any minds. It seldom happens, but the research is very well done. Personally, although I have been in favor fo drafting OL longer than my tenure on this board, it's been a desert for me for the past decade. But I've decided I'll let Shanny and Allen make the call on QB vs OL and live with it (even if I still want OL). At least with Shanahan, I know I'll see OL drafted soon.

Taking one position with the first three picks is something Vinny would do

LB's, DB's, CB's, TE's, WR's, RB's and maybe even QB's, you're probably right. Vinny might do that... But OL? Vinny never used anything but the third pick on OL. And once he wasted two in a row in the 5th and 6th rounds to get two OL that never started a game. That dearth of OL picks is probably a prime contributor to the state of the OLine.

The Redskins, pre-Snyder, did spend their first two picks on OL once. In 1981 when they drafted Mark May and Russ Grimm in the first and third rounds (they had no second round pick). Of course, that was Beathard. He wasn't as smart as Vinny and Dan. Any idea how that worked out?

[bobzmuda]

Locker is as much as a project as Tebow. That said, they would both go between picks 16 and 48.

[21Knock_U_Out]

If Mort knows that Locker must be considering it

From what I have seen Locker looks like he could be great. Anybody agree or disagree?

[mnb123]

From what I have seen Locker looks like he could be great. Anybody agree or disagree?

Strengths:

Good arm strength

Strong, athletic build with good height

Outstanding speed and agility for a quarterback

Fluid athlete

Great footwork; smooth mechanics

Good accuracy

Very quick delivery

Gets legs, hips into throw

Evades rushers to get throws off

Huge running threat

Terrific pocket awareness; nice instincts

Can throw on the run

Love how he sells play action

Competitive; good leader

Keeps head up out of pocket; passer first - runner second

Displays good timing

Productive; won despite poor supporting cast

One year in West Coast offense

Shown improvement and ability to learn NFL scheme

A lot of upside

Good work ethic

Natural feel for the position

Franchise quarterback

Weaknesses:

Will miss open receivers; limited field vision

Lacks a lot of polish

Inconsistent spiral on ball

Tendency to lock onto primary receiver

Sometimes forces throws

Hesitates/gets anxious in pocket

Occasionally indecisive with ball

Needs more experience learning before handed starting job in NFL

Summary: If Jimmy Clausen wasn't in this draft and I needed a quarterback, I wouldn't hesitate to take Jake Locker No. 1 overall. Locker could very well go No. 1 this year even with Clausen, but we’ll see. He is a highly unpolished prospect, but has shown the potential and intangibles to warrant a team believing he can develop. He will be a top-five pick. Don't be shocked if Al Davis or Daniel Snyder trades the farm for him.

Player Comparison: Jake Plummer. Plummer was a highly mobile quarterback with a similar build to Locker. Plummer was also an inconsistent decision-maker. But Locker isn't the gunslinger Plummer was.

source: walterfootball.com

[nelsonal]

Brees was 32nd. Though that was, at the time, second round, it would now qualify for first round status.

The problem in relying on finding non-first rounders is that they are typically total surprises. As far as I know, the bust rate for 2nd and beyond is much higher than you suggest. But in any case, you can't simply hope that one of your developmental picks becomes much more than you thought, not if you are faced with the choice of an actual top-shelf QB.

I understand that, but I consider that every team in existance at the time had the option to draft Brees once and passed or traded away that right instead more important than whether there were 28, 30, or 32 teams then.

First, I'd say that everyone in the draft with the exception of a handful of people were surprises. I'd put the bar for top shelf QBs high enough that from 1980 to the present there are only 7 people on it (Marino, Young, Elway, Farve, Aikman, Brady, and P. Manning). Of those 5 were #1 picks, and two were later round suprises, none of the first rounders were the taken outside of the first pick in the first round.

I went through every QB drafted in the second round from 1980 to 2006. Here's the list and how I assigned them. Yeah a 3 year starter isn't a great pick, but to do anything more useful than just gutting it out you need to define a line I picked 2 years as a starter as the line. If you rate the 4 starters busts, I won't argue with you, but you should change the ratings for 5 first rounders from starter to bust (Kyle Bollar, Alex Smith, Tim Couch, Byron Leftwich, and Tony Eason)

PlayerMy Rating

Brett Favre Outstanding

Randall Cunningham Outstanding

Boomer Esiason Outstanding

Drew Brees Outstanding

Jake Plummer Good

Neil Lomax Good

Kordell Stewart Good

Tony Banks Starter

Charlie Batch Starter

Billy Joe Tolliver Starter

Jack Trudeau Starter

Shaun King Bust

Quincy Carter Bust

Todd Collins Bust

Oliver Luck Bust

Browning Nagle Bust

Matt Kofler Bust

Marques Tuiasosopo Bust

Gene Bradley Bust

Mike Elkins Bust

Tony Sacca Bust

Matt Blundin Bust

That's everyone taken from 1980 to 2005 (I gave them 4 years including 2009) to improve.

I don't disagree that the odds of getting a good surprise drop from when taking a QB in the first round, but the odds of getting a great surprise on the O Line drop to nearly 0, and the odds of a good surprise drop more than for QBs. That's why if I needed both I'd lean toward taking a Lineman in the first round and a QB in the second.

[nelsonal]

nelsonal, very good research for a relatively new poster. Do not expect to change any minds. It seldom happens, but the research is very well done. Personally, although I have been in favor fo drafting OL longer than my tenure on this board, it's been a desert for me for the past decade. But I've decided I'll let Shanny and Allen make the call on QB vs OL and live with it (even if I still want OL). At least with Shanahan, I know I'll see OL drafted soon.

Thanks glad you liked it. I don't figure I'll change many minds, but I know I've answered the question as accurately as possible, and even if that's not the correct answer, it's close enough for me.

[Ghost of]

The problem with talking about bust rates, though, is there is no variable in your equation for considering the importance of QB.

Right off the bat, I know Marcus McNeil is a good player at LT for the Chargers and the Cardinals just put up 45 (I won't count the def TD that ended it) with OUR cast-off at LT. in fact, very few of the teams have great top 10 picks at LT (sorry, teams that are far in the playoffs.)

This reminds of the research done in risk aversion when you change the framing of the question. People have shown that they would rather win 100K when the chances are 90% than win 5 million when the chances are greatly reduced but still reasonable, say 10%. Also, changing the wording itself to accentuate the risk or lack of risk changes people's choices.

I think this is a parallel scenario, one in which the desire to "not bust" overrides the reality, which is that good QBs (HOWEVER they are found) are over-represented, whereas top 15-20 LTs are under-represented amongst the best. The SB last year is an example of this.

[Veretax]

I went through every QB drafted in the second round from 1980 to 2006. Here's the list and how I assigned them. Yeah a 3 year starter isn't a great pick, but to do anything more useful than just gutting it out you need to define a line I picked 2 years as a starter as the line. If you rate the 4 starters busts, I won't argue with you, but you should change the ratings for 5 first rounders from starter to bust (Kyle Bollar, Alex Smith, Tim Couch, Byron Leftwich, and Tony Eason)

I disagree on Leftwich. The guy could play, he just got hurt by a few fluke plays. I don't blame him for that, and if you saw how he came in off the bench for the steelers, he proved he could play with the right supporting cast.

[Jeff in D.C.]

Shanny's no dummy. He'll take OL with his first 3 picks. Or at least he should.

His last 1st round pick in Denver was Ryan Clady. He knows the importance of a great OL. Although you wonder if Bradford/Clausen will be too tempting for him to pass up.

[gorebd82]

I think that as I'm reading the same points made over and over again, it seems to be an argument over bust rate vs. impact on team success. I think QB has to be the way to go because getting a quality player at QB affects the W-L column more than any other position on a football team. LT is a position that only has value because it protects the QB. A stud LT without a stud QB is a waste of talent and resources (i.e. Chris Samuels). We have neither a stud QB or stud LT currently, but getting the LT is pointless if we can't get a QB.

[dreamboater]

I understand what Mort stated however all signs point to Locker staying this year. Check out his blog http://jakelocker.com/blog/

[dreamboater]

With that said I believe we will have our choice of Clausen or Bradford as I believe Suh is going #1.

[RAKemUP98]

So you want to have two late round projects who are pretty much unknown commodities in the NFL as your candidates for starter? Isn't that a bit...I dunno...risky??

Drafting a QB is not risky?

IMO, Smith or Brennan would outplay Clausen or Bradford.

I'm assuming you would have us trade Campbell away in this scenario? What if they both turned out to be horrible?

IMO, Campbell is horrible. And I think that Snyder, Allen and Shanny will agree.

[Jeff in D.C.]

One thing we can pretty much say for sure that we couldn't say when Vinny was here is that we can finally and at long last trust the front office to make the right decisions. If Bruce & Shanny want to go QB, then they've decided it's the right move to go QB. If they go LT, then I'll trust that decision also.

I do think though that the question has to be asked, whichever of the two positions they don't get with the 4th pick, what will be the backup plan to get the other position (if they don't draft the other in the 2nd round)? Has to be one of the following options:

1. Free agency

2. 1st round pick next year

3. trade

Which option seems best?

[Ricky_Ervins32]

Nelsonal, I also admire your research.

gorebd82, I have to disagree with your conclusion as it makes no accounting for the role that a LT plays in the run game. A quality LT does protect the QB, of this there is no doubt. But it is a rare player that can perform that duty, while also blocking.

What I find interesting is that the QB as a position is given the credit for the success of the running game as well. While often he is simply handing the ball off, and the O-line is blocking. The O-line is also critical on punts, field goals, and extra points...where the QB is not so much (except for holding...if the QB is holding on not the Punter).