Debunking the "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB" myth...

[blindlywewander]

I did. The crux of Oldfan's post is that the probability of success increases the higher the pick. Irregardless of what position it is.

Irregardless? Or regardless? Or are they the same thing?

I understand that point. I never mentioned that point in my response to his post. What I disagreed with, which I typed in my previous comment, was Oldfan's dismissal of Califan's argument. He called it pointless and also said history irrelevant, which is what I disagreed with.

[The Tris]

What I disagreed with, which I typed in my previous comment, was Oldfan's dismissal of Califan's argument. He called it pointless and also said history irrelevant, which is what I disagreed with.

OF was right to dismiss Califan's well thoughtout and researched argument as pointless, because it is strawman.

No one ever said you HAVE to draft a QB in the top 10.

What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.

And this applies to whatever position you target, be it QB or guard.

[Oldfan]

blindlywewander ~ But really, his point isn't that we'll have a better chance to get a franchise QB if we pick later. It's just that it's still possible - as we've seen in the past 5 or so years.

I understood his argument. It’s pointless because he counters an argument that only idiots would make. Who, but an idiot would say that it’s impossible to get a franchise QB unless you pick in the top ten of round one?

The higher the Skins draft, the better the chances have of striking QB gold. Does Cali's argument put a dent in that position? Nope.

[SkinsTillIDie]

Great post Califan. I think it's also important to note a couple things:

a) The Falcons traded up from 27 to 6 in this past draft -- we won't be drafting anything near 27, but moving up to draft one of the premier QB prospects is a highly plausible possibility. And we're benefited by having more than the normal allotment of draft picks next year (an extra 4th from Campbell trade; whatever we may manage to add from Haynesworth/McNabb). If the Falcons can trade up from 27 to 6, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we'll be able to trade up from something like 13 to 6 with far less difficulty. Especially because-

Shanahan has already done exactly this before, moving up with a team coming off a 13-3 season and an appearance in the AFC Championship game to draft the franchise quarterback Jay Cutler in the subsequent draft.

Given that we really don't have an idea about the NFL-viability of the QB prospects (outside mostly of Luck, perhaps Barkely), it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that we need to finish with a piss-poor record to get one. For all we know, there may ultimately be 5 QBs that are all far better prospects than anyone in the 2010 draft, at least one of whom would inevitably fall to the middle of the first round

[addicted]

There's this belief going around ES for months now that goes something like this:

"Going 6-10 or 7-9 would be disastrous for the Redskins this year. Much better that they go 4-12 so that they can draft (fill in Hot QB Prospect of the Moment here)."

The logic, as it were, goes something like this: You're more likely to get a franchise QB drafting higher up if for no other reason than you have more QBs available to choose from. Sounds reasonable on the surface, I suppose.

But if that were, in reality, true, we'd see a larger percentage of QBs drafted in the top 10 becoming truly successful franchise QBs than outside of the top 10. I mean, how can teams continually be given damn near ALL the rookie QBs to choose from and have it result in anything BUT a majority success rate for those teams?

You have forgotten a very important fact about the NFL draft with this.

The worse the win loss record the higher the draft pick

But are teams actually purposely going 2-14 so they can draft a future player?

The answer to that is NO

Those teams are drafting high because they lack the talent in the entire team

Losing 10, 12, 14 games takes a whole lot of failure to me

And as we know going from loser to winner requires a huge makeup and change of personnel.

It's not a matter of those teams draft 1-10 not "hitting" more often on QB's they select over those drafting QB's later, its more so that the bad teams fail to build a team around the QB selected high in the draft.

In the end there is no denying the higher the pick the more players to choose from

To question this conventional wisdom, we need to ask a few questions:

1) Is there a significant difference in the success rates of QBs taken in the top 10 of the 1st round, and QBs taken outside of the top 10?

Call me crazy but I actually believe those teams picking outside of the top 10 will have a better chance of success of finding a franchise then those picking in the top 10 because football is a team sport and even with great QB's if they have no supporting cast they are screwed. The better the teams record indicates how they stack up against the rest of the league. So a team that's already better in other positions most likely will have an easier time developing a quality QB. QB's don't play the game alone

2) Are QBs taken in the top 10 more successful in the playoffs?

Again call me crazy but for a team to pull off a 3-13 record to a playoff team quickly they have to get a lot of things right like Atlanta was able to do recently that doesn't involve the QB position at all. The QB's taken in picks 1-10 most likely have worse supporting casts so I would expect them to do worse in the playoffs.

3) Does a team's record play a real role in dictating their ability to draft a QB the next season?

The answer here changes every single year.

The year that Beck was drafted in the 2nd round was a very bad year for QB's

However this year was a great time to draft a QB because so many of them were good and available

Not to mention that QB's like Manning are getting older and it's creating a greater demand for QB's in the league

If that continues then a teams draft position will be much more important then in other years

There are only so many people who can handle playing that position and the landscape of the NFL is changing

Great stats, just not sure I would have interpreted them the exact same way

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

its much more simpler than this though. the worse you do, the higher pick you have. you have more options at that higher pick than you do with a lower one, obviously. can you hit on a QB past the top 10? sure. you can hit on a QB anywhere. I'd still feel a lot safer knowing we have whatever QB we want coming out.

and if luck is as good as everyone thinks he is, i have no problem sucking this year for a shot at him.

after seeing the nats snag strasburg and harper, the future is a lot brighter (and more fun) when you end up drafting a potential elite player.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

OF was right to dismiss Califan's well thoughtout and researched argument as pointless, because it is strawman.

No one ever said you HAVE to draft a QB in the top 10.

Did you even read my OP? lol...

And I guess I should have quoted ES members who have indeed made the statement that having another mediocre season would be "disastrous", or the worst possible outcome, or...you get the idea.

And did you even read the thread? Here's a post from the first page:

Since I am one of the ones screaming to tank the season, I'll give this thread a worth while reply later on. Some very good research and numbers

Wait...SHF can't be one of the ones "screaming to tank the season", because according to you and OF, those people don't exist ...

Unless...what you're saying is that, if neither of you ever saw anyone say it, then they must not exist. Pretty arrogant stance to take. Neither of you even asked me to provide quotes (most reading this thread won't require me to, as they have read them before and know I'm telling the truth)...

What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.

And that's been debunked lol :cool:...

And this applies to whatever position you target, be it QB or guard.

This thread deals with finding franchise QBs in the 1st round, inside and outside the top 10.

Using OF's favorite brand of debate, "prove that I'm wrong" instead of just saying I am.

[addicted]

But really, his point isn't that we'll have a better chance to get a franchise QB if we pick later. It's just that it's still possible - as we've seen in the past 5 or so years.

Outside the Top 10 QBs:

...

Misses (all were either cut/traded or benched within their first 4 years):

Jason Campbell (wasn't traded, cut or benched, but including him here anyway)

Patrick Ramsey

Sorry but if our past is an indicator of our future taking QB's in round one late hasn't produced for us. Is it possible that the next QB we draft later then the first 10 picks works out? Yea that's possible but it's not likely to happen

[blindlywewander]

OF was right to dismiss Califan's well thoughtout and researched argument as pointless, because it is strawman.

No one ever said you HAVE to draft a QB in the top 10.

What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.

And this applies to whatever position you target, be it QB or guard.

Obviously. I suppose I misunderstood the original argument. I didn't take Cali's post as an attack on the principle that a higher draft pick means higher chance of success. I took it as 'in spite of those statistics, it is not required' to go 4-12. Many people on this site have said we need to tank the season in order to find that sure fire, franchise guy like Luck. The way I read it, he was saying we don't need to tank in order to find that guy. He wasn't arguing we're more likely to draft that guy, but that we should still win every game we can, knowing that we can still find that stud in picks 11-32.

I understood his argument. It’s pointless because he counters an argument that only idiots would make. Who, but an idiot would say that it’s impossible to get a franchise QB unless you pick in the top ten of round one?

The higher the Skins draft, the better the chances have of striking QB gold. Does Cali's argument put a dent in that position? Nope.

If you read my response to Tris, you'll understand what I mean. I guess I interpreted his post incorrectly. No one would argue that it's impossible to get a franchise guy in the top 10. But the way I interpreted it, he's not arguing that. He's arguing the thought that we need to tank the season to find a franchise quarterback. And his response was, no, we don't need to tank. Thus, I don't see it as a strawman argument. But, that's just how I read it.

Cali man, I'm trying to stand up for you but - I'm probably ending up making a fool of myself. Sorry bro

[Goingforburgundy]

To play devils advocate here. I cant seem to find the statistical facts at work right now but it shows your chances to pick a "franchise" QB go down significantly. Why do you think everyone is looking for the next Tom Brady? In the past 15 years there has been only 2 QBs to win a SB that was drafted past the 2nd round. Tom Brady and Kurt Warner. Just some food for thought

[addicted]

And that's been debunked lol :cool:...

Not so sure about that, every situation is different and simply having a franchise QB doesn't mean that the teams not complete crap and he will do any good on that team. Guys like Steve Young come to mind. He was a QB drafted first overall goes to a terrible team, sucks badly there because he can't do it all himself, gets written off as a bust and then goes to a better put together team and immediately has a Hall of Fame career.

Point is that you need more then a QB to win this game

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

We'll tank the season even without trying to because we don't have a competent pro QB. (Apologies in advance to the as yet unproven Beck.).

It's a vicious circle that will be rectified very early in the next draft. .

Hail.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

To play devils advocate here. I cant seem to find the statistical facts at work right now but it shows your chances to pick a "franchise" QB go down significantly. Why do you think everyone is looking for the next Tom Brady? In the past 15 years there has been only 2 QBs to win a SB that was drafted past the 2nd round. Tom Brady and Kurt Warner. Just some food for thought

i think hes simply saying you dont need a top 10 QB, you can find a QB in round 1 as a whole. so regardless of our record this coming season, finding a QB has the same success rate in picks 1-10 as it does in picks 11-32.

i still dont think that brings into play the options that a lower draft pick give you. say theres 4 1st round QBs, well with the #1 overall, you have your pick of any of them. if we go 8-8 this year and pick 13th-16th, that limits our choices when a bunch of teams in front of us snag QBs. and that is what i dont like.

[addicted]

We'll tank the season even without trying to because we don't have a competent pro QB. (Apologies in advance to the as yet unproven Beck.).

It's a vicious circle that will be rectified very early in the next draft. .

Hail.

My own bone to pick with this argument about drafting a QB next year and tanking a season is that who the hell knows what will happen?

No matter if we go 0-16 or 16-0 who knows if we will think that the player we need to draft where we pick is a QB?

If there was a law or rule that said "You win less then 8 games you must take a QB" then I'd feel confident we would draft a QB

Truth is though there is no guarantee that we would draft a QB next year or pick one from Free Agency if that is our need

So I throw the whole argument about tanking out the window because no one can prove to me that tanking or not tanking means we will draft a QB

No one knows if we would or wouldn't draft a QB if the season goes to crap so why would any fan hope that the season sucks?

Just think about this...every draft you take picks 1-10 which is 10 players and count the number of QB's taken over the past decade, a QB going in picks 1-10 to the worst teams in the league is less then 10%. There is a far greater chance of us tanking and NOT drafting a QB then there is evidence to support that we would select one

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I think after identifying Campbell wasn't the man and then going in REAL hard for Bradford, and subsequently picking up what appeared at the time a solid, quality veteren in McNabb in year one; and then being all set for Locker in year two as I firmly believe we were until TN decided otherwise; it's pretty safe to assume that a QB is a high priority for Shanahan addicted man.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ Wait...SHF can't be one of the ones "screaming to tank the season", because according to you and OF, those people don't exist ...

You really have a fondness for strawman arguments. I never said that. But, even if I had, we would have to hear SHF’s reasons on it before deciding that he fit your argument.

Tris: What has been said is that the higher you draft, the better the odds you are going to get a successful player.

Cali: And that's been debunked lol ...

No, you haven’t debunked that position at all. At the very best, you have offered an argument showing that draft positions 1-10 and draft positions 11-32 have gotten comparable results in recent history. And that point bears on nothing.

Using OF's favorite brand of debate, "prove that I'm wrong" instead of just saying I am.

Your logic has already been shown to be unsound. That you and others don’t realize it isn’t our problem.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

You have forgotten a very important fact about the NFL draft with this.

The worse the win loss record the higher the draft pick

But are teams actually purposely going 2-14 so they can draft a future player?

The answer to that is NO

Those teams are drafting high because they lack the talent in the entire team

Nope.

Most teams are drafting high because they:

1) Lack a solidly functioning front office and coaching staff and/or scouting team...the talent level between teams is not that drastic.

2) Are a good team that had, for whatever reason (injuries, ridiculously bad luck, what have you), a down year.

Teams that pick high--and especially teams that pick high often--are usually the ones who are the most dysfunctional. They are usually bad because of that dysfunction. High draft picks don't erase the dysfunction...nor can they offset it.

When bad teams finally start to correct the dysfunction, they start going from bad to mediocre...and their records start giving them draft picks outside of the top 10. But the talent they draft outside of the top 10 is now coming onto a far more competently-functioning team and franchise...so the #14 drafted QB ends up playing better than the high-drafted QB who joins the team in the midst of its collective disorganization and dysfunction.

Losing 10, 12, 14 games takes a whole lot of failure to me

And as we know going from loser to winner requires a huge makeup and change of personnel.

It's not a matter of those teams draft 1-10 not "hitting" more often on QB's they select over those drafting QB's later, its more so that the bad teams fail to build a team around the QB selected high in the draft.

And that's part of what I said lol :yes:...

In the end there is no denying the higher the pick the more players to choose from

But there's also no denying that having a higher pick doesn't cause you to make better decisions or take better actions, either.

If you can't find a franchise QB picking 14th, you can't find a franchise QB picking #3. Again, the value of a higher draft pick becomes devalued by the multitude of aspects that a franchise brings to the table. So worrying about your draft slot is a waste of time. That is, UNLESS there is a particular QB you absolutely MUST have...but wanting a higher draft pick to increase the odds of finding a franchise QB doesn't make sense in reality. It's a bit like Vinny drafting two WRs in the 2nd round because the "odds" were increased that one of them would turn into a quality starter. Doesn't work that simple a manner. Too many other aspects that the Redskins brought to the table effectively diminished the value of those draft slots to the Skins.

Call me crazy but I actually believe those teams picking outside of the top 10 will have a better chance of success of finding a franchise then those picking in the top 10 because football is a team sport and even with great QB's if they have no supporting cast they are screwed. The better the teams record indicates how they stack up against the rest of the league. So a team that's already better in other positions most likely will have an easier time developing a quality QB. QB's don't play the game alone.

Again, you agree with me lol :yes:...focus on making the Redskins a MUCH better-run team, with a MUCH-better attitude and culture...with MUCH better scouting (well, not "much" better, as the Skins' scouting isn't too bad to begin with)...don't worry about draft position.

Again call me crazy but for a team to pull off a 3-13 record to a playoff team quickly they have to get a lot of things right like Atlanta was able to do recently that doesn't involve the QB position at all. The QB's taken in picks 1-10 most likely have worse supporting casts so I would expect them to do worse in the playoffs.

Helps that they brought in a new coaching staff that replaced a rather dysfunctional one lol...Petrino drafting Matt Ryan doesn't turn into a playoff team in one offseason, trust me there.

The answer here changes every single year.

The year that Beck was drafted in the 2nd round was a very bad year for QB's

That doesn't negate the point of my post, though...if anything, it strengthens it.

Great stats, just not sure I would have interpreted them the exact same way

No problem...enjoyed reading your perspective on the stats.

[addicted]

Just think about this...every draft you take picks 1-10 which is 10 players and count the number of QB's taken over the past decade, a QB going in picks 1-10 to the worst teams in the league is less then 10%. There is a far greater chance of us tanking and NOT drafting a QB then there is evidence to support that we would select one

Not quite less then 10% as I said, if you look over the past 10 drafts these QB's were taken in the first round

2011:

Panthers Newton, Cam

Titans Locker, Jake

Jaguars Gabbert, Blaine

2010:

St. Louis Rams Sam Bradford QB Oklahoma

2009:

Detroit Lions Matthew Stafford QB Georgia

2008:

Atlanta Falcons Matt Ryan QB Boston College

2007:

Oakland Raiders JaMarcus Russell QB Louisiana State

2006:

Tennessee Titans Vince Young QB Texas

Arizona Cardinals Matt Leinart QB

2005:

San Francisco 49ers Alex Smith QB Utah

2004:

San Diego Chargers Eli Manning QB

New York Giants Philip Rivers QB North Carolina State

2003:

Cincinnati Bengals Carson Palmer QB USC

Jacksonville Jaguars Byron Leftwich QB Marshall

2002:

Houston Texans David Carr QB Fresno State

Detroit Lions Joey Harrington QB Oregon

So 16 out of those 100 picks were QB's, equaling 16% not less then 10% as I said.

[The Tris]

And I guess I should have quoted ES members who have indeed made the statement that having another mediocre season would be "disastrous", or the worst possible outcome, or...you get the idea.

The worse we do this season, the higher the probability that, should we choose a QB in the first round, we will draft a successful QB.

Wait...SHF can't be one of the ones "screaming to tank the season", because according to you and OF, those people don't exist

I'm not sure SHF said we *can't* find a successful QB unless we pick in the top ten. I think you are simply twisting his words to suit your argument.

What SHF is saying is exactly what I have said above.

And that's been debunked lol :cool:...

What you have debunked is the idea that you can not find a franchise QB outside the top 10. Which I don't believe me, OF, or SHF said anything remotely close to.

What your thread shows is that among a limited sample size, with an unequal distribution of picks, there have been a comparable number of franchise QBs found in picks 11-32 and in picks 1-10.

That hardly debunks the concept that the higher you pick, the better probability you will draft a talented player.

Using OF's favorite brand of debate, "prove that I'm wrong" instead of just saying I am.

Source:http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/highly-drafted-nfl-quarterbacks-the-holy-grail-for-success/

[addicted]

I think after identifying Campbell wasn't the man and then going in REAL hard for Bradford, and subsequently picking up what appeared at the time a solid, quality veteren in McNabb in year one; and then being all set for Locker in year two as I firmly believe we were until TN decided otherwise; it's pretty safe to assume that a QB is a high priority for Shanahan addicted man.

Hail.

Did I say he didn't consider QB to be a top priority? No

I said that what makes you think that if we are terrible that it means we will draft a QB with a top 10 pick?

Especially when we dropped back from 10th this past year with this obvious need of a QB giving up Gabbert to Jacksonville?

My point is that we've seen two drafts come and go with Shanny and we've traded twice for a QB and pick some off free agency while never drafting one

Again what makes you think that won't be the same strategy going forward?

[SkinsTillIDie]

Doesn't this prove that we're more likely to find a pro-bowler at picks 11-15 than at 6-10?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

To play devils advocate here. I cant seem to find the statistical facts at work right now but it shows your chances to pick a "franchise" QB go down significantly. Why do you think everyone is looking for the next Tom Brady? In the past 15 years there has been only 2 QBs to win a SB that was drafted past the 2nd round. Tom Brady and Kurt Warner. Just some food for thought

I'm not talking about QBs being picked in the later rounds...I'm talking about QBs being picked in the 1st round, both inside and outside the top 10...and if there is any real advantage between the two groups.

[blindlywewander]

Your logic has already been shown to be unsound. That you and others don’t realize it isn’t our problem.

hahaha.. how's the weather up there OF?

[Oldfan]

Cali ~ But there's also no denying that having a higher pick doesn't cause you to make better decisions or take better actions, either.

Man, you're on a tear! You've just debunked another argument that only idiots would make.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Great post Califan. I think it's also important to note a couple things:

a) The Falcons traded up from 27 to 6 in this past draft -- we won't be drafting anything near 27, but moving up to draft one of the premier QB prospects is a highly plausible possibility. And we're benefited by having more than the normal allotment of draft picks next year (an extra 4th from Campbell trade; whatever we may manage to add from Haynesworth/McNabb). If the Falcons can trade up from 27 to 6, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we'll be able to trade up from something like 13 to 6 with far less difficulty. Especially because-

Shanahan has already done exactly this before, moving up with a team coming off a 13-3 season and an appearance in the AFC Championship game to draft the franchise quarterback Jay Cutler in the subsequent draft.

Given that we really don't have an idea about the NFL-viability of the QB prospects (outside mostly of Luck, perhaps Barkely), it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that we need to finish with a piss-poor record to get one. For all we know, there may ultimately be 5 QBs that are all far better prospects than anyone in the 2010 draft, at least one of whom would inevitably fall to the middle of the first round

Yep, exactly :yes:...as mentioned in the OP, well-run front offices are better able to pull off trades to move them into position to get "their guy"...which means their record is irrelevant in their eyes.