The Tris Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Doesn't this prove that we're more likely to find a pro-bowler at picks 11-15 than at 6-10? Yes. This is a statistical quirk. However, we are still more likely to find a pro bowl QB between picks 1-5 than picks 6-10 or 11-15. So I guess you can aim for picking in the 11-15 range, or just accept the fact that the higher you pick, the greater probability of success. More reading: http://www.pigskinology.com/qb-pick-number-and-pro-performance.php How Well does a QB’s Draft Position Predict His NFL Success?This seems like a painfully simple question. As you can see in the first graph, there is a strong correlation between where a QB is selected in the draft and how well he plays, as measured by CarAV per game. The second graph shows the same pattern for total CarAV, though our model for the career data isn’t as strong as the one for the per game CarAV in Graph 1. Roughly speaking, we would have been able to predict less than half of a QB’s success based solely on where he was taken in the draft. Depending on your outlook, this data could speak well or poorly of current QB-prospect evaluation. On one hand, any variable that has a correlation coefficient of .4 in this sample size is a moderately strong predictor. That this variable is essentially the market evaluation of a QB’s worth relative to all draft-eligible players means the vetting process brings something of value. However, on the other hand, we have reason to doubt whether that .4 value is a good representation of the relationship. Many of the later round selections never took a regular-season snap in the NFL, and this was probably for good reason. If every team in the league passed on a QB multiple times, there probably is little in his portfolio demanding a test run. But in contrast, there are plenty of first round busts who, in retrospect, produced at seventh-round levels. JaMarcus Russell the 250th selection probably never sees the field; JaMarcus Russell the No. 1 pick played 31 times at .26 CarAV per game (52nd in our list). Because part of the CarAV calculation rewards being on the field regardless of performance, the pressure to play high draft picks probably causes the correlation to be overstated. We’ve broken down in the table below the per game CarAV a team would expect, given average luck, from drafting a QB in a few pick slots. So, for example, if Carolina feels that Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert warrants their top pick this year, they can expect him to perform slightly worse per game than Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco have to this point. Pick - Exp. Per Game CarAV - Comps 1 - .700 - Jay Culter (.706); Joe Flacco (.708) 10 - .416 - Matt Leinart (.414); Derek Anderson (.412) 50 - .247 - Keith Null (.250); Charlie Whitehurst (.250) 100 - .180 - Josh Johnson (.176); Craig Krenzel (.167) 200 - .118 - Kellen Clemens (.120); Brodie Croyle (.111) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmandm Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Higher draft picks are better. This is unquestioned. Oldfan is right, if you normalize the QB hits per draft pick number, the top 10 yields a much, much higher hit % than the rest of the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Did I say he didn't consider QB to be a top priority? NoI 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? And my point is the two guys in his first two drafts he coveted he couldn't get. He tried hard for Bradford by all accounts but didn't have the ammo. Locker, I still believe, was the only QB he rated this past draft and the one he really hoped to get. When TN surprised everyone after he fell past teams you feared would take him, our whole draft strategy changed which in the bigger picture wasn't a bad thing at all. If he'd of had his way, we'd have our QB going forward on board now out of his first two drafts. I fully believe if we were to be in a top picking position next year and Luck or Jones were in our grasp (unless they both have a complete 360 and a slump this year of mammoth proportions); there's no way we'd pass up the chance. Hail. *Edit* But again, it's all on a gut feeling either way. Your stats on QB's taken in the top 10 are nice and all, but you can put as much credence on them as regards Shanahan's thinking as you can by trying to gauge him off his previous failed attempts to draft his guy here. Ultimately, nobody knows what his thinking is without being in the man's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Higher draft picks are better. This is unquestioned. Oldfan is right, if you normalize the QB hits per draft pick number, the top 10 yields a much, much higher hit % than the rest of the draft.A few weeks back, someone posted the hit rate for the top ten QBs at about 48.5%, but the weird thing was that the #1 overall pick QBs had an 81% hit rate. That's just sounds much too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The higher the pick the better chance you have of getting the better player. But unfortunately the better GMs don't get to pick near the top all that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 A few weeks back, someone posted the hit rate for the top ten QBs at about 48.5%, but the weird thing was that the #1 overall pick QBs had an 81% hit rate. That's just sounds much too high. Any recollection how far back whomever took that Of? Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 hahaha.. how's the weather up there OF?I never believed in turning the other cheek. Hit me with a smartass comment and I'll likely retaliate with one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 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. I'm not asking you to paraphrase or rationalize what another poster said lol ... 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. How can I be twisting his words when I gave you an exact quote OF her words? lol... And get this: SHF read my OP...and identified himself as the type of person I described! :rotflmao:...Yet here you are claiming that I somehow distorted his words to do so. Jeebus lol ... What SHF is saying is exactly what I have said above. What SHF is saying is that he is one of those who feel our record will dictate whether or not we are able to get a franchise QB. Now, he can come back on here and explain that he said it wrong...but until he does, I'll pay more attention to SHF's words than your interpretation of them. 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. Wrong. What I debunked is the idea that picking a QB in the top 10 improves your chances of ending up with a franchise QB over picking one later in the 1st round. NOT that they are ONLY found in the top 10...but that your chances improve to any significant degree. In reality, it's based far more on things outside of the draft position than the draft position itself. And I backed it up with a ****load of data. 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. "limited sample size" ...yeah, a 10-year test span in a sport that changes its nature every generation or so is just way too small. With the emergence of free agency and a far more pass-friendly approach to the game by the competition committee over the past 10+ years, It's completely relevant to keep the sample size to the time frame that deals with QBs who were drafted during that era...Too many other factors come into play when you start using a QBs success in the late 90s that was drafted in the mid-80s. That hardly debunks the concept that the higher you pick, the better probability you will draft a talented player. I said QB...not just "player". I stuck with QBs for a reason...and thus far, everything I've posted points in that direction. You've not explained away any of my stats, you've just stated that it doesn't prove anything lol...you gotta do better. Source:http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/highly-drafted-nfl-quarterbacks-the-holy-grail-for-success/ Important part from that article" 'The statistic we believe is most representative of a quarterback’s career success (and the most transferable over different eras) is Pro Bowl selections. " LOL...Ok, if your goal is Pro Bowls, you have a point lol...we all laugh off placing too much importance on Pro Bowl nods, so I doubt this will go over well. But the most important aspect is this: the article talks about comparing "higher drafted" QBs to those drafted in lower rounds. According to that chart, QBs drafted between 11-15 have a HIGHER chance of going to the Pro Bowl than QBs drafted between 6-10. Notice how it dips the lower you go in the top 10...then spikes dramatically at spots #11-15. The difference between #11 and #1 is negligible. And the difference between #15 and #5 is non-existent. Thank you for helping me prove my point lol :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Any recollection how far back whomever took that Of?Hail. No, the only other thing I recall was that the LT had the highest hit rate of the top ten picks at about 70% but that could include some who are moved to guard or right tackle. Do you count him as a bust at LT or a hit because he started elsewhere. That's the problem with grading drafts. Too many subjective judgments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjpanzer Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Let me say this: I like all your research and mostly agree with you. THAT BEING SAID, PERHAPS there is a correlation between QB's taken later in the first round and being successful, because better teams draft later. A QB drafted with picks 22-32 is going to a top 10 NFL team (that still did well even though they did not have a QB, but are now taking one), while teams going in the top 10 are going to one of the WORST 10 teams in the NFL. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 That's the problem with grading drafts. Too many subjective judgments. Couldn't agree more. That's one thing nobody's ever gona' agree on. What I don't understand though is how anyone can argue a higher draft pick doesn't improve your chances of getting a higher calibre player. Is this some parallel Universe where every logical law is back to front? Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Yes. This is a statistical quirk. Statistical quirk ...nice way of explaining away something that doesn't fit your viewpoint :thumbsup: However, we are still more likely to find a pro bowl QB between picks 1-5 than picks 6-10 or 11-15.So I guess you can aim for picking in the 11-15 range, or just accept the fact that the higher you pick, the greater probability of success. but you're more likely to find a Pro Bowl QB between picks 11-15 than you are between picks 6-10. So having a higher draft pick didn't help, did it? I know, I know...'statistical quirk" and all that. No need to look behind the curtain. It's funny, but it almost perfectly backs up my stats...But I still think using Pro Bowls as a measuring stick is flawed. ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 01:55 PM ---------- Let me say this: I like all your research and mostly agree with you. THAT BEING SAID, PERHAPS there is a correlation between QB's taken later in the first round and being successful, because better teams draft later. A QB drafted with picks 22-32 is going to a top 10 NFL team (that still did well even though they did not have a QB, but are now taking one), while teams going in the top 10 are going to one of the WORST 10 teams in the NFL. Just my 2 cents. That's actually in line with what I wrote in the OP :yes:...but the teams picking later in the 1st round were already good before drafting that QB. they didn't put off improving and winning until they could draft the QB...they were already doing everything they could TO win. The teams (and fans of those teams) who get giddy because they get to once again pick in the top 10 won't usually see their draft picks bearing much fruit until they change the team and franchise, scouting and coaching. ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 01:56 PM ---------- Higher draft picks are better. This is unquestioned. Oldfan is right, if you normalize the QB hits per draft pick number, the top 10 yields a much, much higher hit % than the rest of the draft. Higher draft picks don't result in better QB play. Better run franchises, better coaching, better scouting and better front offices, do, though. Which is why the good teams focus on those areas and don't give two ****s about draft position or worrying about winning "too much". ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 02:01 PM ---------- Couldn't agree more. That's one thing nobody's ever gona' agree on.What I don't understand though is how anyone can argue a higher draft pick doesn't improve your chances of getting a higher calibre player. Is this some parallel Universe where every logical law is back to front? Hail. 1) I'm talking QB...not just "player" 2) I'm talking a more successful franchise QB...not just a "higher caliber" QB. And it all goes back to what i said in the OP: focus on making the team a winner, in all aspects of the game and how the franchise is run. Don't worry about draft pick slotting...because if you do the former, the latter becomes less and less important. If you do NOT do the former, no amount of top 10 draft picks will matter. ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 02:04 PM ---------- 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 I'm not just talking bout the Skins, though lol...but that does go to something I've said before in the OP: having Snyder and Vinny picking a QB in the late 20s is not the same as having the Packers' FO picking a QB in the last 20s. Going to play for the Packers as a late 1st round pick is not the same as going to play for the Snyderrato Redskins as a late 1st round pick. The draft pick slot matters far less than the health of the franchise picking IN that slot. If we can't win picking #20, we have zero chance of winning picking #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 It's my opinion that there is one name that would be beneficial to tanking (not tht I'd ever advocate tanking. I think tanking is incredibly stupid)... Andrew Luck. I really believe he's can't miss, and you aren't getting him if you do even below average. But, you can find a QB anywhere in the draft. You can also miss on one anywhere in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Cali, for the record, I wasn't referring to the OP. I'll remember to clarify next time. You being pernickety (NO s) and all. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Statistical quirk ...nice way of explaining away something that doesn't fit your viewpoint :thumbsup: So now your position is that we should shoot for a QB in the 11-15 range (as that is the only range where your argument holds water - dropping down to 16-20 this is not true, nor jumping up to 1-5)? Way to change your argument as you see fit.:applause::wavetowel:jump: but you're more likely to find a Pro Bowl QB between picks 11-15 than you are between picks 6-10. So having a higher draft pick didn't help, did it? But having a higher draft pick than 6 did help right? The fact that there is a dip at 6-10 doesn't change the fact that QBs taken 1-5 have a higher rate of success than QBs taken 11-15, or that QBs taken 11-15 have a higher success than those taken 16-20, and those taken 16-20, etc. etc. Can you really be arguing that taking the 3rd or 4th QB in a class is better than taking the 1st or 2nd? Really what it boils down to is a combination of talent and enviroment. Neither should be sacrificed - and at the end of the day, the higher drafted a QB, and the better enviroment he enters, the higher probability for success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuble81 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 if this team goes 4-12 this season someone is losing a job... its stupid to think they wont do better this season than last. qb situation will figure itself out soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Cali to The Tris ~ Statistical quirk ...nice way of explaining away something that doesn't fit your viewpoint . So I guess you can aim for picking in the 11-15 range, or just accept the fact that the higher you pick, the greater probability of success. but you're more likely to find a Pro Bowl QB between picks 11-15 than you are between picks 6-10. So having a higher draft pick didn't help, did it? When there’s no logical reason for it, the jagged lines in a graph indicate that the sample size wasn’t large enough to iron out the kinks. A sample size of 300 might have jagged lines,. A larger sample of 3000 would show the same pattern with a smoother line. The picks between 11-15 in whatever graph you're talking about would be in line with the others with a bigger sample. There's no good reason that picks in that range would succeed at a higher level than those in the range above it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 And my point is the two guys in his first two drafts he coveted he couldn't get. He tried hard for Bradford by all accounts but didn't have the ammo. Locker, I still believe, was the only QB he rated this past draft and the one he really hoped to get. When TN surprised everyone after he fell past teams you feared would take him, our whole draft strategy changed which in the bigger picture wasn't a bad thing at all. That's pure speculation without anything offical from the team to support it. While that may not make it wrong, I do have serious doubts that he would have taken Locker at 10 It seems to me all along that he knew we needed players and it was more important to him to add more picks then to take a QB And almost all of the so called experts had Gabbert ranked higher then Locker in that draft so if he was going to take a QB why not take Gabbert who was not expected to be on the board at #10 In the end I believe him dropping down to 15 was by design, not some reactionary move made out of haste or because he didn't get his man No one knows for certain what he does if Locker was there at 10 but my money is on him wanting to make up for the McNabb trade loss more then needing Locker If he'd of had his way, we'd have our QB going forward on board now out of his first two drafts. I fully believe if we were to be in a top picking position next year and Luck or Jones were in our grasp (unless they both have a complete 360 and a slump this year of mammoth proportions); there's no way we'd pass up the chance. Hail. Two things One Locker did have a 360 turn from his past season not to mention poor combines and Senior games. He didn't do him any favors yet you still believe he was a "must" pick? Don't you think if those two guys did that and he believed in him that he would still draft them if he could? Two you are actually making a very strong case based on your beliefs about the last two drafts that our pick position has hurt us. If I believed as you did that we missed out on Bradford and Locker then I would think that we needed to absolutely have a top 3 pick to ensure we got one of them. However I don't think either the Bradford or the Locker rumors are worth much including the air that speaks this and believe more so that Shanny is a devious sneaky **** who wouldn't let his intentions known to anyone if he was interested in a QB like he did with his last drafted QB and since those rumors are known its most likely they are untrue. So since you and I obviously hold different opinions about this and since you believe he missed out on both players then do you believe we should attempt to lose this year ensuring we don't have to give up an entire draft to get a guy he covets? According to you he's already missed out on his two guys, do you really want to see him miss out on another? Me I think he judges markets fantastically and I don't believe those rumors. I see him as having a master plan and the guy he covets is in Free Agency, call that a hunch *Edit* But again, it's all on a gut feeling either way. Your stats on QB's taken in the top 10 are nice and all, but you can put as much credence on them as regards Shanahan's thinking as you can by trying to gauge him off his previous failed attempts to draft his guy here. Ultimately, nobody knows what his thinking is without being in the man's head. No but if the past is any indication he wasn't really interested in those two guys you mentioned. And furthermore who the hell knew before the draft our top pick was ever going to be Ryan Kerrigan? That came out of absolutely nowhere, and that is his MO. You knowing about Bradford and Locker to me screams smoke screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Cali ~ 2) I'm talking a more successful franchise QB...not just a "higher caliber" QB. What's the difference? Can you define your terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteranskinsfan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Califan- good post and thought provoking. Andrew Luck is who the Redskins and 49ers want for sure. I wonder if the 49ers don't have the edge to get him next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 I need to address this chart again, too: Here is what i can deduce from this chart alone: - You have a slightly better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB between picks 1-5 than you do between picks 11-15. - You have as good a chance--if not a better chance--of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in picks 11-17 than you do between picks 6-10. - Those last two points would lead one to believe that, as long as you're picking in the top 17 spots, you'll find a Pro Bowl QB with basically equal measure since there's only about a 5% "success" rate difference (if you define "success" by Pro Bowl votes). - You have a better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in between picks 26-41 than you do drafting one in picks 21-25. - You have a better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in between picks 61-65 than you do drafting one in picks 21-25. - You have a better chance of drafting a 3-time Pro Bowl QB in between picks 71-75 than you do drafting one in picks 21-25. - The article states that "...there are fluctuations (which are to be expected)" in the graph...which lines up with my OP. For example, the fluctuations between 1-5, 6-10 and 11-17 are ridiculously consistent...so that indicates a pattern to pay attention to. That's what I did in the OP...three decades of analysis didn't change anything in that regard. - If I were to make a general assumption from their data, it would be "There's a slight difference in how QBs drafted between 1-5 and 11-15 end up fairing in the NFL...and a noticeable difference between QBs drafted between 11-15 and 6-10 end up fairing." - That said, the data covers two different eras of QBs and completely ignores how differences in the two eras might effect the chart results, like the role the internet plays in Pro Bowl voting, the number of teams in 1980 as compared to now and how that effected the draft, and how free agency has drastically changed how teams build their rosters. ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 02:41 PM ---------- Cali, for the record, I wasn't referring to the OP.I'll remember to clarify next time. You being pernickety (NO s) and all. Hail. "No s" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So since you and I obviously hold different opinions about this and since you believe he missed out on both players then do you believe we should attempt to lose this year ensuring we don't have to give up an entire draft to get a guy he covets? According to you he's already missed out on his two guys, do you really want to see him miss out on another? Forgive me for leaving the rest of your post as to answer would just to keep going around around in circles. Without being privy to Shanahan's private thoughts, it's all conjecture on both our parts. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this as we hold differing opinions as you mentioned. I answered the above question in an earlier post unrelated to yourself. I honestly don't think we'll have to tank anything. With this O, particularly as we have no competent pro QB to speak of IMHO (what the unproven Beck may or may not become aside); I think we'll end up with an abysmal record regardless. I believe we'll give our all in all the games, but ultimately come up short 9 times out of 10. Which allied to the youngsters that will be here for the long haul getting another years pro experience under their belts and taking their licks together as they grow would be a progressful season to me, even if it didn't show it in the W/L column. Would I be happy if we intentionally tanked the year? Honestly, as much as we never would, yes, I'd take that if you gave it to me now in a heart beat. Under normal circumstances I'd scream blue murder at that notion, being a firm believer in success breeding success, with momentum carrying over from one year to the next. But these aren't normal circumstances. We're in the midst of a complete overhaul, but we still lack that elusive, vital component, the franchise QB. A component we've been waiting for, for 37 years IMHO since the last true franchise signal caller we had, SonnyJ, hung it up. After waiting that long for the most important player on this or any other team, you bet your sweet ass I'd take another dire, losing season to get what we've all craved for WAY too long now in DC. And in both Andrew Luck and Landry Jones I personally believe the potentials there in both to be that man. Both of whom will be gone maybe in the first two picks this draft. That's how high I rate the pair. ---------- Post added July-21st-2011 at 04:49 PM ---------- "No s" lol Knew you'd appreciate that man. . Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 So now your position is that we should shoot for a QB in the 11-15 range (as that is the only range where your argument holds water - dropping down to 16-20 this is not true, nor jumping up to 1-5)? Way to change your argument as you see fit.:applause::wavetowel:jump: yet another Reading Comprehension for Beginners student, I see lol... You'll have to show me where I said teams should SHOOT for picking 11-15. I can save you tons of time and tell you that you won't find it. The only thing i said was that teams should try and win every game and ignore records and draft position, and I said that because there is a negligible difference between the top 10 QBs and the 11-32 QBs over the last 10 years. So, no, I didn't change my stance lol...I just pointed out that your supposed "proof" that I was wrong simply backed up my point (and I went further into it in a later post...go read it and then break out the ol' Rationalizer and run your retort through it lol...) But having a higher draft pick than 6 did help right? So, instead of me pointing out the obvious, tell me what that says to you...this should be interesting lol... The fact that there is a dip at 6-10 doesn't change the fact that QBs taken 1-5 have a higher rate of success than QBs taken 11-15, or that QBs taken 11-15 have a higher success than those taken 16-20, and those taken 16-20, etc. etc. Oh, there are "dips" all over the chart...read my last post lol... Can you really be arguing that taking the 3rd or 4th QB in a class is better than taking the 1st or 2nd? :doh:...I've already spelled out, in bright magic marker lol, that I am referring ONLY to the 1st round. That the talent and franchise-quality QBs between the top 10 and outside the top10 in the 1st round is negligible...so hoping for a bad record out of a fear/belief that we NEED a top 10 pick in order to find our franchise QB is faulty. So, no, I'm not "really" arguing that point you just described. It baffles me that some of you think I am. But in reference to your question there, read the chart again...then read my last post Really what it boils down to is a combination of talent and enviroment. Neither should be sacrificed - and at the end of the day, the higher drafted a QB, and the better enviroment he enters, the higher probability for success. The first part--"a combination of talent and environment"--I don't dispute at all. I'm right there withcha. :thumbsup: But I DO dispute equating draft pick slot with "talent". And I DO dispute that draft pick slotting is as important as "environment" as far as a franchise becoming a consistent winner. As for the second part--"neither should be sacrificed"--I DO dispute that mediocre and awful teams sacrifice "talent" for wins when they go 7-9...or anything above 4-12 lol. That stuff I just wrote, is a summary of the OP. Notice that nowhere in there did I say that I disputed the notion that quality, talented QBs can not be found outside the top 10. That's never been said by me. That's never been mentioned in the OP. That's some argument a few of you have decided is my point. But it's not. Notice that nowhere in there did I say that I disputed that you're more likely to find a franchise QB in the top 10 of the 1st round than in rounds 3 and 4 lol...that's never beensaid by me. That's never been mentioned in the OP. that's some argument a fe of you have convinced yourselves is my point. But it's not. I tried showing that drafting a QB inside the top 10 has not born more success or better results over the last 10 years than drafting outside of the top 10 in the first round. It's the law of diminishing returns at play. That's what my OP is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 People also tend to forget (or ignore since it helps support their argument that nothing short of sucking will make us better, which is counter-intuitive and boneheaded) that most of the recent quarterbacks who have come into the league and had success camme into stable situations where the whole game wasn't place firmly on their shoulders. Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford, Vince Young, Sam Bradford, Ben Roethlisberger...all went to teams with good offensive lines, a guy in the backfield who could run the ball, and defenses that were at least decent to bail the QB out when they have a bad day. There's a reason why teams that draft high tend to continue to draft high year after year, and there's too many good prospects that come out of college to think they miss on franchise quarterbacks and franchise players over and over and over again. The teams that draft high are usually ill-equipped to surround a quarterback with talent. Good college quarterbacks are ruined on bad football teams that are often mismanaged with second tier players and second rate scouting. You draft a guy then hand him a playbook and scream "SAVE US!" without surrounding him with the tools to do so. If we go 4-12 or 2-14 or whatever, it means we are a bad football team, and I know some people around here have convinced themselves we're going to blow chunks so who cares, but thinking we're going to suck so who cares is not the way to build a football team. That kind of season means we're ill equpped to draft a quarterback; it means the line sucks, it means all the receivers we draft suck, our running backs suck, and our defense sucks. It means we are not ready to draft a quarterback, because we can't protect him, figuratively and literally. It means Shanahan is on the hot seat (some of you jump for joy at that thought--YAY FOR COACHING INSTABILITY FOR THE SECOND STRAIGHT DECADE!) and on a short leash. The reason why Jason Campbell wasn't successful here wasn't because he wasn't tough enough, or talented enough,or whatever. It's because as an organization, they failed to put the tools in place for him to succeed. It's because the fan base wanted him to be Peyton Manning right away and pinned the entire failure of the team squarely on his shoulders, and then got mad when he got mad and said he didn't feel like he was the reason the team lost, whether he was right or wrong. If JC has success in Oakland it's because they do what this team didn't; actually, ya know, support him, and build around him. And even then, even then, 4-12 doesn't guarantee us a quarterback, or not the one we want. Hell, we went 6-10 and still BARELY only made the top 10. All those teams that skipped on a QB this year, you think they won't be looking again next year? You don't think there won't be a team with a harder schedule than us that won't do worse? We are honestly staring down the barrel at a 2012 NFL Draft where the top 5 teams could all need quarterbacks, and if we're number six, we're boned. That means (assuming they all declare) that Luck, Jones and Barkley could ALL be gone. And then what? If we draft a guy in the second round, are the expectations going to be different? No. 2-14 or 4-12, or even another 6-10 season doesn't mean we're taking the right step in rebuilding. It means we're still balls, and aren't ready to not be balls, and should be prepared to be balls for a while, because God knows that Snyder might respect Shanahan, but we start reeling off losses a third season in a row and he's gone, and there's not going to be a soul that's worth anything other than hunting for a paycheck that's gonna come here and coach and rebuild. God himself could reincarnate as a quarterback and it wouldn't make a damn bit of different. Does a losing record improve your chances of finding your guy? Sure. Does it mean you can't find your guy outside of the top 10? No, it doesn't, which is Cali's whole fuggin' point. Not that draft position isn't important, but that picking in the top 10 or top 5 isn't NECESSARY to find the guy you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Forgive me for leaving the rest of your post as to answer would just to keep going around around in circles. Without being privy to Shanahan's private thoughts, it's all conjecture on both our parts. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this as we hold differing opinions as you mentioned.I answered the above question in an earlier post unrelated to yourself. I honestly don't think we'll have to tank anything. With this O, particularly as we have no competent pro QB to speak of IMHO (what the unproven Beck may or may not become aside); I think we'll end up with an abysmal record regardless. I believe we'll give our all in all the games, but ultimately come up short 9 times out of 10. Which allied to the youngsters that will be here for the long haul getting another years pro experience under their belts and taking their licks together as they grow would be a progressful season to me, even if it didn't show it in the W/L column. Would I be happy if we intentionally tanked the year? Honestly, as much as we never would, yes, I'd take that if you gave it to me now in a heart beat. Under normal circumstances I'd scream blue murder at that notion, being a firm believer in success breeding success, with momentum carrying over from one year to the next. But these aren't normal circumstances. We're in the midst of a complete overhaul, but we still lack that elusive, vital component, the franchise QB. A component we've been waiting for, for 37 years IMHO since the last true franchise signal caller we had, SonnyJ, hung it up. After waiting that long for the most important player on this or any other team, you bet your sweet ass I'd take another dire, losing season to get what we've all craved for WAY too long now in DC. And in both Andrew Luck and Landry Jones I personally believe the potentials there in both to be that man. Both of whom will be gone maybe in the first two picks this draft. That's how high I rate the pair. Very interesting take on how you see things GHH As you can surmise I'm guessing I have problems with lots of it but that's because I don't agree with you on this I understand why you think that we should tank a season to get a Franchise QB I just don't think that's the plan for what is in store here for us In fact due to age, length of contracts, other teams needs, and the short sighted nature of the team over the years I would be very shocked to see us use our #1 next year on a QB no matter where we pick Drafting a Franchise QB high in the draft is a huge gamble that takes time usually to develop and for a guy who's in the second of a five year deal I doubt Mike pulls it off The Franchise QB can be found by FA, by UFA, by trade...other then just taking one of the two best in the draft in any given year He proved this draft he will skip over the 2nd rated QB if he's on the board even if QB is a need We shall see what happens but like it or not I don't think he will draft a QB next year with the top pick And for the record I also don't agree with the doomy approach to this season you seem to have We were 6-10 last year. We beat quality opponents (Packers, Bears, Eagles). We were only blown out of 3 of 16 games, all others we could have won including losing 3 games that if we had a consistent kicker we would have won We were 6-10, we could have been 9-7 in the first year change of the defense and new system And now we are more improved from last year that's in a position to just get better What are we going to lose from last year? McNabb? Really if we need him so badly then why not hold onto him another year? We have the money to? Who else contributed to last year that we lost that is going to mean we suck ass this year? To me I see no one What I see is the forum full of stupid ideas passed around by some people like We are going to be horrible this year We were a total disaster last season We are going to tank the season We are going in the wrong direction Sorry man but idk what's in the water out your way or better what's in my tap water but I don't see things nearly as bad as most of you out there. I see this team as it is re-signing Grossman and with this schedule we have winning at least 8 games (if the seasons 16 games long) and probably 9 or 10. I feel pretty good about this team this year. You guys will come around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.