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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

So, now you want to challenge another stats compiler's subjective judgement on QB performance? But, you expect YOUR subjective judgment, on a smaller sample size should be acceptable to impartial minds?

If it's not, then say so and explain why. Remember, it's not up to me to explain anything...it's up to you to show that my list is inaccurate.

But the question still stands--and not just for you, but for everyone: do you REALLY think there have only been SIX busts out of all of the QBs drafted in the top 10 over the last 20 years? Because if you don't, then that should make any intellectually honest person question how valuable the results of that study really are.

Personally I don't want nor do I need you to answer that question...but at least everyone else reading and taking part in this thread can approach the information you provided from a more knowledgeable and informed standpoint...if they just went on your summary of the study they'd be grossly misinformed.

If you do a proper study, you will start with a much larger sample and use an objective marker like GAMES STARTED, otherwise your stats will only persuade people who already agree with you.

Games started matters most, eh? What's the goal of drafting a QB in the top 10...to find a guy who's merely good enough to start? Not to mention that my point in the OP was about finding a franchise QB, not merely an OK starter for a few seasons. I broke my groups into whether or not they could be considered a franchise QB...

What's the cut-off point in terms of starts for determining the difference between a "moderately successful" QB and a "flop"? Alex Smith has started 50 games in 6 years...8 games a season. Is that adequate in your eyes? (again, I don't expect anything like an actual answer from you, this is mostly just something for others to consider as they read my response to you).

Rick Mirer was on 7 different teams in 11 years. Does that describe "moderately successful" QB worthy of a top 10 draft pick to anyone? Is that all it takes, lasting long enough and floating around from team to team so that eventually, you might end up with a collective 50 games started?

So far you and the other poster have provided dubious "proof" that my OP and subsequent posts aren't true...and the "proof" actually ended up backing up my points in both circumstances ...

If you do that kind of study you will get a steadily decreasing hit rate as the drafting position goes down. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

And yet the author of this study you yourself provided makes the claim that the "hit" rate of QBs drafted between #11 and #20 is BETTER than in the top 10...I'm gonna guess you didn't actually read that part and didn't know that was in there lol...

[skinsnshanny]

Here is another way to look at it.

2010 Qbs by passer rating:

1. Round 6

2. Top 10

3. Round 1 (20-32)

4. Top 10

5. Round 1 (pick 11)

6. Round 1 (11-20)

7. Round 1 (11-20)

8. Round 7

9. Round 3

10. Top 10

(4 out of the top 10 passers in passer rating come from picks 1-11)

Yards:

1. Top 10

2. Top 10

3. Round 2

4. Late Round

5. Top 10

6. Top 10

7. First round (20-32)

8. Round 6

9. Top 10

10. Late Round

(5 out of the top 10 passers in yards were drafted in the top 10)

Total Tds

1. Round 6

2 Second round

3. Top 10

4. Round 1 (20-32)

5.Top 10

6. Top 10

7. Top 10

8. Top 10

9. Late Round

10. Top 10

(6 out of 10 qbs in terms of total tds were drafted in the top 10)

QBs in playoffs (just a list)

Round 1 (20-32)

Pick 11

Top 10

Round 6

Round 1 (11-20)

Pick 11

Round 6

Top 10

Top 10

Top 10

Round 7

Round 1 (pick 11-20)

(out of the 12 playoff Qbs, 4 were from the top 10 and 6 were from picks 1-11)

It appears to me that there is little question that out of any group of 10 consecutive picks, picks 1-10 (or even 1-11) clearly lead to more QBs in the top 10 in the NFL.

Further, it is stunning (or maybe obvious) that a disproportionate of the top qbs in the league come from the top 10 picks. There are over 200 picks in an NFL draft, yet about 50% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10. Thus if you want a qb ranked high, you have a better chance of getting one if you have picks 1-10.

[Oldfan]

Cali, it doesn’t matter whether I, or anyone else, think you did a better job with your opinions on QBs because:

1) If the sample size is large enough, the cutoff point between hit and miss, as long as it does not vary, will only affect the hit rate. It won’t affect the distribution. There should still be a steady decline as you drop down from pick #1, as I’ve been arguing;

2) Both your method and the method in the study I posted are flawed as I noted when I posted it. They are flawed because your opinion should not influence the results in any way. The combination of the influence of your opinion and a small sample size creates statistical havoc. The results can’t be trusted.

The best approach would probably use a combination of objective markers: games started, YPA, QBR... any stat that includes a measurement of QB performance except the researcher’s opinion.

[DeaconBlue]

The problem oldfan os that I feel like even with all your theoretical "objectivism" you say you create with all your stat driven formulae I see you sprinkle periodically across the stadium here I still beleive you inject more subjectivism that just about anyone else here. It seems like through your decisions about what stats are relevant to any discussion and their relative weighting that you massage the numbers to tell whatever story it is you prefer to hear. My gut, yes I know you don't care about it, says that there might be a kernal of truth in cali's arguement. To me even if the odds go up to 60/40 that a top 11 qb pick becomes a success it still seems like a crapshoot.

[Oldfan]

The problem oldfan os that I feel like even with all your theoretical "objectivism" you say you create with all your stat driven formulae I see you sprinkle periodically across the stadium here I still beleive you inject more subjectivism that just about anyone else here. It seems like through your decisions about what stats are relevant to any discussion and their relative weighting that you massage the numbers to tell whatever story it is you prefer to hear. My gut, yes I know you don't care about it, says that there might be a kernal of truth in cali's arguement. To me even if the odds go up to 60/40 that a top 11 qb pick becomes a success it still seems like a crapshoot.

It would be foolish of me to do as you accuse because there are members in this forum with far more formal training in statistics than I. It would take only one to point out my errors and make me look bad.

In my most recent thread, I used a math-based estimate as part of an argument. A poster with more math training than I confirmed my main point, but pointed out a glaring omission.

[chipwhich]

For once I 100% back oldfan. This theory is ludicrous. There are so many flaws in the premise, I don't know where to start.

[Oldfan]

Here’s a logical, rather than a statistical, approach to the question:

If Mike drafts #1, he is sure to get the QB he wants.

If he drafts #2, there is a chance he will not get the guy he wants.

If he drafts #3, there is twice as much chance he will not get the guy he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #4, there is three times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #16, there is 15 times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

Califan can only be right that it doesn’t matter much where Mike Shanahan drafts only if Mike knows little about evaluating QBs and so is likely to blow the pick no matter where he drafts.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here is another way to look at it.

2010 Qbs by passer rating:

1. Round 6

2. Top 10

3. Round 1 (20-32)

4. Top 10

5. Round 1 (pick 11)

6. Round 1 (11-20)

7. Round 1 (11-20)

8. Round 7

9. Round 3

10. Top 10

(4 out of the top 10 passers in passer rating come from picks 1-11)

Yards:

1. Top 10

2. Top 10

3. Round 2

4. Late Round

5. Top 10

6. Top 10

7. First round (20-32)

8. Round 6

9. Top 10

10. Late Round

(5 out of the top 10 passers in yards were drafted in the top 10)

Total Tds

1. Round 6

2 Second round

3. Top 10

4. Round 1 (20-32)

5.Top 10

6. Top 10

7. Top 10

8. Top 10

9. Late Round

10. Top 10

(6 out of 10 qbs in terms of total tds were drafted in the top 10)

QBs in playoffs (just a list)

Round 1 (20-32)

Pick 11

Top 10

Round 6

Round 1 (11-20)

Pick 11

Round 6

Top 10

Top 10

Top 10

Round 7

Round 1 (pick 11-20)

(out of the 12 playoff Qbs, 4 were from the top 10 and 6 were from picks 1-11)

It appears to me that there is little question that out of any group of 10 consecutive picks, picks 1-10 (or even 1-11) clearly lead to more QBs in the top 10 in the NFL.

Further, it is stunning (or maybe obvious) that a disproportionate of the top qbs in the league come from the top 10 picks. There are over 200 picks in an NFL draft, yet about 50% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10. Thus if you want a qb ranked high, you have a better chance of getting one if you have picks 1-10.

If this were Groundhog Day and we kept repeating the 2010 season over and over, your point would be more valid lol...not to mention you don't expand the top 10 to the top 11 when the mood hits you to do so. I didn't arbitrarily include a #10 or #9 drafted QB on occasion to bolster my stance, so you shouldn't arbitrarily include a #11 drafted QB to bolster yours.

But anyway, if we look beyond 2010 and just go back to 2009, here's what we find:

Top 10 QB rating:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QB, yards:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QBs, touchdowns:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)

3 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Cutler)

2008:

Top 10 QB rating:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Pennington, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, yards:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, McNabb)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

3 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, McNabb)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)

2007:

Top 10 QB rating:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, McNabb)

1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QB, yards:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer)

1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer)

1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)

Clearly your conclusion that "about 50% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10" varies wildly from year to year, and can not be a blanket statement. It's no more accurate than saying "about 20% of the statistically top ranked QBs come from picks 1-10" based off the 2007 season. As Oldfan loves saying, your sample size is abysmally small to draw any conclusions.

Also interesting is, if we look at the QBs that have been drafted since 2000, the list looks like this:

2009:

Top 10 QB rating:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QB, yards:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 ( Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QBs, touchdowns:

2 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning)

3 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Cutler)

2008:

Top 10 QB rating:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Pennington, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, yards:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Phillip Rivers)

2 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler, Rodgers)

2007:

Top 10 QB rating:

0 QBs drafted in the top 10

1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)

Top 10 QB, yards:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Carson Palmer)

1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Cutler)

Top 10 QB, TDs:

1 QBs drafted in the top 10 (Carson Palmer)

1 QBs drafted between 11-32 (Roethlisberger)

We might be going through a period where top 10 QBs are panning out at a noticeably lower rate...recently drafted QBs help skew that stat some, but if there really is some magnified advantage to picking a QB in the top 10 shouldn't more than two QBs taken in the top 10 between 2000-2007 be in the top ranked QBs of 2009? Or is that the statistical norm--that on average, no more than 2 of the QBs drafted in the top 10 each decade go on to be ranked in the top 10 in any given year?

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 11:31 AM ----------

For once I 100% back oldfan. This theory is ludicrous. There are so many flaws in the premise, I don't know where to start.

Start anywhere you want lol...I'll wait. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 11:50 AM ----------

Cali, it doesn’t matter whether I, or anyone else, think you did a better job with your opinions on QBs because:

1) If the sample size is large enough, the cutoff point between hit and miss, as long as it does not vary, will only affect the hit rate. It won’t affect the distribution. There should still be a steady decline as you drop down from pick #1, as I’ve been arguing;

2) Both your method and the method in the study I posted are flawed as I noted when I posted it. They are flawed because your opinion should not influence the results in any way. The combination of the influence of your opinion and a small sample size creates statistical havoc. The results can’t be trusted.

1) And the "hit" rate is the main thrust of this argument lol..so the most important part of the debate is being affected, and that's more than fine with you. Gotcha.

2) You would have to show HOW it's flawed, not just state that it is. Mine is based off of not just MY opinion, but the overall opinion of each QB and their "franchise" status. Nobody here yet has questioned my categorization of QBs, so I'm guessing that it's not just an individual opinion...And even IF you want to see it as an individual opinion, if you AGREE with my opinion of the QBs who were "hits" and "misses", then the conclusions reached from that breakdown hold validity. If you do NOT agree, then you provide a better breakdown of the players and then show the adjusted results (like I just did...twice). Nobody has bothered to do so...not even you.

The best approach would probably use a combination of objective markers: games started, YPA, QBR... any stat that includes a measurement of QB performance except the researcher’s opinion.

The best approach would be to first define what a "Franchise QB" is...I at least came close to doing so by showing the players who either are considered a franchise QB or just a tier below. All I end up asking people is to look at my list and determine if they agree or not.

Using a stat like "number of starts" to determine quality of the player is flawed because:

1) It's not using average number of starts per year...so a QB taken #1 overall who goes on to be little more than a journeyman QB living off his draft status will have his "hit" status inflated due to nothing more than accumulating starts from bouncing from team to team.

2) It assumes that the number of starts that a 1st round QB has in his career dictates what the number of starts a franchise QB should have ..that ignores that a LOT of franchise QBs come from lower rounds, and THEY should be included in defining the barometer for number of starts, not just any QB taken in the 1st round.

But as I said earlier, even taking your study as gospel, it still shows that there's a better "hit"rate for QBs taken between 11-20 than there is for QBs taken between 1-10...which helps make my point that a 6-10 or 7-9 record does not make finding a franchise QB less likely.

[Oldfan]

Califan ~ And the "hit" rate is the main thrust of this argument...

Nope. It doesn’t matter if the average hit rate is 40%, 50% or 70% -- this argument hinges on how the hit rate distributes itself throughout the first round. So, the difference between your subjective approach and the subjective approach of Draftmetrics does not matter. Both approaches are equally flawed. What matters is whether or not you and the other guy applied your opinions evenly, without bias. It also matters considerably that his sample size was larger.

When a debate opponent refuses to admit the chinks in his argument as you have done here, it’s hard to tell if they don’t understand the counters or if they simply refuse to admit them. I’ve decided you’re just being stubborn.

You correctly pointed out that the sample size was too small in SnS’s stats. But, you stubbornly ignore the same failing in yours.

You correctly pointed out that he should not arbitrarily switch from 1-10 to 1-11 simply because it favors his position. But you want to argue a switch from 11-32 which represents the “outside the top 10“ you began with in your OP to 11-20 in the Draftmetrics stats simply because it favors your position.

I believe you know very well that your subjective method of deciding hits and misses combined with the small sample size renders your results unreliable.

In #132, I showed the logical position. You are stubbornly trying to turn logic on its ear with a poorly-conceived statistical study. So, I won’t waste more time with this.

[SkinsTillIDie]

It is a disadvantage in the draft obviously. That's the point here.

No. The point (or at least, MY point), is that we don't need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB. As this thread is properly titled.

I don't know how you can say that as though it's a general rule.. It would most certainly be a disadvantage if the team used a lot of old vets to get to 8-8... and how else are they likely to get there?

We are likely to get there if our team improves on our 6-10 performance last year, which is absolutely reasonable. Given particularly because we lost, what, 6 additional games by 4 points or less? (I believe if Gano had made all of his kickers in 4 specific games, we would have won 2 of those and the other 2 would have gone to overtime). If our 3-4 defense plays better in its second season with an influx of scheme-specific talent at OLB (Kerrigan), DE (Jenkins), and at FS (Atogwe) and possibly DE (other Jenkins). ... If our offensive line plays better in its second year playing the zone-blocking scheme with better chemistry and consistency.

We don't need a lot of "old vets" to get to 8-8. We have an abundance of promising youth: Ryan Torain, Fred Davis, Trent Williams, Kory Lichensteiger, Anthony Armstrong, Kevin Barnes, Perry Riley, Robert Henson, Will Montgomery, Logan Paulsen, Darrell Young, Graham Gano, Jeremy Jarmon, Keiland Williams, Brandon Banks, Rob Jackson, Malcolm Kelly, Terrance Austin, Adam Kerrigan, Jarvis Jenkins, Leonard Hankerson, Roy Helu, Chris Neild, Evan Royster, and others. Some of them will step in and contribute this year; some will step in and excel far beyond any of our imaginations. In the manner that Anthony Armstrong and Brandon Banks came out of absolutely NOWHERE to become the most explosive players on our offense.

You are right, if our 8-8 consisted of 11 or 12 total starters that were 30+ years old, it would be hard to classify that as a good, promising season. However, if you actually look at our roster, with a few reasonably predicted veterans added (at DE replacing Daniels/Holliday; at NT replacing Bryant/Kemoeatu; at C/G replacing Rabach) we have very, very few 30+ starters. The vast majority of the team will be here for the long run. Getting experience and getting better for when we can bring in our rookie QB.

But I digress.

Could you be more specific? What reasons convince you that a QB picked 1-10 would not be more likely to help the team than one picked 11-32?

My argument is not that a QB picked 1-10 may or may not help more than than one picked at 11-32. Sam Bradford came in to an awful Rams team and helped that atrocious team reach 8-8 (admittedly, in the worst division in NFL history... that team might not have won 4 games in the East).

However, to answer your question, mainly, a QB picked 1-6 (which is the crux of my argument, as I believe we'll likely pick somewhere between 10-15 this year), will step into a team that is not ready for him to succeed. A team picking 1-6 will almost certainly have an offensive line that cannot keep him upright and receivers that are mostly ineffective and among the most easily-blanketed in the league. This isn't always the case. Jake Locker may be stepping into the most ideal situation of any of the rookie QBs (other than Mallett), in terms of immediate support system. And he was picked 8th.

It's impossible to say with complete certainty (as anything is), but David Carr most likely wouldn't have flamed out if he wasn't forced into an atrocious situation in Houston, behind a terrible offensive line, while everyone expected him to be the savior (as a #1 pick will always be expected to be). Meanwhile, Matt Cassel never ever should've had a better career than Carr. A 7th round pick who had zero college career to speak of. But because of his situation and coaching, he was able to blossom.

My point is that it is ridiculous to assume with certainty that as a franchise, we are better off with a 2-14 record and drafting a QB then if we finish 8-8 and draft a QB.

Califan's opponents in this thread are not arguing that we should tank the season. Cali, ranted about posters like that, but his argument isn't about that. We are debating Califan's position that a draft pick in the 1-10 range would not offer more likelihood of getting a grade A QB than one in the 11-32 range.

You unknowingly disagreed with him when you said: "Theoretically, the higher you pick, the greater odds you have at getting the best possible QB. This much is obvious." Califan is claiming that his stats disprove that.

I'm not arguing for or against Califan. I'm arguing for me, and the gist of his original argument. His argument IS against that, the notion that as a franchise, we need to be picking in the top couple picks to be best off down the road (via the drafting of a "franchise QB").

...

Yes, theoretically, this much is true. But again, the NFL doesn't exist in a theoretical realm. There are a million other variables that coincide with the ultimate success of a QB. If Ryan Mallet had been drafted in Oakland (if they had maintained the 17th overall pick), he would develop differently then he will in New England. And he will now most likely have a much better career, even though he fell to the 3rd round. If we had drafted Aaron Rodgers at 9, he surely wouldn't have had as successful career as he has had in Green Bay despite falling to 24.

This is ultimately my argument and my belief: we don't have to finish 4-12 to get a franchise QB. As I understand it, that was the premise of the thread. Not that finishing 4-12 might land us a QB prospect with a higher grade heading into the draft (which again, doesn't mean ultimately better).

Josh Freeman is the best QB of his class, despite falling to 17. Jay Cutler is the best QB of his class despite falling to 11 (even after an absurd amount of pre-draft hype for Vince Young and Matt Leinart for their stellar college careers, compared to a rather pedestrian career for Cutler). Perhaps this upcoming draft may resemble that of 2004, where Eli Manning and Philip Rivers went in the first 4 picks but Ben Roethlisberger was there to be had at 11 (and who has been ultimately the most successful QB of the bunch).

If you were to give me the option, all things being equal, of picking a QB at 1 or at 13, of course I'd pick the QB at 1. You'd have to be an idiot not to do so. But this is the NFL, and all things aren't equal. If you want to make the argument that we have better odds of getting to the superbowl with the best possible QB prospect, I would argue that we would be much better off if our abundance of aforementioned promising youth develop and play well while we "only" get the third best QB prospect in the draft (who will, in all likelihood, be a higher-rated prospect than anyone in last year's draft). But again, that was not the purpose of the thread I don't care how this thread really has morphed, but that original argument remains: We can find our franchise QB with a 7-9 or 8-8 record.

And dare I need to remind you once again: Mike Shanahan selected his last franchise quarterback Jay Cutler in the draft following a 13-3 season and an appearance in the AFC Championship game. This issue is not as black/white as you are trying to make it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

His argument IS against that, the notion that as a franchise, we need to be picking in the top couple picks to be best off down the road (via the drafting of a "franchise QB")...NFL doesn't exist in a theoretical realm. There are a million other variables that coincide with the ultimate success of a QB....we don't have to finish 4-12 to get a franchise QB. As I understand it, that was the premise of the thread. Not that finishing 4-12 might land us a QB prospect with a higher grade heading into the draft (which again, doesn't mean ultimately better)....

If you were to give me the option, all things being equal, of picking a QB at 1 or at 13, of course I'd pick the QB at 1. You'd have to be an idiot not to do so. But this is the NFL, and all things aren't equal. If you want to make the argument that we have better odds of getting to the superbowl with the best possible QB prospect, I would argue that we would be much better off if our abundance of aforementioned promising youth develop and play well while we "only" get the third best QB prospect in the draft (who will, in all likelihood, be a higher-rated prospect than anyone in last year's draft). But again, that was not the purpose of the thread I don't care how this thread really has morphed, but that original argument remains: We can find our franchise QB with a 7-9 or 8-8 record.

SkinsTillIDie gets it :yes:...

[Oldfan]

.

STID ~ No. The point (or at least, MY point), is that we don't need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB. As this thread is properly titled.

Who, in their right mind, would disagree that it’s POSSIBLE to get a franchise QB anywhere in the draft? That’s a strawman argument.

Cali thinks he has debunked the idea that a draft pick in 1-10 is better than a draft pick in 11-32. Check this out:

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 ...

Lol, indeed.

We are likely to get there [8-8] if our team improves on our 6-10 performance last year, which is absolutely reasonable.

You wrote four paragraphs of unrealistic optimism to support the above assertion. When we use the word “likely,” we are claiming probability not possibility. It’s possible that everything will come up roses for the Skins this season, but it isn’t something you can claim as likely to happen.

Once again, staying in the realm of probability and not possibility, this is the logical argument that Califan thinks he has defeated with the statistics he has whipped up:

If Mike drafts #1, he is sure to get the QB he wants.

If he drafts #2, there is a chance he will not get the guy he wants.

If he drafts #3, there is twice as much chance he will not get the guy he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #4, there is three times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

If he drafts #16, there is 15 times as much chance he will not get the QB he wants as there would be if he drafted #2.

Califan can only be right that it doesn’t matter much where Mike Shanahan drafts only if Mike knows little about evaluating QBs and so is likely to blow the pick no matter where he drafts.

However, to answer your question, mainly, a QB picked 1-6 (which is the crux of my argument, as I believe we'll likely pick somewhere between 10-15 this year), will step into a team that is not ready for him to succeed.

Why is it important that your QB has immediate success? You take the top notch QB when he becomes available. Sam Bradford had a 76.5 QBR last season. Peyton’s was 71.2 in his first season.

My point is that it is ridiculous to assume with certainty that as a franchise, we are better off with a 2-14 record and drafting a QB then if we finish 8-8 and draft a QB.

Your arguments have leaped from possibility to certainty while avoiding probability ...which lies between. Decisions are based on probability, not on possibility or certainty since almost anything is possible, and almost nothing is certain.

.

Yes, theoretically, this much is true. But again, the NFL doesn't exist in a theoretical realm.

The higher you draft, the better your chances of getting a good player (the principle of probability applies). That’s not a theory. It’s a fact.

If you were to give me the option, all things being equal, of picking a QB at 1 or at 13, of course I'd pick the QB at 1. You'd have to be an idiot not to do so.

Califan claims that his stats debunk that notion. He says it doesn’t make much difference whether you pick at 1 or 13.

Do you agree or disagree with him? He's claiming that you "get it."

BTW, according to this draft trade chart that teams use, the #1 pick is worth almost three times the value of the #13.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

[skinsnshanny]

But as I said earlier, even taking your study as gospel, it still shows that there's a better "hit"rate for QBs taken between 11-20 than there is for QBs taken between 1-10...which helps make my point that a 6-10 or 7-9 record does not make finding a franchise QB less likely.

First, why do remove qbs drafted in the top 10 prior to 2000 but still performing at the top level from the list? Simply to help your argument that is silly. The entire point of getting a guy is for him to be good for a long time. (you do it only to take manning and Mcnabb out of any rankings). Seriously, that is like the strongest point of why the top 10 is essential. These guys are good for so long.

You understand that even your other year stats, which I have not checked for accuracy, show that 20% or so of the TOP 10 qbs are consistently from picks 1-10 (and yes we can expand it to 11 because it follows the point of high picks, it is the next consecutive one...a good spotting point would be 16 where you are in the bottom half of the league) If you are going to lump 1-10 and then 11-32, you might as well just lump 1-10 and then the rest of the draft or simply just 11-20. But if you do the latter you will see that number 11 makes a big impact which is much closer to 10 than to 20. Also we should count picks 1-10 in each round in the Top 10 category (or at least round 2, as a team is awarded the first pick in each around, and thus has the first chance in each round to nab the qb)

Simply saying more top QBs come from picks 11-last pick than 1-10 is not telling. It is telling that such a high amount do come from 1-10 (or 11).

You also just left out the playoff stat too.

Bottom line: No other 10 pick bracket produces more top 10 qbs. Further the only reason any other bracket would is if a team in the first bracket mis scouted, but that is due to error, and not due to anything special about picking later.

***But here is the point that really gets to the point....

If a team has a higher pick say 1-10 that pick has value that pick 20 does not have. The team can either draft at the high pick and have first chance at their highly scouted player OR they can use the value of the pick and move back, maybe get 2-3 picks and thus increase the chance of landing that top player.

So if want to draft a qb 11-32, having pick 1 could turn into picks 12 and 14 ....

No disadvantage of the higher pick. None.

Edit: Notice you stopped at 2007, why not include 2006?

Tds: 5 of the top 10 were top 10 picks

Rating: 4

Yards: 3

--so 40%

2005:

Tds: 5

Rating: 3 (including positions 1 and 2)

Yards: 5

--so over 40%

2004:

Tds: 2 (3 with 11)

Rating: 2 (4 with 11)

Yards: 2 (3 with 11)

--so only 20% here (over 30 with pick 11)

2003

Tds: 2 (3 with 11)

Rating 2 (top 2 spots and 3 with 11)

Yards: 1 (2 with 11)

--So only 20% again

2002:

Tds: 3

Rating: 3

Yards: 4 (5 with 11)

So 30, maybe a little more

2001

Tds:3

Rating: 3

yards 2

--Again about 30

2000

Tds: 4 (5 with 11)

Rating: 1 (2 w 11)

Yards 3 (4 with 110

about 30

So when it all comes together over the loong haul, it looks like 30-40% (not the 50 i had claimed) but that is still incredible for 10 picks out of over 250. And if you add in number 11 (which could be just as bad of a record the previous season as pick 10) the numbers shoot up.

[CliffBattles]

only had time to read the first couple pages, but I think getting the #1 pick in this draft vs say the 11th pick is different than most seasons because of Andrew Luck.

He is being considered a once in a generation player. If it was the past season, I don't think it would matter as much (with a QB class that nobody could decide who was clearly the best)

[Burgold]

only had time to read the first couple pages, but I think getting the #1 pick in this draft vs say the 11th pick is different than most seasons because of Andrew Luck.

He is being considered a once in a generation player. If it was the past season, I don't think it would matter as much (with a QB class that nobody could decide who was clearly the best)

Last year, around this time I think most were saying that about Jake Locker.

[Portis N Pals]

I'd gladly go win less this year to get Luck. I think he's going to be THAT good. And when I look at how strong our division is, I seriously doubt that even if we scrapped hard all year and somehow finished in that 7-9 to 9-7 range it wouldn't be enough to get into the post season anyway.

[darrelgreenie]

There are a lot of good points made in this thread.

The 2 opinions expressed are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, historically the higher you draft the greater the likelihood that pick will succeed.

But, at the same time you don't have to pick top 10 to land a franchise QB.

Oldfan views the above statement as a strawman argument.

But, many posters and football fans in general believe this notion.

Bottom line: No other 10 pick bracket produces more top 10 qbs. Further the only reason any other bracket would is if a team in the first bracket mis scouted, but that is due to error, and not due to anything special about picking later.

I wanted to address only this point; if you don't mind because I agree with most of the rest of your post.

Teams 'mis scout' all the time.

Often times HC/GMs scouts will have completely different draft rankings then other teams and the publically held 'consensus'.

Mike Shanahan has mentioned several times about he had different QBs rated higher or lower then the consensus.

Mike Holmgren, who has created several NFL starting QBs, wanted Colt McCoy and got his guy in the 3rd round; Holmgren btw has never drafted a QB in the 1st round.

My point is that the coaching and envirornment plays as big a role in a QB success as their perceived talent based on draft status.

I'm sure if you isolated the draft position and draft success of the coaches considered to be QB 'gurus' their success rate will surpass that of the rest of the league despite not drafting their QBs in the 1st round let alone top 10 very often.

I think the differences between QB prospects ability is large overrated; both in each draft and in drafts compared over the years i.e. 2011 vs 2010.

A bad franchise is unlikely to produce a 'franchise' QB.

A franchise with the right infrastructure has a good chance to produce a 'franchise' QB.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ But, at the same time you don't have to pick top 10 to land a franchise QB.

Oldfan views the above statement as a strawman argument.

But, many posters and football fans in general believe this notion.

Give me your best guess. What percentage of NFL fans are unaware that high grade QBs can be found in any round of the draft? What percentage are unaware that Tom Brady was a sixth round pick?

I think about 20% of the posters in this forum overuse hyperbole to state their positions. If you decide to take their hype literally, "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB,"you can create strawman arguments all day long. I think that’s what Cali is doing.

If we had an actual poster saying that, we could pin him down on his actual meaning. How likely is it that he would not admit that it's possible to find a top notch QB in any round of the draft?

On the other hand, the draft trade chart shows that a #16 pick is worth one-third of the #1 pick. That gives us a ballpark idea of how the NFL teams regard the probability factor when comparing the two.

A bad franchise is unlikely to produce a 'franchise' QB.

A franchise with the right infrastructure has a good chance to produce a 'franchise' QB.

This is obviously true. I think in terms of a percentage of full potential.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning look much better than Jay Cutler because their support systems allow them to perform much closer to their full potential. Yet, in raw, tangible talent, neither is his equal. A lesser QB in Chicago over the last couple of seasons would look like a complete bust.

I think Alex Smith, who most consider a bust, has a chance to be pretty good with a better support system.

[CliffBattles]

Last year, around this time I think most were saying that about Jake Locker.

Uh.....I see what you mean..... probably every other year (at least) there is a QB considered to be top pick, Luck is beyond that. It reminds me of when Elway or Testeverde came out.

[darrelgreenie]

Give me your best guess. What percentage of NFL fans are unaware that high grade QBs can be found in any round of the draft? What percentage are unaware that Tom Brady was a sixth round pick?

C'mon, these are loaded questions that don't represent my point.

I think about 20% of the posters in this forum overuse hyperbole to state their positions. If you decide to take their hype literally, "We need to go 4-12 to draft a franchise QB,"you can create strawman arguments all day long. I think that’s what Cali is doing.

Being a regular poster in the draft database thread and being involved in several QB (college prospect) threads, I can assure that for many posters its not hyperbole.

I can't guess at a number but many fans consider next years crop of QB and especially Andrew Luck as can't miss prospects worth tanking for or trading the house to acquire.

How likely is it that he would not admit that it's possible to find a top notch QB in any round of the draft?

Considering that many people are advocating the tanking or trading the house for Luck,Jones or Barkley I'd say it far more then you realize.

On the other hand, the draft trade chart shows that a #16 pick is worth one-third of the #1 pick. That gives us a ballpark idea of how the NFL teams regard the probability factor when comparing the two.

I don't disagree in general but the trade chart is subjective based on desire.

This is obviously true. I think in terms of a percentage of potential.

Its not as obvious as you would think.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning look much better than Jay Cutler because their support systems allow them to perform much closer to their full potential. Yet, in raw, tangible talent, neither is his equal.

People get caught up in stats, I watched a bunch of Bears game last year and imo Cutler had the best season of his career.

It was down right crazy/heroic taking the punishment behind that o-line without getting gunshy.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ C'mon, these are loaded questions that don't represent my point.

I wanted you to be more specific to better understand your position, but if you would rather keep your position vague, “many posters and football fans” will have to do.

Being a regular poster in the draft database thread and being involved in several QB (college prospect) threads, I can assure that for many posters its not hyperbole.

I can't guess at a number but many fans consider next years crop of QB and especially Andrew Luck as can't miss prospects worth tanking for or trading the house to acquire.

Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.

Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction.

[darrelgreenie]

Position 1) Luck is a sure-fire pick worth tanking the season for.

Position 2) It isn’t possible to find a franchise QB outside the top ten picks.

I don’t see that adopting position one implies that one must also adopt position two. That doesn't sound like a logical deduction.

Okay, you might not see the logic.

That's fair.

But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

[KDawg]

Okay, you might not see the logic.

That's fair.

But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

Tanking is stupid.

A top 10 pick isn't required.

A top 10 pick allows you to find the most talented quarterbacks, whether they pan out from there is a different story.

If we want Andrew Luck or a Matt Barkey or even a Landry Jones, it's likely we'd need a top 10 pick.

However, if we start Beck this year and we somehow have a good season, we have something in Beck we never expected and may not need to draft a 1st round grade QB. If he stinks, we'll be picking in the top ten. I really believe we're ina win/win with Beck for the long term. Although short term (this season) could get ugly. But hey, surprises happen all the time.

[chipwhich]

Okay, you might not see the logic.

That's fair.

But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

That's not logic. That's just random meanderings.

If a franchise QB can be found as an UDFA (Tony Romo sits to pee) then there is no need to tank.

Let's use your logic and take it one step further.

If a franchise QB can be found as an UDFA (Tony Romo sits to pee) then there is no need to draft a QB.

This thread might be one of the most dog chasing tail threads I have ever seen.

I can make random comments all day long.

Because the Redskins are so bad at drafting 1st round QB's (Shuler, Ramsey, Campbell) they don't have the smarts to use a top 10 pick, so they have no need to tank.

You can continually avoid the obvious with random "logic" but it doesn't make it "logic".

[Oldfan]

Okay, you might not see the logic.

That's fair.

But, if a top 10 pick is not required to draft a franchise QB then there is no need to tank.

There is never any NEED to tank (depending on one's definition of the word), but it might be a wise move based on probability. If someone made the statement that Cali used in his thread title, I would assume it was his hyperbolic way of saying that it's a wise move based on probability until the poster's position is clarified. I would assume that because my interpretation does not have to presume the poster is a dunce.