Rookie QB or Veteran QB for "Next Season"??? (I didn't bump this, but I ended up being wrong anyway....)

[CurseReversed]

13 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

As for outlier hits, it's exceptionally small, hence the outlier:

Dallas hit on Romo and Dak (which is nuts) ('03 and '15 or '16)

We hit on cousins ('12)

Seattle hit on Wilson (not an outlier in the same way, but still outside the top 2 rounds, in '12)

Rams hit on Kurt Warner '99

New England Hit on Brady '00

 

and that's it. We've got 5 hits, + Wilson, over the past what, 22 years of drafts, and that's across hundreds of QB's (or maybe a hundred plus, feel free to add a guy or guys if I forgot one).

 

Again, the hit rate is so tiny as to be essentially pointless as a strategic approach. You could kinda justify it as a dart throw if you don't like the prospects and you really believe in the talent, especially if a guy slipped, but as a plan, it's straight up nuts. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't there just some article that someone posted about how only one of the first round Qb's selected in the past..10 or 15 years...I forget how many exactly, were still with the teams that drafted them?  It seems like finding a consistent winner anywhere in the draft is an outlier.  All those outliers you named account for a lot of wins in the past few decades .  Even Eli won 2 superbowls...two!  Was it because he was a first round pick?  Can you see how the statistics can be misleading?    I think the WFT should try to get one of the top QB's in this draft, not because they are first rounders but because I think they will be good.  But I also think it will be perfect NFL irony when one of the midrounders ends up being the best of this epic QB crop.  Even if Mac Jones is the best at #3 overall, it will still be slightly ironic.      

 

[The Consigliere]

58 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

Why do any front offices bother picking QB's after the first round?  Are they all just ignorant of statistics, or maybe just looking for only backups?

 

QB's are the leprechauns pot of gold, if you need one, it's a miracle on a cost friendly contract, if you don't need one, it's a tradable asset with tons of value. You can justify taking them on day 2, kinda, after day 2 it's largely a fools errand. 

[JoggingGod]

59 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

Why do any front offices bother picking QB's after the first round?  Are they all just ignorant of statistics, or maybe just looking for only backups?

Looking for backups, with a few rare times that they surprise and be a good starter. And I mean after round 2.

[CurseReversed]

2 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

No because you're not looking for individual player examples, you're looking for the approaches that consistently yield the most hits, or the fewest misses, what generates the most consistent win rate. 

 

Brady was an accident, not a strategy, if he was a strategy he would have been selected ahead of guys like Gio Carmazzi and Tim Rattay (who my local niners took instead of the home grown Brady, they'd make the same mistake five years later when they ignored local no-cal Aaron Rodgers for Urban's guy, Alex Smith). 

 

You want to build a strategy around what is the most successful approach, and that's taking them early. It's not fool proof, you're gonna miss 50% of the time, probably more than that in bad years like '19, '13-'14 etc, but you've got a reasonable chance of hitting, 1 in 2. You try the patriots strategy, I'm just spit balling, but it would absolutely shock me if dart throws at 175ish or later in a draft hit more than like .75-2% of the time. I suppose it could be as high as 2.5-3%, but that's unlikely to me. And someone just posted a study referencing this very question which echoes my sentiments. If you talk about hit rate for future final four performances, it's even higher. 

What good is that statistical model if your scouts are good at scouting qb's from a specific school or state?  Or if some draft classes are better then others.  If you like a guy in the 3rd, is he automatically going to succeed at a rate that is predicted by statistics for 3rd rounders...no.  Its going to be how well you scouted him that will make the most difference.  Of course players chosen earlier are more likely to succeed but its common sense and even though it can be statistically proven, its not a science.      If I did a statistical model that showed QB's drafted in slots 21-27 or something random like that, never panned out, would that be a good indicator of whether to draft someone at 22 in any future year?  No, I dont think so. There are limits to the extrapolation of these stats....

[The Consigliere]

8 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

Wasn't there just some article that someone posted about how only one of the first round Qb's selected in the past..10 or 15 years...I forget how many exactly, were still with the teams that drafted them?  It seems like finding a consistent winner anywhere in the draft is an outlier.  All those outliers you named account for a lot of wins in the past few decades .  Even Eli won 2 superbowls...two!  Was it because he was a first round pick?  Can you see how the statistics can be misleading?    I think the WFT should try to get one of the top QB's in this draft, not because they are first rounders but because I think they will be good.  But I also think it will be perfect NFL irony when one of the midrounders ends up being the best of this epic QB crop.  Even if Mac Jones is the best at #3 overall, it will still be slightly ironic.      

 

This isn't surprising though because of the drafts. 

The past decade which drafts actually had legit classes:

'12

'17

'18

'20

That's basically four of the past 10, and honestly, if you look back, from '05-'10, only the '06 class was well thought of ahead of time, making it 5 classes out of the past 15. In the same way, RB data is hard to rely on if you go back far enough because there was a MASSIVE drought in talent at the position from 2009-2014 before the gates busrt open with the '15, '17, '18, and '20 classes.  

 

You're basically just trying to find a method that gets you a QB you can start and rely upon, it's not hard to imagine why there are so few, but it's also a bit cherry picking. The Panthers got 10 years out of Cam Newton, they only just moved on. We got what, five years out of six years out of Kirk Cousins from the '12 class? Goff and Wentz were in their system for 5 years apiece as well. They are kind of cherry picking data here, it's much more efficacious to just look at hits. How many guys are legit starters down the line past that first contract...Newton, Wilson, Tannehill, Wentz, Dimes (for now), Dak, Cousins, Stafford, Ryan (a bit earlier for him and Stafford but still), Winston (whose been a starter all but one year), Goff, Murray, Allen, Darnold (as crazy as it is, he's well thought of enough to get THAT return), Baker, Burrow, Lamar, Watson, Luck, Carr, Mahomes, Herbert. That's basically what 23-24 hits or so since the Stafford/Ryan picks including them. 

 

You can massage the #'s anyway you want, but day 1 and day 2 hits are basically about 75% of the leagues starters, 1st round hits or still starters are basically 15/32 and that's not including guys like Dimes, Darnold and Winston who are all being looked at as full time starters right now years after being selected and having iffy performances. That would put it at 18/32. 

 

I'm not arguing there aren't exceptions, I'm arguing that the vast bulk of the hits occur on day 1, and especially on day 1 and day 2. It doesn't mean you can't find a Dak, or a Cousins, a Romo or a Brady, every once in a while they hit, but are so damn rare that it doesn't make sense to build a strategy around it, especially regarding day 3/UDFA's. The sheer quantity of QB's taken there versus the actual hits over time are staggering, most of those guys never even take a snap to kill off the clock in a blowout, let alone build a career as a backup, let alone a starter, let alone an elite starter. 

[CurseReversed]

I have done some intense research into the history of QB's and draft position and found that the hit rate on QB's drafted as the 5th, 6th, and 7th overall pick is basically 0% over the past 35 years.   So picking a winner their is going to be nearly impossible.  The stats prove it.   

[The Consigliere]

10 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

What good is that statistical model if your scouts are good at scouting qb's from a specific school or state?  Or if some draft classes are better then others.  If you like a guy in the 3rd, is he automatically going to succeed at a rate that is predicted by statistics for 3rd rounders...no.  Its going to be how well you scouted him that will make the most difference.  Of course players chosen earlier are more likely to succeed but its common sense and even though it can be statistically proven, its not a science.      If I did a statistical model that showed QB's drafted in slots 21-27 or something random like that, never panned out, would that be a good indicator of whether to draft someone at 22 in any future year?  No, I dont think so. There are limits to the extrapolation of these stats....

 

It involves mountains of variables, but facts are still facts, you can look at any time period in the modern era, and the hit rate goes down, like real down, after round 1, and especially after round 2, quite sharply. There are innumerable reasons as to why, sometimes it's not even the player, Houston Destroyed Derek Carr before they even had a chance to evaluate him. Some organizations are good at this, others are very bad at it, landing spot and opportunity matter a lot. Tons of variables. Regardless, if you take a QB in round 1, your chances of a hit are better, full stop. 

 

End of story. 

 

If you want to roll the dice down the line as the cupboards are slowly picked bare, you can and every once in a long, long while you might get a hit, but are you gonna build a strategy around that hit rate? I see no point in it. I can justify day 2, based upon profile a bit, because 2nd rounders sometimes hit at a decent rate especially if you go back further in time, same with 3rd rounders. 

 

Btw, I am not saying at any point, and I think that I've made this clear, that you can't get a player here, or you absolutely will get a player here, you can get a QB hit anywhere, it's just the odds, and some odds are worth playing, and some odds are a poor use of draft capital. It's the same reason why taking an OL on day one or day 2 is always a great idea, they just hit more, they just do, and you can always use more depth. Some of the hit rate, however, is probably simply a byproduct of it being the heaviest positional requirement on any given team (w/5 starters). 

 

After all this, I'm not sure on QB's, obviously there's some value to scouting because QB's hit at higher rates the higher you go in a given class, but I'll always wonder how much of that is tied to opportunity, a QB selected on day 3 isn't going to get the same opportunities to fail and learn, and eventually succeed as a QB selected in the top 10 after all. None of this is an exact science, and my stridence in the argument is more about the efficacy of each approach than any being actual good or safe approaches. None are, just some are less bad approaches as others. 

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, CurseReversed said:

Over the past 20 plus years Tom Brady has appeared in 10 super bowls.  Doesnt that make him the standard?  How could the standard be the outlier at the same time?  Is that too small a sliver of time?  Who was great before Brady, Montana?  Third round pick.  Drew Brees, Second round.  Who has been a winner more recently, Wilson? 3rd round pick.   Are they all outliers too?

 

I would argue that greatness itself is exceptionally rare, and is based on so many factors, that trying predict it on draft slot alone is over simplistic. 

And I would agree with you. There are many, many ways to find the right QB for any football team. Look where drafting RGlll, Haskins, Heath Shuler, Jason Campbell and others has gotten us? How bout where Joe Theismann, Mark Rypien and Jay Shroeder were drafted? Doug Williams was signed as a free agent wasn't he? All of these SB QB's were found in ways other than high in the draft....and all benefitted from great coaching and a great roster.....THAT is the formula; find the coach, build the roster, find a QB any way possible. 

[CurseReversed]

4 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

 

It involves mountains of variables, but facts are still facts, you can look at any time period in the modern era, and the hit rate goes down, like real down, after round 1, and especially after round 2, quite sharply. There are innumerable reasons as to why, sometimes it's not even the player, Houston Destroyed Derek Carr before they even had a chance to evaluate him. Some organizations are good at this, others are very bad at it, landing spot and opportunity matter a lot. Tons of variables. Regardless, if you take a QB in round 1, your chances of a hit are better, full stop. 

 

End of story. 

 

If you want to roll the dice down the line as the cupboards are slowly picked bare, you can and every once in a long, long while you might get a hit, but are you gonna build a strategy around that hit rate? I see no point in it. I can justify day 2, based upon profile a bit, because 2nd rounders sometimes hit at a decent rate especially if you go back further in time, same with 3rd rounders. 

 

Btw, I am not saying at any point, and I think that I've made this clear, that you can't get a player here, or you absolutely will get a player here, you can get a QB hit anywhere, it's just the odds, and some odds are worth playing, and some odds are a poor use of draft capital. It's the same reason why taking an OL on day one or day 2 is always a great idea, they just hit more, they just do, and you can always use more depth. Some of the hit rate, however, is probably simply a byproduct of it being the heaviest positional requirement on any given team (w/5 starters). 

 

After all this, I'm not sure on QB's, obviously there's some value to scouting because QB's hit at higher rates the higher you go in a given class, but I'll always wonder how much of that is tied to opportunity, a QB selected on day 3 isn't going to get the same opportunities to fail and learn, and eventually succeed as a QB selected in the top 10 after all. None of this is an exact science, and my stridence in the argument is more about the efficacy of each approach than any being actual good or safe approaches. None are, just some are less bad approaches as others. 

The odds of what did happen are not the odds of what will happen.  Full stop.  This isn't a roulette wheel or a dart board or even a craps table.  Its not random.  It is humans judging humans.  Not a science but a skill.   Using this skill will lead to better results, which is why players chosen earlier will always be better.  If that wasn't the case they might as well throw darts.  It's not about whether or not A QB taken early will be better, its about whether you can judge a QB's chances of succeeding solely by a statistical model of how things played out in the past.  It might be indicative at best but its not totally predictive. 

[Warhead36]

10 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

And I would agree with you. There are many, many ways to find the right QB for any football team. Look where drafting RGlll, Haskins, Heath Shuler, Jason Campbell and others has gotten us? How bout where Joe Theismann, Mark Rypien and Jay Shroeder were drafted? Doug Williams was signed as a free agent wasn't he? All of these SB QB's were found in ways other than high in the draft....and all benefitted from great coaching and a great roster.....THAT is the formula; find the coach, build the roster, find a QB any way possible. 

You're going back over 30 years. In today's NFL you need a franchise QB and they are generally 1st round picks if not high 1st rounders.

[Blanka]

I would like to see a stat of how many QB’s after QB5 is successful.

 

 

Like Drew Brees gets brought up all the time for being a 2nd Rounder but that’s without context. He was QB2 in his draft. It’s not that unbelievable that QB2 hit. 

[drowland]

1 hour ago, Blanka said:

I would like to see a stat of how many QB’s after QB5 is successful.

 

 

Like Drew Brees gets brought up all the time for being a 2nd Rounder but that’s without context. He was QB2 in his draft. It’s not that unbelievable that QB2 hit. 

 

I'm sure it's a low hit rate, but Dan Marino, Russell Wilson and Colin Kap were all QB6 in their draft class.  That's a 1st rounder, a 3rd rounder and a 2nd rounder.  Typically the 6th QB isn't picked until day 3.

Edited April 26, 2021 by drowland

[TradeTheBeal!]

If the WFT trades for Julio Jones, that’s basically an ALL-IN for Rodgers in 2022.

 

Do it.

[88Comrade2000]

If you want QB 4; you probably have to trade with Atlanta.  I think if Lance or Fields is available at #8; Carolina will not trade the pick.  Their owner will direct the club to draft a QB; despite them giving 3 picks for Darnold. 

 

I honestly can't see anyone trading up for Mac Jones; unless San Fran does indeed draft him. Then someone will have traded up for him.   Otherwise Mac Jones will slide a little; think Haskins in 19.  I can see Pats getting him at 15 or Denver getting him at 9. Now, if San Fran does draft Mac Jones; then that leaves Fields and Lance.  If you want DC to trade up; then you hope San Fran does draft Jones.  Then, there's legit shot at getting Fields or Lance, by trading up.  If Fields & Lance is available and noone trades with Atlanta; then you probably would have to trade with Detroit to  beat out Carolina, Denver, New England and Chicago. If Fields and Lance is available at 8; I think Carolina drafts one of them.  If one of both of them is available at 9; I don't see them getting past Denver.

 

Should be an interesting night Thursday.

 

My guess, we don't trade up.  We get LB or OT at 19 and 2nd round.   IF we draft a QB; it will be round 3 and probably get another WR in that round.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Rdskns2000

[RWJ]

10 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If you want QB 4; you probably have to trade with Atlanta.  I think if Lance or Fields is available at #8; Carolina will not trade the pick.  Their owner will direct the club to draft a QB; despite them giving 3 picks for Darnold. 

 

I honestly can't see anyone trading up for Mac Jones; unless San Fran does indeed draft him. Then someone will have traded up for him.   Otherwise Mac Jones will slide a little; think Haskins in 19.  I can see Pats getting him at 15 or Denver getting him at 9. Now, if San Fran does draft Mac Jones; then that leaves Fields and Lance.  If you want DC to trade up; then you hope San Fran does draft Jones.  Then, there's legit shot at getting Fields or Lance, by trading up.  If Fields & Lance is available and noone trades with Atlanta; then you probably would have to trade with Detroit to get beat out Carolina, Denver, New England and Chicago. If Fields and Lance is available at 8; I think Carolina drafts one of them.  If one of both of them is available at 9; I don't see them getting past Denver.

 

Should be an interesting night Thursday.

 

My guess, we don't trade up.  We get LB or OT at 19 and 2nd round.   IF we draft a QB; it will be round 3 and probably get another WR in that round.

 

Spot on agree with you on what I have bolded.  I think between the 2 3rd rounders it will be QB/TE  TE/QB.

[DWinzit]

5 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I honestly can't see anyone trading up for Mac Jones; unless San Fran does indeed draft him. Then someone will have traded up for him.   Otherwise Mac Jones will slide a little; think Haskins in 19.  I can see Pats getting him at 15 or Denver getting him at 9. Now, if San Fran does draft Mac Jones; then that leaves Fields and Lance.  If you want DC to trade up; then you hope San Fran does draft Jones.  Then, there's legit shot at getting Fields or Lance, by trading up.  If Fields & Lance is available and noone trades with Atlanta; then you probably would have to trade with Detroit to  beat out Carolina, Denver, New England and Chicago. If Fields and Lance is available at 8; I think Carolina drafts one of them.  If one of both of them is available at 9; I don't see them getting past Denver.

 

Should be an interesting night Thursday.

 

My guess, we don't trade up.  We get LB or OT at 19 and 2nd round.   IF we draft a QB; it will be round 3 and probably get another WR in that round.

 

 

I agree LT and LB are what they would like in the first 2 rounds. Unless the Pats have a trade set for Jimmy after the 3rd pick, I think they are game on for QB4

[celticsalmon]

OL first round LB second

[TheGoodBits]

I hate the idea of drafting a quarterback in the 2-4th rounds... *occasionally* they’ll pan out but generally they’re just career back ups. And there’s a ton of good OL, WR, RB, LB, etc talent available in those rounds. 

[RWJ]

11 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I hate the idea of drafting a quarterback in the 2-4th rounds... *occasionally* they’ll pan out but generally they’re just career back ups. And there’s a ton of good OL, WR, RB, LB, etc talent available in those rounds. 

Would you rather spend possibly 2 future 1st rounders plus and find out that the QB you drafted is a bust and be out 2 years worth of 1st round picks plus 2nds or 3rds or a high caliber player.  Anymore it's a crap shoot with a QB.  Mills, which we have ties to is raw like Lance and Jones but has played for a reputable CFB program and has upside.  I'd rather spend a pick rather than a bounty to find out. 

28 minutes ago, celticsalmon said:

OL first round LB second

I like it!! The only OL I want in the 1st though is Darrisaw.  If he's not available then go JOK in the 1st and OT in the 2nd (Radunz from NDSU). 

[TheGoodBits]

21 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Would you rather spend possibly 2 future 1st rounders plus and find out that the QB you drafted is a bust and be out 2 years worth of 1st round picks plus 2nds or 3rds or a high caliber player.  Anymore it's a crap shoot with a QB.  Mills, which we have ties to is raw like Lance and Jones but has played for a reputable CFB program and has upside.  I'd rather spend a pick rather than a bounty to find out. 

. 

Honestly yeah, I’d rather be all in on a QB or out on them altogether. Build your team to prepare for a QB or go ahead and get the one you want. 

[RWJ]

19 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Honestly yeah, I’d rather be all in on a QB or out on them altogether. Build your team to prepare for a QB or go ahead and get the one you want. 

I can respect that.  I'd go the other way though rather than putting ALL my eggs in one basket and beyond.  Just me.

[88Comrade2000]

If you 3rd round doesn’t work out; can try again next year and you will have just spent a 3rd round pick.

 

Trading up and then don’t have it work out and you are giving up a lot.

[JoggingGod]

 

[KDawg]

Good thing we didn’t trade 3 firsts, some twos and whatever else for Watson right now.

[wit33]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

Good thing we didn’t trade 3 firsts, some twos and whatever else for Watson right now.

Some were ready to give up Chase and his first born.