|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
I've been having a private conversation about our potential draft picks and as I was trying to explain my thoughts, I looked up some stats to see if what I was thinking is true. My worry is that some of us are insisting on taking a QB #4, so we get our "choice" pick of QB. The problem is that many of these guys aren't exactly sure-fire Top 3-type selections, and I'm worried we might reach on a project, when we can just pick ourselves up an equally interesting project around #26 (or even 2nd round) without having to reach for it. So I looked back at the draft history for the last 5 years and found something interesting: Code:
2013:
1 16 Buffalo Bills E. J. Manuel
2 39 New York Jets Geno Smith
3 73 Tampa Bay Buccs Mike Glennon
2012:
1 1 Indianapolis Colts Andrew Luck †
1 2 Washington Redskins Robert Griffin III †
1 8 Miami Dolphins Ryan Tannehill
1 22 Cleveland Browns Brandon Weeden
2 57 Denver Broncos Brock Osweiler
3 75 Seattle Seahawks Russell Wilson †
3 88 Philadelphia Eagles Nick Foles †
2011:
1 1 Carolina Panthers Cam Newton †
1 8 Tennessee Titans Jake Locker
1 10 Jacksonville Jaguars Blaine Gabbert
1 12 Minnesota Vikings Christian Ponder
2 35 Cincinnati Bengals Andy Dalton †
2 36 San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick *
3 74 New England Patriots Ryan Mallett
2010:
1 1 St. Louis Rams Sam Bradford
1 25 Denver Broncos Tim Tebow
2 48 Carolina Panthers Jimmy Clausen
3 85 Cleveland Browns Colt McCoy
2009:
1 1 Detroit Lions Matthew Stafford
1 5 New York Jets Mark Sanchez
1 17 Tampa Bay Buccs Josh Freeman
2 44 Miami Dolphins Pat White
They guys with a "†" are Pro-Bowlers and I gave Kaep a "*" because he's been pretty exceptional despite not going to a Pro-Bowl. Take a look at the QBs taken in picks 4-32 versus the group taken 2nd or 3rd round: 1st: Manual, Tannehill, Weeden, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Tebow, Sanchez, Freeman ... 0 Pro-Bowls and some pretty big duds 2nd/3rd: Geno, Glennon, Osweiller, Wilson, Foles, Dalton, Kaepernick, Mallett, Clausen, McCoy, White ... some duds, but also 3 Pro-Bowlers, 1 Super Bowl champ, and 1 pretty good guy in Kaepernick. Which group would you rather draw a name from a hat? Outside of the guys taken in the top 3 (Guys that are obvious top QBs) ... Quarterbacks taken in Round 1, in the last 5 years, have generally been lousy. My thinking is that anyone who doesn't go as an obvious top selection is more of a project QB and is going to be much more reliant on the players and coaches around him to succeed. QB's taken outside the top 3 also seem to be more "reach" picks from teams desperate for a QB, rather than the guy getting drafted where he probably should go. They're also heaped with bigger expectations than their 2nd and 3rd round counterparts. I also tried to think back to other top QBs in the league today to see if this still applied: The best current guys I could think of drafted 4-32: Rivers: drafted 4th Roethlisberger: 11th Flacco: 18th Rogers: 24th Of those ... I don't think any of them were considered a reach for their spot. Roeth and Rogers actually both dropped a bit. Outside of Flacco ... all of them were pretty much considered top 10 picks and NONE of the experts said anything like, "Well he should probably go in the 2nd round" And of course, you can pit that against the list of QBs drafted outside the top 32 picks: Brees: 2nd Romo: UD Brady: 6th etc ... I guess my point is that I worry we pass up an elite talent to take a guy just because we have our "pick" of project QBs. It seems recent history shows us that project QBs taken later have just as much of a chance at success as the non-elite QBs taken in the first. If two teams needing QBs in Houston and Jacksonville both pass on taking a QB in the top 3 ... shouldn't that be a red-flag for us?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
But is this because they were taken by better teams and had better opportunities or were they just better than everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
The fact that they are younger players might have something to do w/the number of Pro Bowl appearances.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
But is this because they were taken by better teams and had better opportunities or were they just better than everyone?
Maybe a little of both ... You can also say the same thing about Roethlisberger, Rogers and Flacco's situation. Then you look at the Bengals ... they took an elite WR before taking a passer later in that draft. I think the point is that once you drop out of the top 3, you aren't looking at a guaranteed QB fix. You might as well stick to your draft board and get the best value for your position.
People think that because we might have our choice of QBs at #4, that we should just pick one. That's not going to make the QB any better. Look at the 2011 draft ... if we have our choice of Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder ... should we pass up AJ Green to take one of them? Or take Green anyway and take someone like Dalton or Kaepernick more where they are supposed to be drafted?
Now, I'm not saying we should pass on a QB. If we've done our homework and someone like Teddy or Johnny is in the top 5 of our actual rankings ... then we take them. If they aren't ... then I don't think we should reach on one, just because we have our "choice".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 7,059 |
You make a very credible counterpoint to the existing train of thought, E-Dawg...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
The fact that they are younger players might have something to do w/the number of Pro Bowl appearances.
Huh? 
Are you saying that some of those first round guys will be pro-bowlers down the road? Over half of those guys don't even play for the teams that drafted them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
No, that is not what I said. I said that you only went back a few years.
Let's cut to the chase. What argument are you trying to make?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I broke down the stuff back in december in a qb thread. (long story short the only QBs we definitely should have drafted but didn't were Roethlisberger and Rodgers)
The hit rate for the 1st qb taken is really high. (About 60-75% for the 1st qb taken since 2000).
The 2nd qb taken has a lower hit rate, the 3rd even lower, and then after that you are throwing darts.
Your point seems to be that if you can't grab a sure fire qb, you are taking a gamble. Yes that appears to be the case. Often the guys taken #1-#3 are either can't miss or gambles...the gambles like jamarcus russell skew the hit rate lower than it should be. This year might come up as a Newton/Ponder/Gabbert/Locker year. It seems more likely to have that happen than a 1983 style probowler extravaganza.
I'll be happy with Bridgewater or Manziel. Bortles and Carr scare me for different reasons, I don't know anything about Garrapolo, and the rest seem like projects (projects is a term that makes it sound like they won't fail..which they will 90% of the time).
Last edited by Kingcob; 04/25/14 11:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
If the Browns had the #5 overall pick would the rule be don't pick a Qb outside of the top 4. I gather you don't like the idea of a Qb pick at #4. The rest is spin. I'd pick a name out of the hat in your first list. You and I feel differently on this one. 
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
If the Browns had the #5 overall pick would the rule be don't pick a Qb outside of the top 4.
No, the rule would be "don't reach", which is what I think happens to a lot of the QB's that get drafted in those 4-32 slots. If a guy is in your top 5 on a draft board, then yeah ... take him
Quote:
I gather you don't like the idea of a Qb pick at #4.
I'm not saying I won't like it, but I'm thinking it's in our best interest not to. None of these QBs seem to be sure-fire type prospects. Nobody is pinning them to a definite top 3 selection, and almost all of them have been mentioned by somebody to go as low as the second round. Like a previous poster said, once you get outside of the top 4 ... you're basically throwing darts for your QB. So since we're already consigned to throwing darts, would you rather take an elite pick at #4 and then throw darts, or throw darts at #4 and then get whatever best player is left later?
Now if your 4th best rated player happens to be one of the QBs, then yes you take them and don't look back.
Quote:
I'd pick a name out of the hat in your first list.
Okay, so you're taking a 33% chance on getting a guy that might start next year for the team that originally drafted them versus a 36% chance of getting a guy that's actually played in a Pro or Super Bowl? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 |
Quote:
Okay, so you're taking a 33% chance on getting a guy that might start next year for the team that originally drafted them versus a 36% chance of getting a guy that's actually played in a Pro or Super Bowl?
Those percentages are flawed. Your denominator is wrong. You use the number of starting QB's in the NFL. What you need to do is look at the number of Qb's from each round divided by the number of Qb's drafted in that round to get the likelihood of a Qb drafted in that round to be successful or what ever criteria you use for your numerator.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,855
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,855 |
Quote:
No, the rule would be "don't reach",
Hasn't that pretty much always been the rule? One that we have frequently ignored over the last 13 or so years?
in hindsight, we done nothing but reach.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,064
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,064 |
If they fall, we should take one at 26 (not 4), and take another after that. Being lower, they are cheaper. Put the same practice werk into two you have for cheaper money. They all need work and come up short, so hedge your bet for the future in this draft. Doing it this way puts the pressure on other positions, as it should be. Cap friendlier. So you get a Bridgewater and Garappolo. I can see it. 
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
No, the rule would be "don't reach",
Hasn't that pretty much always been the rule? One that we have frequently ignored over the last 13 or so years?
in hindsight, we done nothing but reach.
I don't think that taking McCoy in the 3rd round was a reach. The problem with it was that the team (especially the coaching) sucked around him. He got Tim Couched.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so you're taking a 33% chance on getting a guy that might start next year for the team that originally drafted them versus a 36% chance of getting a guy that's actually played in a Pro or Super Bowl?
Those percentages are flawed. Your denominator is wrong. You use the number of starting QB's in the NFL. What you need to do is look at the number of Qb's from each round divided by the number of Qb's drafted in that round to get the likelihood of a Qb drafted in that round to be successful or what ever criteria you use for your numerator.
That's exactly what I did ... I'm not talking about overall, I'm talking about QBs drafted in the last 5 years. First group 9 guys, and only 3 of them will probably start with the team that drafted them: Locker, Manual and Tannehill. I suppose you could add Ponder, but I don't think the Vikings really WANT to start him, and there's been talk of trading him around the draft anyway. ... so 33% chance of getting one of those guys.
Versus a group of 11 guys that were drafted in the 2nd or 3rd rounds and 4 of them have played in a game ending in "Bowl": Wilson, Kaep, Foles and Dalton. That's 36%. And I'm not even sure you can count in Mallet or Osweiler in the denominator, because they've been sitting on the bench behind legends (sort of like Aaron Rodgers did). So if you calculate it that way, you'd be looking at 44%. You've also got Glennon and Geno, who will probably start for their teams.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so you're taking a 33% chance on getting a guy that might start next year for the team that originally drafted them versus a 36% chance of getting a guy that's actually played in a Pro or Super Bowl?
Those percentages are flawed. Your denominator is wrong. You use the number of starting QB's in the NFL. What you need to do is look at the number of Qb's from each round divided by the number of Qb's drafted in that round to get the likelihood of a Qb drafted in that round to be successful or what ever criteria you use for your numerator.
And this is where "numbers don't lie unless you don't look at all of the numbers". The laws of probability have been ignored.
The rest of this is j/c in general.......
Let's use both Wilson and Kaepernick as examples. Sure the 49'ers ended up with Kaep and Seattle ended up with Wilson. But look at the gamble they took. What if a team 2 or 5 or 10 picks earlier had taken them? It's all fine and well to say wait to draft your QB, unless he goes before you pick next.
One thing I've learned from being a Browns fan is, you can't simply make a list of QB's and say "any of these guys will do" when drafting a QB. That's simply not how this works. Can it happen? Yes. But as has been noted, the probability of that happening are very poor.
If your top QB in this draft is rated 10-15, do you simply pass on him at #4 with "hopes" you can move back up to acquire him? Do you wait and hope he falls? Or do you wait for a far lesser QB on your board that you may have rated in the 30's, twice as low and "hope it works out"?
And what if that QB you had rated in the 30's goes 2 picks before you draft? Then you drop to an even lower QB on your board.
I guess if you feel you can "insert name here" when drafting a QB is a reasonable way to approach answering your franchise QB position, then that works. But Quinn, Weeden, McCoy and Frye would be strong indications to me that it simply doesn't work that way.
JMHO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
A sample size of 5 years? I think that is a sample size that fits the agenda here. It's certainly not a big picture look.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
I guess if you feel you can "insert name here" when drafting a QB is a reasonable way to approach answering your franchise QB position, then that works. But Quinn, Weeden, McCoy and Frye would be strong indications to me that it simply doesn't work that way.
I'd say Quinn and Weeden actually dispute what you are saying. We traded up to get Quinn because we wanted him when he fell out of the top 10 and Weeden we picked at 22 because we didn't think he would last to the second round.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
A sample size of 5 years? I think that is a sample size that fits the agenda here. It's certainly not a big picture look.
How far should I go back? 20 years? ... I didn't want to look up guys all night. The last 5 years, the real emphasis has been put on the QBs, so I took that sample size. Go back another year? Matt Ryan was drafted 3rd and Flacco 18th ... and I already mentioned him as one of the guys that "beat the rule" ... another year, Russell went #1 and Quinn went 22 ... would you rather have one of them, or the guys that went in the 2nd round after: Kevin Kolb, John Beck, and Drew Stanton?
I was just seeing the same pattern, so I looked up elite guys that were still playing in the league and looked where they were drafted ... of those guys, only Rivers, Roeth, Flacco and Rogers were non-top-3 first rounders, and I discussed them. What did they all have in common? They weren't over-drafted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Weeden was a desperate attempt to land a QB to save the job of the Walrus.  Quinn they were simply wrong about. Once again, if you expand your window well beyond a 5 year anomaly, your numbers and story would be different. I don't see a five year window as being nearly enough to base something like this on. If you do, that's fine.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
How far should I go back? 20 years? ... I didn't want to look up guys all night.
I don't blame you there. That's a lot of work.
Quote:
The last 5 years, the real emphasis has been put on the QBs, so I took that sample size.
The last 5 years? The QB has been the emphasis ever since I could remember. They always get the press, every team needs a really good one and drafts have revolved around teams finding one.
I will have to say that I believe Flacco and Eli Manning are two of the most overrated QB's I've seen. Both need to hit a hot streak to do anything. When they're off, they're WAY OFF!
Look, you can huff and puff until your house falls down, but I saw a post that actually broke down the probabilities of drafting QB's by each round. It was over an extended period of time and clearly shown that drafting a QB in round 1 had a far higher probability of success. This has and will be a QB driven league ever since the forward pass and Paul Brown.
Like I've already stated, if you feel a short window is an accurate gauge of this, that's fine. I simply don't agree.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Weeden was a desperate attempt to land a QB to save the job of the Walrus.
That's sort of my point ... Most QBs taken in this range are just that. A reaching chance to grab a QB because one is needed and they want to save some jobs.
Quote:
Quinn they were simply wrong about.
Which is sort of my other point ... Once you get outside of the top 3, your success rate for QBs plummets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,550
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,550 |
Weeden was NOT a desperate attempt, it was a foolish attempt and It ranks right up there with Don Quixote chasing windmills Heckert loved the guy. He was blown away by his arm and maturity and nothing else mattered. I saw Weden at the senior bowl and I was being kind with a late 3rd grade. Heckert ignored it. I was probably the biggest Tom Heckert fan around but this was on him no Holmgren. Colt McCoy now that was on Holmgren.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Well that kind of brings up my point as well.
IF you have a QB like Bridgewater or Manziel rated in your top 10 - 12 range, do you wait to try to draft them at #26 hoping they'll fall to you?
If you trade up from #4 to #3 to draft them, would it make them a better QB?
I'm not sure I have the answers to all of these questions. Heck, if I did I would be working in an NFL FO and not posting on a message board.
But I don't believe that drafting a QB in the top 3 changes who that QB is or how well they'll do.
We're really not far apart in our bottom line here. If they have a QB rated high enough to be a strong consideration at #4, I want them to take him. I feel that gives you the best odds of landing a franchise QB. Beyond that I simply don't believe there's a magic formula.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
I was being kind with a late 3rd grade. Heckert ignored it.
You mean to tell me Heckert ignored your grade on the QB's in that draft? The nerve of that guy!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,550
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,550 |
man that was a good one lol.
Well if he had listened to me we would have had Tannehill, Doug Martin and Alshon Jeffery and still been able to get Mitchell schwartz.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 344
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 344 |
Quote:
Weeden was NOT a desperate attempt, it was a foolish attempt and It ranks right up there with Don Quixote chasing windmills Heckert loved the guy. He was blown away by his arm and maturity and nothing else mattered. I saw Weden at the senior bowl and I was being kind with a late 3rd grade. Heckert ignored it. I was probably the biggest Tom Heckert fan around but this was on him no Holmgren. Colt McCoy now that was on Holmgren.
A lot of us on this board didn't want Weeden (The pick had me pulling my hair out at the time), but I'm still a Browns Fan and didn't ;ose my job over it. That being said, I'd Hate picking a QB at #4, but whatever the Browns decide to do, I'm With them. JMHO Go Brownies!!!!
Who Let Da Dawgs Out? Woof, Woof, Woof!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
man that was a good one lol.
Well if he had listened to me we would have had Tannehill, Doug Martin and Alshon Jeffery and still been able to get Mitchell schwartz.
Hey, there a at least a few posters on this board I wish they would have listened to on more than one draft no doubt!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
This topic blends in well with my post from many months ago I mentioned.
The only top QBs the browns ever had a chance at drafting were Roethlisberger and Rodgers.
All of these top 3 guys we were never in a position to take. If you don't take a QB this year, or even next year, you have to get the ammo to move up to top 3 which we know is expensive, and if there is a sure fire qb there, what are the chances the teams at 1-2 would pass on him?
Can't miss QBs are a lucky lucky proposition. Year after year we have stunk, only to have some team Curtis Painter their season and grab the sure fire guy. I think sitting at 4 this year is a good time to take a swing if they like any of the guys.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,882
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,882 |
Quote:
Can't miss QBs are a lucky lucky proposition. Year after year we have stunk, only to have some team Curtis Painter their season and grab the sure fire guy.
Or we win a stupid meaningless game or two right at the end of the season. Which everyone applauds and is sure will, "give us momentum going into next year!" When all it has really done is screwed us in the draft.
I'm a believer that if you're only going to win 4 games just win 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I'm not too into the NBA. But on the face of it the lottery system has a lot of appeal to me. I think it absolves a lot of the "I hope we lose" dilemma late in the season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
but I saw a post that actually broke down the probabilities of drafting QB's by each round. It was over an extended period of time and clearly shown that drafting a QB in round 1 had a far higher probability of success.
But that's thrown off by QBs taken 1-3 ... fine, I'll do the work ...
*3 hours later montage*
It's a little hard to determine if a QB was really good or not, so I just went with a criteria of, "Would we of been happy to take more than one of his good years" on our team.
Okay, of the last 25 years:
Here's the breakdown:
1st pick - 15 taken, 12 I'd say were good picks ... that's an 80% success rate.
QBs I rated as good were: Luck, Newton, Bradford, Stafford, Ryan, A.Smith, E.Manning, Palmer, Vick, P.Manning, Bledsoe, Aikman. Again, kind of hard to draw the line on success ... You can say Palmer or Bledsoe or somebody doesn't belong and re-adjust the percentatge. The only real busts here were Carr, Couch and Russell, and the first two were on expansion teams.
2nd Pick - 4 taken, 2 good QBs, 50% rate.
Qbs I rated as good: RGIII and McNabb ... not so good, Meyer and Leaf.
3rd Pick - 6 taken, 2 good QB, 33% rate.
I had Ryan and McNair good, versus Young, Harrington, Shuler and Akili as bad
After that ... it gets a little harder to evaluate good versus bad .. but the percentages also drop off the table.
4th-32nd Pick - 35 taken, 4 good QB, 11% rate.
The aforementioned Rivers, Ben, Flacco and Rogers. You could maybe make a case for Cutler, Culpepper, Collins and Dilfer. That would bump it up to 22%.
2nd Round Picks - 29 taken, 3 good QB, 10% rate.
Kaep, Brees, Farve as good with cases for Dalton, Kolb, Plummer bumping that up to 20%
3rd Round Picks - 29 taken, 1 good QB, 4% rate.
Have Wilson as the lone good QB with Foles and Shaub as possibilities bumping that number up to 12%
So, after the 3rd pick ... you're looking at a 11-22% chance of a decent QB, move to the second round, and you're looking at a 10-20% chance ... basically the same thing.
What I'm saying is would you rather pass up a guy you have rated much higher at #4 and take your 11-22% chance on a QB ... or would you draft that extra weapon or extra protection for your QB at 4 and then take basically the same chance on a guy with your later pick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,416
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,416 |
Tannehill's been OK, but I don't see him as a sure thing. He now will be moving into a new offense, after playing in the WCO in college and his 1st 2 seasons in Miami.
It will be interesting to see how things play out for him. He definitely has talent all around him. (Moreno, Miller, Clay, Wallace, Hartline) He also has a strong defense, ranked 8th in scoring last year.
The Dolphins scored only 317 points last year. That was good for 26th in the NFL. The Browns, last year, scored 308 points, good for 27th in the NFL. I can imagine how he would have done here.
Yeah ...... as I see it, he definitely has a lot to prove.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,188 |
Here is the thing: I get where you are going by looking over the past and where players were selected and who has become successful.
It is worth looking at. However, each year is different and so are the players. There are many factors that go into what happens after a player is drafted. The team he goes too and who coaches the team play a huge role.
Sam Bradford is a good example. First player taken. Went to a very bad team. A team that is still building. He got hurt. Mixed reviews. I still would take him in a heart beat.
You have to judge the player "now". You have to look at the individual and determine can this guy lead our team?
I applaud Pete Carroll for playing Wilson over Flynn. I applaud Jim Harbaugh for drafting Kaepernick when he had Alex Smith playing well.
The Browns have the opportunity to get who they believe is the best quarterback in this draft. They just need to be right about who that is and not so much where he is selected.
If whoever they pick plays well and leads to the team to the playoffs nobody will care when he was selected.
Of course you try and pick value at the time you select a player. Maybe the Browns love Jimmy Garopollo. But, it would not make much sense taking him at four in this draft. Most likely he will be available at 26. Then again there is some risk there. Maybe somebody else takes him sooner.
This not a popularity contest. This is not about getting a good draft grade from Mel Kiper. This about getting the talent to fit your team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Quote:
What I'm saying is would you rather pass up a guy you have rated much higher at #4 and take your 11-22% chance on a QB ... or would you draft that extra weapon or extra protection for your QB at 4 and then take basically the same chance on a guy with your later pick.
If I have a guy rated much higher, I trust my scouts and evaluations and take him. I believe you have to take each draft and situation into account.
Weeden held the ball forever. By the time we got to Hoyer, who read his options and threw the ball rather than holding onto to it, our pass protection was fine. It has really been pretty good for a while if one actually breaks down how long they have provided pass protection.
This is a very deep draft at WR. So if you wish to add another weapon, the drop off in talent at the WR position would seem better than taking a bigger gamble on a later QB. I've never seen a WR turn a team around. I have seen many QB's do that.
That's the thing, there have been many drafts where I would be more inclined to go along with what you're indicating here. But I do believe there is really only one QB worthy of the top #4 pick. We probably don't agree on that one either.
If Bridgewater, or whoever they rank worthy, if anyone, as leading the pack at the QB position, I would draft that QB. For all I know, they may see the gamble at drafting a QB this year as not worth a #4 pick and that many of them are about the same.
If that's true, I think they should follow your train of thought. But if they have one rated head and shoulders above the rest, they should take him and not look back.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
If I have a guy rated much higher, I trust my scouts and evaluations and take him. I believe you have to take each draft and situation into account.
Yes, I would go with that too ... what I don't want is, "Well he's sort of good enough ... let's just get him because we can't risk losing him later", and then passing up on much better talent.
That's the sort of decision making that gets you Brandon Weeden. It's also what the "good" teams don't do ... they let the draft come to them, and draft the top guys on their board. I remember Ozzie Newsome talking about the 1996 draft. They had Jonathan Ogden ranked #1, but Modell wanted a running back because "they needed one badly" ... He insisted on Laurence Phillips, but Ozzie told him they needed to stick to their board. They took Ogden instead, and history and all that.
Quote:
This is a very deep draft at WR. So if you wish to add another weapon, the drop off in talent at the WR position would seem better than taking a bigger gamble on a later QB. I've never seen a WR turn a team around. I have seen many QB's do that.
Braylon Edwards turned Derek Anderson into a Pro-Bowler (before both of them went mental) ... AJ Green helped Andy Dalton to a Pro-Bowl.
Quote:
That's the thing, there have been many drafts where I would be more inclined to go along with what you're indicating here. But I do believe there is really only one QB worthy of the top #4 pick. We probably don't agree on that one either.
If that's the case, then I agree with you. If the Browns have one ranked in the top 5, then yes they should pick them. The problem is that these guys seem to be all over the place with the "experts". That's not instilling a lot of confidence with me to take one of them. I'll probably be fine with taking any one of the main 3 guys at number 4 ... I'm just hoping the Browns did their homework on this, and they aren't just picking a guy to fill a need.
I think you and I are on the same page ... you just feel very good about one of the QBs. I'm just not as confident as I should be with all the choices, and the consensus of the draft experts seems to be all over the place as well. I'm thinking the chance at success for most of these guys is going to be around the same and a couple of them might slip further than expected. So rather than using your 4th round pick on a chance ... get a top pick and take your chance later.
Let's say your guy goes to Jacksonville at #3. Would you rather we just take one of the "other guys" because we "have too"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,720 |
Firstly let me start by saying I don't think Braylon made DA nor do I think AJ makes Andy Dalton. I actually feel Stafford is a better QB than either and CJ can't seem to make him. Also we had the #1 WR in yardage in the league and he isn't making anybody. But that's simply a difference in opinion we'll have to live with. Quote:
I think you and I are on the same page ... you just feel very good about one of the QBs. I'm just not as confident as I should be with all the choices, and the consensus of the draft experts seems to be all over the place as well. I'm thinking the chance at success for most of these guys is going to be around the same and a couple of them might slip further than expected. So rather than using your 4th round pick on a chance ... get a top pick and take your chance later.
I'm not so sure about these supposed "draft experts". I mean people say they have "league sources" and they have those the entire year if they actually have them.
Bridgewater was expected to be tied with Clowney as a choice for the #1 pick in the draft. Now that was at seasons end. I simply don't believe a bad pro day changed what everyone saw on tape prior to that. An article was posted just the other day on how often these draft experts miss very badly.
You also pointed out earlier how they picked Flacco later than #3 and you have history... and all that.
Quote:
Let's say your guy goes to Jacksonville at #3. Would you rather we just take one of the "other guys" because we "have too"?
Well I'm not stuck on "my guy". This pick has to be "their guy". If whoever their guy is was gone? No, I wouldn't reach. I don't believe you just take one of the top 3 no matter what.
I do believe we are on pretty much the same page here. To me it would have to be a QB they have rated at the very least the top rated QB on their board by a pretty wide margin. Otherwise, I'd use a lower investment on what I consider to be a "sound project" later in the draft.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,806 |
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 401
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 401 |
There is another aspect you need to take into account when only going back 5 years...
The team around the QB...
The most recent examples of Wilson and Kaepernick...Their team built around them is categorically better, rating in the top 5 in the NFL...
Now Seattle hit the jackpot getting a Super Bowl in his first 4 years in the league...
What happens, next year when he demands to be paid like a top 3 QB based on that Super Bowl victory? The "TEAM" digresses because more money is put into that QB and the other players that made the team special will cap casualties. Is that same QB capable of taking up the slack? Or do you simply plan on drafting a capable QB every 3 years and letting the other one go after his rookie deal is done?
Case in point...
Wilson is at one end of the spectrum...Super Bowl
Andy Dalton is the other end of the spectrum...high 2nd round draft pick, but are you going to pay the guy $14M a year to get you enough wins to make the playoffs then lay an egg one game in? He has what is probably the most talent laden team in the AFC North, but cannot elevate his game play in high pressure games. Do the Bengals take "another Dalton" and continue to be one and done for the next decade or pay the man and maybe not be good enough to make the playoffs at all?
The Browns are on the cusp of being a team that cannot afford an elite QB because they could possibly be playing for meaningful games in December very soon. Once that happens, they will no longer be picking in the top 5 with the ability to get a top level QB capable of being paid like a top level QB and make up for the other talent around him as it digresses.
This (hopefully) could be a last chance to get that guy and IMHO, there are two QBs in this draft with that ceiling to get to the next level, with a higher probability...Johnny Manziel and Teddy Bridgewater.
It is my opinion, IF the Browns feel the same way about either of these QBs (or anyone else for that matter, I am not bold enough to think I know more than the Browns scouting department), they spend to move up and get one. I'm not talking about taking one left over at the #4 pick, which could easily be the 2nd or 3rd QB taken...Go get your guy if you believe in him!!
IF history tells us anything, the NFL draft IS a QB driven league. If the Browns feel strongly about a QB, odds are GREAT that other clubs will too. It is way more likely that QB will be gone at #4, than a diamond gets passed over for 3 draft picks to simply fall in the Browns laps.
If they don't feel strongly enough to move up to get him...leave him on the board and get one of the elite prospects rated higher...
THEN...don't take a project until this draft dries up of talent around a QB. My personal choice is Logan Thomas in the 4th or 5th round. Not because I think he will be a forgotten guy in the later rounds, but because if I am taking a project, I want the one with the biggest ceiling to work with. He has MANY flaws, but his tools are some of the best in this draft.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
There is another aspect you need to take into account when only going back 5 years...
The team around the QB...
That's exactly what I'm taking into account. Unless the QB is a #1-type selection, then his chance to be successful in the NFL has way more to do with the team around him than the QB himself. As I'm showing with the history here, you have just about the same chance as getting a successful QB at #4 as you do at #34 ... and most of it depends on the "team around him".
So if that's the case ... then shouldn't we be focusing on drafting a better "team around him"?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2014 NFL Season NFL Draft 2014 Beware the QB outside the top 3??
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
