Heck, look at the losing QBs. Delhomme McNabb Hasselbeck Grossman Brady Warner Big Ben Manning Brady So it's 9 franchise guys beating 7 franchise guys. Since '06, it's been a completely elite affair. Eli - Brady Big Ben - Warner Brees - Manning Rodgers - Big Ben Eli - Brady Hopefully we approach the position appropriately.
Point is it's a system. One can't function without the other. No matter how many stats you want to throw out. and I never said they all had the same impact. In fact I said one was more important then the other.
Sure, I've never stated otherwise. How much of a chance is the question. And I know plenty about statistics. 25% in terms of probability is not a huge difference when well they are both below 50%. That is my point. Below 50% you are still more likely to fail. That is statistics/probability.
So are we shooting for super bowls or playoffs only? How many superbowls has peyton manning been in again?
1/4 rate out of how many prospects is what you would have to look at. Then compound that every year. Good luck. And this isn't franchise qbs these are just playoff winners. Again are we talking playoffs or superbowl? You guys are changing the scenario on me. And ben was not elite his first super bowl. Eli was questionable as elite as well.
Obviously the Dolphins have to have a strong conviction on the guy if they plan on taking him. You're more than likely to fail in any pursuit of a franchise QB. They are hard to get. But you need one to be a legit SB contender, so why not go with the best odds you can to get one? If 1st round picks are a 50/50 proposition, a 25% success rate is only 25% less than any other position. So if it's not a big difference, then why is it such a bad decision? Again though, it's not a 25% success rate. It's closer to 50% for all QBs taken in the first round. It's not 1/4 though, it's closer to 1/2 and you don't compound it every year, the statistics are pretty consistent year to year. Where it gets compounded is QBs taken after the 1st round as the number of misses grows.
Which is my point. Which is why I don't agree with the whole take any qb with any little potential mantra. I'm all for drafting a qb this year because there are a good amount of them going, so there is a higher chance of success. I am not for drafting a qb just to take a shot at it and hope you hit yahzee. No they aren't. One year it goes up to 3/4 the next year it goes to 1/2 then it goes to 0. Thats right 0. And by compound I mean you have a 1/4th shot every year. If there are say 16 good qbs sure you have a good shot. If there are 2 top prospects, then what? Now if you take each years results and compound it, its not looking like such good odds. Think of it like any casino game really. The odds are 30% sure, that's better then most of the games, but is it really all that great? No, it's not.
I agree on the first part. Taking one for the simple fact of needing one is not the right thing to do. I believe Tannehill brings enough positives to the table that he merits the risk. The fact is you need a franchise QB to succeed in the NFL. There are some outliers here and there, but as Desides I believe it was, mentioned either in this thread or another similar one, success in the passing game is the single highest indicator of wins and losses in the NFL. So knowing that, you're going to have to take some sort of risk. That's why I think you should look to take the risk with the greatest chance at success which is a 1st round QB, not waiting and taking a shot with a 2nd teir guy. As for your second point, I don't get how you keep getting the 1/4 number. That was looking at one class. One class that was well below the actual average. Looking at all the classes in that period the number is closer to 1/2. There is no compounding, those are the numbers as a whole. And while there are a few 0-fers sprinkled in there, more often than not more than half of the QBs taken in the 1st round in a specific draft went on to be franchise guys.
First round isn't important for qb's, other than you have more to pick from when it comes to qb. If you increase your pool to pull from you increase your chance of finding the next franchise QB. Regardless of what the stats say, its fact you need a franchise qb to win and win consistently. People are way to hung up on first round value perceptions.
Yes, the 1/4th was an example class. One I used to point out the lunacy of the article. Because the 1 qb who had won in the playoffs was rex grossman, which completely blows the franchise idea out of the water. I don't know where it tends to be, but I'm willing to bet, as I've stated before, the differences aren't all that great between actual hits on "franchise" qbs, e.g. long term winning qbs, found in the first round vs other rounds. Yes it will probably be higher in the first round as teams have a tendency to grab qbs up in that round. I don't think it will be as high as you like to think though. Yes, I acknowledge qb is more important. I don't think it's as important as people on here seem to believe as I stated it is a system. And I'm sorry there is not one system that can function well with just one great component functioning. Yes, a good/great qb can compensate for other parts of the system not being up to par. I don't think enough to where you can just select a qb to select a qb. I also think other parts of the team can compensate for poor qb play. And I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole, the game has changed you can only win by passing mantra.
Using Peyton Manning to argue my point isn't the best way to go about this, is it? I don't think we need to go over his career resume. The goal is of course Super Bowl. You don't win one or get one every year, but you need a guy who gives you a chance. Marino was only in one Super Bowl, but I'll be damned if you didn't feel like he had a chance every year. The bottom line is risk/reward. A couple years ago the risk of missing on a 1st round QB was maybe only marginally outweighed by the reward. Now with the rookie cap? Not even close. Fact is, there's no other position even close to QB as far as round based talent is concerned. The best are found in the 1st overwhelmingly.
Point is, if you are going for strictly super bowls, peyton has one. If you are going playoffs well then y es you have a point. But what reasons did peyton fail to win super bowls with as great as he played? Because the system wasn't there to support him. And he often ran into better systems, e.g. the steelers d and the patriots d.
The reward of taking one just to take one is so great though. Think about how many times the Dolphins could've done that and didn't. Are we having this conversation if they had "reached" for Aaron Rodgers or decided Matt Ryan was a franchise QB? Maybe, maybe not. Would their value outweigh the value of Jake Long? Probably.
at that time I recall many arguing brady and ben weren't franchise/great qbs. I always thought brady was good. Big ben in the early years though was far from playing at an elite level.
Well there in lies my point and my disagreement with this whole thing. Yes I'd take an aaron rodgers. Do I take a matt ryan? Honestly do you think he's all that great? Forget the jake long vs matt ryan qb is more important argument. Do you think matt ry an was worthy of being picked at that spot as a player? I'm willing to be not as of yet.
It is as high as I think because it's not something I "think", it's something I researched. Look a few posts back (post 81, you even quoted it)and you'll see that I went back and looked at every QB taken from 2003-2009 and QBs taken in the 1st round ended up as "franchise" QBs (I guess that's up to interpretation, but I feel guys like Flacco and Freeman qualify, but those were the two I guess could go either way, but wouldn't shift the stats too much anyway) more than 47% of the time while guys drafted after round 1 end up being franchise QBs less than 3% of the time (and that's giving Fitzpatrick franchise treatment). So again, it's a lot more than 1/4 of the time and not that much lower than any other position in the draft. And the difference between success in the 1st vs later is staggering.
I'm choosing my words carefully. These two may or may not be elite based on definitions, biases, etc. They are franchise QBs however. Do either of them succeed anywhere else? Dunno, but they are confirmed long term solutions at QB for their respective teams and their individual success or failure is directly related to the teams success and failure. We need a franchise QB. The best chance we have of grabbing one is to keep picking them in the first round simply because the pool is bigger.
then i'd say your definition of franchise is a bit laxed. Those are few and far between. Those are anomalies.
Think of it like this: if you are our team right now, at your pick you can either choose a player at any position other than QB and you have a 85% chance they'll be elite, or a QB that has a 65% of being elite, which do you do?
If I told you you could have those guys and only those guys for the next 10 years would you turn them down? I doubt it. The kind of money the Ravens are about to pay Flacco seem to indicate he's a franchise guy, but even if you exclude the fringe guys in Freeman and Flacco, those numbers don't change a whole lot. It's still about 40% and if Fitzpatrick isn't included, the "after round 1" number goes down even further. So either way, there is an enormous difference. And if you want to change the name of "franchise" to successful quarterbacks, you can. Either way, you have a far greater chance if you're getting one in the 1st round.
depends what position. I for instance value the dl/ol higher then say a cb/lb/wr/rb. If its a dl/ol I take them every day out of the week. If its a cb/lb/wr/rb well I stop and think about it. Safety is a toss up for me although I agree with raphael its probably more then likely one of the more important positions.
You said we take a guy if the talent is there in the pool. Whose determination of talent in that pool are you comfortable with? Some people say Tanny/Weeden aren't worthy of 1st rd picks. Should we not grab one at #8?
would you say for instance cutler is a franchise guy? what about sanchez? I'm just scanning over the numbers and I'm not seeing where you are getting that. Granted I could be wrong. And the time one stays on a team means little to me. My definition of franchise in this case is a qb who can carry the team ala rodgers/brady/ manning/brees. I don't see guys like matt ryan (who I could be wrong about) , sanchez or cutler at that level. Cutler though could step up as he is in wr hell at the moment.
no I'd take tanny and/or weeden. I wouldn't take matt ryan/tebow/mallet. Maybe even locker/ gabbert. But this years pool is freakishly excellent IMO.
so would you take a patrick willis over a brady quinn or jamarcus? what about over locker/gabbert/ryan?
Cutler yes, Sanchez heck no. The 8 others are Big Ben, Rivers, Eli, Rodgers, Carson Palmer, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, and one more that I can't think of off the top of my head.
disagree on ryan. Stafford I think will be good not at eli/rodgers/rivers level. cutler is a coin flip for me at the moment. The guy seems to have some mental problems.
If my staff gives the qb a 65% chance or better of becoming franchise.....yes, I take the qb every time, as long as we need one.
While there's some truth to the point (QB's drafted from rds 2 onward usually aren't successful starters), it's an arbitrary starting point for Hyde (2003). That's one thing that bothers me about how ESPN manipulates stats. The are always spouting stuff like, "Since July 23, 1998, at 2 p.m. no player has ... yada, yada, yada...." The reality is, of course, there are a slew of QB's taken in round 1 who fail miserably. There's just no predicting anything here - though I think if he gets some decent talent, Luck will become a very successful QB. RG III should be a solid QB as well, but there's not as much certainty there for me. One of the things we just don't don't know is how well a lot of these guys are able to read defenses in 2.7 seconds under great pressure. We can count on one hand, occasionally needing a second for one or two more, the number who can do that exceptionally well at the highest level in any given year.
On the surface Hyde's stat makes all the sense in the world because the whole point of the draft is that the better players are taken early. I would venture a guess that players taken in the first round at any position have a higher success rate than those taken later. But its the implication that a QB taken in the first round will some how be better than if he is taken later is what bothers people. Use Drew Brees as an example. As we all know he was taken with the first pick of the second round. But if Hyde's theory is correct, SD should have traded up into the later part of the first round to ensure he had a better chance of success. Does that make any sense? Isn't Brees still the same Brees? Conversely would Henne have turned out any different had we traded back into the first to pick him? of course not. The bottom line is that there are just so many QBs in any draft that have a higher than average probability at success in the NFL and that there are usually more teams looking for a QB. So if you need a QB and one of those guys is available to you in the first you take him. But you don't reach and take the next best guy just so you drafted a QB in the first.
