Great Stat From Dave Hyde

The concept is that you're more likely to win in the postseason with an elite QB and that elite QBs are more likely to be found in the first round. It still comes down to skill evaluation of course. There will be poor evaluations that will cause exceptions on both sides, but the concept is valid. BTW so was his stat, despite many people's poor reading skills. Lol

 

See

 

People expecting to find another Tom Brady in the later rounds of the draft are the same kind of people expecting to win the lottery to fund their retirement.

 

But Mallet would have had a better chance of winning the playoffs if he was selected in the 1st round.

 

Right, so keep missing and don't put better players on your team.
And no the stats say since 2003 taking a qb outside the 1st round means they have a voodoo curse on them and won't ever win a football game. See how that works?

 

They misunderstand chance and results. Chance and odds are derived under strict mathematical process that's controlled for variables. It comes from the idea that because it's a 50% chance for quarter flips or 1/6 chance with dice, all odds and chances operate just as easily in the real world which is bunk.

 

I think the Dolphins should draft Tanninhill or Weeden in the first round.

I also think the stat is poor at predicting the future and shows the problem with how people use stats from sports to science.

 

How so? You make the point that the previous 9 years yielded no results like the consecutive 3 before that period. I reiterated the point that even then, there's no causation in this stat you put forward so looking at the previous 9 years means nothing. Especially considering Yates won one last year and Dalton could very well win one this year. It doesn't matter which round you take them in, they just need to have certain skills. Was it because Marc Bulger wasn't drafted in the first round that he didn't win one? I doubt that. He was better than anything we had here even though he was a 6th rounder.

Also, I'd like to know how this works out if you study going back a few years. Throw in Randall Cunningham, Brady, Brees, Garrard, Joe Montana, Jake Plummer, Brad Johnson (NINTH round pick), Mark Brunell (5th round pick).

 

Or insanely arrogant. See: Jeff Ireland.

 

Let me try: Quarterbacks were taken in the 2-7 rounds over the past 9 years. None of them won playoff games. QB's taken after the first round are incapable of winning playoff games if you discount T. J. Yates who clearly destroys my point but I'll pretend doesn't exist.

 

I never said its not the most. But, you football is still a team sport. Think of it like a computer. The qb is the processor. Yes nothing gets done without the processor, or done well without the processor being great or whatever, but at the end of the day the processor can only go so far on its own.

 

That is one of the best analogies I have seen on this subject. Bravo! Bravo!

 

wow. most quarterbacks taken after round one since 2003 prob havent had a legit chance to start for a decent team yet. the state is useless.

you draft the quarterback in the first round if you think he's that good, not just for the sake of drafting a quarterback. I think tanny has all the tools but would be a reach at due to lack of experience. If clev take him then oh well, we get a stud DE.

 

That's a joke right? Do you really want to compare the success of QBs selected in the 1st round during that time to QBs selected after round 1 and see the percentages of which ones have succeeded?

The notion that you can just as easily find a QB later in the draft is laughable. You CAN find them, but it's exponentially more difficult. The risk is much higher that you'll find a good one. It's not a slam dunk that drafting one in the 1st means he'll succeed, but he has a far greater chance.

 

Stats also say there is a huge difference though, between QBs who succeed that are taken in the 1st round and QBs that succeed that are taken later on.

I don't know a ton about computers, but while your analogy is correct that you need a good team to win, you have almost no chance if you don't have a good QB, and always have some chance if you have a great QB. Look at the Colts. They're a perennial SB contender with Manning, without a wealth of talent around him. Some good players sprinkled in, but far from a team loaded with talent. He goes down, and they're the worst team in the NFL.

 

Let's look at the QBs taken after round 1 in that draft: Dave Ragone (88), Chris Simms (97), Seneca Wallace (110), Brian St. Pierre (163), Drew Henson (192), Brooks Bollinger (200), Kliff Kingsbury (201), Gibran Hamdan (232), Ken Dorsey (241).

How many of those guys panned out? So While only one of the 1st round QBs panned out, none of the others even turned into consistent starters in the NFL. So in that draft alone (where I'd guess the success rate of 1st round QBs, is actually poorer than the average), 1/4 of the 1st rounders turned into a franchise-type QB, while 0/9 did from the guys taken later.

 

To expand on that, here's the QBs taken in the 1st round in 2004: Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Big Ben, J.P. Losman.

Here are the QBs taken after the 1st round: Matt Schaub (90), Luke McCown (106), Craig Krenzel (148), Andy Hall (185), Josh Harris (187), Jim Sorgi (193), Jeff Smoker (201), John Navarre (202), Cody Pickett (217), Casey Bramlet (218), Matt Mauck (225), BJ Symons (248).

So in that draft 3/4 1st round picks turned into franchise guys, and 1/12 of the guys taken later did.

Should I keep going?

 

Heh...stat monkery..all of you.

 

My bad, I read it as won a SB since 2003. Either way recently Dalton drafted early 2nd and he looks pretty good. I would also like to see how many QBs drafted since then suck eggs.

 

Yes Tannehill rejuvenated the team so much they played in the all hallowed Meineke Car care bowl in Shrevesport LA. Look at my post on QBs success after the second pick in the draft. Tannehill is part of the 81% failure to be a good QB. Hey, the kid was so good he got his HC fired in 2011, yep, thats a good QB.

Listen, we all are entitled to our opinion. I have mine, Tannehill spells a complete FO change if we pick him at number 8 and an offense worse then the one that Henning ran.

 

Yes, we must take Weeden in the 1st. Trade up into the late first from our 2nd round pick. If we cannot make a trade and he falls out of the first round, then totally forget him.

 

1) Your versus is going to be larger when you, you know combine every round together. Which is part of my point of this whole feeble exercise.
2) 1/4 or 25% statistically I wouldn't say is much larger then 0%. At least not large enough to advocate the rule of "we must take a qb in the first round no matter if there are better players around"
3) Tony romo was undrafted. He has a playoff win. By this articles logic, that is 1/9. That is 11.111%, that is 14% less then your first rounders.

 

25% is not a huge difference. You're bordering on will very likely fail vs will fail.

And teams with avg qb play have won the super bowl. There are enough anomalies in fact every year to say it is in fact not an anomaly.

 

I know its wrong, but that made me laugh.

 

I just wonder how it was all the QB, when in many cases that defense was so bad it couldn't prevent someone's nose bleed from killing them. That defense was bad, really bad. So I'm just wondering how with a defense that bad that only the QB gets the blame when he in fact had his team in position to win games only to see them lost.

Let me ask you this question - would you say that his game this past year against Texas was one of his worst of the season?

 

Sure, keep going. Now dive in even further. Tell me in that amount of time how many actually taken after the 4th pick in the draft were successful. My point being it goes further then the first round. With all but a few exceptions crap, after the 2nd pick not many were good. Take a look into it further, has nothing to do with rounds and it has all to do with the top 5 picks in the draft. After that is crap with MAYBE 4 or 5 exceptions. 2003 to 2011 thats 9 years which means every 2 years one is taken past the 2nd pick that is actually a good QB. Those are not good odds when you pick at the 8th spot.

 

Let me ask you this, how many other games did he have like the Texas game ? Not many. You and I and everyone else had a decent game at something somewhere in life. You gonna bank the future of a ball club on one good game ? The kid played in a watered down BIG 12 last year that did not even have 12 teams to make it a BIG 12 anymore. As far as defense being bad ? Ask Peyton Manning, he never played in Indy where they had a good defense. He never played when he had a great offensive line, 2011 proved that point. Took Manning out of the equation and the entire Colts offensive line sucked, bad. Coincidence ? LOL, no.

 

Dude, look up google please. Yes, the kid beat the great ones, Kansas, Southern Methodist, Iowa State, Idaho, Texas Tech. All powerhouses for sure. I know his record and know what ? The kid still spells epic failure to me. Like I said, keep the post, I hope I am wrong but If I am not ? I most certainly will be the very first one to say I told you so. Like I said, save the post wherever you save posts.

Tell me how many QB in college had great stats like that only to come to the NFL and be chewed up like chopmeat. Many, Tannehill will be one of them for sure.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

I asked you if Texas was his worst game and you point out that even you an I have had good games.......yeah we have, but all I wanted to know is if the Texas game was probably his worst of the season.

If you wish to compare Tannehill to Manning go ahead, I'm sure all but a hand full of quarterbacks would measure up. For instance, how many games did New England win without Tom Brady? Coincidence? Or ask this question regarding Manning's only championship win. was it him or when the defense played out of its mind and took them to the title - Manning didn't have a great game and the defense won that SB as well. The time when Manning was asked to win the SB he gaffed and threw an INT to ice it away.

If the Big 12 is watered down what would the Pac 10 or 12 be then? The black and blue division?

Comparing Tannehill and A&M to the Colts and Manning is largely irrelevant, as we're talking about A&M and the events on another team have little or nothing to do with the conversation. But please continue.........

 

If you did it in any round the percentage difference would still be rather large. And if you don't think 25% is a big difference, you don't know a whole lot about statistics. That's HUGE. And if you include Tony Romo, you have to include all the undrafted quarterbacks that were in NFL training camps that year which would shrink that percentage quite a bit. But for arguments sake let's compare 11% to 25%. If I told you that you could spend $1,000 with a 1/4 chance to win $1,000,000 or $500 for a 11% chance at $1,000,000 which would you choose? If you're being honest you'd choose the former and not even think twice because the odds are far greater.

As far as taking a QB "no matter if there are better players around", that's different. Taking a QB in round 1 just for the sake of it would be foolish. But if you establish the guy has a legitimate chance to be a franchise QB and is a 1st round prospect, you should absolutely take him if you don't have one. The QB position trumps all other positions, and like any other position in the NFL, you have a much higher chance of getting a good one in the 1st round than you do later on.

 

Again, 25% is a huge bonus. 1st round picks at any position is probably around a 50% success rate. When factoring the importance of the QB position, if you told me I'd have a 1 in 4 shot that the guy I picked was a franchise QB, I'd take those odds knowing that with a franchise QB, you are a SB contender just about every year he's healthy in his prime. And that 25% was just that one year. If you look at every year from 2003-2009 (too early to tell for 2010 or 2011) the success rate goes up to 10/21 (more than 47%) (counting Flacco and Freeman as a FQB and Smith not as one) vs. less than 3% (counting Fitzpatrick as a FQB). That success rate I'd venture an educated guess (I'm not doing any more research to find out for sure) is not very far off of the success rate at any position.

An average QB has not won a SB in 10 years. In fact, there was a discussion in the Club the other day that showed that in the past few years, 3 of the last 4 teams left in the playoffs have a franchise QB leading them and in all of those cases, the SB champion had a franchise QB. Look at the SB champion QBs since Brad Johnson one won 10 years ago. Brady, Big Ben, Eli, Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers.

 

This is an awful analogy built to support a false point.

Quarterback is the most victory-relevant position on the field because efficient passing is what wins games in the NFL. Yeah, there are 22 guys on the field. But in terms of measurable impact, only one of those 22 players is relevant. You can accurately predict winners and losers through two stats: passer rating and defensive passer rating. You can accurately predict winners and losers roughly 90% of the time through three stats: passer rating, defensive passer rating, and turnover margin.

The second-string strong safety does not have an impact equal to an elite quarterback simply by virtue of being on the field at the same time in "a team sport".

 

Why try to pick apart Hardcore/Hyde's stat rather than see the fact as a fact.

I could care less WHY second reunders don;t succeed as much.

Would we rather focus on WHY we suck when we do what doesn't work, or just DO THE THING THAT WORKS???

Pretty easy choice, to me.