Batman1876

I always trust people who insist they are the true authority on what others think. Btw I’m planning dinner what are my favorite foods, you obviously know them better than I do.

You’d know best.

Dwight in Philly knows what Malcom Jenkins thinks better than Malcom Jenkins does.

Is there a chance that Joe Webb’s package will be expanded next year?

I think we are looking for different things from the numbers. I'm not concerned with individual successes or failures I'm concerned with a general trend line, I picked the criteria I did you are free to disagree but it won't effect the general trend. The reason for that is there are successes and failures that are sure things Big Ben and Rogers on one side and Losman and Tebow on the other. The only real question is what to do with the middlers the Cutler's and Flacco's of the world. Because we have a number of sure failures and sure successes it does not matter too much how you parse those in the middle, so long as you try to be consistent. And because most of the sample sizes are large enough disagreeing about individual cases is unlikely to sway the data much. The exception in terms of large data set is the 6-10 range since only five were picked there, before Tannahill the best QB picked in that range was Trent Dilfer, yikes! In fact in order to get a player more successful than Dilfer or Tannehill you have to go all the way back to Phil Simms in 1979. In other words for the past 40 years or so the 6-10 range has been a wasteland for QBs. In other words I'm not looking for a fine point I'm looking for a broader trend.

I'm not trying to assess value, many quality backups can be found in later rounds, there is value there.Fitz has better value than Tannehill but he is (arguably) not the better player. If you feel Fitz wasn't a quality starter then for your interests there has been no quality starters found in the 7th round, that's a useful data point. I'm not convinced that Tannehill isn't a quality starter, but he is better than the other 4 in that pick range, twice as many yards and TDs as any of them and a better QB rating. But if you feel he isn't a quality starter and would not qualify him as a hit then again feel free to identify that there are no hits in the 6-10 range, another useful data point.

Some guys I included to help define what success means for that category. Fitz is far and away the best 7th round QB since 2000, so when you draft a QB in the 7th he is your best case scenario and that best case has a low probability of happening, in other words 7th round picks spent on QBs have been all but worthless. Schaub showed potential for a few year then fizzled, Foles is a hot commodity now will that matter? who knows. In other words you have a one case of Franchise player two cases of eh? and 19 cases where it is even worse. Tannahill is indeed marginal, but hes better than Lefwich, Locker, Leinert, and Gabbert. He was the best of his category (6-10) and I chose to always include the best within a category (which tells you how bad round 5 has been that there was no one at all to include, AJ Feely was the best of the bunch IMO). I'd be just as happy to say that nothing good has come out of the 6-10 picks in 17 years Which was surprising for me but, but I'm not willing to argue very much in favor Tannahill .

No doubt but he does not seem like the type to get suspended or derail his career partying. He’ll need to tone it down in the NFL. I think it comes down to the fact that he’s super compedative and it comes out in immature ways.

Manziel was always flashing his money sign bragging about his success and violating NCAA rules for monetary gain. When Mayfield brags it’s that his team will beat or just beat your team. One is focused on individual success the other is focused on the team. One is the kind of guy who would celebrate throwing for 300 and 3 TDS even if his team lost, the other is only celebrating a win. One got drunk and in trouble a single time (pretty common for college kids)and his friends say he is a homebody the other got in trouble with the law lots of times and was always at the club or a casino, and needed to go to rehab for his substance problems. The concerns are are only the slightest bit similar.

Our extra 2nd and 1st could be packaged with our original 1st to get us into the top 5. We would still retain 7 picks in that scenario. That seems like good capital to me.

It’s his accuracy, he is crazy accurate and has elite placement as well. When he moves in the pocket or backfield he keeps his eyes downfield and delivers the ball without a hit to his accuracy.

Mayfield’s off field concerns seem more along the lines of Newton’s and far removed from Manziel. It’s comparing drug addiction to getting drunk once.

I really like mayfield I feel like people comparing him to Manziel are like the people who compared Newton to a Russell. Lazy comparison based on a few si ilarities overlooki g a mountain of differences.

My metric for success for the first round was starter, for myself I set that to include the boarderline starters like Cutler. For the young players I said Winston and Mariota were success because there is no desire to look again for the teams starter, the Jags are looking . But I’m not too concerned with individual players and more the general trend. As as for the later rounds I was thinking of the “give them time to develop and they will be a starter.” The idea that a lower draft pick plus time equals discount starter, my successes were players that fit that mold.

I’m less conserned with individual hits and misses and more concerned with general trends. If you think Fitz and Taylor were misses that’s fine it just means that for you only 2, Brady and Bulger, hits have been drafted in the 5th 6th or 7th round. If you think Tannahill, Flacco, cutler Mariota, and Winston were misses then it lowers the success rate to 55%, 0% and 10%. But no matter the changes you would make personally the trend Line is the same. Top 5 is by far the best bet, the rest of the first round And the 2nd round are 20% chances, it drops to 15 for the 3rd and 4th and the last three rounds are Brady and a few boarderline starters. To put it another way picking a QB in the first 5 is like if you bet on the Patriots to be in the Super Bowl back during preseason. Picking in the rest of the first round or the second is like betting on the Seahawks, the third and fourth are like betting on Denver and the 5th 6th and the 7th is betting on the Rams.

Fixed.

Bortles is more likely a too early to tell, chose to err on the side of caution.

It's hard to assess young guys who don't crash and burn. Alex Smith may be the best example of that. 3 bad years, 2 ok years 1 good year then he got benched for Kaep then 5 good years with KC.

He's been the starter there since day one and there isn't an indication that is going to change soon.

Tannehill has started almost the same number of games as Pennington did. He has a higher touchdown rate and more yards per game but throws more interceptions and completes fewer passes. All in all they are similar statistically. As I sit here today I'd be happier with Winston or Mariota as my QB than Tannehill.

For me he was tough to judge he was always steady if unspectacular. I put him as a miss because his play was rarely good enough to make his team feel their QB situation was settled. Including him with Cutler, Ben, Rogers and Flacco would put the success rate at 26%

My goal was to be a platform for conversation. We all have different metric for success so we will all have different charts. Evidenced by the fact that the Bills haven't started a QB in 20 years without extensive fan debate about him. My First round criteria is that the players became long term starters in the league or in the case of younger players show every indication of doing so. My criteria for later round picks was did they develop into a starter, its a lower standard but is the highest reasonable expectation a team has when drafting a later round player. I feel quite confident that my breakdown of top 5 successes and failures would be pretty well agreed upon. Beyond that I was being too generous if anything.

The odds are not in his favor.

Fixed it. I simply didn't type his name but he was included in the data. I must want to forget him for some reason. If Pennington had been drafted in a later round I would have included him as a success, however he never threw for much more than 200 ypg average and was a borderline starter at best. If the Bills draft a QB in the 1st round who has those kinds of numbers we would likely not call it a success. If we drafted him in the 6th wed probably be happy.

There is obviously a subjectivity to it. I tried to lower the standard for the later rounds. People often say "pick a later QB and develop them into a starter." I tried to use that as my metric, were they developed into a starter, not necessarily a great starter but a starter. The helpful thing to note is that even if you would have a player or two added or removed from the success pool it only shifts the data a few points in the later rounds.