Cash

Inspired by a similar breakdown over on the Buffalo Range boards, I decided to look at all the QBs drafted in the last 20 years by round. I wanted to see what the success rates looked like. We all know that even first-round QBs have a high chance of busting, and that late-round guys sometimes pan out, but what are the actual percentages? So I went to drafthistory.com and got a list of all QBs drafted since 1990, and broke them down in 4 categories: Likely HOF: Likely to make the Hall of Fame. Manning, Brady, Favre, etc. Pro Bowl: The easiest one to rate, because it's 100% objective. If he's made at least 1 Pro Bowl, yes, if not, no. Starter: By this I mean not just that he's started games, but that he was his team's unquestioned starter for at least a year, and not just by default. So I didn't count guys like Fitzpatrick or Gradkowski, nor did I count guys like Sanchez or JaMarcus Russell, who've only started due to draft status. If a high pick started for a couple of years, played terribly, and then was cut or benched, that didn't count. This one is pretty subjective, but I tried to be consistent throughout. My main guideline was that a guy's team had to go into at least one offseason both knowing that the guy was their starter and not looking to acquire a QB (except as a backup). Bust: Didn't pan out as a starter. The term "bust" may seem a bit harsh for a lot of these guys, especially the late-round guys, but here's my thought process: We're looking for a starting QB - a franchise guy. No matter what round we draft a QB in, if he doesn't develop into a starter, it doesn't do us much good. Ryan Fitzpatrick has done well for himself as a 7th-round pick, but another Fitzpatrick won't help. I actually double-counted some guys under both "Starter" and "Bust" because they were their team's unquestioned starter for a bit, but then flamed out. Trent Edwards is a good example here. Alex Smith and Vince Young were both benched for a whole season, but now appear to be their teams' respective starters, so they got double-counted as well. Again, a lot of this was pretty subjective, and I may have misjudged a few, but most of them are pretty clear-cut. Anyone who i felt wasn't determined yet, I left blank - like this year's first-round QBs. I think I left Matt Schaub's Pro Bowl column blank, because while he hasn't made one yet, he's likely to make one at some point. I also took a quick look at the current starters for each team. One thing that I thought was pretty interesting is that almost all of the non-first-round QBs who panned out did so for a team that didn't draft them. Right now, the list is only Brady, Garrard, Tony Romo (not drafted, but has only played for Dallas), and Bulger, assuming Bulger doesn't get cut this offseason. Maybe you can count Chad Henne as well, although that's still pretty up in the air. Anyway, feel free to check out the analysis (linked below). The Cliff's Notes version is that 1st-round QBs bust a little over 60% of the time, 2nd-round QBs bust about 75% of the time, and for every other round, they bust about 90% of the time. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0As...NqV1E&hl=en

I'll be quite surprised if Tebow goes after the first round. These super-exposed high profile college players who don't really have an NFL position almost always go higher than projected.

Hmm, Shipley reminds people of both Wes Welker (small, quick slot receiver, usually runs short routes over the middle) and Easy Ed McAffrey (big, tall split end type, red zone target, usually caught balls along the sidelines). I'm guessing Shipley is a white guy?

Nice strawman. Of course drafting a first-round QB isn't a sure thing. They bust like 60% of the time. It's just that getting a franchise QB is so important, you have to take a risk in order to get one. What do you want to do, wait for the next Drew Brees to hit free agency? That will probably never happen again. Take a flyer on a mid-round guy? Those bust like 95% of the time. Just because you take a QB in the first round (or even in the top 10) doesn't mean he'll pan out. And you shouldn't reach for a guy that doesn't carry a first-round grade just because you need a QB. But if you don't have a QB (which we don't), and there's a QB available with a first-round grade, it doesn't matter who else is available or what your other needs are, you must take the QB. Then you focus on building around him while he develops. Hopefully by the time he's ready to lead you to glory, you've built a solid O-line and given him good weapons to work with. Having said all that, I should point out that there's really only 2 QBs with first-round grades (although LeFevour has a slim chance of being a dark horse), and I doubt either one will be available at #9. I would not advocate just reaching for Tebow or Tony Pike or someone like that.

Optimistic but still rational; I'll take it. I find the the Pollyanna posts (Brian Brohm is the future!) to be much more depressing that the super-negative ones. If delusion is the only hope we have, why even bother?

Awesome!

And with 3 QBs back there, the D won't know where to send the pass rush.

Good post.

It was just one game, but Brohm's arm strength didn't impress me against Atlanta. His out passes were absolute ducks.

There might be something to what you're saying, but I think the economy in general is a huge factor. Tampa's bottom line probably looked a lot worse than they're used to over the last year or two, which is one of the reasons they hired Morris in the first place (way too inexperienced = cheap), and why they're keeping him now.

What worries people is that Bradford hurt his throwing shoulder, then re-injured it right after he came back. Now it's been operated on, and until anyone sees him throw, there will continue to be legitimate red flags. If he throws really well before the draft, all will be forgiven. As it is, I'd guess that he goes to either Washington or Cleveland. Didn't know about the concussion, but that's another concern. More likely to suffer repeat concussions.

As the game continues to unfold, I'm fairly impressed by LeFevour's touch and decision-making. His line is way overmatched in this game (sound familiar), but LeFevour looks very poised and in control in the face of the heavy rush. He's able to buy himself time to make throws downfield, and seems to generally make pretty good decisions with his throws. I didn't see the interception, but I did see two key throws he missed on pretty badly: 1.) A deep bomb that was miraculously caught, but probably should've been batted away given the poor throw; a good throw would've gone for a TD. 2.) A would-have-been 20+ yard gain to a wide-open receiver on a wheel route on 3rd-and-4. LeFevour just missed the throw. But generally, he's been pretty accurate, with very nice touch on his throws. He had a great screen pass where he really suckered the D in before turning to the other side and lofting a perfectly soft pass to the RB. As for his arm, I'm not the best judge, but it seems to me that LeFevour has an NFL arm. Not a very good NFL arm, but good enough. If he makes it, he'll probably be a lot more of a Chad Pennington type than a John Elway. LeFevour completed a pretty nice deep out that had enough zip on it. But he had an earlier deep out broken up because it hung in the air too long.

That bomb on the last drive was woefully underthrown. His receiver had like 3 steps on the DB, but had to wait so long that the DB had as much chance to make a play on the ball as the WR did.

Agreed. Orakpo is really more of a true DE than Maybin, but Washington wanted him on the field as much as possible, so he plays LB on 1st and 2nd down. Maybin is more of a rush linebacker in terms of his body type. I guess the holdout had something to do with it, but doesn't it seem like he could play the same role as Orakpo? LB in the base 4-3, DE in the nickel & dime? Having said that, Maybin generally looked horrible even in clear passing situations, and I only recall one QB pressure from him all year, so we don't have a lot of reasons to be encouraged at this point.

Ideally, I'd like to draft Clausen at #9, then make LT the new top priority. But I doubt Clausen (or Bradford) will be available. In any case, we need to both find a real QB and improve the o-line. Keep in mind that there are no good free agent QBs, and even the rookies that pan out usually take time to develop. I don't think it's a winning strategy to first get everything around the QB in shape, then start looking for a QB to plug in. Good QBs are really hard to find. QBs drafted in the first 2 rounds bust about two-thirds of the time. QBs drafted later bust about 95% of the time. Those numbers aren't likely to be any different by the time our line is in good shape, which is why it's so important to worry about QB now. The odds are that it'll take several tries to find a franchise QB. That needs to be priority #1.

So we have to wait around watching awful QBs for 2 more years before we can get a decent one? Count me out.

Is this what these people really think? That if we draft a QB at #9 we'll then forfeit the rest of our draft picks and sign no free agents? I can assure you, that's not how it works. In today's NFL, QB is by far the most important position. If you don't have a QB, then finding one needs to be your top priority. Brohm isn't guaranteed to fail, but so far, he's shown nothing to suggest that he'll succeed. Hope is not a plan. Rolling the dice with Brohm and no other options would be a colossal error. That doesn't mean we have to draft a QB with our first pick, but finding a QB needs to be our top priority.

Must have hit pretty close to home to get him that riled up.

Nah, the outright firing never made a ton of sense. Everyone was under contract for 1 more year, which you still have to pay when you fire them. But if anyone is retained by the new coach, they'll need a new multi-year deal, so you'll wind up double-paying them. Maybe not fully double, unless their agent is really good, but the point is that you don't actually execute the firing until you're sure the new coach doesn't want them.

This is why reports like this need to be read carefully, and the messenger has to be considered. Schefter didn't report on this at all. Glazer broke the story and got the gist right, but missed on the details, which doesn't surprise me. As near as I could tell, every other media outlet that repeated the story was just passing along Glazer's incorrect report, not doing their own reporting based on their own sources.

Patriots are the #4 seed, I think. Probably just a typo on nfl.com's page.

Has anyone seen a report NOT stemming from Jay Glazer yet? I'm not saying it's definitely false, but Glazer is a hack & I won't believe any story if he's the only one reporting it. ESPN & ProFootballTalk are just passing along Glazer/FoxSports.com's report. Adam Schefter hasn't mentioned anything about it on his twitter feed yet. I'll believe it for sure when someone more reputable confirms it. At the very least, Glazer may have gotten the details wrong, and not everyone was fired. We shall see.

Kid looks like Billy Zabka. Makes it easy for me to figure out which side I'm on. Bring Leach to Buffalo!

Not all free agents. Under the current system, players with under 4 years of experience are restricted in some fashion. If there's no new CBA next year, that number will rise to 6 years. Most rookie deals are for 4-6 years, so most of the guys who would've been UFAs will instead be RFAs. But anyone on his second contract, or who signed an extension to his rookie deal that is now expiring, will be an UFA.

Bushrod also got abused by Schobel when they played us. People need to realize that Brees makes that line look way better than it actually is.