mattsox Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 NEWSFLASH: Leinart was never good in the NFL. Maybe that's why Kurt Warner was brought in???
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 But if you simply want a serviceable QB in the first round (don't know why you'd waste a first-round pick on a serviceable QB, but...) there were a few others - but there also were a large number of busts. I think that's really due to the gimmick offenses run in college. Almost no one runs a three-step-drop-get-rid-of-the-rock offense in college.
PS 56 Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Wow... now there, my friends, is an example of the dangers of picking QBs in the first round! Could not have said it better!!
Doc Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 why would seattle try to get leinart? they've got hasselbeck, charlie whitehurst (who's tearing it up), and jp losman... ??? Whitehurst tore it up the first pre-season game. In the 2nd one, he was horrible.
cage Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Read this article. Roughly 10 of the 35 first-round QBs taken between 1990 and 2006 have been successful in the NFL. Based on that list, I estimate 7 of those 10 were/are "franchise" QBs: McNair, Manning (arguably both), Palmer, Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers. I would say the jury is still out on those taken since 2006 - Ryan and Flacco have been solid so far, Stafford seems OK, but Sanchez was seriously overrated last year. Moreover, in the last decade, despite 26 first-round QBs having been taken in that period, there have been a total of 12 pro-bowl berths for that group and none has been first-team (note this does not include Peyton Manning and Steve McNair who were drafted in the '90s). You might argue that Palmer, in his prime, deserved a first-team pro bowl berth and Rodgers might get one eventually (maybe Rivers). But if you simply want a serviceable QB in the first round (don't know why you'd waste a first-round pick on a serviceable QB, but...) there were a few others - but there also were a large number of busts. That's the scary part of the whole thing. Nobody in the world has shown that they can consistently pick a quality QB. There's not a single person that can stand up and say that they can do that. Its the craziest part about this game. On the right roll of the dice you get Manning and you go from 10 year loser to 10 year winner/SB (obviously not as simple as just that). You pick Ryan Leaf, Heath Schuler, JP Losman, Akili Smith, Cade McKnown and you set your team back 5 years.
ganesh Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Sanchez and Stafford has basically identical years last year. How can you say one is okay but the other is overrated?? One played on a very good team and still had 20 INTs in front of the best OL in football. The other on the hand played behind a average team.
bull7734 Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Sanchez and Stafford has basically identical years last year. How can you say one is okay but the other is overrated?? because right now they are both ok quarterbacks, but the media is pumping sanchez to be such a great qb
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 That's the scary part of the whole thing. Nobody in the world has shown that they can consistently pick a quality QB. There's not a single person that can stand up and say that they can do that. Its the craziest part about this game. On the right roll of the dice you get Manning and you go from 10 year loser to 10 year winner/SB (obviously not as simple as just that). You pick Ryan Leaf, Heath Schuler, JP Losman, Akili Smith, Cade McKnown and you set your team back 5 years. It is remarkable. You'd think given the money at stake, there would be a higher success rate. The assumption being that whatever it took in terms of testing, analysis, college film breakdown, psych profiling, measurments, etc would be studied until some conlusive formula got success rate to at least 60% or 70%. I mean investing 5 or 6 million to develop screening would pay back in one draft pick.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Wow... now there, my friends, is an example of the dangers of picking QBs in the first round! I would be really surprised if there was any difference at all in the percentage of flops at LT or DE or LB or CB or any other position. It's really hard to draft smart in the NFL. Hardly anyone does it consistently well, with very few exceptions.
cage Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 It is remarkable. You'd think given the money at stake, there would be a higher success rate. The assumption being that whatever it took in terms of testing, analysis, college film breakdown, psych profiling, measurments, etc would be studied until some conlusive formula got success rate to at least 60% or 70%. I mean investing 5 or 6 million to develop screening would pay back in one draft pick. I'm sure there's been a lot of statistical analysis of everything from physical capabilities to IQ to game stats to starts to conference/team, probably all the way back to high school results/stats I would like to see one of these sites like ProFootballFocus.com try to develop a forecasting capability (they can keep it secret and sell it if it works) and make some calls on the QBs before each draft. After 5-6 years they would have a track record to see if they can do better.
cage Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 I would be really surprised if there was any difference at all in the percentage of flops at LT or DE or LB or CB or any other position. It's really hard to draft smart in the NFL. Hardly anyone does it consistently well, with very few exceptions. A few years ago, I was messing around and looked back at a draft from 5 years before (I think it was the year Brady was drafted in the 6th round). I looked at every pick and re-ranked them based on how they turned out. Obviously Brady became the #1 overall pick. I struggled to fill 2 rounds of worthy picks out of the 7 rounds plus compensatory.
BuffFromBuffalo Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Drafting anyone certainly isn't an exact science. For all the Mike Shanahan lovers out there, here are just some of his bad picks. And yes, he was in charge of the draft in Denver WILLIE MIDDLEBROOKS 2001 First Round - Pick 24 CB Minnesota MARCUS NASH 1998 First Round - Pick 30 WR Tennessee MAURICE CLARETTE 2004 3rd Round - Pick 101 RB Ohio State JARVIS MOSS 2007 First Round - Pick 17 DE Florida ASHLEY LELIE 2002 First Round - Pick 19 WR Hawaii
BoozeCruise Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Leinart threw 6 passes last game. He didn't exactly get a ton of chances. He missed one deep ball and that was basically it. As Gambo and Ash (Phoenix radio guys) are saying, Whisenhunt just really does not like the guy. Didn't draft him. Doesn't want him. He has more talent than Ryan Fitzpatrick. You can be sure of that. But he just hasn't had a lot of opportunity to show it. The Bills could do a lot worse. He needs a change of scenery.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 (edited) Amazing. I haven't even met you and I know so much about your from that post.... You keep jumping to conclusions there, sparky. Know what else is a danger of picking a QB in the first round? The chance of turning your franchise around from a consistent loser, to a consistent winner. But yeah, since there is a chance you can bust, I'd just go ahead and not ever pick a QB. Who needs em. I completely agree with this, Kelly. The draft is amazingly imprecise, which, pace Mr 21 posts above, was my point. Success in the NFL include a massive proportion of plain old luck, no matter how many statistical models people try to cite. I would be really surprised if there was any difference at all in the percentage of flops at LT or DE or LB or CB or any other position. It's really hard to draft smart in the NFL. Hardly anyone does it consistently well, with very few exceptions. Edited August 26, 2010 by RJ (not THAT RJ)
Pete Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Another franchise QB the Bills were "stupid" not to draft. Toss him on the pile with the other ones. PTR I remember many here who were upset that we passed on Leinart. Joey Harrington was another TBD favorite back in the day
Kelly the Dog Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 Leinart threw 6 passes last game. He didn't exactly get a ton of chances. He missed one deep ball and that was basically it. As Gambo and Ash (Phoenix radio guys) are saying, Whisenhunt just really does not like the guy. Didn't draft him. Doesn't want him. He has more talent than Ryan Fitzpatrick. You can be sure of that. But he just hasn't had a lot of opportunity to show it. The Bills could do a lot worse. He needs a change of scenery. Leinart is terrible and it's been obvious since he came into the league. A lot of people (myself and a lot of people on this board) could see before he was even drafted that he wasn't likely going to make it in the NFL, not because he wasn't talented (he is) or accurate (he is) or smart (he is, at least as a QB) but because he is simply too slow and doesn't have the arm strength to get away with what he did in college. It takes him WAY too long from the time he sees a receiver and decides to throw it until the ball gets there. His windup is slow, his motion (except on less than 10 yard passes) is slow, his big body is slow. He gets killed because he can't escape the rush. His body takes a beating because he can't get out of the way. His receivers get killed because the DBs and LBs get too long to zero in on them. And he can't throw the long out and long ball necessary in this league. IMO, he had zero chance of making it before he got here. A lot of people, good scouts included, thought maybe he could get away with it because he was a good, accurate, smart QB who played well in big games. But the slowness and lack of arm strength couldn't be overcome, and he just stinks as an NFL QB.
Mark Vader Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 why would seattle try to get leinart? they've got hasselbeck, charlie whitehurst (who's tearing it up), and jp losman... ??? Good question. I do not think anyone on this board can understand the "logic" of Pete Carroll.
MaineMoxie Posted August 27, 2010 Posted August 27, 2010 One played on a very good team and still had 20 INTs in front of the best OL in football. The other on the hand played behind a average team. Bingo. Which is why I think Stafford gets the benefit of the doubt. I really don't understand what people see in Sanchez. I would be really surprised if there was any difference at all in the percentage of flops at LT or DE or LB or CB or any other position. It's really hard to draft smart in the NFL. Hardly anyone does it consistently well, with very few exceptions. Yeah, but very few people build a team around an LT, DE, LB, or CB. The QB is arguably the most important position in football, certainly the most important on offense since roughly half of the offense relies on the ability of that one guy.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 27, 2010 Posted August 27, 2010 Yeah, but very few people build a team around an LT, DE, LB, or CB. The QB is arguably the most important position in football, certainly the most important on offense since roughly half of the offense relies on the ability of that one guy. While that may be true, why does it matter? The point made was that one shouldnt draft QBs in the first round because there is such a high percentage of busts. So the money and the draft pick could be better spent, I suppose, on other players and positions. My point was, if other players and positions have pretty much the same fail rate, and you'd have to pay them the same amount in the same draft slot, it's not as though a team should shy away from drafting a QB in the first round (and yes, I know some QBs get a marginal amount more because they are QBs but not much at all)
Recommended Posts