QB success rate by draft position

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, Batman1876 said:

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%

 

Don't u remember when he juked eddie robinson?!!!

[Batman1876]

8 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Yeah, I would agree.  

Also - i think Mariota is kind of bad.  For a #2 pick i expect something better than Tyrod Taylor.

 

Tannehill is the definition of meh.  Winston doesn't impress me. 

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. 

[Domdab99]

under what metric is Tannehill a "hit?"

[Batman1876]

1 minute ago, Domdab99 said:

under what metric is Tannehill a "hit?"

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

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

7 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

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. 

 

Winston at least seems to have some upside still.  He's just burning through the cheap part of his contract with nothing to show for it. 

[Batman1876]

4 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Winston at least seems to have some upside still.  He's just burning through the cheap part of his contract with nothing to show for it. 

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.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Batman1876

[Domdab99]

5 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

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

 

5 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

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

 

so has Bortles. Why is he a "miss?"

[Batman1876]

Just now, Domdab99 said:

 

 

so has Bortles. Why is he a "miss?"

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

[Gugny]

Lots of "hits" are questionable, I'm sorry.

 

Fitz and Tyrod are two that stuck out like uncomfortable knees.

 

EDIT:  Just want to add a big thank you for the research.  Even though I disagree with some "hits," it's still a very interesting and worthwhile thread, so thanks!

Edited February 8, 2018 by Gugny

[Domdab99]

9 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

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

 

so which is it, to early to tell or a miss? Tannehill is a hit simply because the Dolphins cant find anyone better?

[SoCal Deek]

Excellent job on this.  And please ignore everyone who is trying to pick apart your assumptions.

 

But...with that said...if what you discovered was the higher the draft pick, the more chance of success, I'm guessing you'd find that pretty much applies to every roster spot.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 hours ago, Gugny said:

Lots of "hits" are questionable, I'm sorry.

 

Fitz and Tyrod are two that stuck out like uncomfortable knees.

 

EDIT:  Just want to add a big thank you for the research.  Even though I disagree with some "hits," it's still a very interesting and worthwhile thread, so thanks!

Right...?  Tyrod is drafted by Baltimore... Barely plays for them.  Then plays like 40 games for buffalo.  How is that a hit?  I guess from the perspective of "productive NFL player in the 6th round" then yes, he's a hit.  

3 hours ago, Domdab99 said:

 

so which is it, to early to tell or a miss? Tannehill is a hit simply because the Dolphins cant find anyone better?

 

And he's missed what the last 20 games for Miami?

Edited February 8, 2018 by dneveu

[bills_believer]

It is really interesting to see the success rates although I know most of us might quibble here or there with who was a hit and who was a miss. I find it very interesting that the success rate after you get out of the first five picks declines relatively slowly until the fourth round. 

 

I think you made a major oversight in keeping Drew Brees out of the data. He was a second round pick who has been very successful. I also would consider David Garrard a success although I realize that he is more debatable.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by bills_believer
formatting

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

What I got from this, over a 16 year period, there were only 18 QB's drafted that were labeled as a success, less than one a year and 44 failures.  Granted as was pointed out, your scale is rather subjective, but someone else isn't likely going to end up with either only 5 or 35 either. It's not going to change a whole lot, overall your selection is pretty good, certainly passes the smell test.

 

So for all those screaming we need to trade up to get the franchise guy, the odds of success isn't very high!

[bigK14094]

6 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

I took a look at the drafts between 2000 and 2016 looking at the success rate of drafted QBs I picked those years because the 2017 QBs are too early to tell and 2000 is the oldest draft with a QB still playing.

 

Picks 1 -5 of the 1st round,-21 total taken (Though I will leave Bradford out as his injuries make him hard to categorize. )

Hits-Vick, Palmer, E.Manning, Rivers, A. Smith, Ryan, Stafford, Newton, Luck, Mariota, Winston, Wentz, Goff

Misses- Harrington, Carr, Young, Russell, Sanchez,RG3, Bortles

Success Rate 13/20            65%

 

Picks 6-10 of the 1st Round -5 taken

Hits- Tannahill

Misses- Leftwich, Leinert, Gabbert, Locker

Success Rate 1/5               20%

 

Picks 11-32 of the 1st Round - 22 Taken (Bridgewater is left out because his injury makes him too hard to categorize)

Hit- Flacco, Cutler, Rogers, Big Ben

Misses-Pennington, Ramsey, Grossman, Boller, Losman, Campbell, Quinn, Freeman, Tebow, Ponder, Weeden, Manuel, Manziel, Lynch

Success Rate 4/19              21%

 

for the later rounds I'll only list success, I will end with the most marginal of successes so that the tipping point between success and failure can be seen.

 

Round 2

Hits- Carr, Garoppolo, Dalton

Success Rate 3/18              17%

 

Round 3

Hits- Wilson, Foles, Schaub

Success Rate 3/22             13%

 

Round 4

Hits- Cousins, Prescott

Success Rate 2/22               9%

 

Round 5

Hits- Absolutely no one!

Success Rate 0/30                0%

 

Round 6

Hits- Brady, Bulger, Taylor

Success Rate 3/37                8%

 

Round 7

Hits- Fitz

Success Rate 1/32                3%

 

The Top 5 picks are far and away the most successful, after that the success rate drops from 65% to 20% and slowly declines from there.  Besides Brady the 5th, 6th and 7th rounds have all produced marginal successes at best. from 2000 through 2011 there were no 4th round successes.  There were no second round success prior to Dalton.  You can mediate top 5 risk by looking at bust patterns, 1 year wonders (sanchez, Russell) should be avoided. Running quarterbacks are 50/50 (Vick, Newton Vs Young, RG3). If you are running an expansion team don't draft and start a rookie QB, they'll get killed. The most common thread through busts is that they were not football first people, either focusing on their own brand (RG3, Russell) or they were not prepared for criticism (Harrington, Young) .  If Bortles doesn't turn his career around he will be the only QB who was primarily a pocket passer, who had a multi year college career, had his head on straight and did not play for an expansion team to be a bust, since at least 2000. 

Where is Drew Brees?

[Batman1876]

34 minutes ago, bigK14094 said:

Where is Drew Brees?

Fixed.

[Batman1876]

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. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Batman1876

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Good job with leg work, but I think it's a little skewed because you're dealing with an very strong curve regarding the definition of success. 

 

A first round pick has a completely different metric for success than a fifth round pick. You have to have some form of comparison to really make this work. For instance, you have both Taylor and Brady rated as 6th round successes... How is it fair to rate them the same when they have had such drastically different careers? 

 

Also, the fact that you eliminated Bradford, while it makes sense, also skews the data because at the end of the day, he either is or is not a success. They don't give the pick back because he was injured. 

 

This is really a great post because it opens the doors to conversations about these ideas, and if that was your intent then you nailed it. It's just up to us to investigate/discuss the data that you've presented.  

 

Totally agree.  What defines "success" is key, and it's very different for first round QBs than for fifth rounders.  QBs taken after the first round are generally taken with limited expectations, ie, backups, and the lower round, the lower expectations.  Guys like Cassel and Fitzpatrick who eventually make low level starters are probably "hits" whereas first round QBs like Leftwich or Sanchez who were also low level starters are probably "misses".  It's why I wouldn't try to calculate/compare success rates for first rounds vs any other rounds except for limited criteria.

 

For me, the minimum definition of "success" for any QB would be minimally a decent starting QB on the level of a Cutler or Dalton or Tannelhill, somebody who is ranked among the top 15 QBs over several years, and occasionally making the Top 10 QB list.   Of course that's a pretty low standard for first rounders, especially guys taken at the very top of the draft.

 

For first round QBs, I think anything less than being a "franchise QB" makes a QB a "disappointment" since the expectations for first rounders are so high.  A franchise QB is usually included in the Top 10 QBs statistically.  He also doesn't just put up stats but demonstrates leadership and "clutch" ability by making plays with some regularity when needed to win games rather than throwing INTs that contribute to losses.  It's the intangible factors that separate Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan or Russell Wilson from Jay Cutler or Andy Dalton or Ryan Tannehill.

 

I also don't think QBs with less than 3 full years (48 games) should be called "hits" or "misses" unless they crash and burn early (Manziel).   

 

4 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Yeah, I would agree.  

Also - i think Mariota is kind of bad.  For a #2 pick i expect something better than Tyrod Taylor.

 

Tannehill is the definition of meh.  Winston doesn't impress me. 

 

By my criteria, both Mariota and Winston are still in the "too early to be sure", but I do agree with your assessment of Mariota and Winston so far in their careers ... and I totally agree about Tannehill.  He's one of those QBs who's too good to just let go but not good enough to win with consistently IMO.  Bortles is another one like that, and I think those QBs are probably even worse than outright first rounders who are busts since teams are reluctant to walk away from first rounders unless they're clearly busts.

 

4 hours ago, Batman1876 said:

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. 

 

There's no comparison between Pennington and Tannehill.  Pennington was a very good QB who was hardly a miss.  His stats don't reflect his leadership or his clutch play, neither of which Tannehill has demonstrated to any significant degree.  When Pennington was able to play full seasons, he took the Jests to the playoffs -- 2002, 2004, and 2006.  Then when he signed with Miami in 2008, he took the Carp to the playoffs.  Unfortunately, injuries, especially the one to his throwing shoulder, shortened his career by limiting his ability to throw.

[Batman1876]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Totally agree.  What defines "success" is key, and it's very different for first round QBs than for fifth rounders.  QBs taken after the first round are generally taken with limited expectations, ie, backups, and the lower round, the lower expectations.  Guys like Cassel and Fitzpatrick who eventually make low level starters are probably "hits" whereas first round QBs like Leftwich or Sanchez who were also low level starters are probably "misses".  It's why I wouldn't try to calculate/compare success rates for first rounds vs any other rounds except for limited criteria.

 

For me, the minimum definition of "success" for any QB would be minimally a decent starting QB on the level of a Cutler or Dalton or Tannelhill, somebody who is ranked among the top 15 QBs over several years, and occasionally making the Top 10 QB list.   Of course that's a pretty low standard for first rounders, especially guys taken at the very top of the draft.

 

For first round QBs, I think anything less than being a "franchise QB" makes a QB a "disappointment" since the expectations for first rounders are so high.  A franchise QB is usually included in the Top 10 QBs statistically.  He also doesn't just put up stats but demonstrates leadership and "clutch" ability by making plays with some regularity when needed to win games rather than throwing INTs that contribute to losses.  It's the intangible factors that separate Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan or Russell Wilson from Jay Cutler or Andy Dalton or Ryan Tannehill.

 

I also don't think QBs with less than 3 full years (48 games) should be called "hits" or "misses" unless they crash and burn early (Manziel).   

 

 

By my criteria, both Mariota and Winston are still in the "too early to be sure", but I do agree with your assessment of Mariota and Winston so far in their careers ... and I totally agree about Tannehill.  He's one of those QBs who's too good to just let go but not good enough to win with consistently IMO.  Bortles is another one like that, and I think those QBs are probably even worse than outright first rounders who are busts since teams are reluctant to walk away from first rounders unless they're clearly busts.

 

 

There's no comparison between Pennington and Tannehill.  Pennington was a very good QB who was hardly a miss.  His stats don't reflect his leadership or his clutch play, neither of which Tannehill has demonstrated to any significant degree.  When Pennington was able to play full seasons, he took the Jests to the playoffs -- 2002, 2004, and 2006.  Then when he signed with Miami in 2008, he took the Carp to the playoffs.  Unfortunately, injuries, especially the one to his throwing shoulder, shortened his career by limiting his ability to throw.

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. 

[jrober38]

If you separate it farther and take away the guys who went #1 overall, it's really freaking hard to find a QB unless you have the first pick. 

 

Most of the "successes" in the 1-5 range were all guys who went #1. 

Reality is that if we draft a QB this year, they're nothing more than a long shot of being successful. Odds are we'll be looking for someone again in 2-3 years. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by jrober38