Why we don't want to draft one of the top 4 QB

[BringBackOrton]

17 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

This is a post for all you "trade the farm and draft Darnold.  Or Rosen.  or Mayfield.  or Allen.  Just, one of those TOP GUYS!

No.  Don't.  If there's one guy you really think is worth it and you can trade up and get him, Do It.  But don't do it just because one of those guys must be best.

 

Why not? Because, Draft History.

 

What Draft History says is that there may be 1-4 good QB in this draft class -  BUT THEY ARE VERY UNLIKELY INDEED TO BE DRAFTED IN THAT ORDER.

 

I looked at the drafts from 2016-2012.  I previously used 3 numerical criteria correlated to winning, to sort drafted QB as "yes" or "no".  Now I summed the criteria and sorted the "yes" QB drafted in Rounds 1-5 according to that numerical value.  (The point is to have some objective performance criteria over a guy's career and not be swayed by reputation/draft position.  Most will splutter and go but but but at some point...go look at the guy's whole performance, 'K?)

 

The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio.

 

Here are the rankings, THE ORDER IN WHICH THE QB WAS DRAFTED, and his draft position, going back class by class:

2016: Prescott (8th QB, 4th round, Pick 126), Goff (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1), Wentz (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2)

2015: Mariota (2nd, Rd 1 Pick 2) Winston (1st, Rd Pick 1)

2014: Garoppolo (5th QB, Rd 2 Pick 62), Derek Carr (4th QB, Rd 2 Pick 36),  [both these guys fail 1 criteria: Teddy Bridgewater (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 32), Blake Bortles (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1)]

2013: no "yes" hits.  Glennon scores highest (3rd QB, Rd 3 Pick 73)

2012: Wilson (6th QB, Rd 3 Pick 75),  Cousins (8th QB, Rd 4, Pick 102) Griffin (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2) Foles (7th QB, Rd 3 Pick 88) Luck (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1) Tannehill (3rd QB, Rd 1 Pick 8)

 

You can argue with the details (Griffin's data is biased by his 1st 2 years, Luck's is impacted by his 2015 and rookie seasons) and if everyone gets healthy and younger QB keep developing, the details may change in 3 years.

 

The overall point won't change:

1) the odds of getting a good QB are highest in the first 2 picks of the draft

2) there are still good QB to be had after that - but the odds are very much against them falling in the order drafted.  It may not be a mistake to take the #3 or even #4 QB in the draft - but you better do it based upon a careful evaluation of his talent, not because "gotta getta QB and the 1st round is where it's at!" 

 

That's how you draft JP Losman when just maybe you'd have been better off drafting Steve Jackson and picking up Matt Schaub in the 3rd. 

 

I'm not the professional football talent evaluator.  What's important is that

1) we have first-rate football talent evaluation in place, and continually work to improve our talent evaluation and scouting

2) they be free to do their job, unhindered by any input/interference from marketing or ownership

3) they take a shot at a guy they like, and if he isn't "all that", keep taking shots in subsequent years.

 

So please don't have a cow if the Bills trade up to #8 pre-draft and then don't draft a QB (because the guy they liked went sooner), or because they pass on the Wonderboy all the Pundits rated as #1 or #3 in favor of a 3rd round pick. 

 

Because there is an element of chance, and history says that the QB are unlikely to wind up being drafted in the order of their eventual NFL performance.

 

All classes aren't equal.  There's a gulf of difference between QB4 in 2013 and QB4 in 2018.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

All classes aren't equal.  There's a gulf of difference between QB4 in 2013 and QB4 in 2018.

 

That is true, but completely beside the point of this post.

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That is true, but completely beside the point of this post.

I thought your point was that the 4 best QB's in a draft were unlikely to be drafted in that order?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

34 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Yeah, lets be conservative and draft the 8th best QB, it's worked great for the last 20 years.

 

I nominate you for the grand prize "missing the point of the thread" trophy

 

2 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

I thought your point was that the 4 best QB's in a draft were unlikely to be drafted in that order?

 

Yes, exactly, you got it! 

 

But NOT to compare the talent of Draft year A to Draft year B (it's clear they differ, from the fact that 2013 had 0 guys who made the cut while 2012 had 6 and 2014 had 4

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Give me the guy who knows how to stand tall in the pocket.  

 

Like Losman you mean

Edited February 19, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I nominate you for the grand prize "missing the point of the thread" trophy

 

 

Yes, exactly, you got it! 

 

Doesn't that cut both ways?  Can't the 3rd guy drafted in the middle or late first end up the best?

 

I don't understand how this correlates to the title "Why we don't want to draft one of the top 4 QB"

[WideRightRevenge]

15 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

LOL, I'll play.

NEVER draft a QB with the 22nd pick!!!!!!!!!

 

2014	1	22	Johnny Manziel	QB	Texas A&M
2012	1	22	Brandon Weeden	QB	Oklahoma State
2007	1	22	Brady Quinn	QB	Notre Dame
2004	1	22	J.P. Losman	QB	Tulane
2003	1	22	Rex Grossman	QB	Florida

 

I was in the sit tight camp ... but after seeing this .... MOVE UP .. .get away from 22.  Draft Karma is a B word.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

Doesn't that cut both ways?  Can't the 3rd guy drafted in the middle or late first end up the best?

 

I don't understand how this correlates to the title "Why we don't want to draft one of the top 4 QB"

Yes, sure.  But it's far less likely.  From pick #5 back through the top of the 2nd round, the odds are about 20-30% (less than half of what they are for the top 2 picks)

 

To me, the emphasis is on "ONE of the top 4 QB".   I see far too many posts "I would be happy if the Bills draft Darnold or Mayfield or Jackson or Allen" (rinse and repeat with different names).

 

[BillsVet]

51 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Yeah, lets be conservative and draft the 8th best QB, it's worked great for the last 20 years.

 

I'm glad that McBeane don't approach the draft with the same fear that some posters have expressed. No one's saying you've got to give up your entire draft and no one should be comfortable with OBD letting the draft come to them.

 

There's a reason a team employs scouts, meets throughout the offseason as a group to develop strategy, meet with players, etc. You make a decision at some point and one hallmark of this organization has been their outright fear/refusal to take a QB. That should be ending this off-season with McBeane know you either have your guy or don't. Stop-gap measures aren't an answer like they were under the previous few GMs.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

16 hours ago, boater said:

 

I think McBeane et al. will be calm. If draft things don't roll right, the fall back plan will be another year of Tyrod, which while not great, it's not a GM career killer.

 

lol right

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

24 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

2 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Give me the guy who knows how to stand tall in the pocket.  

 

Like Losman you mean

Not the Deer in Headlights guy, no.   

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Yeah, lets be conservative and draft the 8th best QB, it's worked great for the last 20 years.

 

This guy gets it.

Anyone who doesn't want a trade up for best possible QB is one of the following:

 

1) Related to Tyrod

2) Blind

3) Unwilling to take risks ever

4) completely foolhardy

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by joesixpack

[BringBackOrton]

20 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Yes, sure.  But it's far less likely.  From pick #5 back through the top of the 2nd round, the odds are about 20-30% (less than half of what they are for the top 2 picks)

 

To me, the emphasis is on "ONE of the top 4 QB".   I see far too many posts "I would be happy if the Bills draft Darnold or Mayfield or Jackson or Allen" (rinse and repeat with different names).

 

I guess that's my point.  I see a league of difference between "I would be happy if the Bills draft Darnold or Mayfield or Jackson or Allen"  and "I would be happy if the Bills draft EJ or Geno or Glennon or Barkley."  Ya dig?

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I want Tyrod gone even if we don't draft a QB. We have so many options available to us with FA and the draft that if Taylor is still here someone needs to be fired. I would sign AJ McCarron and draft Luke Falk and then rebuild the interior of the O-Line. 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't see how anyone could say that "the four or five drafts I looked at...they weren't deep at QB"

Some were shallow (eg 2013).  But 2012 was certainly regarded (and spoken about at the time) as being deep in QB talent, and 2014 had almost as much hype.

 

People always think a specific draft is super-deep in some position and all the cream will rise to the top, and it seldom works that way - some later players always wind up outworking or out-talenting the "cant miss" prospects who were drafted above them and were hampered by injury or insufficient "want it" and work ethic.

 

The closest thing to what folks are suggesting (a draft with 3-4 top QB likely to be drafted all in a row) would be 2004, featuring Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roeth, and JP Losman.   One of those guys had flags - for example, his completion percentage never broke 60% in a year where he saw significant playing time and he perhaps played a lower level of competition - but we traded up to draft him anyway.   Dammit, we needed a QB and it was a deep class! 

I could be wrong but I don't see this as a 2004 draft with several "can't miss" top prospects on the level of a Manning/Rivers/Roeth either.  There may be 2.

 

 

That's the thing, Hapless. That 2004 draft is the one this is being compared to. It's better than the past four or five, a lot better.

 

And all of those guys had flags. Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger. All of them had red flags. Everyone does, every year.  You're quite right that Losman had more. But there was a ton of ink spent on how Roethlisberger had played at a very low level school at Miami of Ohio and you didn't know what he would do against real competition. Rivers couldn't run, had footwork issues, had a long slow delivery, his deep balls have problems with sailing and overthrows ... it just goes on and on. 

 

Everyone has issues. Everyone.

 

And by the way, it's a very reasonable possibility that Losman in the right circumstances might have become good. The Bills handled him very poorly. It was bad luck that he broke his leg but the year after that they should have had him compete with Bledsoe and keep developing if he lost that competition. They didn't. They gave him the starter job before the season, ready or not, and pissed off a lot of the vets. And then when he finally had a pretty good year in 2006 and looked ready to maybe break out ... they got rid of his OC and brought in a guy who decided to change the offense to a system that played not to his strengths but to his weaknesses, Steve Fairchild. He was never the same after that. 

 

Would he ever have been good? Dunno. But the Bills did a terrific job of minimizing the chances by handling him very poorly.

 

Now, there's no way to know for sure if this class will be up there with 2004. There never is. 

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe there are two. But maybe three. Or four. Or zero. No way to be sure. They've got to do what teams that need a QB should always do. Scout the hell out of them and find the guys with the talent and the character and the ability to fit the system they want to use. Maybe there'll be two guys. Maybe three. Probably not all of them. But then you do all you can to get the best one for you and if that doesn't work out you try for the next. Stay away from the ones who wouldn't fit. Get one you believe in.

 

By the way, I think your headline brought in a lot of opponents and arguments here. "Why we don't want to draft one of the top 4 QBs" sure sounds like you don't want to draft any of them, though from reading the rest of what you've written you don't actually feel that way. But that's how it read.

[BigBuff423]

41 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

This guy gets it.

Anyone who doesn't want a trade up for best possible QB is one of the following:

 

1) Related to Tyrod

2) Blind

3) Unwilling to take risks ever

4) completely foolhardy

 

 

 

Um, I'm none of those things and I don't want to trade up for the following reasons:

1. This IS a deep QB Draft, and when you have so many picks, you allow the Draft to come to you - especially when you're a team in dire need of talent. You sit at 21 and take Rudolph or Jackson (which I'm not a fan of, but others seem to really think he's great) and trade back from 22 if possible, if not take the best DT / LB that is on your board.

2. Trading up not only gives up Draft picks, it essentially removes talent from other parts of the field that the Bills truly need. IF this team was deep all over, or had star power at a number of positions, then I'd say going way up to #2 or #3, would make sense. But, we see what happens when the Bills had to move from 9th to 4th, and Watkins' issues notwithstanding, the Draft capital it took to move, was too much. 

3. I think a QB needs to be developed, no matter who it is, and giving that much up when you're QB is developing AND you have holes all over the place means you're probably struggling every week. People say Goff and Wentz, and they're fantastic, but they were not great in their 1st year and at the time they didn't have the talent and coaching around the rest of the team to help them elevate their game, the Bills are not there yet either but COULD be with all of their Draft picks.

4. Essentially for me it comes down to this: would I rather have Rosen, a 3rd round DT, 4th round LB / WR / RB and a two 5th Round players of the same or, Rudolph and Hurst, then Phillips, Vander Esch, Sony Michel, and a WR and another LB? I think Rudolph will be a good to great QB, maybe never Rosen or Darnold in the NFL, but I certainly think he can be a very good QB who can win early and often as long as the rest of the pieces fit. 

 

Now, ALLLLLLLLL of that said, while I personally don't want the Bills to trade up - IF they do, of course I'm going to support whomever it may be with all of my fandom because I love the Buffalo Bills and will hope that the enormous gamble pays off. 

 

On a side note: I don't think it's necessary to attempt to insult a section of people that don't agree with you, especially when you use the word "foolhardy"....

[CuddyDark]

They should take BPA at 21 & 22, there will probably be a top ten talented DT or CB at 21 and or 22. Now you trade a 2nd and 3rd for 23-32 and take Rudolph, Jackson or Allen. 

 

That would be my draft.

 

1. Payne

1. Josh Jackson

1. Jackson, Allen or Rudolph

2. Nnadi

Edited February 19, 2018 by CuddyDark

[BadLandsMeanie]

18 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

This is a post for all you "trade the farm and draft Darnold.  Or Rosen.  or Mayfield.  or Allen.  Just, one of those TOP GUYS!

No.  Don't.  If there's one guy you really think is worth it and you can trade up and get him, Do It.  But don't do it just because one of those guys must be best.

 

Why not? Because, Draft History.

 

What Draft History says is that there may be 1-4 good QB in this draft class -  BUT THEY ARE VERY UNLIKELY INDEED TO BE DRAFTED IN THAT ORDER.

 

I looked at the drafts from 2016-2012.  I previously used 3 numerical criteria correlated to winning, to sort drafted QB as "yes" or "no".  Now I summed the criteria and sorted the "yes" QB drafted in Rounds 1-5 according to that numerical value.  (The point is to have some objective performance criteria over a guy's career and not be swayed by reputation/draft position.  Most will splutter and go but but but at some point...go look at the guy's whole performance, 'K?)

 

The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio.

 

Here are the rankings, THE ORDER IN WHICH THE QB WAS DRAFTED, and his draft position, going back class by class:

2016: Prescott (8th QB, 4th round, Pick 126), Goff (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1), Wentz (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2)

2015: Mariota (2nd, Rd 1 Pick 2) Winston (1st, Rd Pick 1)

2014: Garoppolo (5th QB, Rd 2 Pick 62), Derek Carr (4th QB, Rd 2 Pick 36),  [both these guys fail 1 criteria: Teddy Bridgewater (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 32), Blake Bortles (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1)]

2013: no "yes" hits.  Glennon scores highest (3rd QB, Rd 3 Pick 73)

2012: Wilson (6th QB, Rd 3 Pick 75),  Cousins (8th QB, Rd 4, Pick 102) Griffin (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2) Foles (7th QB, Rd 3 Pick 88) Luck (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1) Tannehill (3rd QB, Rd 1 Pick 8)

 

You can argue with the details (Griffin's data is biased by his 1st 2 years, Luck's is impacted by his 2015 and rookie seasons) and if everyone gets healthy and younger QB keep developing, the details may change in 3 years.

 

The overall point won't change:

1) the odds of getting a good QB are highest in the first 2 picks of the draft

2) there are still good QB to be had after that - but the odds are very much against them falling in the order drafted.  It may not be a mistake to take the #3 or even #4 QB in the draft - but you better do it based upon a careful evaluation of his talent, not because "gotta getta QB and the 1st round is where it's at!" 

 

That's how you draft JP Losman when just maybe you'd have been better off drafting Steve Jackson and picking up Matt Schaub in the 3rd. 

 

I'm not the professional football talent evaluator.  What's important is that

1) we have first-rate football talent evaluation in place, and continually work to improve our talent evaluation and scouting

2) they be free to do their job, unhindered by any input/interference from marketing or ownership

3) they take a shot at a guy they like, and if he isn't "all that", keep taking shots in subsequent years.

 

So please don't have a cow if the Bills trade up to #8 pre-draft and then don't draft a QB (because the guy they liked went sooner), or because they pass on the Wonderboy all the Pundits rated as #1 or #3 in favor of a 3rd round pick. 

 

Because there is an element of chance, and history says that the QB are unlikely to wind up being drafted in the order of their eventual NFL performance.

 

Im not one to be critical of someones extra work and quality post.

 

But I can't resist. Your rankings would be better communicated if they were laid out in a simpler clearer way. It is too mathy and too messy.

 

"

The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio.

 

Here are the rankings, THE ORDER IN WHICH THE QB WAS DRAFTED, and his draft position, going back class by class:

2016: Prescott (8th QB, 4th round, Pick 126), Goff (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1), Wentz (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2)

2015: Mariota (2nd, Rd 1 Pick 2) Winston (1st, Rd Pick 1)

2014: Garoppolo (5th QB, Rd 2 Pick 62), Derek Carr (4th QB, Rd 2 Pick 36),  [both these guys fail 1 criteria: Teddy Bridgewater (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 32), Blake Bortles (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1)]

2013: no "yes" hits.  Glennon scores highest (3rd QB, Rd 3 Pick 73)

2012: Wilson (6th QB, Rd 3 Pick 75),  Cousins (8th QB, Rd 4, Pick 102) Griffin (2nd QB, Rd 1 Pick 2) Foles (7th QB, Rd 3 Pick 88) Luck (1st QB, Rd 1 Pick 1) Tannehill (3rd QB, Rd 1 Pick 8)"

 

Take this in particular "The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio."

 

I kind of get it but wha...? Is this replicatable by the info you give here? How are these things weighted? How does your scale here compare to other more popular rankings?

 

 

 

Now I will go back and sit and think and try to figure out what the heck you mean here.

 

It's monday morning and my brain is slow but I think even in a wednesday afternoon I would need a few to get all the meaning out of this.

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Im not one to be critical of someones extra work and quality post.

But I can't resist. Your rankings would be better communicated if they were laid out in a simpler clearer way. It is too mathy and too messy.

 

Well then, while you're resistance is low, feel free to do better

[Hapless Bills Fan]

47 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

That's the thing, Hapless. That 2004 draft is the one this is being compared to. It's better than the past four or five, a lot better.

 

Maybe.  But I heard the same said of 2011 (4 QB drafted in the 1st 12 picks) and 2012 (4 QB drafted in the 1st 22 picks).  So I'm skeptical of the "lot better" bit.

I'll put it out there, since the "spread" or "air raid" offense has "spread" in college, I think it's harder and harder for young draftee QB to succeed in the NFL.

 

I agree with you completely that in recent history, the Bills have just sucked at developing young QB talent.  I would have liked to see how several of our QB, who showed flashes, would have done with a quality QB coach.  I think Alex Smith is perhaps the clearest example of what coaching and scheme can do for a QB who once made it onto a national publication list of "top 5 QB busts of all time".  From "top 5 bust list" to $94M, $71M guaranteed.  SMH.  SMDH.  Then there's Foles.

You've interpreted me exactly right.  I want the Bills to draft a guy.  If there's a guy they like, I want them to make a full court press to land him, as long as they can still put pieces around him to set him up for success.  But I want them to scout the hell out of the QB class, and pick a guy they like and believe can develop, not a guy who is listed top 4 by the draft pundits at this point.

 

Quote

 

By the way, I think your headline brought in a lot of opponents and arguments here. "Why we don't want to draft one of the top 4 QBs" sure sounds like you don't want to draft any of them, though from reading the rest of what you've written you don't actually feel that way. But that's how it read.

 

Ha!  You outed me.  In the past I have put some pretty good work into posting, given it a nice accurate descriptive headline like "QB Draft Results", and watched the ensuing thread be 1) minimal 2) a snoozefest, and the post to quickly slip back several pages.  Then some other chap comes along with a much more seat-of-the-pants, slipshod analysis and a somewhat provocative headline and it stays at the top of the page for days.

 

I got "salty" as the Kid would say.

 

1 hour ago, jmc12290 said:

I guess that's my point.  I see a league of difference between "I would be happy if the Bills draft Darnold or Mayfield or Jackson or Allen"  and "I would be happy if the Bills draft EJ or Geno or Glennon or Barkley."  Ya dig?

 

It is the former we are addressing.  The latter is a straw man.  I would NOT be happy if the Bills draft Darnold or Mayfield or Jackson or Allen, that's the point, and I don't think any one else should be either.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

46 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Take this in particular "The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio."

I kind of get it but wha...? Is this replicatable by the info you give here? How are these things weighted? How does your scale here compare to other more popular rankings?

 

I think it is replicable.  You need the previous para:

"I looked at the drafts from 2016-2012.  I previously used 3 numerical criteria correlated to winning, to sort drafted QB as "yes" or "no".  Now I summed the criteria and sorted the "yes" QB drafted in Rounds 1-5 according to that numerical value.  (....)

The criteria used were completion %/10 (to put in the same numeric scale), Y/A, and TD/INT ratio.

 

I could write it as:

(completions/attempts)x10 + (yards/attempts) + # TD/#INT

 

That would be more math-y and less messy.  (in general, things are either math-y or messy, but not both)

 

Since I don't know what's meant by "other more popular rankings", I can't comment.   If you tell me what you mean, I will.  

 

In general, most football stats sites rank QB year-by-year using criteria such as passing yardage or rating or QBR.   Passing yardage is IMO a poor criterion for ranking QB because in general, higher passing yardage is not correlated to winning!  It has a weak correlation to losing, actually, which makes sense if you think of it since it's when a team is getting its butt whipped and trying to catch up that it typically abandons the run and starts passing on every down.  Don't get me started on total QBR - "point that thing away from me, it's loaded".

 

I don't know of any sites that go back draft by draft and rank the QB by any hard criteria, it's all "TLARTM" (that looks about right to me), which often LAR (looks about right) to the reader as well (Cam Newton?  Lit up the league as a rookie, went to a Superbowl...LAR.  Andrew Luck? "Suck for Luck", worth it!)

 

Since I name names, you can look at my list and see for yourself what you think.  Most people overall agree but find 2-4 names they disagree with on both sides, which is lower than the typical "TLARTM" method seems to produce.

 

(in case it's not obvious, completion % = completions/attempts x 100 thus completion %/10  is the same as completions/attempts x 10)

Edited February 19, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan