DRAFTING TOP 5 QBs NOT REALLY A "CRAPSHOOT"

[Fadingpain]

41 minutes ago, theRalph said:

The excitement of a possible trade into the top five has given way to the discussion of the dangers of trading up...only done by desperate teams. A certain WGR afternoon host is calling trading up just plain dumb. I beg to differ:

 

Since 1998 there have been 27 quarterbacks selected amongst the top five picks of each of the 20 drafts that have occured. At least 14 - 16 of these are what I would term "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Vick, Manning, Rivers, Smith, Ryan, Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Mariota, Goff Wentz, Trubisky. So "crap shoot" is a bit strong of a term to describe about a 50 - 60% hit rate on top five picks at QB.

Additionally, you must give consideration to the fact that top five QB picks have been made by teams that did poorly the previous season. Sending top picks to bad teams has resulted in making busts of many other QBs that may well have excelled in better systems.  Brady's success  - being selected in the 6th round - isn't so much about the marvel of a low pick being undiscovered as it is about him going to a franchise that wasn't broken in the first place.

The fact is only 8 times have 2 QBs been selected in the 1st round and just once have 3 of the first 5 picks been QBs (1999). So in a draft where perhaps an unprecedented 6 QBs may be taken in the first round, it would seem that taking one in the top five (if you can get there) is a pretty good bet. Not a crap shoot.

I wish you would call in to Schopp/Bulldog and discuss this type of thing.

 

The thing about taking a QB really high in the draft is this:

 

Yes, selecting really high doesn't guarantee success.  I.E., you can pick high on a great prospect and still lose.

 

BUT....if you are going to win, it is probably going to come form a top rated guy.

 

Sure there are statistical deviants out there like Rodgers or Brady, but as you point out, if you are going to use a high pick on a top rated QB prospect, you actually have a pretty decent shot (like 50/50 or better) of hitting.

 

That is worth the move up, given the importance of the position.

 

 

[theRalph]

1 minute ago, Fadingpain said:

I wish you would call in to Schopp/Bulldog and discuss this type of thing

 

 

 

I am going to. Mike irritates the **** out of me lately.

[BillsInWilmingtonNC]

We showed last year that it is not how talented your roster is necessarily, or how many 1st, 2nd, 3rd round players you have....  The leadership, coaches, and culture mean much more.  This is why teams that find the right coach can turn things around so quickly.  McD has established a smart, hardworking, gritty culture.

[Mat68]

13 minutes ago, BillsInWilmingtonNC said:

We showed last year that it is not how talented your roster is necessarily, or how many 1st, 2nd, 3rd round players you have....  The leadership, coaches, and culture mean much more.  This is why teams that find the right coach can turn things around so quickly.  McD has established a smart, hardworking, gritty culture.

Need good coaching, and a good Qb.  By trading Taylor, and signing Mccarron to a prove it backup deal Buffalo is taking a Qb early.  The questions are which one they like most, whats their Qb ranking and where to they go to get the guy.

[3rdnlng]

The Bills are actually in a pretty good position to move up and pay the price for it. If we have to give up some of next year's draft we can plug in free agents, what with all the cap room we will have.

[Tyrod's friend]

32 minutes ago, theRalph said:

I think not. But he's not even among the 14 in my mind.

I think that most fans are not looking for the Sam Bradford experience here either, or the Stafford experience. They equate "Franchise" with Deep in the Playoffs regularly. Do we really want Donovan McNabb ... I mean, do you know any Iggles fans that actually liked McNabb? I could go down the list here. Luck ... how many times has he got to the AFC Championship game? Eli Manning??? Eli??? He won two Super Bowls but has never, ever been a "Franchise QB". If you asked Bills fans at any point in Eli's career if they wanted him on our team the answer was at best, "feh". 

Franchise is Brees. Franchise is Wilson or Rodgers. Franchise is Brady, it's Big Ben, and yeah, it's Peyton. Franchise is more than one Conference Championship Game.

Out of all those names, I've got one that was in the top 5. Not a single one did any team mortgage the future to get. It is, in fact, a crap shoot to get what the average Bills fan would identify as a Franchise QB. 

Because there are only a couple or four of them that exist. I guess it's a matter of symantics; we just define Franchise differently.
 

1 hour ago, theRalph said:

T
The fact is only 8 times have 2 QBs been selected in the 1st round and just once have 3 of the first 5 picks been QBs (1999). So in a draft where perhaps an unprecedented 6 QBs may be taken in the first round, it would seem that taking one in the top five (if you can get there) is a pretty good bet. Not a crap shoot.

If a large number of QBs are drafted in the first round, my definition it means that an awful lot of good players - and this draft has been described as full of great talent outside of QB (whereas the QB talent has been discounted) - will fall. 

If three or four QBs are gone before Indy picks, I damned sure hope they sit on their hands and take the BPA at 12. I sure as crap hope they don't surrender picks so they can get the 4th QB.

Good luck with that call to Mike Schoop. He's a first class jack that thinks way the f too much of himself. Hope you knock his block off.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Tyrod's friend

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, theRalph said:

The excitement of a possible trade into the top five has given way to the discussion of the dangers of trading up...only done by desperate teams. A certain WGR afternoon host is calling trading up just plain dumb. I beg to differ:

 

Since 1998 there have been 27 quarterbacks selected amongst the top five picks of each of the 20 drafts that have occured. At least 14 - 16 of these are what I would term "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Vick, Manning, Rivers, Smith, Ryan, Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Mariota, Goff Wentz, Trubisky. So "crap shoot" is a bit strong of a term to describe about a 50 - 60% hit rate on top five picks at QB.

Additionally, you must give consideration to the fact that top five QB picks have been made by teams that did poorly the previous season. Sending top picks to bad teams has resulted in making busts of many other QBs that may well have excelled in better systems.  Brady's success  - being selected in the 6th round - isn't so much about the marvel of a low pick being undiscovered as it is about him going to a franchise that wasn't broken in the first place.

The fact is only 8 times have 2 QBs been selected in the 1st round and just once have 3 of the first 5 picks been QBs (1999). So in a draft where perhaps an unprecedented 6 QBs may be taken in the first round, it would seem that taking one in the top five (if you can get there) is a pretty good bet. Not a crap shoot.

If half of them don't work out, it's almost the definition of a crap shoot.  Or a coin flip.  Take your pick of expression.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, theRalph said:

The excitement of a possible trade into the top five has given way to the discussion of the dangers of trading up...only done by desperate teams. A certain WGR afternoon host is calling trading up just plain dumb. I beg to differ:

 

Since 1998 there have been 27 quarterbacks selected amongst the top five picks of each of the 20 drafts that have occured. At least 14 - 16 of these are what I would term "franchise quarterbacks". The names include Manning, Palmer, McNabb, Vick, Manning, Rivers, Smith, Ryan, Stafford, Bradford, Newton, Luck, Mariota, Goff Wentz, Trubisky. So "crap shoot" is a bit strong of a term to describe about a 50 - 60% hit rate on top five picks at QB.

Additionally, you must give consideration to the fact that top five QB picks have been made by teams that did poorly the previous season. Sending top picks to bad teams has resulted in making busts of many other QBs that may well have excelled in better systems.  Brady's success  - being selected in the 6th round - isn't so much about the marvel of a low pick being undiscovered as it is about him going to a franchise that wasn't broken in the first place.

The fact is only 8 times have 2 QBs been selected in the 1st round and just once have 3 of the first 5 picks been QBs (1999). So in a draft where perhaps an unprecedented 6 QBs may be taken in the first round, it would seem that taking one in the top five (if you can get there) is a pretty good bet. Not a crap shoot.

 

Misses in the top 5 since 2000 - Vick, Carr, Harrington, Young, Russell, Sanchez, Bradford, RG3, Bortles

Remains to be seen - Winston, Goff, Wentz, i guess Mariota but personally i think he looks a lot like Tyrod,

 

Hits - Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Rivers, Manning, I guess Palmer (didn't really establish himself as the man with his original team though unlike the other 6)

 

If you go past the 5 - the disparity is higher I would say - but the big thing i notice is a lot of reachs.  If this truly is a deep QB class it might not be as affected.  

 

BUSTS - MANZIEL, BRIDGEWATER, MANUEL, WEEDEN, LOCKER, GABBERT, PONDER, TEBOW, FREEMAN, QUINN, LEINART, CAMPBELL, LOSMAN, LEFTWICH, BOLLER, GROSSMAN, RAMSEY, 
HITS - FLACCO, CUTLER, TANNEHILL, RODGERS, ROETHLISBERGER

 

 

Funny note - Tennessee has drafted vince young, jake locker, and now mariota.  And i still don't think they've really addressed the position.  

[MJS]

I would not include Bradford as a franchise QB. I'll give you Vick, even though he was a terrible passer.

[Jay_Fixit]

2 hours ago, jrober38 said:

Essentially half the guys are busts which is still pretty crazy considering it's a top 5 pick.

 

And if you look at the guys who go 2nd to 5th overall, the bust rate is a lot higher. 

 

 6 QBs aren't going in round 1. The NFL is a win now league and there aren't that many teams who desperately need a QB. 

And 4 definitely are not going top 10.

 

People need to take a breath here.

[apuszczalowski]

54 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

I think that most fans are not looking for the Sam Bradford experience here either, or the Stafford experience. They equate "Franchise" with Deep in the Playoffs regularly. Do we really want Donovan McNabb ... I mean, do you know any Iggles fans that actually liked McNabb? I could go down the list here. Luck ... how many times has he got to the AFC Championship game? Eli Manning??? Eli??? He won two Super Bowls but has never, ever been a "Franchise QB". If you asked Bills fans at any point in Eli's career if they wanted him on our team the answer was at best, "feh". 

Franchise is Brees. Franchise is Wilson or Rodgers. Franchise is Brady, it's Big Ben, and yeah, it's Peyton. Franchise is more than one Conference Championship Game.

Out of all those names, I've got one that was in the top 5. Not a single one did any team mortgage the future to get. It is, in fact, a crap shoot to get what the average Bills fan would identify as a Franchise QB. 

Because there are only a couple or four of them that exist. I guess it's a matter of symantics; we just define Franchise differently.
 

If a large number of QBs are drafted in the first round, my definition it means that an awful lot of good players - and this draft has been described as full of great talent outside of QB (whereas the QB talent has been discounted) - will fall. 

If three or four QBs are gone before Indy picks, I damned sure hope they sit on their hands and take the BPA at 12. I sure as crap hope they don't surrender picks so they can get the 4th QB.

Good luck with that call to Mike Schoop. He's a first class jack that thinks way the f too much of himself. Hope you knock his block off.

That's your definition of franchise though. The list of QBs you gave as franchise seem to be more in the elite category which i would put above franchise guys. There's more to winning and getting to the playoffs then just the QB, they still need a team around them. McNabb, Luck and Eli are Franchise qbs, Luck and McNabb may have been held back by the supporting casts.

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said:

And 4 definitely are not going top 10.

 

People need to take a breath here.

 

I think they will, but the talk of four going in the top 4-5 picks is crazy. 

 

I think the Giants and Broncos need for a QB is overstated. I think the Giants roll with Eli and the Broncos are in win now mode having just given Keenum $26 mil guaranteed. 

 

The Jets, Bills and Browns all definitely take a QB. Not sure who else is going to step up to the plate. 

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, K-GunJimKelly12 said:

I know QB's can develop post college, but I don't really buy into ****ty teams ruining highly selected QB's.  I believe if a QB is good enough to be a star in the NFL, they will find a way on the field.  Of course there are guys like Jeff Fischer who likes to run an antiquated offensive system but for the most part I believe if you are good enough, it will be shown somewhere along the way.  

 

For example, I hear all the time that David Carr was ruined by being selected to the Texans and having to play behind their horrible offensive line.  Yes that was a bad situation for Carr, but I just kind of believe he sucked and the the best offensive line in the league wasn't going to make him good.  

 

I am with you 99% of the time but David Carr was in a horrible spot and he became shell shocked 

 

I always believed his brother fell a bit in the draft because of the name but coming out David was a better prospect than Derek

[apuszczalowski]

If your going to say the giants and Broncos needs for a QB are overstated, how are the Jets not included in it too? Like the Broncos they have someone for now along with developmental guys still on the roster. The Giants have Eli who is getting to the end of his career and there's no plan in place for after him. It's the best time and situation for them to get his replacement on board so your not struggling to find one after he is gone.

If your going to say the giants and Broncos needs for a QB are overstated, how are the Jets not included in it too? Like the Broncos they have someone for now along with developmental guys still on the roster. The Giants have Eli who is getting to the end of his career and there's no plan in place for after him. It's the best time and situation for them to get his replacement on board so your not struggling to find one after he is gone.

[Tyrod's friend]

4 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

That's your definition of franchise though. The list of QBs you gave as franchise seem to be more in the elite category which i would put above franchise guys. There's more to winning and getting to the playoffs then just the QB, they still need a team around them. McNabb, Luck and Eli are Franchise qbs, Luck and McNabb may have been held back by the supporting casts.

Sure. And that's why I said it's a matter of defining what franchise means.

I suppose there is an inherent contradiction even in my own definition. If Franchise means more than one Conference Championship game, then Eli qualifies. But Eli literally stunk almost every year that he DIDN'T take his team to he SB. In fact, he was often the reason the team didn't make the playoffs. 

Bottom line, I don't think a lot of years and a lot of yards passing is a franchise. I'd like to see how many fans would sign up for a lifetime of Matt Stafford. By every marker, a great QB. If Franchise means you stay with one club for a long time and don't make it rain, that's not my thing.

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I think they will, but the talk of four going in the top 4-5 picks is crazy. 

 

I think the Giants and Broncos need for a QB is overstated. I think the Giants roll with Eli and the Broncos are in win now mode having just given Keenum $26 mil guaranteed. 

 

The Jets, Bills and Browns all definitely take a QB. Not sure who else is going to step up to the plate. 

Ding ding ding.

And if that's the case, why in God's good green earth are we thinking of paying a fortune to get to #2? And to that extent, how much different is the third QB in this draft from the fourth? By all accounts these guys are hard to differentiate.

EofD, I think both the Josh's are the falling stones this year. One of them is available at 12, and so is Lamar Jackson. Billy's done his job.

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

Sure. And that's why I said it's a matter of defining what franchise means.

I suppose there is an inherent contradiction even in my own definition. If Franchise means more than one Conference Championship game, then Eli qualifies. But Eli literally stunk almost every year that he DIDN'T take his team to he SB. In fact, he was often the reason the team didn't make the playoffs. 

Bottom line, I don't think a lot of years and a lot of yards passing is a franchise. I'd like to see how many fans would sign up for a lifetime of Matt Stafford. By every marker, a great QB. If Franchise means you stay with one club for a long time and don't make it rain, that's not my thing.

Ding ding ding.

And if that's the case, why in God's good green earth are we thinking of paying a fortune to get to #2? And to that extent, how much different is the third QB in this draft from the fourth? By all accounts these guys are hard to differentiate.

EofD, I think both the Josh's are the falling stones this year. One of them is available at 12, and so is Lamar Jackson. Billy's done his job.

 

Darnold is a lock to go top 4. 

 

The other four guys could go anywhere from 1st overall to 15th overall. 

 

My favourite guy is Mayfield. I'm hoping the Browns pick Darnold, and the rumours are true that the Jets pick Allen. Given that the Jets have recently picked similar big, strong armed QBs Bryce Petty and Christian Hackenburg, he seems to fit their type. 

I think the Broncos go BPA and pick one of Barkley, Chubb or Nelson in an effort to win now. Their coach is on the hot seat and is going to push hard for them to pick an impact player who will help him keep his job. 

 

Then maybe we move up to #6 and grab our guy. At least that's what I'm hoping for. 

[Batman1876]

25 minutes ago, Tyrod's friend said:

Sure. And that's why I said it's a matter of defining what franchise means.

I suppose there is an inherent contradiction even in my own definition. If Franchise means more than one Conference Championship game, then Eli qualifies. But Eli literally stunk almost every year that he DIDN'T take his team to he SB. In fact, he was often the reason the team didn't make the playoffs. 

Bottom line, I don't think a lot of years and a lot of yards passing is a franchise. I'd like to see how many fans would sign up for a lifetime of Matt Stafford. By every marker, a great QB. If Franchise means you stay with one club for a long time and don't make it rain, that's not my thing.

Ding ding ding.

And if that's the case, why in God's good green earth are we thinking of paying a fortune to get to #2? And to that extent, how much different is the third QB in this draft from the fourth? By all accounts these guys are hard to differentiate.

EofD, I think both the Josh's are the falling stones this year. One of them is available at 12, and so is Lamar Jackson. Billy's done his job.

He “literally stunk” why were you smelling Eli?

[Coach55]

Top 5 QB's since 2000.  There is roughly a 40-50% success rate in getting a quality QB.  

Trubisky 17-2 – Too early to tell

Goff – 16-1 – Looks promising

Wentz – 16-2 – solid

Winston 15-1 – jury is still out

Bortles – 14-3 - Way too high

Luck – 12-1 – Good player, not a once in a generation QB as originally dubbed

RG III – 12-2 – Bust

Newton 11-1 – Won a super bowl.  Perennial MVP candidate

Bradford 10-1 – Injury prone.  Close to a bust.

Stafford – 09-1 – Decent QB, 3^rd rounder at best in hindsight

Sanchez – 09-5 – Bust

Ryan – 08-3 – Solid

Russell – 07-1 – Bust

Young – 06-3 – Had a great start then fell off a cliff.  Would rule a bust overall

Alex Smith – 05-1 – Decent QB, 2^nd rounder at best in hindsight

Eli Manning – 04-1 – Probably a Hall of Famer

Rivers – 04-4 – Perennial all pro.  Potential Hall of Famer.

Palmer – 03-1 – Solid QB, Injuries really hampered his career.

David Carr – 02-1 – Bust

Harrington – 02-3 – Bigger Bust

Vick – 01-1 – Great running quarterback, huge offensive weapon

 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Coach55 said:

Top 5 QB's since 2000.  There is roughly a 40-50% success rate in getting a quality QB.  

Trubisky 17-2 – Too early to tell

Goff – 16-1 – Looks promising

Wentz – 16-2 – solid

Winston 15-1 – jury is still out

Bortles – 14-3 - Way too high

Luck – 12-1 – Good player, not a once in a generation QB as originally dubbed

RG III – 12-2 – Bust

Newton 11-1 – Won a super bowl.  Perennial MVP candidate

Bradford 10-1 – Injury prone.  Close to a bust.

Stafford – 09-1 – Decent QB, 3^rd rounder at best in hindsight

Sanchez – 09-5 – Bust

Ryan – 08-3 – Solid

Russell – 07-1 – Bust

Young – 06-3 – Had a great start then fell off a cliff.  Would rule a bust overall

Alex Smith – 05-1 – Decent QB, 2^nd rounder at best in hindsight

Eli Manning – 04-1 – Probably a Hall of Famer

Rivers – 04-4 – Perennial all pro.  Potential Hall of Famer.

Palmer – 03-1 – Solid QB, Injuries really hampered his career.

David Carr – 02-1 – Bust

Harrington – 02-3 – Bigger Bust

Vick – 01-1 – Great running quarterback, huge offensive weapon

 

I guess the Bills won 4 SB in a row then.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, N.Y. Orangeman said:

 

I did a deep deep into this because I wanted to know what it meant. 

 

Intestringly, in this same draft pick ‘analysis’, probably omitted  because it doesn’t fit the narrative originally intended, QBs drafted 6-32 started and won twice the number of Super Bowls as the top 5.

 

So if you want a probowler, top 5

looks promising

 

if you want to build a better shot at a championship team, you’ll have to be smarter