On the Job Training

[finknottle]

This is in response to the chorus of fans who seem to assume that

(1) by virtue of being a first round choice JP will likely be a good qb, and

(2) it is worth stepping back a year to develop him on the field and find out more quickly.

 

To the second, let me point out that teams that commit to starting a first round QB who doesn't ultimately pan out frequently spend 2 or more years in limbo before they cut their losses and try again. As to the first, let's look at the numbers. I took all 28 quarterbacks drafted in the first round from 1990 to 2003, and sorted them into three groups: Good (10), Journeyman (4), and Bust (14). (A player with a ?- means it's a little too early to to be sure...)

 

--- GOOD

Drew Bledsoe (1, 1993)

Steve McNair (3, 1995)

Kerry Collins (5, 1995)

Peyton Manning (1, 1998)

Donovan McNabb (2, 1999)

Daunte Culpepper (11, 1999)

? Chad Pennington (18, 2000)

Michael Vick (1, 2001)

? Carson Palmer (1, 2003)

? Byron Leftwich (7, 2003)

 

--- JOURNEYMAN

Jeff George (1, 1990)

Tommy Maddox (25, 1992)

Trent Dilfer (6, 1994)

? David Carr (1, 2002)

 

--- BUST

Andre Ware (7, 1990)

Todd Marinovich (24, 1991)

David Klingler (6, 1992)

Rick Mirer (2, 1993)

Heath Shuler (3, 1994)

Jim Druckenmiller (26, 1997)

Ryan Leaf (2, 1998)

Tim Couch (1, 1999)

Akili Smith (3, 1999)

Cade McNown (12, 1999)

? Joey Harrington (3, 2002)

? Patrick Ramsey (32, 2002)

? Kyle Boller (19, 2003)

? Rex Grossman (22, 2003)

 

So - if history is any guide we have a 50-50 chance that JP will be a bust. The question is: is it worth stepping back a year - going 4-12 say, and maybe 4-12 again the following year - to find out for sure the value of a player who is unlikely to be the starter in 2 years? He is more likely to be another Cade McNown than a Peyton Manning. Or maybe he is merely better than average - would Tommy Maddox have been worth stepping back a few years? And even if he is in the top tier, would it be worth it to develop a Chad Pennington, Steve McNair, or - gasp! - a Drew Bledsoe?

 

Alternatively, given those odds, is it better to assess while he's on the bench?

[silvermike]

I'd shake up those tiers a little bit. There needs to be an "Elite" section for Manning, McNabb, and Vick with a possible ? for Carson Palmer. Bledsoe is on his third team, that knocks him down to Journeyman status. Ditto Kerry Collins. Carr is as much of a bust as Harrington, but I think there may still be hope for Patrick Ramsey on his next team.

[plenzmd1]

This is in response to the chorus of fans who seem to assume that

(1)  by virtue of being a first round choice JP will likely be a good qb,  and

(2)  it is worth stepping back a year to develop him on the field and find out more quickly.

 

To the second, let me point out that teams that commit to starting a first round QB who doesn't ultimately pan out frequently spend 2 or more years in limbo before they cut their losses and try again.  As to the first, let's look at the numbers.  I took all 28 quarterbacks drafted in the first round from 1990 to 2003, and sorted them into three groups:  Good (10), Journeyman (4), and Bust (14).    (A player with a ?- means it's a little too early to to be sure...)

 

--- GOOD

Drew Bledsoe (1, 1993)

Steve McNair (3, 1995)

Kerry Collins (5, 1995)

Peyton Manning (1, 1998)

Donovan McNabb (2, 1999)

Daunte Culpepper (11, 1999)

? Chad Pennington (18, 2000)

Michael Vick (1, 2001)

? Carson Palmer (1, 2003)

? Byron Leftwich (7, 2003)

 

--- JOURNEYMAN

Jeff George (1, 1990)

Tommy Maddox (25, 1992)

Trent Dilfer (6, 1994)

? David Carr (1, 2002)

 

--- BUST

Andre Ware (7, 1990)

Todd Marinovich (24, 1991)

David Klingler (6, 1992)

Rick Mirer (2, 1993)

Heath Shuler (3, 1994)

Jim Druckenmiller (26, 1997)

Ryan Leaf (2, 1998)

Tim Couch (1, 1999)

Akili Smith (3, 1999)

Cade McNown (12, 1999)

? Joey Harrington (3, 2002)

? Patrick Ramsey (32, 2002)

? Kyle Boller (19, 2003)

? Rex Grossman (22, 2003)

 

So - if history is any guide we have a 50-50 chance that JP will be a bust.  The question is:  is it worth stepping back a year - going 4-12 say, and maybe 4-12 again the following year - to find out for sure the value of a player who is unlikely to be the starter in 2 years?  He is more likely to be another Cade McNown than a Peyton Manning.  Or maybe he is merely better than average - would Tommy Maddox have been worth stepping back a few years?  And even if he is in the top tier,  would it be worth it to develop a Chad Pennington, Steve McNair, or - gasp! - a Drew Bledsoe?

 

Alternatively, given those odds, is it better to assess while he's on the bench?

493441[/snapback]

 

To me, here is the flaw in your thinking. I agree that the QB position is a total crap shoot, and draft position, to me, is not the end all be all indicator of wheather one will be successful or not.

 

However, outside of Big Ben, I would challange you to name on QB who has stepped on the field his first eight games and been extrememly effective. The argument going into the year was JP was in the same position as Big Ben, strong D, great specail teams, with a load of skill position players. Contrast that with the pretty poor teams Mannning(both of them) Elway, et al came into the league on, and we were all fooled into thinking JP should be more like Big Ben than the other guys.

 

However, two critical factors come into play.

 

1) This D stinks. We cannot win games scoring 17 pts, as the thinking going into the season led you to believe.

 

2) The O-line is no near the caliber of Piitsburg.

 

 

And as an extra bonus, what is the differance between going 4-12 and 6-10. We have beat two one win teams, and the other is under .500, and all at home.

 

So, yes, I think you need to see him play. If you can give me one tangible benefit of sticking with KH, I will eat my words.

[johnnychemo]

And as an extra bonus, what is the differance between going 4-12 and 6-10. We have beat two one win teams, and the other is under .500, and all at home.

 

493680[/snapback]

 

The difference is draft position. If this season is going to be the bust I think it will be, there will be at least some decent outcome if a)JP get's some seasoning for next year and b)we get a top 10 pick.

 

In my mind, we are wasting this year with KH at the helm. This team will not make the playoffs. The O-line has too many question marks and the D is a sieve and can't get off the field on 3rd down.

 

If we keep as we are going, we will be having this same conversation next year at the midway point.

[plenzmd1]

The difference is draft position. If this season is going to be the bust I think it will be, there will be at least some decent outcome if a)JP get's some seasoning for next year and b)we get a top 10 pick.

 

In my mind, we are wasting this year with KH at the helm. This team will not make the playoffs. The O-line has too many question marks and the D is a sieve and can't get off the field on 3rd down.

 

If we keep as we are going, we will be having this same conversation next year at the midway point.

493692[/snapback]

 

My point precisly

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Many thanks to finknottle for the info. I think this data underscores the point I had been repetitvely ranting about for a long time. Specifically it is that drafting a QB in the 1st round is not a good strategy for a team to puursue if:

 

1. You want to win an SB- no QB has led a team which drafted him to an SB win since Dallas picked Aikman in '89 and he QB'ed them to an SB winning season.

 

2. You want to even appear in an SB- Winning it all is too high of a standard in my mind to claim all SB losers are bad teams. Even making it to the SB is so hard that I am more than comfortable deeming a team which plays, but loses an SB as a successful team. It may be my pro-Bills view of life since they went to and loss 4 straight SBs, but I think that the world is coming around to uniformly recognize how impressive this feat was.

 

However, even with this lower standard of simply making it to the final game even if you lose drafting a QB in the first has not proven at all to be a dead lock certain or even a very good strategy for achieving this goal. When McNabb led Philly to their SB loss last year it was a successful season in my book. However, McNabb esd the first QB to lead the team which drafted him in the 1st to an SB berth in the 2000s.

 

The last QB to lead the team which selected him in the 1st to an SB berth was Steve McNair with the 1999 season Titans who lost a squeaker to the Rams.

 

Some folks make the mistake of thinking I am arguing that 1st round QBs are bad. This is not the case.

 

I only tended to argue that 1st round talents who actually had learned the game and been given up on like Trent Dilfer could be found and simply has won SBs when drafting your own guy in the 1st round and then having folks give up on him (as many want to do with JP and what was done with orginally highly rated talents like Steve Young amd Brett Farve) has simply proven to be unavoidable in all cases and not a winning strategy.

 

The info that you provide supports the notions that:

 

1. TD is correct when he says it is about a 50/50 chance that a 1st round choice will pan out for a team. I think theQBs tend toward the extremes of being judged good or instead busts, but overall the thought that many have said that a 4th pick in the draft should be a stud simply does not line up with reality. The 4th pick (Williams) well could be a stud and we want our GM to make a good pick with this high pick.

 

However, though we wish this will be true reality says it may well not be and I think a fuller view of TD's draft record needs to be made to be accurate. Overall, he had 5 1st round picks for the Bills to work with and he has used this resource to get Clements (+picks), MW. Bledsoe, WM, Evans and Losman. Overall from these 5 1st round resources it is not unreasonable for him to produce 2.5 big contributors.

 

It reasonably can be judged that it really is too early to judge on his 04 snd 05 choices as we have had less than 2 full seasons to get results (and quite frankly one might make the same judgment about his 03 opportunity). However, these 5 opportunities have already produced 1 Pro Bowler (Clements) and a clear stud (WM). Further, as a rookie Evans showed some potential. JP disappointed so far but he clearly is too early to judge. Bledsoe to me is a wash as he was a stud his first year and then a dog his second and the big mistake was extending rather than cuttting him after his putrid 2003. MW is a bust too date and given his injury issues he is not unreasonable to judge him a faled pick.

 

 

Yet. overall, i think TD has at least done average in 1st round picks and actually given the prospects of Evans (production last year and you can't teach speed) and the potential of Losman (potential simply means you have not done anything yet). The potential is still there for him to hit a homerun with is 1st round choices. WM needs to remain healthy and either Evans or Losman needs to eventrually produce at a Pro Bowl level.

 

2. Thise who advocated the Bills going for Harrington were not surprisingly incorrect based on the choices of the past decade plus.

 

3. Peyton Manning is a great performer but as of yet the jury is still out on whether he is the QB you want to lead your team.

 

4. In hindsight it is easy to see that Drew Bledsoe is bound for the HOF. He has put up the glitzy numbers that one would expect from a 1st round choice with a rocket arm. However, the hallmarks of his career that underlie his deseving HOF status are that the glitzy longevity numbers are underlane by his leading the Pats to an SB appearance as a youngster and his playing an essential role backing up Brady and playing the majority of (and even throwing the winning TD) in a must win game.

 

Success in the SB is not enough in an of itself (otherwise Trent Dilfer deserves in which he doses not) Bledsoe needs more.

 

However between:

 

1. An SB appearance he led the charge to AND playing QB in the majority of a must-win game the team won on the way to a championship.

2. His putting up the glitzy numbers expected of a 1st round QB in several seasons.

3. Him showing longevity in racking up some cumulative career numbers.

4. His being thrown on the ashheap as not the QB of choice not once, but twice and both times he went to new teams where he has played QB for much improved teams.

 

Its pretty clear to me that Bledsoe is bound for theHOF. The big factor will ultimately be who he is competing against at the QB position when the HOF committee has its popularity contest. As long as he avoids the direct competiiton with Brett Farve I do not see another QB likely to be on the ballot with Bledsoe that will stop him.

[1billsfan]

Alternatively, given those odds, is it better to assess while he's on the bench?

493441[/snapback]

 

No.

 

Your whole argument is screwed from the start. If there's a 50-50 chance he'd be bad, then there's a 50-50 chance he'd be good. So with those odds, and the fact he WAS a first round pick, the logical thing to do would be to play him. The mere notion that the Bills could evaluate Losman while he sits on the bench is laughable.

 

What's your reason for staying with Holcomb? That we still have a chance this season? You're delusional if you think that this team has any chance of going to the playoffs this year. You want stats? Take a look at the defense's rushing stats. Pass protection? Non-existent. This underlines the need for this team to assess the young QB, and many of the other first and second year players for that matter.

[ganesh]

No.

 

Your whole argument is screwed from the start. If there's a 50-50 chance he'd be bad, then there's a 50-50 chance he'd be good. So with those odds, and the fact he WAS a first round pick, the logical thing to do would be to play him. The mere notion that the Bills could evaluate Losman while he sits on the bench is laughable.

 

What's your reason for staying with Holcomb? That we still have a chance this season? You're delusional if you think that this team has any chance of going to the playoffs this year. You want stats? Take a look at the defense's rushing stats. Pass protection? Non-existent. This underlines the need for this team to assess the young QB, and many of the other first and second year players for that matter.

493727[/snapback]

 

And the rest of the schedule.....with those RBs licking their chops....Priest Holmes,

LT, Martin, Brown, Johnson and Dillon.

[finknottle]

I'd shake up those tiers a little bit.  There needs to be an "Elite" section for Manning, McNabb, and Vick with a possible ? for Carson Palmer.  Bledsoe is on his third team, that knocks him down to Journeyman status.  Ditto Kerry Collins.  Carr is as much of a bust as Harrington, but I think there may still be hope for Patrick Ramsey on his next team.

493662[/snapback]

 

I agree. The reason I didn't do it that way here was that it quickly began to get very subjective, and I didn't want to muddle the basic question (what are the odds that my first rounder will be a long-term fixture at qb for my team) with peripherial debates about whether Vick is elite, etc.

 

There is one very good reason to make that distinction, however. It may be that your team philosophy say's it is worth it to tank a season to accelerate the development of an elite Manning, but not for a merely competant Pennington, in which case you're probably looking at about 3 elite qb's out of 28, or a 10% chance. A painfull year for the fans is a pretty steep price to pay if those are the odds that it pays off, IMO.

[finknottle]

To me, here is the flaw in your thinking. I agree that the QB position is a total crap shoot, and draft position, to me, is not the end all be all indicator of wheather one will be successful or not.

 

However, outside of Big Ben, I would challange you to name on QB who has stepped on the field his first eight games and been extrememly effective. The argument going into the year was JP was in the same position as Big Ben, strong D, great specail teams, with a load of skill position players. Contrast that with the pretty poor teams Mannning(both of them) Elway, et al came into the league on, and we were all fooled into thinking JP should be more like Big Ben than the other guys.

 

However, two critical factors come into play.

 

1) This D stinks. We cannot win games scoring 17 pts, as the thinking going into the season led you to believe.

 

2) The O-line is no near the caliber of Piitsburg.

And as an extra bonus, what is the differance between going 4-12 and 6-10. We have beat two one win teams, and the other is under .500, and all at home.

 

So, yes, I think you need to see him play. If you can give me one tangible benefit of sticking with KH, I will eat my words.

493680[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree - while I am disappointed in what I've seen out of JP so far, I didn't expect much more given the situation, and his productivity is irrelevent to my intended point.

 

The question I am focusing on is whether it is worth it for a team to step back (competatively) in order to accelerate their young guys development. My contention is that if most first rounders panned out after a few years the answer would probably be yes. But since only a third turn out to be the long-term starter, degrading the teams performance while you try out unproven quarterbacks is a recipe for being a consistently bad franchise.

 

(No offense intended towards the fine cities of cincy, chicago and detroit).

[Tux of Borg]

Are you sure you're not related to this genius.... Epic Thread!

[finknottle]

The difference is draft position. If this season is going to be the bust I think it will be, there will be at least some decent outcome if a)JP get's some seasoning for next year and b)we get a top 10 pick.

 

In my mind, we are wasting this year with KH at the helm. This team will not make the playoffs. The O-line has too many question marks and the D is a sieve and can't get off the field on 3rd down.

 

If we keep as we are going, we will be having this same conversation next year at the midway point.

493692[/snapback]

 

Here's a hypothetical question: suppose JP, like most first rounders, turns out not to be a starting caliber qb. Suppose he is a Heath Schuler. We won't know that by the end of the season, even if he plays the remainder (or at least we won't be prepared to admit it to ourselves - remember how long it took to turn the page on Bledsoe).

 

So in next years draft we do not draft a qb. Then next year we stink again. So in '07 we draft a new qb. He doesn't start playing until '07 or '08. So even if this one is good, and we start nosing to 8-8 in '07 and '08, we don't get real productivity out of the position until '09.

 

That is an eternity as far as the rest of the team is concerned. Almost all of the talent we have accumulated will be gone by then. Will all those years of bad-to-mediocracy and not contending for anything be an acceptable price to pay in order to grow our own starter?

 

So in my mind we field the most competative team we can. When JP looks close to KH in practice, you start playing him.

 

As for you comment about getting a top ten pick, with todays salary system I would argue that that is actually something to be avoided. The last thing we need are yet more MW-type contracts for unproven players eating into our cap.

[mead107]

after 4 games last year you would have manning sitting on the bench this year ???

[The Dean]

3. Peyton Manning is a great performer but as of yet the jury is still out on whether he is the QB you want to lead your team.

 

493718[/snapback]

 

What's this now?

[finknottle]

Are you sure you're not related to this genius.... Epic Thread! 

494118[/snapback]

 

lol, no. He argued the opposite point.

 

The way to reconcile the two set of facts is to realize that he's saying (1) good quarterbacks were drafted high, while I'm saying (2) most high qb draft picks don't pan out. The two are compatible, with the conclusion being that if you want to wind up with a good quarterback, draft early and draft often. My corollary is that you shouldn't bank the teams fortunes on who you draft because he probably won't be the one that ultimately works out for you.

[1billsfan]

But since only a third turn out to be the long-term starter,  degrading the teams performance while you try out unproven quarterbacks is a recipe for being a consistently bad franchise.

(No offense intended towards the fine cities of cincy, chicago and detroit).

494115[/snapback]

 

Degrading the team's performance?????? Again, have you checked out the defensive and offensive line's performances this season???? You obviously have an overinflated view of this team as a whole.

 

You need to accept the fact that this team is horrible in the trenches. Which, unfortunately for the Bills and it's fans, is the most important factor of any competetive football team.

[stuckincincy]

However, outside of Big Ben, I would challange you to name on QB who has stepped on the field his first eight games and been extrememly effective.

493680[/snapback]

 

Can't say about 8 games but Cook looked good before he was injured:

 

"Gregory Lynn "Greg" Cook (born November 20, 1946 in Dayton, Ohio) is a former American football player in the NFL; he was arguably the most physically talented quarterback of his era, with the potential to become one of the greatest NFL quarterbacks of all time. He starred collegiately at the University of Cincinnati, once throwing for 554 yards in one game.

 

As a rookie in 1969 he led the upstart Cincinnati Bengals to wins over the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs and the playoff-bound Oakland Raiders. He led the AFC in passing in his rookie year, and set a rookie record for yards per pass attempt (9.411) that still stands. His single season mark of 17.5 yards per completion hasn't been approached since.

 

His abilities and accomplishments are legendary. Those who saw him in action - including icons such as then-Bengals receivers coach Bill Walsh, and Paul Brown - compared him favorably with the all-time greats and agreed that his potential was nearly limitless.

 

Tragically, a shoulder injury suffered against Kansas City, would take him out of active play. He never fully recovered."

 

From Answers.com - sorry, won't link..

[finknottle]

after 4 games last year you would have manning sitting on the bench this year ???

494135[/snapback]

 

Manning is an odd example because he seems to be the bad gamble that is paying off. If it were me, I would have stayed with Warner. Say whatever you want about his being finished, the fact is that he had them in the playoff hunt.

 

Suppose Manning had not beaten the odds, and looked more like Kyle Boller. Would dumping Warner while still in contention to develop a draft pick still seem like a good move for the franchise? Especially if they were as bad or worse this year?

 

And the whole point of looking at the QB's over the last 13 years is to realize that on average, Joe "1st round" Draftpick WILL wind up looking more like Boller than Manning.

[stuckincincy]

Manning is an odd example because he seems to be the bad gamble that is paying off.  If it were me,  I would have stayed with Warner.  Say whatever you want about his being finished, the fact is that he had them in the playoff hunt.

 

Suppose Manning had not beaten the odds, and looked more like Kyle Boller.  Would dumping Warner while still in contention to develop a draft pick still seem like a good move for the franchise?  Especially if they were as bad or worse this year?

 

And the whole point of looking at the QB's over the last 13 years is to realize that on average,  Joe "1st round" Draftpick WILL wind up looking more like Boller than Manning.

494146[/snapback]

 

Perhaps, but should teams give up trying?

[finknottle]

Perhaps, but should teams give up trying?

494151[/snapback]

 

No, but at what cost? Why is it acceptable to enter an unknown period of years in which we toil at 3-7 wins a season, playing a succession of newly drafted quarterbacks until we find one that sticks? Why do we have to sacrifice being competitive for this search, when we can sit a guy on the bench and see how he develops in practice?

 

While we are at it, why don't we make similar arguments about every other position on the field? Why aren't we starting Preston? Teague isn't the answer at center. And what about starting King over Clements? After all, we're not going to the playoffs and Clements will be gone at the end of the season... The same goofy logic extends to starting Parrish over Moulds, and even - gasp - Gates over WM, since by the time our QB is polished enough to lead us to the Superbowl WM will probably have priced himself out of town.

 

Ok, those examples are ludicrous, but they reveal an underlying assumption: that we are looking at drafted quarterbacks differently, or more accurately we are looking at first round picks differently. For me that's an argument against using a first round pick on a quarterback. If a first round runningback or lineman or whatever is a bust, you limit their playing time and move on. You don't doggedly start him for two years if he stinks. But we here seem to be making the argument that you have to do that with a QB in order to find out if he can play, and that's a pretty steep price for any team to pay.

 

So you don't give up trying to find the perfect quarterback, but you have to keep a competative product on the field. And IMO that means not starting a guy until you are confident based on what you see in practice that what you'll see in a game isn't too far of a drop-off.