I keep beating the drum on this (how hard it is to find a QB outside of the 1st round), and here's just more info on it: http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2014/2/11/5402756/how-hard-is-it-to-find-a-quarterback-outside-of-the-first-round I usually view it through the prism of "franchise" QB, Alfie Crow looks at which QBs had 20 or more starts for their team. The number is 18 (of 188 drafted between 1991 and 2011). So you have less than 10% chance of drafting a QB outside of round 1 and getting 20 or more starts. And that list is also ABYSMAL:Craig Erickson, Gus Frerotte, Kordell Stewart, Tony Banks, Charlie Batch, Brian Griese, Shaun King, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Quincy Carter, David Garrard, Josh McCown, Kyle Orton, Charlie Frye (19), Tarvaris Jackson, Chad Henne, Andy Dalton and Colin Kaepernick.The only guys you're handing your franchise over to are Tom Brady and Drew Brees. Or you might hope that Kaepernick and Dalton develop into superstars.
The issue with those types of reports is they only look at the numbers in a bubble, they never seem to factor in things such as...QB needy teams will look to the first round to find their starter because the position in so important, later round QBs have a far higher chance of being drafted by a team that already has "their guy" and are just looking for a backup who will obviously sit.Based on the old contract structures the higher the pick the longer a team was likely to stick with them thanks to what was invested in them, it was a whole load easier to dumb a 2nd/3rd round guy than the $50-70 million man from the 1st round.Rather than just looking at 1st rounders compared to other QBs it would be interesting if somebody actually compared the different scenarios of the 1st rounders taken to see if there was anything there.How did late 1st rounders compare to early 1st thanks to going to better teams?How did the ones who were allowed to sit and learn a while compare to those thrown in right away?How did the ones who went to a teams with a consistent offensive roster compare to those who went to teams with high player turnover? (Is it really such a shock that Carr & Couch struggled on expansion teams?)Did offseason risers and fallers (thanks to workout warriors and Bowl game hype, think Jamarcus Russell) live up to the positions they were eventually taken or should they have gone at a spot more line line with where they were projected previously?
The issue with those types of reports is they only look at the numbers in a bubble, they never seem to factor in things such as...QB needy teams will look to the first round to find their starter because the position in so important, later round QBs have a far higher chance of being drafted by a team that already has "their guy" and are just looking for a backup who will obviously sit. An interesting thought, but I don't think it's true. Teams are drafting late round QBs before and after they draft a 1st round QB, and sometimes in the same draft. The Bucs are perfect examples of this having Josh Johnson under contract before drafting Freeman (and then drafting Glennon). Based on the old contract structures the higher the pick the longer a team was likely to stick with them thanks to what was invested in them, it was a whole load easier to dumb a 2nd/3rd round guy than the $50-70 million man from the 1st round. Absolutely. 1st round picks get more time and are given more leeway (even without the financial commitment now, just with the draft pick investment). But even knowing that, you're not going to overcome that bias even if you were the head coach. The QB position takes a lot of time investment both on the part of the coaching staff and to wait for a QB to develop and if they gamble wrong they have a high chance of losing their jobs - so while I agree that there are likely many late-round QBs who given more time could've been excellent, the system is still going to discriminate against them. So you have to factor that into your drafting even if you wouldn't in a perfect world. Rather than just looking at 1st rounders compared to other QBs it would be interesting if somebody actually compared the different scenarios of the 1st rounders taken to see if there was anything there.How did late 1st rounders compare to early 1st thanks to going to better teams? I've looked at it in a previous post from 2000-2011 I believe, and there wasn't an obvious difference. But keep in mind, the sample size is way too small and is distorted by lots of QBs being taken 1st overall, and then a more normal distribution. How did the ones who were allowed to sit and learn a while compare to those thrown in right away? It's the Aaron Rodgers question. There's nothing clear either way and it's likely entirely player dependent. Wilson can get thrown in the fire, Kaepernick likely wouldn't have been successful if he started year one.How did the ones who went to a teams with a consistent offensive roster compare to those who went to teams with high player turnover? (Is it really such a shock that Carr & Couch struggled on expansion teams?) Obviously high player turnovever is a negative (means your not doing your job), but what impact?Not sure if you can measure that.Did offseason risers and fallers (thanks to workout warriors and Bowl game hype, think Jamarcus Russell) live up to the positions they were eventually taken or should they have gone at a spot more line line with where they were projected previously? Problem with this question is that (a) actual GMs/scouts don't have a clear idea of draft position until much closer to the draft and (b) mock drafts change WILDLY leading up to the draft. Did a quick google search, take a look at Kiper's 2011 draft. What you're driving at is simply the fact that the draft is as much as a crap shoot as anything. Take Jamarcus Russell - even if he didn't go 1st overall, he wouldn't gone top 5 or top 10. He was the HIGHET RATED PLAYER on Ozzie Newsome's draft board. So even when a bust is drafted at a specific spot, say 1st overall, it's not like he would've otherwise fallen to the 3rd round or something - he would've gone a few picks later, or at worst later in the 1st round.
I hope we don't reach for a QB with all our other needs. Build the Defense to get them to a top 10 group, then reach all you like for offensive players. This is truly a year where the QB's taken after Round 1 have just as much potential as the 1-3 that are taken in round 1; just my opinion.
I'll throw in a few more reasons why that report (and others like it) are generally trash.First thing is, many, and probablymost of the guys drafted later were never drafted to actually be a starter. They were taken to be backups and camp arms and to run practice squads. Second, draft a first round QB and you MUST play him barring an incredibly epic crash. So a first round pick being more likely to get many starts is a self-fulfilling sort of deal. Like in many areas of life, getting the job and being the most qualified for the job are not the same things. Guys from the first round are basically guaranteed to start, whether they should or not. It a very conservative league and taking a chance on a guy and going against the conventional wisdom is very risky.Third, guys who are drafted later would not often be handed the job and immediately groomed, and get all the focus from the team and all the reps their first camp, etc. So that hurts their chances at getting the gig as well. You also have to look at "starting 20 games" as being one of the most ridiculous metrics out there for determining whether to get a QB in the first or not. It says nothing about whether you were actually a good QB or your team simply felt they had to play you or didn't have a better option.
Looking at the names listed the numbers are wrong, right off the top of my head there's Trent Edwards Jake Plummer & Danny Kanell who qualify but aren't listed.If there's 3 errors like that which came without any real thought it makes me question how much stock you can put in any of the rest of it.I also question why players are removed from the equation of being a successful pick because they didn't have the 20 starts for the team that drafted them.There are a ton of guys that rank between very serviceable to all time greats that were traded/moved on for whatever reason & then played a whole bunch.The name Brett Farve springs to mind, the guy was MVP, won a Super Bowl and set all kinds of records but he doesn't count as a good QB from outside the 1st round, still counts against the overall number of QBs drafted though. That Farve trade had a butterfly effect of other QBs taken to sit behind him that moved on because he was an iron man, Brunell, Brooks, Hasseleck. You put 3 of them (maybe even 4 depending on your feelings about Brooks) on this Bucs team and we are very likely a playoff squad.Trent Green was real good when he got a shot.Would anyone turn down guys like Jeff Blake, Elvis Grbac, Marc Bulger, Matt Schaub when they were in the prime if they were on the market now?
I'll throw in a few more reasons why that report (and others like it) are generally trash.First thing is, many, and probablymost of the guys drafted later were never drafted to actually be a starter. They were taken to be backups and camp arms and to run practice squads. Second, draft a first round QB and you MUST play him barring an incredibly epic crash. So a first round pick being more likely to get many starts is a self-fulfilling sort of deal. Like in many areas of life, getting the job and being the most qualified for the job are not the same things. Guys from the first round are basically guaranteed to start, whether they should or not. It a very conservative league and taking a chance on a guy and going against the conventional wisdom is very risky.Third, guys who are drafted later would not often be handed the job and immediately groomed, and get all the focus from the team and all the reps their first camp, etc. So that hurts their chances at getting the gig as well.
This misses the point. If the question is, "Could late round QBs be more successful?" or somesuch variation, then yes you're 100% correct. If you're arguing that late round QBs aren't given enough of a chance, I'll agree with that as well. But the question is: "How hard is it to find a [successful] QB outside of the first round (success measured by 20 starts)?" So all these factors you talk about, being self-fulfilling, getting more starts off the bat, etc. etc. etc. are part of how a coaching staff will handle a 1st round pick. You can argue this shouldn't be reality, but when drafting a QB inside or outside round 1 it is reality. The critique that addresses the question is how this is a very conservative leaguen and coaches will avoid straying from norm. Yep, and that's a big reason why coaches like John Harbaugh and Caroll have had success - by making surprise decisions at the QB position.
You also have to look at "starting 20 games" as being one of the most ridiculous metrics out there for determining whether to get a QB in the first or not. It says nothing about whether you were actually a good QB or your team simply felt they had to play you or didn't have a better option.
Well, as the author points out himself the list of QBs who fit the criteria are mostly terrible. It's not "the most ridiculuous metric" though because it means that the QB had enough talent to warrant a real shot at the job, playing over 20 games. Arbitrary? Sure. The idea doesn't appear to give a rigorous treatment but instead to be a rule of thumb or offhand metric.
Looking at the names listed the numbers are wrong, right off the top of my head there's Trent Edwards Jake Plummer & Danny Kanell who qualify but aren't listed.If there's 3 errors like that which came without any real thought it makes me question how much stock you can put in any of the rest of it.I also question why players are removed from the equation of being a successful pick because they didn't have the 20 starts for the team that drafted them.There are a ton of guys that rank between very serviceable to all time greats that were traded/moved on for whatever reason & then played a whole bunch.The name Brett Farve springs to mind, the guy was MVP, won a Super Bowl and set all kinds of records but he doesn't count as a good QB from outside the 1st round, still counts against the overall number of QBs drafted though. That Farve trade had a butterfly effect of other QBs taken to sit behind him that moved on because he was an iron man, Brunell, Brooks, Hasseleck. You put 3 of them (maybe even 4 depending on your feelings about Brooks) on this Bucs team and we are very likely a playoff squad.Trent Green was real good when he got a shot.Would anyone turn down guys like Jeff Blake, Elvis Grbac, Marc Bulger, Matt Schaub when they were in the prime if they were on the market now?
Great catch TBJ. Clearly he didn't get everyone, but even if we assume he missed 5 guys (Plummer, Edwards, Kanell + assuming 2 others), the number only jumps to 12.2%. So he's mistaken - but it doesn't change the conclusion.The reason you remove players who don't have 20 starts for the team that drafted them is because you're looking at "How hard is it to find a [successful] QB outside of the first round (success measured by 20 starts)?" Players being traded, taking time to develop, etc. are part of the fabric and nature of the NFL (obviously) but still factor in to how a team will handle a QB they draft (much like my argument for why it doesn't matter that teams won't give non-1st round QBs as much as a chance).Take Kirk Cousins as an example. If we assume the Redskins trade him to the Browns, and he goes on and has a solid career you'll say "Ok, here's a successful pick after the 1st round". Absolutely. But in terms of a teams drafting - he wasn't drafted to be a starter. And caradoc is arguing that that distorts the argument but I don't agree. I think that's the point. Kirk Cousins wasn't drafted to be a starter - he was drafted to be a backup and trade commodity. Think of all the ridiculous picks Andy Reid got in Philly for trading his backup QBs. It's part of the dynamic of how these QBs are being drafted. Also keep in mind, if the Redskins (or anyone else) thought Cousins could start and be a good QB he'd have gone in round 1. The reasons these QBs fall out of the 1st round is because they need, at best, development time (if their teams think they can be a starter at all). And then that's how they get traded as well. They're backup plans that aren't needed anymore. And obviously those can be mistakes - trading Favre or Matt Schaub right before Vick's dogfighting scandal broke. In essence: it's a separate question of whether you should trade picks for a backup QB and I'd be very curious to see those stats.I'll also point out that even when you factor in QBs who are traded/play for the other teams that the number is abysmal. Using a different standard ("franchise QB") and different period (2000-2010) the chance of a "franchise QB" being drafted outside the 1st round is 3.4%.
The reason you remove players who don't have 20 starts for the team that drafted them is because you're looking at "How hard is it to find a [successful] QB outside of the first round (success measured by 20 starts)?"
But that doesn't work, just because a QB doesn't get to start 20 games for the team that drafted them because they already have a HoF QB in their prime doesn't mean you haven't found another successful QB outside the first round. You found them but simply can't use them, using that rational you could have Andrew Luck sitting behind Peyton Manning and Luck wouldn't be a successful pick simply because he doesn't see the field. It's like the reverse scenario of the first round QB being a success because he got at least 20 starts when everybody knows that even bust taken in the first who had large contracts got loads of time based on the investment, not because they were successful picks.If a team already has their guy and still takes a QB later in the draft to be a backup & trade bait at a later date, then that player starts a whole bunch of game for his new team how is that not a successful pick based on the player doing exactly that?Look at Schaub, the Falcons already had Vick as the face of the franchise, they needed a backup so spent a lowly 3rd to get a solid on and then flipped him for 2nd rounders & exchange of 1sts, Schaub himself went on to start over 80 games, made the playoffs, led the league in passing, made the Pro Bowl. How is that not a successful pick based on the Falcons needs, what they got for him and his personal success?As far as the 3 guys missing from his list, sure it doesn't change the overall numbers much (if you can trust them) BUT fact is it represents an almost 17% increase in the number of guys who are "successful picks" and that is far from insignificant if you are using numbers/stats/percentages to make a point.The numbers are off and the criteria is very limiting & has major logical holes in it, it looks very much like the guy has an opinion and cherry picked far too much stuff hoping nobody would actually think about it.
I agree with TOG for the most part. But since rookie pay scale has changed teams are taking more chances on QB's now. Still, using a draft choice on a QB after the first round is a big gamble.
I hope we don't reach for a QB with all our other needs. Build the Defense to get them to a top 10 group, then reach all you like for offensive players. This is truly a year where the QB's taken after Round 1 have just as much potential as the 1-3 that are taken in round 1; just my opinion.
I respect your opinion Horse and the drafting of QB's at different spots in the draft certainly creates some interesting debate. You may be completely right about the potential of the QB's after round 1 and i may be completely wrong here (i've certainly been wrong a million times before) but i think Teddy Bridgewater is absolutely light-years ahead of any other QB prospect in this draft. If i was Bucs GM i would do absolutely everything in my power to attain him if i thought there was any realistic chance of that at all. If Houston don't take Bridgewater and St Louis offered to swap picks and it meant us also giving up our 2nd and 4th rounders this year to move up from 7 to 2 to get Bridgewater (or even a 2nd this year and 2nd next year) i would absolutely make that trade in a heartbeat. I believe he has absolutely everything in his game to be an elite top 5 NFL QB for the next decade and i think he could give the team that drafts him a very good chance to compete for championships every year for 10+ years. He has the talent, the skillset, the Football IQ, the character, and he is absolutely dedicated to be the best he can possibly be at his craft.I believe he is the second best QB prospect since 2005.
