The Myth of the First Round QB

[BGtoKNfor6]

Considering that Luck is the most highly ranked of all the #1 prospects since Manning and Elway, Id say those chances greatly increase from 33%. Also, consider the fact that in the last 10 years the game has been altered and the rules slanted in favor of the QBs and that should crank that percentage chance up a notch or two as well.

If we draft Luck, I dont think we should be asking ourselves what are the chances we eventually win a Super
Bowl with him. We should be asking what are the chances we win MULTIPLE Super Bowls. Thats why its so important we suck for Luck. This is the only instance I will root for losses. In this case, losing out this year is more important than winning would have been in other years. Losing out this season has a HUGE prize. Probably bigger than that of the team who hoists the Lombardi at seasons end.

Fair enough but you are making the assumption that luck won't pull an Eli manning when he see's the wishy washy bafoon we have as an owner especially if Jeff Ireland is retained. I wouldn't want to play here personally and with the new CBA rookie wage scale he isn't getting 80+ Million to "forget" about the ****ty situation he may find himself in.

Ross is such an incompetent moron it's staggering....

 

[Teal Fin]

I'm not a huge supporter of all this "math" do help determine our best chance at a good player, but I have to ask.....wouldn't those numbers or "chances" at a first rounders success be less attractive if you took into consideration that in the last 20 years 1 QB won it several times?

Are you taking that into consideration? If you're simply dividing by the number of years that would be inaccurate because, for example, Aikman won it 3 times....but he isn't 3 different QB's......the same guy just won 3 different years?

Not a math wizard

I mention it in my second post, but really it evens itself out. Consider this: If you go back and look at the last 20 Super Bowls a number of times you had non-First Round QBs face off, meaning no matter who won it would have been a non-First Round QB that won (Brady v Warner, Gannon v Johnson, etc). And then there are the years that it was two First Round QBs that faced off (Manning v Grossman, etc). It actually evens itself else rather nicely. In a way it doesn't matter Brady won 3 times, because he beat Warner and Delhomme 2 of those times. It would be counted as a non-First Round QB either way.

Also, the number hold up pretty well to show that First Round QBs Overperform by a factor of 3-4.

Again, First Round QBs make up 21% of the league, and yet account for 60% of the last 20 Super Bowls and have been about 49% of the QBs since 2000 to win a playoff game.

Lastly, as a whole, 11% of First Round QBs go on to win a Super Bowl, and 2.3% of non-First Round QBs go on to win a Super Bowl, while the "average QB," regardless of when picked, has an 8% chance of winning. The 3-4 times greater factors holds up for the First Round QBs rather well here as well. Thus, mathematically you seem to have a 3-4 greater chance of hitting on a First Round QB than a non-First Round QB, but the chances really soar with a #1 overall QB.

To others, I am not sure why many read this as an "anti-Luck" idea on the surface. If anything it is more of an argument that shows why Luck is so mathematically so much more valuable than Jones, Barkley, or any of the other potential First Round QBs in 2012.

And yes I do count Dilfer as a First Round QB, since he was one. And Brees was a second round pick when he was chosen. Every team had a chance to pick before he came off the board, and he was the second pick for the Chargers.

 

[flynryan15]

Well how has QB shopping at the Salvation Army been working out for us?

 

[Doctor Phibes]

The main point here is that QB is the most important position on the field as I'm sure everyone agrees. It would therefore make sense to make a comparatively large investment in the QB position especially if you are as weak in that area as we have been for a long time. I don't think anyone could argue that this front officehas made a big enough investment in the QB position (please don't try to argue that Pat White counts as a QB). I agree with the folks that say draft one every year.

I don't agree with the folks that say give up the house (say 3 first round picks or equivalent player value) to trade up to get Luck though. That should get you into the select band of teams that have the QB to potentially win a championship but how are you then supposed to compete with the likes of GB, NE, Pitt, SD, NO, Balt who already have the QB, already have better rosters than us, and then have 3 more first round picks than us ??

 

[WSE]

well, one thing is for sure. We need an elite qb to win in the NFL in the long term

We are more likely to find an elite qb in the first. Take one every 1st round until we find one worth a damn. Thats the only way.

 

[BGtoKNfor6]

Well how has QB shopping at the Salvation Army been working out for us?

It's Miami. We could draft Jesus Christ and he would suck..

 

[Teal Fin]

Jesus Christ this thread is stupid. So you are putting 1st rounders against the entire field, noting that they are in fact better than the rest of the field combined, then suggesting we take flyers on QBs in other rounds. Holy ****. **** logic is ****. Thats exactly like saying that Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods combined have a 50% chance of winning a tournament, so you should randomly bet on someone out the rest of the field since the field has the same odds. Thats retarded. Yea, theres a chance someone from the field might win...but who? If we pass on Luck and Barkley, who out of the massive field to we choose? See...its retarded.

I wont even get into the fact that your "analysis" is skewed by the fact that Tom Brady, a once in a generation steal and anomaly, has won three SBs and countless PO games. Yeah. Lets try find another Brady. That works. Much better odds in the ****ing 6th round.

I think I'll just leave these here......


Post #2: http://www.finheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?306996-The-Myth-of-the-First-Round-QB&p=1064047875&viewfull=1#post1064047875

Post #3: http://www.finheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?306996-The-Myth-of-the-First-Round-QB&p=1064048108&viewfull=1#post1064048108

 

[Phins28]

Dr. Slimm FTMFW

:sidelol: your avatar

 

[Kinzua]

SEE "DAN MARINO"

Obviously a quarterback must be the only hope for any franchise right? It worked so well for Dan. All you people are doing is arguing a point which can never be won. This team sucks from the top to the bottom, from the owner, to the kicker... Andrew Luck is NEVER going to fix what is wrong here, I don't care how many statistics you throw up - Frankly, if you cant protect your quarterback, you better have Matt Moore back there... or Tyler Thigpen - or MiKe Vick... you need a QB that can run for his life.

And 99% of the people screaming for Andrew Luck, has never seen the guy play.

This sounds like the Bills MBs for the last few years -- and it was true for them and it's true for the Phins. The Bills went the "draft a first round QB" route (Losman) and that was a disaster. A first round QB, even the #1 pick, isn't going to rescue a team from poor talent scouting and poor coaching. More than likely, it will contribute to the QB's failure. A good offensive scheme and decent offensive talent can make even a mediocre QB look decent (Rex Grossman in Washington). They can make a good QB look great (Ryan Fitzpatrick in Buffalo).

Without a change in the offensive scheme (ie, coaching staff), there's probably little chance for a first round QB to have a lot of success in Miami.

 

[rent this space]

I think it's worthy to note that with the new rookie cap, it won't set a team back so far to miss on a 1st round QB. so the idea to take them in the first and keep taking them until you hit on one looks even better.

 

[BGtoKNfor6]

This sounds like the Bills MBs for the last few years -- and it was true for them and it's true for the Phins. The Bills went the "draft a first round QB" route (Losman) and that was a disaster. A first round QB, even the #1 pick, isn't going to rescue a team from poor talent scouting and poor coaching. More than likely, it will contribute to the QB's failure. A good offensive scheme and decent offensive talent can make even a mediocre QB look decent (Rex Grossman in Washington). They can make a good QB look great (Ryan Fitzpatrick in Buffalo).

Without a change in the offensive scheme (ie, coaching staff), there's probably little chance for a first round QB to have a lot of success in Miami.

I agree 100% percent and some. While drafting Luck indeed will fix a glaring weakness, he surely doesn't play defense and Miami has very little talent in the secondary IMO. The linebackers are also a glaring problem and hell so is the supposed strength of the defense, the line, isn't getting much pressure.

This team is severely lacking at many key positions.

 

[dolphone]

The statistics and comparisons you've made here really only prove that there are a helluva lot more "non-1st round QB's" in the league than there are 1st round QB's.

The sample pool for 1st round QB's is exponentially smaller than the pool of "non-1st round QB's".

Easy there with the hyperbole.

Your research here is simply casting aside the literally THOUSANDS of "non-1st round QB's" that never amount to anything in the NFL.

The odds of hitting on a QB in the 1st round is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% or so. The odds of hitting on a QB from the 2nd round-UDFA is immeasurable because the sample pool is so large, and the results are so microscopic.

Several of those 1st round QB's listed there haven't been in the league long enough to have a legitimate shot to win a playoff game yet, but they've already gotten their teams to the playoffs. Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Phil Simms, Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, etc.... were all in the league anywhere from 4-8 years before they won their first playoff game.


I don't believe you need a 1st round QB to win a playoff game, but I've been reading "analysis" just like the one you've provided here every year for about the last 10 years or so.

You don't draft a quarterback in the 1st round just to draft one, but when a legitimate quarterback prospect is there for the taking, you pick him. Especially when you don't have one. Doesn't matter if it's the #1 overall pick, 13th overall pick, 2nd round, 3rd round or 6th round.

You don't pass them up for fear of busting out. Any position can bust. But none of them are going to turn around a stagnant franchise even if they do "hit" quite like the quarterback position will.

Passing up quarterbacks when you don't have one is far worse than busting out on him. Not only did you fail to land your quarterback, you let someone else have him.

Those franchises that busted out on quarterbacks in the 1st round are no worse off than Miami has been by passing them up for the past decade. If you miss, you keep trying.

The Colts didn't throw their hands up in the air after they busted out on Jeff George, they drafted Peyton Manning when they had the chance. The Chargers didn't quit when they busted on Ryan Leaf, they took kept trying with Drew Brees and Eli Manning (who they traded to the Giants for Phillip Rivers).

The Bears busted on Cade McNown, but kept trying with Rex Grossman. They've played in a superbowl since then.... Miami hasn't. Joey Harrington didn't preven the Lions from taking Matthew Stafford when they had the chance.

Just about every team in the league has busted out on 1st round quarterbacks, and they keep trying.... and they've all had more success than Miami has had despite busting on these QB's.

Miami will continue to remain irrelevant in the landscape of the NFL until they figure it out, just like everybody else has.

Yes, yes and yes.

 

[BGtoKNfor6]

I think it's worthy to note that with the new rookie cap, it won't set a team back so far to miss on a 1st round QB. so the idea to take them in the first and keep taking them until you hit on one looks even better.

Money wise, no. Although the number one pick will include a good amount of guaranteed money. However a number one pick gets 3 years usually to prove himself. So it's still the same kiss of franchise death per se to miss out on the qb in the first round.

 

[dolphone]

This sounds like the Bills MBs for the last few years -- and it was true for them and it's true for the Phins. The Bills went the "draft a first round QB" route (Losman) and that was a disaster. A first round QB, even the #1 pick, isn't going to rescue a team from poor talent scouting and poor coaching. More than likely, it will contribute to the QB's failure. A good offensive scheme and decent offensive talent can make even a mediocre QB look decent (Rex Grossman in Washington). They can make a good QB look great (Ryan Fitzpatrick in Buffalo).

Without a change in the offensive scheme (ie, coaching staff), there's probably little chance for a first round QB to have a lot of success in Miami.

It's not the offensive scheme. It's about having a good teacher for your young QB. Mechanics, defensive reading, communication with his WRs, adjusting the OL protection... having a good gameplan obviously helps, but all those other things are IMO much more important.

Henne was a fairly decent prospect, he just never flourished into what he could become. That's on the coaching staff.

Is it any coincidence that Griese and Marino happened both under Shula? Sure, they had the tools. But they mean nothing without proper coaching. Hell, the man made serviceable QBs out of Don Strock and David Woodley ffs...

 

[BlueFin]

Yes. Exactly. If anything you are proving the point that you need a first round QB because 48% of the QBs that won a playoff game yet thats only one round out of 7.

As far as Super Bowl QB's, Tom Brady is a once in a lifetime theres an extremely small chance we will see another QB drafted after even the 4th round to do as well as he has. We should not be relying on finding the next Tom Brady or Kurt Warner. Brad Johnson played on a team with a terrific defense theres a lot of QBs that could've won a Super Bowl with that squad. Drew Brees is a guy everyone likes to doubt because of his height. If he was 6' 2'' he would've easily been a first rounder. Take those three guys out and it shows you need a first round QB to win a Super Bowl.

In my opinion, if you don't have a franchise QB, you try to get one in round 1.

The other rounds are where you take flyers on QB's hoping to land a Brady when you already have a QB.