The Myth of the First Round QB

[gattis]

Thanks for the stats but your conclusions are completely irrelevant:

First Round QBs are not the only QBs that can be successful.

True, but none of your evidence counters conventional wisdom which is that the higher the round, the more likely the QB is to be successful. If you want a franchise quarterback, the most likely round to find one is still the first, despite the fact that the sum of all later rounds is comparable. So why would you choose otherwise?

Yes, there are many non-First Round QBs that never amount to anything, but they also do not set their respective franchise back like missing on a First Round QB.

Missing on any round QB sets a franchise back equally in terms of time invested. Missing on any first round pick sets a franchise back equally, regardless of position, in terms of opportunity cost. You still haven't made an argument that would dissuade someone from picking a QB in the first round. And you neglect to mention that QB is the most important position in the game of football, so what position would you be drafting instead? Sure you could trade those picks, but don't you think NFL general managers have a good understanding of the values of each draft position? Do you think you're going to get some kind of "good deal" out of it? The only reason to trade would be if the best player there is not at a position of need for you. Only the good teams need worry about that.

 

[NJL52]

No offense, but you don't understand any sort of statistical analysis if you think your "conclusion" was correct.

A. The statistical significance is minute given the sample size.
B. "Playoff game winner" has as high of a correlation to value of a first round QB as the size of their shoes. Maybe less, as there is probably a positive trend for height vs success.
C. Superbowls even less so; the ultimate team statistic in all of sports (Superbowl victory) bares minimal reflection on a player as an individual. Tom Brady is what is defined as an "outlier." In actual statistical analysis, you tend to ignore him because he's so unlikely that your calculations won't be altered.
D. You didn't even mention the sheer amount of non-first rounders vs successful non-first rounders. The "succesful/total" ratio will follow a bell curve peaking at first round and decaying to UDFA. This means that it is most valuable to pick a first round QB. If you claim an (basically)arbitrary number of 33% for first rounders, 2nd rounders will be <20%, third <10%, fourth <3% etc.
E. The difference between a first overall and a general first round, also, is statistical insignificant. A couple people vs a couple more people doesn't mean anything.


Real conclusion:
The NFL draft's breadth of data is far too small to analyze the success of Quarterbacks; the game changes far too rapidly to extrapolate to older data, as well. There is no trend to be found from pure draft data. There is very minimal statistical significance in the analysis of quarterbacks in the NFL and the value of the draft.

Conclusions about the value of a QB should be looked at a 10 year spread amongst 32 teams for team success vs a metric such as QB rating. Find the trend and value the QB position as such with whatever adjustments deemed necessary. Now analyze the individual being considered to draft and decide if he's worth it from your data.

 

[Spesh]

No, I didn't ignore it, it simply didn't matter. Nobody is dumb enough to think that drafting even a player of Luck's caliber will make us SB contenders next year, but it will make us a HELL of a lot closer. No other position matters until that is settled. So who gives a **** who is blocking and who is rushing the passer on the other side? It simply doesn't matter until we have a franchise QB.

The funny thing is, we don't even need to tank the season. This team blows, especially the management and coaching. Luckily they'll be gone and the new staff will have the opportunity of drafting one of the top three QB's coming out. If they pass on any of them, they should be fired, and I'll be here stating exactly that. And I'll be right. The rest will come around in a couple of years. No other position matters more. None come even remotely close, I don't care how bad our lines are or how bad our receiving corps are. None.come.close.

And yes, I do know Luck is going to succeed.

Im absolutely shocked at how twisted this regime has made our fans. In spite of overwhelming evidence, in spite of plain logic, in spite of +10 years of agony, people are STILL convinced you have to make every position on the team all-pro before you can draft a quarterback. That same logic is why we are currently 0-4. That same logic is why our front office is a week to week basis concerning their job.

Aaron Rodgers won a Superbowl with a line made up of old vets and young lineman that they drafted after him. His team is currently 4-0.
Matthew Stafford has led the Lions to a 4-0 record, including 2 brilliant come from behind victories. Their line has been a joke.
Joe Flacco has the Ravens 3-1, and a playoff victory every single season. They are still working on their offensive line and receiving core.
The Colts went from a team that regularly won 11 and 12 wins to a team that cannot win a game without their franchise quarterback.
Even the damn Bills have figured it out. Their offensive line is still full of holes, their wideouts are late round draft picks(if that at all), and yet they are 3-1 because they have competant quarterback play.

Its mind-boggling that people are still pushing the "we have to fill our holes!" argument when that same logic hasn't won us a game this season. Great quarterback play can make other positions look great. Great other positions play cannot make a mediocre quarterback look great.
It is beyond belief people still cant see that.

 

[Valandui]

Nah man. We dont have 5 first round picks on the OL yet.

We have four. Once we replace Incognito with one next year we'll be fine apparently.

 

[tylerdolphin]

We have four. Once we replace Incognito with one next year we'll be fine apparently.

Do that, then shore up S, CB, OLB, and TE, then we can consider drafting a QB. Maybe. Only if it doesnt cost much though.

 

[theguy]

Is anyone really arguing we don't spend the first overall pick on Luck? I think the argument is more against reaching for a QB if we accidentally went 6-7 games and don't have a chance at the top tier QB's in this draft. That's where we should all agree that spending our first pick on a QB just to do it in the first round makes no sense. We do have a lot of holes in the team and we take the best available to fill the highest need without over reaching. I'm on the camp that we have a lot of issues and need a lot of pieces to fix this team, but if we spend another #1 overall on a OL, I'm becoming a fan of whatever team that drafts Luck. At least that organization can see a "sure thing" sitting right in front of them.

 

[armyphin]

Is anyone really arguing we don't spend the first overall pick on Luck? I think the argument is more against reaching for a QB if we accidentally went 6-7 games and don't have a chance at the top tier QB's in this draft.

The rookie get it.

 

[Gonzo]

Do that, then shore up S, CB, OLB, and TE, then we can consider drafting a QB. Maybe. Only if it doesnt cost much though.

But then Long will be getting set to retire, so we should probably focus on getting him a replacement. 1st round LT's are 100% guaranteed to be awesome, unlike 1st round QB's, 90% of which are Ryan Leaf. Ever. He's the only QB that's ever been drafted in the first round.

 

[AndyK78]

I think we can consider Brees a first rounder because it was and would have been a great decision for them to take him but they past for Jamar Fletcher. However I saw your list of Notable non-first rounders and I am not very impressed with there play however I think in the past few of years the first round QBs seem to be pretty good. I think teams can make bad choice in the first round at any position so if the point your making is don't reach on a QB that is fine, a team should not reach on any player so if you have an opportunity to get a QB that can play in the NFL to the level of manning and Brees then you should take him in the first round. I also think it is worth the risk to take a QB in the first round when Henne is your QB he SUCKS and is lazy.