QB's by the Numbers
by ram_rod on Feb 23, 2010 6:02 PM CST
in 2010 NFL Draft
18 comments
There has been quite a flurry of combine and draft news recently. One thing I wanted to point at was this notion that 1st round QB's are more successful then others. I thought to myself, is this really true? So I decided to take a look at all the starting QB's in the league and see how they played.
You can get the full excel file here.
The results, much to my surprise, are pretty much even. 17 QB's were taken in the 1st round and this year they had an average rating of 82.87. The 15 remaining QB's were spread out through the rounds (or went undrafted) and had an average rating of 83.16. Just a tad bit shocking?
So I broke it down even further. Top 5 QB's had an average rating this year of 81.2. When you added in the rest of the 1st round QB's (picks 6 to 32), the number jumped to 88.05. The average rating for QB's round 2-7 was 79.84 and three undrafted QB's had an average rating of 96.43.
Looking at the numbers, and the breakdown specifically, it's quite clear that while 1st round prospects generally have the highest ratings, their was a huge surge in numbers from players drafted at spots 10 to around 40. In fact, they had four of the top five ratings (Phillip Rivers being the exception).
So, before anyone starts saying that a first round QB is the only way to go, pause and take a look at the chart. Yes, you have rookies thrown in there that can skew the rankings down. But that wouldn't be different then any other year when fresh players will take their spots as the new crop of QB's.
If you take into account the numbers, picking a QB is really just a crapshoot. You have players like Jason Campbell (1st round, 25th pick) having higher ratings then a lot of top ten (and even top five) QB's. You have undrafted players like Matt Moore and Tony Romo posting up ratings that are barely behind players like Peyton Manning.
One thing we should all agree on is that hopefully the Rams will be lucky this year, if and when they pick a QB.
0 recs |
18 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I don't disagree completely...
but couldn’t the statistics reflect the fact that qbs picked at the top of the draft are generally going to the worst teams? I do agree with the overall point, though, that good qbs can be found throughout the draft.
I've long thought
that teams don’t necessarily need a first round QB. It’s a fallacy propagated by the Bernies of the world.
Pick the best available player regardless of need
I like the analysis and if we take a QB I hope he is a good one. Whether its a Brady like talent later in the draft, or an early round choice we need to hit, and develop, a winning QB.
We do however have so many holes to fill we are not in any position to behave any other way and pick the best available player. If the best player is a QB, then pick him…….. DT, then so be it. A running back… yeah sure.
by FightingAmish on Feb 23, 2010 7:12 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Well let me ask you this
My BPA overall is Eric Berry. Should we take a safety at #1?
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
How many touchdowns will it stop?
I heard “He’s wide open in the middle for a 38 yard completion” over and over and over that I thought we were missing a couple of players. If a top safety will stop that-I’m with you.
I'm not even with myself on that
I was just making the point that you can’t make a blanket statement to say “pick the best player available.” If you have a franchise QB, and you think the best player available in the draft is a franchise QB, what sense does it make to take another? Why would the Jets or the Falcons draft a QB? BPA is a solid strategy that needs to be applied to a needs matrix so you fill the needs of your team with the most talent possible.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
BPA
Once the cloud of FA settles, Fighting is correct, BPA down the rest of the road. However, should we have the Safety position secured, than you may bypass.
A QB is only as good as his supporting cast will allow. Let’s draft the right team. Down with the Niners!
by Skunkburner on Feb 23, 2010 11:58 PM CST via mobile reply actions
noo
eric berrys position value isnt good enough for number 1 pick. and lets not be known for drafting one ethier.
I completely disagree.
I don’t think you’re presenting the correct numbers.
I started looking at this a couple of months ago when the whole 1st round QB vs non-1st round QB discussion came up here. I looked at all QBs taken in the past 8 or 10 years (can’t remember off the top of my head), made a spread sheet, and was going to write something up, but once I got into the numbers it really wasn’t interesting since there was no shocking results other than, if you want to best assure you’re drafting a franchise QB, you better draft him in the 1st round.
Sure, you have guys who are drafted lower and excel, but those guys are the exceptions instead of the norm.
If I’m reading you’re analysis correctly, you’re only looking at QBs that are playing and disregarding those that either are backups or who completely failed and are out of the league. Well, of course the numbers are going to be close….they’re all NFL calibre quarterbacks. But, if you look at the success rates of QBs drafted, you have a much bigger number and a better chance of that QB succeeding and lasting more than a year or two if he’s drafted in the 1st round. And it’s not even close.
From what I saw, while the first round is a bit of a crapshoot, the rest of the rounds are not.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
That came out wrong...
What I was trying to say before my computer so rudely interrupted me is that, yes, you are right. It’s quite clear even from this that the QB’s who are drafted in the first round generally perform better. But many teams have found players at lower rounds and developed them into starters.
Obviously, the starting QB’s are all NFL level QB’s. But you can’t say that when they came out (and were drafted). If that were the case, they’d all be first rounders. Obviously teams thought they weren’t that good when they came out, and obviously they were wrong.
But overall I was just trying to compare starting QB’s. I think it’s hard to include backup QB’s because sometimes teams draft them just for the sake of having a backup. Did the Patriots think Matt Cassel was the successor of Tom Brady while he was backing him up all those years? I’d make the argument that when you throw in backups, your looking at QB’s that may not have been acquired for the same reasons. Of course, the lower picked starting QB’s were in the same boat…and nearly half of the league uses them (to moderate success).
I personally think it’s just one big crapshoot, but I think that this whole “1st round QB” or it’s not even worth it vibe isn’t accurate. Take for it what you want from the numbers, the whole point was to stir a debate about the issue.
The House of Spears reigns supreme
LOL ram_rod--You gotta forgive 3k
ie…your one letter reference-funny things happen to guys who sleep in the dirt surrounded by stinking Camels. they get maybe a little sarcastic, funny to be sure.
I see your point.
And, I gotta go back and look at my spread sheet, but I’d be curious how many of those QBs drafted after the 1st round were drafted to be starters but my hunch would be “not many at all”.
So, I’m not sure how to compare the rounds. I figure most, if not close to all, QBs drafted after the 2nd round who turn into starting QBs fall into the category of “really big surprise”. In other words, teams draft those guys as projects but figure best-case-scenario they’ve got themselves a dependable backup. If they turn into their starter, then that’s like hitting the lottery.
First rounders, on the other hand, (and even most 2nd rouders…..well, probably all 2nd rounders) are drafted for the sole purpose to be a franchise QB. When they aren’t they’re detrimental to a team.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
Good point
It is hard to compare rounds.
I’m just pulling crap out of my head right now, but there are quite a few players that probably could’ve played a little better if they would have a better system in place. Trent Edwards, Bruce Gradkowski (two QB’s I wish the Rams would target, but that’s a pipe dream). Alex Smith comes to mind.
It’s why QB’s are so dangerous to pick. You have so many players coming from a spread offense. Tim Tebow is a perfect example. I’m sure he’s an intelligent player who knew how to manipulate the college game for success. The Pro level is a completely different beast on so many levels.
I just hope they know what they are doing. I for one am quite anxious to see how Tim “God-Child” Tebow has “fixed” all of his mechanics. If he looks good, I wouldn’t mind the Rams picking him up if he’s still available in the 3rd round.
Love the intangibles, hate the tangibles with him.
The House of Spears reigns supreme
Best opinion I have ever read at TST
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Feb 24, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
This was in reference
to your one-letter essay.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Feb 24, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Turf Show Times
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
