More than half the QB's taken from 25-36 since 2000 became starting QB's over a period of years in the NFL. One of them is a Hall of Famer and another one is very good but not ready to put him there yet. That 6 out of 11 starters just blows away every other area of the draft except for #1 overall.
Your point is an excellent one, and I totally agree, but before someone else tries to nail you on it, you forgot one great QB in that list to go along with the two very good ones, Drew Brees.
Exactly! Posters who try to look at every draft as if they're identical and create odds, and statistics, and rules to go by show exactly how little understanding and knowledge they have about the draft. Sure some patterns emerge, but that's all they are. They aren't predictors of what will happen in the future. Trends change in the NFL. CSs change in the NFL All kinds of different factors enter into and affect what happens in drafts.
I agree 100% with this. But it's also true that if you need a QB and you have a top pick, you shouldn't pass just because you think you can get one later. No matter what odds you're using, they don't account for a team ruining your plan by taking the guy you want before you can. Even when Mahomes was taken, and a few teams even had him rated as a second rounder there were three teams that were reported to want him who were picking before the Chiefs (Saints - 11, Cardinals - 13, Giants - 23), so of the Chiefs didn't trade up to #10 they probably wouldn't have gotten him. So even with a team that knows how to evaluate, they can still lose out.
Yeah, somehow when I made the original list the years 2000, 2001, 2002, dropped off. I've since fixed it.
You're correct that Wilson wasn't a hot prospect until this year. It does happen. Players fix flaws, they grow into their bodies, they get healthy, they get comfortable and confident in their system, CSs change, new players come in around them that affect how they play, and some are later bloomers than others. Yes sometimes QB drop. Aaron Rodgers dropped to #24 and shouldn't have. Neither Mahomes nor Watson should have fallen like they did. Tom Brady made it all the way to the 6th round. The thing to remember however, is that they are exceptions, not the rule themselves. I don't think Brady was viewed as anything special. Some people in the media recognized Mahomes and Watson's ability, but many did not. That's at least partially due to bias against spread QBs and QBs from Texas Tech in Mahomes' case. Also, lots of people were used to looking at QBs in the same way for 15 years or more, and that changed with the success of Mahomes, Jackson, and Josh Allen and the NFL and the hiring of HCs like Kingsbury, Sean McVay and others who began incorporating more Air Raid and spread concepts into their offenses in the NFL. I can't imagine that JD would be comfortable passing on a QB this year. It's just too risky, and the odds of their being able to get one next year if any even wind up as good a prospect as Wilson are not very good. With the additions he has made in FA, if he gets his QB this year, gets him used to the NFL, learns the system, works on his flaws, and builds chemistry with his offense, then with another good FA and draft next year, the Jets could be a playoff team imo.
Br4d, I've seen you make this and similar arguments before and I always come away with the feeling that you started painting a picture and got bored quickly before it began to resemble anything recognizable. So you compiled all that data and your conclusion is "don't take a QB at #1 unless they're good enough"? I think you are missing some vital components in your pattern analysis. There are so many factors involved in the success of the QBs that you identify as successful... from team composition to team financial management to scouting trends to god knows what else. This argument just comes off as you having a good idea where to start and then realizing it was too much work to keep digging and understanding how those patterns fell so you got lazy and said "They're just good enough in this range and mostly not good enough in this range." You're describing a landscape by telling us the colors you see and also how many trees are in your field of vision, but saying nothing else. It's a mostly incomplete picture. I mean, I get it, it's a lot of work, and I certainly wouldn't want to be doing it without getting paid for it, but it doesn't come off as a convincing argument to me.
I wasn't talking about the list. Evidently, you had already made that edit. I was talking about the text you wrote underneath that list. There you said that out of all those QBs there were just two who were very good, and you didn't mention Brees there. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
The problem is that I can imagine it. And if it comes to pass, I will be really disheartened. It will probably mean that I finally step away from this team after almost 6 decades - no, I won't follow another team, I'll just not care until such time - if ever - the Jets show they can be consistent winners. Maybe they'll surprise me, and pass on taking a QB and Douglas adds all the right pieces and somehow he finds his FQB and they become winners, but I don't think that's very likely. I'll say this to all those who want to pass on QB this year: yes, you can build a consistent winning team in other ways, but it just doesn't happen very often and I'm not going to keep wasting my time hoping to catch that lightning in a bottle.
Teams don't have them and think they have isolated a prospect to be the guy so they take them. It's become the most valued position in all of sports so of course the prospects are going to be somewhat elevated. But there are several quarterbacks taken in the first round each year that teams believe is the answer.
Denver never really seems desperate though and they make a lot of quarterback moves every year. I can see them reaching for one or moving up to get one. Elway's gone from personnel decisions (or so he says) though so maybe that'll change. This new Carolina owner wants instant gratification badly. I can see them trying to make a splashy move.
Yes this is true. There are nearly always guys who take a major step forward or flourish an opportunity as a starter. Honestly I do want a QB drafted at 2, but there is a part of me that hopes Chicago ruins their entire organization for years to come and just gives up 3 1sts and 3 2nds etc. I would love to have 7 1st rounders and 6 2nd rounders over the next 3 drafts.
It's possible, I'm doing a mock for the channel today and I have both moving up, although to 3 and 4, not 2.
"Starting QBs'" is a very low bar. Sam Darnold has been a "starting QB" and no one would say he's been a true success yet. That's why I only acknowledged the three I did, because they actually had success, ie. led their teams to winning records and/or the playoffs.
It's tough to get a true statistical analysis of quarterbacks based on draft position because so few of them get a chance to start and most high draft picks are given a 3-4 year leash before moving on. I do imagine that teams will eventually start to understand that they can't take up 10-15% of the cap and move to the team building strategy first that the Colts undertook since the Luck debacle yet they've went away from that and locked themselves in to a high dollar quarterback for the next three years. The Mahomes hysteria will pass as all positional fads usually do. Remember the 2003 draft after Buccaneers won the Super Bowl? Five attempts at drafting the next Warren Sapp ensued including our moronic trade up for Baby Sapp himself. People need to get Mahomes out of their head. He was a once in a lifetime talent paired with a Hall of Fame coach that had a good foundation in place already. You might be right in that we should ultimately focus on the foundation first and let the quarterback chip fall in place when the foundation is set. I still think Fields is worth it though.
