4 ms·

Hmmm, who's cherrypicking data? ;) 2000: Chad Pennington, Pick 18, Career Rating: 89.7; Marc Bulger, pick 168, Career Rating: 85.7, Tom Brady, Pick 199, Career

by robg 18y ago

Hmmm, who's cherrypicking data? ;) 2000: Chad Pennington, Pick 18, Career Rating: 89.7; Marc Bulger, pick 168, Career Rating: 85.7, Tom Brady, Pick 199, Career Rating: 92.9 2001: Mike Vick, Pick 1, Career Rating: 75.7; Drew Brees, Pick 32, Career Rating: 89.1 2002: David Carr, Pick 1, Career Rating: 74.6; David Garrard, Pick 108, Career Rating: 85.4 2003: Carson Palmer, Pick 1, Career Rating: 88.9; Tony Romo, undrafted, Career Rating: 96.6 2004: Eli Manning, Pick 1, Career Rating: 76.4; Big Ben, Pick 11, Career Rating: 89.9; JP Losman, Pick 22, Career Rating: 76.9 2005: Alex Smith - Noted; Aaron Rodgers, Pick 24, Career Rating, 89.8; Jason Campbell, Pick 25, Career Rating: 80.5; Matt Cassell, Pick 230, Career Rating 84.2 2006: Vince Young, Pick 3, Career Rating: 68.6; Jay Cutler, Pick 11, Career Rating: 88.6 2007: JaMarcus Russell, Pick 1, Career Rating: 67.5 - uhhh, "top" QB 2008: Matt Ryan, Pick 3, Career Rating: 92.0 - very good - so far So, of the last nine years, the top QB taken has turned out to be the best QB of that year, maybe once. Russell just isn't good. He won't be starting for long. And Ryan, it's too soon to really tell. Meanwhile, QBs taken, sometimes very, later have often been as good, if not better, than the top QB's in 6 of the last nine drafts you cite. There are just as many guys like Brady, Bulger, Garrard, Romo, and Cassell (picked well behind "names") as there are top picks that have panned out. EDIT: Forgot Romo.

lief79 18y ago
You might as well add Flacco to 2008 too. He's doing fairly well starting with the Ravens. -- Delaware alumni
mattmaroon 18y ago
I didn't cherrypick, I simply pointed out that the QBs scouts rate the best generally perform very well. Every now and then a Tom Brady or Kurt Warner sneaks up out of nowhere, but for the most part almost every starting QB was first round drafted and often first overall. Also, don't confuse best passer rating for best quarterback. All sorts of things factor into the QB's passer rating, such as the quality of his receivers and offensive line, his team's style, etc. Those numbers aren't very meaningful. Nobody would ever suggest that scouts could get it perfectly, or near perfectly, in order, but they do a pretty fantastic job. You can cherrypick data to show a few black swans, but for the most part they're highly accurate.
- robg 18y ago
  But it's not "every now and then". Look at the names of "nobodies": Brady, Bulger, Garrard, Romo, and Cassell And that's just the last nine years. They're as good, if not better, than "top" picks. Then you have the more historical guys like Wagner, Young, and Montana. Picking for the QB position really does seem stochastic.
  - lacker 18y ago
    QB is not stochastic at all. These are all quarterbacks who arrived at a team that was already good. "Quarterback rating" really measures the goodness of the whole passing offense. It is no surprise that the Patriots, Rams (before this year at least), Jaguars, Cowboys, and Patriots again can give an average QB great stats.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Right, it's a terrible metric for determining the effectiveness of the individual.
      - robg 18y ago
        Now, you're arguing with yourself. If it's the "system" that's getting "rated", then there's even less reason to assume a team knows what they're doing when they're picking a specific QB. And that's the interesting bit of logical jiu-jitsu going on here. The teams picking first are the ones that are usually the worst to begin with. Selecting higher just doesn't help them to improve their lot when it comes to the QB position.
        lacker 18y ago
        You are ignoring the huge difference between "teams are choosing the optimal QB" and "teams make decisions no better than random". The decision is neither perfect nor random.
        18y ago
lacker 18y ago
You are cherrypicking even worse. Just because the highest rated QB was not the top QB does not mean the top pick is not the best. You should at least consider all the terrible quarterbacks picked in the later rounds. Plus, the top pick always goes to the worst team in the league the previous year. I am more impressed that Carson Palmer has managed an 88.9 rating with the Bengals than I am than that Big Ben has managed an 89.9 with the Steelers.
- robg 18y ago
  There are 10-15 QBs taken every year out of 250 picks. The question is whether where they were picked correlates with future success. I see no evidence to support that correlation. Otherwise, we're taking about a very limited skill set (i.e. it translates to nowhere else on the field). The reason so many QBs are picked high isn't because their talent deserves it. It's because teams overvalue the position AND there are few QBs deemed worthy enough to even be considered. New England is actually an interesting case study of what it means to take a QB who may not have the typical skillset, but if you place them in the right environment, they can be a true star. The point is: Their success argues strongly against the role of a high pick for the position.
- pchristensen 18y ago
  Plus, the top pick always goes to the worst team in the league the previous year. This is key. Growing up in Tampa, I watched a lot of high draft picks have great careers after they left the hell-hole they got drafted into. I've always felt that getting picked as a QB in the late first round would be best, because you could be on a good team, rather than start right away and get pummeled in the 0.003 seconds you have in the pocket.

by robg 18y ago

lief79 18y ago

You might as well add Flacco to 2008 too. He's doing fairly well starting with the Ravens. -- Delaware alumni

mattmaroon 18y ago

I didn't cherrypick, I simply pointed out that the QBs scouts rate the best generally perform very well. Every now and then a Tom Brady or Kurt Warner sneaks up out of nowhere, but for the most part almost every starting QB was first round drafted and often first overall. Also, don't confuse best passer rating for best quarterback. All sorts of things factor into the QB's passer rating, such as the quality of his receivers and offensive line, his team's style, etc. Those numbers aren't very meaningful. Nobody would ever suggest that scouts could get it perfectly, or near perfectly, in order, but they do a pretty fantastic job. You can cherrypick data to show a few black swans, but for the most part they're highly accurate.

robg 18y ago
But it's not "every now and then". Look at the names of "nobodies": Brady, Bulger, Garrard, Romo, and Cassell And that's just the last nine years. They're as good, if not better, than "top" picks. Then you have the more historical guys like Wagner, Young, and Montana. Picking for the QB position really does seem stochastic.
- lacker 18y ago
  QB is not stochastic at all. These are all quarterbacks who arrived at a team that was already good. "Quarterback rating" really measures the goodness of the whole passing offense. It is no surprise that the Patriots, Rams (before this year at least), Jaguars, Cowboys, and Patriots again can give an average QB great stats.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Right, it's a terrible metric for determining the effectiveness of the individual.
    - robg 18y ago
      Now, you're arguing with yourself. If it's the "system" that's getting "rated", then there's even less reason to assume a team knows what they're doing when they're picking a specific QB. And that's the interesting bit of logical jiu-jitsu going on here. The teams picking first are the ones that are usually the worst to begin with. Selecting higher just doesn't help them to improve their lot when it comes to the QB position.
      - lacker 18y ago
        You are ignoring the huge difference between "teams are choosing the optimal QB" and "teams make decisions no better than random". The decision is neither perfect nor random.
        18y ago

lacker 18y ago

You are cherrypicking even worse. Just because the highest rated QB was not the top QB does not mean the top pick is not the best. You should at least consider all the terrible quarterbacks picked in the later rounds. Plus, the top pick always goes to the worst team in the league the previous year. I am more impressed that Carson Palmer has managed an 88.9 rating with the Bengals than I am than that Big Ben has managed an 89.9 with the Steelers.

robg 18y ago
There are 10-15 QBs taken every year out of 250 picks. The question is whether where they were picked correlates with future success. I see no evidence to support that correlation. Otherwise, we're taking about a very limited skill set (i.e. it translates to nowhere else on the field). The reason so many QBs are picked high isn't because their talent deserves it. It's because teams overvalue the position AND there are few QBs deemed worthy enough to even be considered. New England is actually an interesting case study of what it means to take a QB who may not have the typical skillset, but if you place them in the right environment, they can be a true star. The point is: Their success argues strongly against the role of a high pick for the position.
pchristensen 18y ago
Plus, the top pick always goes to the worst team in the league the previous year. This is key. Growing up in Tampa, I watched a lot of high draft picks have great careers after they left the hell-hole they got drafted into. I've always felt that getting picked as a QB in the late first round would be best, because you could be on a good team, rather than start right away and get pummeled in the 0.003 seconds you have in the pocket.