More On Franchise Quarterbacks
by Der Jaeger on Feb 13, 2011 9:14 AM EST
Email
PrintTo set what a franchise quarterback is or is not, I'm going to a third party, John Clayton.
In ranking the league's starting quarterbacks, I have three categories. The first is the Elite level, which includes quarterbacks who can carry teams into the playoffs. An elite quarterback is one who can complete better than 60 percent of his passes, has the potential to throw for 4,000 yards and has fourth-quarter comeback ability. I am criticized for putting Baltimore's Joe Flacco in this category with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees, but he absolutely belongs. In two seasons, Flacco has the numbers (6,584 passing yards, 61 percent completion percentage) and three road playoff victories to back up my ranking. You'll probably be more interested in who I don't have in this group.
The next category is what I call the Chad Pennington Division. Pennington, a former starter who's now a backup with the Dolphins, doesn't have the strongest arm but he once was good enough to take a team to the playoffs with a good surrounding cast or a favorable schedule. The quarterbacks who fit this mold include Denver's Kyle Orton, who I think has a very small chance even now to end up in the elite group.
The third category I call the Hit-Or-Miss Division. It is filled with young QBs -- hello, Mark Sanchez and Kevin Kolb -- who easily could climb my ladder or veterans who have reached their ceiling (Jake Delhomme) and have no chance of moving up.
For clarity, elites are in bold, Pennington's are in italics. I'm taking liberty and adding Michael Vick to the group, since Clayton wrote the article in September of 2010, before Vick's amazing season. I also downgraded Jason Campbell and Alex Smith, and upgraded Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Kevin Kolb, Sam Bradford, and Josh Freeman. I downgraded McNabb and Palmer.
Buffalo: Fitzpatrick, 7th Round
New England: Brady, 6th Round
Miami: Henne, 2nd Round
NYJ: Sanchez, 1st
Pitt: Roethlisberger, 1st
Cle: McCoy, 3rd
Bal: Flacco, 1st
Cin: Palmer, 1st
Ind: Manning, 1st
Jax: Garrard, 4th
Hou: Schaub, 3rd
Tenn: Either Young or Collins, 1st
Den: Tebow, 1st and Orton, 5th
Oak: Campbell, 1st
SD: Rivers, 1st
KC: Cassel, 7th
Phil: Vick, 1st, Kolb, 2nd
NYG: Manning, 1st
Wash: McNabb, 1st
Dal: Romo, Undrafted
GB: Rodgers, 1st
Det: Stafford, 1st
Min: Jackson, 2nd
Chi: Cutler, 1st
Atl: Ryan, 1st
NO: Brees, 2nd
Car: Clausen, 2nd
TB: Freeman, 1st
SF: Smith, 1st
STL: Bradford, 1st
ARI: no real starter (Anderson, Hall, Skelton, all later rounds)
SEA: Hasselbeck, 5th
So what does this all say?
Of the franchise QB's in the league (12), eight were first round picks. Or 67%
Of the guys in the second group (14), eight were taken in the first round. Or 57%
Of the remaining 11 (I'm counting all three of Arizona's three-headed quarterback hot mess), four were first rounders. Kerry Collins isn't getting any better, Alex Smith would need Jim Harbaugh to summon all his quarterbacking knowledge to make him even OK, and Tebow and Stafford are still developing.
Conclusion: If you're looking for a franchise quarterback, you may have to historically draft two to get one (46% from WGR's study). But of the league's franchise quarterback's two thirds were first rounders.
A team can bang it's head against the wall with the likes of Kely Holcolm's and Trent Edwards, hoping to find a diamond in the rough. Chances are 20% they hit in the 2nd round, and 13% in the 3rd and 4th. And even if they hit, only one third of the elite quarterbacks came outside the first round. So even if you hit, you may not hit on a first rounder.
My point all along: it's far better statistically, in ever study that's come down the pipe, to try to acquire the franchise's future starting quarterback inside the first 32 picks.
Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.
98 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's not forget
The opportunity to allow this first round QB pick to sit for one or two years to develop would greatly enhance his chances to success. “Correct”
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
by VanScottM on Feb 12, 2011 7:03 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Very true
Of the elites, Brady, Rivers, Romo, Rodgers, Schaub, and Brees weren’t thrown to the wolves their first year.
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
I think all the QBs mentioned have one thing in common: great mental skills.
If Newton or Gabbert do well in pre-draft interviews and score well on the wonderlic I think we take one of them.
by ManitobaBillsFan on Feb 12, 2011 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
I could be wrong, but I don’t think there’s much correlation with Wonderlic scores and NFL success.
Or maybe said a better way, a high score means nothing. A low score might. Of course, Kelly and Marino both did terrible on it.
You invest so much money now on these 1st round QBs that if I were evaluating these guys the wonderlic would matter. If you score a Vince Young score I wouldn’t be taking you. I think defenses have become more complex and they disguise and really try and outsmart QBs (The Jets playoff game against Brady).
There is always going to be the exeptions, but if it were up to me I would want my QB to score at least a 20. Remember you’re giving these guys nearly 50 million guaranteed.
by ManitobaBillsFan on Feb 13, 2011 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
Consider This!!!!
The 2010 season ended. The fan favorite was Andrew Luck and how in the world could the Bills position themselves to draft such a sure thing. Since he decided to return to College, which is more valuable to me than any wonderlick score, we have been contemplating the realization of there being no such sure thing coming out in this 2011 draft. BUT. Consider that this years class could be the strongest class of QB’s that could develop in a short two year span that could flip the power rankings currently repeating themselves every season. Could the 2011 draft field as many as 5 or 7 future “Elite” to franchise style QB’s? I believe that it could very well be what we are dealing with.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
rec'd
totally agree, this year has 5-7 guys that could fit that bill. Using the 46% as a guide I would say at least 3 QBs that come out this year will be franchise QB in 3-5 years time.
by Billsdownunder on Feb 14, 2011 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
Has anyone ever done the same analysis with another skill position.....
say WR or DE? I wonder what the difference is? And what is the average number of elite/franchise QBs to come out of each draft? It seems to me like there is a top 10 can’t miss prospect that misses about 50% of the time, and a guy is taken in the mid first to early second round that surprises by flirting with that elite category. Does it pay to take a QB at #3 if you don’t think he can be Elite?
I don’t want to sound like I don’t want to take a QB at #3, but I really am having trouble justifying taking someone like Gabbert at #3 when I can take Kaep at #34. Gabbert is the safer pick, but has less upside. Kaep is a bit riskier, but can be taken in the second round and has greater upside. And besides….to we really want a QB named Blaine??
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
To take a stab at the first part of your comment. I too would like to see a position comparison, however I think some positions will be surprising. Take for instance, CB, a few of the elite CBs were first rounders, but the rest of the CBs that are starting caliber are most likely not first rounders. I also think the O-line will be skewed save LT position. C and Gs aren’t drafted in the first round with great frequency.
And to answer your question about taking a QB at #3 if you don’t think he can be elite, I say absolutely not. My personal philosophy for drafting in the top 5 and top 3 especially, would be to take the best available player at a position that makes sense. For instance, if the BPA at #3 this year was a RB I would skip. But every other position on the field I would take. CB, S, QB, LT you name it. You are drafting in the top 3 for a reason, and whether or not you need a QB, it also means you need talent overall. Taking a guy like Gabbert, while potentially a great player, is still a gamble. Taking a guy like Peterson, is less of a gamble.
And lastly, its all about last names with QBs, you want 1 or 2 syllables. Anything more and he better be an Italian QB (Marino, Montana)! Gabbert rolls off the tongue and looks pretty on a jersey. Kaepernick. Not so much. 3 syllables or more and you are in Fitzpatrick territory, good enough but you are looking for an upgrade (Pennington, Hasselback).
Short last names....You might be on to something
But, I was thinking more Bills specific. Kemp, Kelly, Kaepernick……it is all about the “K”. Can’t get more scientific than that :-)
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
Collin Kaepernick
Nope he doesn’t make the cut.
Jack Kemp
Jim Kelly
Collin Kaepernick
Only halfway there.
by Baron Hashimoto on Feb 13, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Oh boy, we are going to be waiting a while for a...
John K(2syllables)
to come along. We’re dooooooomed!!!!
Jon Kitna…?
Perception is reality; but if your perception is off, you live in your own reality. -- perkispower
by thefourwinds on Feb 14, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
We already understand Native American/Elemental QB names
Your first one could be the biggest bust in NFL history (Leaf) the 2nd is better. He gets frozen like Pennington and then Wham! thaws out like Montana (Brees) The third is good, get’s you there, but can’t seem to go all the way (Rivers). In that case you need to give the 2nd more time. Our problem is scientific (Newton) vs philosophical (Keapernick (us)) ;)
"This is what happens Larry!, This is what happens! "-Walter Sobchak" "Did we give up when the germans bombed pearl harbor!!??"-John Belushi
by BigEasyBillsKrewe on Feb 13, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not doing that comparison. I’ll leave that for someone else.
46% of first round QB’s pan out. 20% of 2nd round QB’s pan out. That’s why I’ll take Gabbert over Kaepernick.
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
LOL....I don't blame you
But you get the point. We seem to be in a period of time where the majority of QBs are not allowed to develop in college or in the NFL. Win now baby!!!!! The NFL is killing potentially good QBs left and right. Gabbert is no Luck, yet he is being treated like he is. Is he really ready to perform like a #3 pick will be expected to perform? How much more experience does Gabbert really have over Kaepernick at running a Pro style offense and reading a defense? Who is going be given the 1-2 years needed to develop? Who is going to be rushed into service? In the long run, maybe that is a better indicator when trying to predict which QBs will succeed and which will fail. I tried to look at this tonight,but need to got to bed. I will work on it
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
Lots of good points
But, WGR went back 20 years on their study, which more than encompaces any range of QB that had or did not have development time.
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
And TJack was not the Vikes starting QB his year
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
It doesn't really effect this final outcome of the study
It’s overwhelmingly in favor of first round quarterbacks, even if we argue on the eaches.
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
Where do these numbers come from?
46% of first round QB’s pan out. 20% of 2nd round QB’s pan out.
Do they include QBs like Leaf, Loseman, and Russell who where first round picks that were named starters and have since busted?
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
Yeah...found it and left a post there.....I think those numbers are suspect to say the least
Vince Young and Geoff George…..reallly?? Has Sanchez really played better than Fitz? Or is he just surrounded by a better team? I really think that there is no one single factor that can be pointed to as a definitive predictor of NFL success. Round taken, overall team talent, sitting for at least a year, coaching, work ethic, intangibles, experience in college running a Pro system, wonderlic score, playing in a NFL system that matches the QBs natural talents, etc. It is very complicated…..which is probably why the people who get paid to do this have trouble figuring it out.
Got me to thinking…..what is the bare minimum a team expects from a QB taken high in the draft? I mean…forget this Pennington crap. If the Bills drafted Gabbert at #3, what would it take for fans to believe we got value for him? I would bet George and Young are considered busts by their fans, so a few years of limited success is not enough. I would say a minimum of 5 years as the starter and at least 2 Divisional playoff wins. What say you?
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
Mark Sanchez
I did not think he was going to be anything special when the Jets picked him. And he is nothing special right now. But his team is winning and he is not making enormous mistakes on the reg and especially not in the playoffs. Nothing he has done screams elite. But what he has done, is not been a liability and show improvement and development. Jets fans are in love with him. And its not because he looks to them like the next tom brady. Its because the Jets win and when they lose its most likely not egregious errors by the QB.
I say that because, he was “thrown into the fire” as a rookie. He was a high draft pick, and he had less than 15 starts in college.
And I say that because, in my opinion, no formula can truly say who is going to be worth the pick they were taken at. Its luck of the draw most years, unless a guy like Peyton or Luck comes along.
by BillsfanDan on Feb 13, 2011 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
plus
Kaep is a bit riskier, but can be taken in the second round
Kaepernick sounds like Kaepernickus (Copernicus) so he must be smart :-)
"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside" - ELP
LOL....I also would like to see a headline like....
“Bills pop a Kaep in the Pats”
or
“TD Bomb to Scuba Steve Kaep’s Bills victory over the Fins”
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
or
Kaepernickus proves Brady no longer the center of the universe!
"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside" - ELP
by fansince60 on Feb 13, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
rec'd
just wish we could show Fitz some love before we crown a new king!!
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
sure
no one is saying it has to be this year that he reformulates the NFL universe.
"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside" - ELP
LOL...well done.....let's make it green people :)
For my own personal sanity, I am officially banning myself from reading/saying anything about Cam Newton.... starting the day after the Bowl game until the start of the combine.
Take the gamble on Cam
it is worth a shot
"The Buffalo Bills have just exploded all over the Cincinnati Bangles"
-Steve Tasker-
I just dont like him at #3
If we could get him at 7 or 8 and add a pick in the 3rd or 2nd (2012) I’d be cool with the gamble.
2011 - Revenge of the Bills fan !
I’m with you. And i’m also of the very controversial belief that they should then take Luck next year.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
Current song recommendation: Ween "Mr. Richard Smoker"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 13, 2011 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
thats been in my head lately as well. Chances are after taking Newton, we still end up in the realm of being able to draft Luck too. Maybe Newton works and we have 2 good QB’s and can get a nice trade out of one.
"War Memorial Stadium looks as if whatever war it was a memorial to had been fought within its confines."-Brock Yates
I think Newton
Could be an awesome TE/RB/QB hybrid of epic proportions. A better version of Brad Smith if you will.
I think Newton can be a full-time NFL QB.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
Current song recommendation: Ween "Mr. Richard Smoker"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 14, 2011 7:40 AM EST up reply actions
I like what Brad Smith provides, but I don’t think I’d be willing to spend a #3 overall pick on him, even on an improved version of him.
Official ledge-talker-offer of the Buffalo Bills.
by WhyBillsWhy on Feb 14, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I am not sold on Newton. And if the Bills draft him I would of course be as optomistic as possible, but I won’t be thrilled with the pick. If he is drafted at #3, then the priority is to make him into an elite QB only. But I think Newton could be an awesome slash for any team in the NFL.
And let’s not forget that Gailey did fantastic work with the original slash, Slash. But the Steelers spent a late 2nd (#60 overall) on him while we’d be spending a #3 overall.
Official ledge-talker-offer of the Buffalo Bills.
Can I be a little excited and play the numbers game ?
The odds say you hit on 1 in 2 first round QB’s.
JP was our dud – so the next guy has to be in the top level with Manning and Co
Hey, I need something to give me hope right :)
I like the article – I’ve always believe this too and the numbers do support it – it’s very tough for people to skew the stat on this one.
I like when people try to say that half the good QB’s came after round 1. What they forget is how many more QB’s are drafted after round 1. IE Each year maybe 3 guys go in round 1 on average and then say 10 in the rounds after that. So you’d need to blow at least 6 draft picks after round 1 to find 1 decent guy on average.
Considering how crappy we draft in the first round lately I’m more than happy to take that 46% crap shoot in round 1 if there is a guy you think has a shot. Unfortunately I’m not so sure there is this year – but if we could trade down 3 or 4 slots and then take a punt and have an extra pick I’d be o.k. with it. Either that or mortgage the farm for Luck next year.
2011 - Revenge of the Bills fan !
by Will G on Feb 12, 2011 10:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Mortage the farm. It’s the only way. Ditka that 2012 draft!
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
Current song recommendation: Ween "Mr. Richard Smoker"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 13, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes. That had no adverse effects on the New Orleans Saints in the slightest. After all, they won a Super Bowl recently. :-)
Official ledge-talker-offer of the Buffalo Bills.
by WhyBillsWhy on Feb 14, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
You cant hate on Collins
cause he is old. i would of given him a Pennington rating in his prime, which i think a more accurate way to assess the draft pick.
Go tell John Clayton
He made the rankings. : )
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
Exfreakingactly!
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
Current song recommendation: Ween "Mr. Richard Smoker"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 13, 2011 9:21 AM EST reply actions
so for the sake of argument
say that Nix/Gailey’s favorite QB this year is Ryan Mallet (i know it prolly isnt but im just trying to make a point). should they take him at 3 instead of waiting till 34 because it increases his chances of success??
my point is that these statistics certainly deserve some weight and consideration, but whether or not a guy has first round talent is what concerns me. if nix and gailey dont love the top10 guys (gabbert/newton), but pick out a guy they see as a first round (say top25) talent and end up grabbing him at 34, then we just have to hope they did a good job with their assessment. more importantly that they coach the guy up properly. which brings me to a second random point:
these stats could get thrown off by which teams guys get drafted to. to keep it simple, a QB who happens to be drafted by the patriots at the bottom of the first round this year obviously has a better chance of success than if he had slipped and been taken by the bengals at the top of the second. the point there is that a guy can have top25 talent but if he winds up in a bad situation (where he plays too soon or his franchise keeps shuffling the offensive coaches around), a guy who may have been a 5 time pro bowler somewhere else ends up having trent edwards’ career
say that Nix/Gailey’s favorite QB this year is Ryan Mallet (i know it prolly isnt but im just trying to make a point). should they take him at 3 instead of waiting till 34 because it increases his chances of success??
No. The point is that if a guy is a franchise QB he’s very likely not to last beyond the first round (and I’d say beyond the top 20).
Taking a QB in round 1 doesn’t guarantee anything either. That’s 50/50. That’s why you can’t force the issue in round 1.
True franchise QBs are hard to find.
If I could add to your second point....
Since a first round QB has a greater chance of success, would it make sense to draft a player, with a second rd grade in the first, to increase his chance at success? Or more likely to actually happen, a player rated 10-20 at number 3
My point being… All those draft stats are “interesting”… but if the player is not there at that pick, you can’t reach and think it will increase his chance to succeed…. I would even argue that a lot of the players who did actually bust in the first, were, indeed, reaches, ala JP Losman….
Went to my first "BB" meeting today... When I stood, introduced myself, and admitted I was a Billsaholic, the other members threw beer cans at me!!
The point is, that if someone sees them as franchise worthy, they would have taken them by the second round. Clearly, you don’t take a guy 30 picks higher than you think he’s worth to increase his odds of success (see Whitner, McCargo, Maybin, etc.) Hopefully you don’t really think that is the argument anyone is making. Taking a first round caliber QB is statistically more likely to work out than a QB in any other round. Not a lot to argue with there. Is it possible to do differently, yes….just not as likely.
by bluecollarbuffalo on Feb 13, 2011 10:29 AM EST up reply actions
not trying to argue against anything in the main post
just trying to show that statistics never ever ever tell the whole story. theres reaches (where a 2th round talent is grabbed early), falls (where a 1st rounder slips through), errors in talent judgment (where a 5th round guy is hyped as a 1st for no reason), and then a number of things that can make or break a guy’s career once he reaches the NFL level. i just believe that this whole “take a QB in the first round, and its a coin flip” thing (while having its merit) is entirely too simplistic
Simply put, a QB CHIX is not sold on at #3 is a bad choice.
We need talent everywhere. I think we should go with Ponder in the second, and then draft another high-potential QB next year. Statistically, that would also further increase our chances of hitting on an elite QB. Stacking players on top of players, as they said.
As an aside, I wonder how Levi Brown is coming along?
These stats just don't tell the whole story...
Looking at QBs taken in the 1st round of the draft since 1998 (P. Manning’s draft class) shows just how hard it is to hit on a franchise QB. These are other (non-franchise) QBs taken in the first round:
1998: Leaf
1999: Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Culpepper, McNown
2000: Pennington
2001: none (only Vick was drafted in the first this year)
2002: Carr, Harrington, Ramsey
2003: Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, Grossman
2004: Losman
2005: Alex Smith, Campbell
2006: Young, Leinart, Cutler
2007: Russell, Quinn
2008: none (this was the Ryan/Flacco draft)
I’ll leave out 2009 and 2010 because it’s still too early to make a call on those young QBs. I could see someone arguing that McNabb was a franchise QB at one time. So, leaving 1999 off the following list, these years had no franchise QBs taken in the first round: 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007. That is 5/11 (or 45%) years with no quality QB talent in the first round. This year is looking to be more like one of these years than a 2004 or 2008 where multiple high quality QBs were present in the 1st round.
Der Jaeger, I always love reading your posts and appreciate your insights, but I am still very wary of taking a QB at 3rd overall in this year’s draft.
by APhoenixDestiny on Feb 13, 2011 10:51 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Rec’d. Forcing the issue by drafting a guy early doesn’t make him better. It just means you wasted your first round pick on sub first round talent. I think the whole premise of these statistical arguments is flawed. The answer is simply the average qb taken in the first round tends to be better. But thats correlation, not causation. And it’s probably true of every single position. Why is it true? because teams order the players and take the best prospects first! Shocker!
If there are no great first round talents, we can’t force it by drafting a guy before he deserves it, a second round value in the first round, is not gonna be more likely to succeed than the average second round talent. We need to decide how good the prospects are and let that dictate our draft strategy, otherwise we are falling into the trap of putting the cart (a qbs draft slot) before the horse (their talent level). Worry about the horse and the cart follows.
by greysquirrel on Feb 13, 2011 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
So what QB do you like in this draft grey?
I’m betting Ponder in the 2nd.
Kylesaurus Rex Williams Pro Bowl 2010
by The Buffalo Kid on Feb 13, 2011 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Haha. I don’t know. I just think we the right debate is what guys are worth (DJ does great notes scouting QBs). Not where we should take a QB (regardless of who it is).
by greysquirrel on Feb 13, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
DJ does great notes scouting QBs
I agree, I also think if Locker slips past the Redskins and Seahawks and is available at #34, the Bills should take him over a Ponder. It is rare you see a guy that can roll left or right and be more accurate on the run than from the pocket. If Chan is half the coach many here make him out to be and he could coach up Locker to be equal in pocket passing to his ability rolling out, you have a franchise QB. You can’t pass him up at #34 because he is a first round talent who has suffered setbacks in his 2nd year partially due to his team and injury. The best thing he has going for him, he isn’t in this for the money, like say a Cam Newton. He set his goals in college and achieved them, even though it might have cost him 20-30 million in guaranteed cash. He is coachable. If he is available at 34 and the Bills don’t take him, my rants about Locker, will make my displeasure of taking CJ Spiller over Bulaga look insignificant, and I am still upset the blew the pick last year. Locker at #34 is a high upside low risk pick.
Kylesaurus Rex Williams Pro Bowl 2010
by The Buffalo Kid on Feb 13, 2011 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
To Clarify.
he is a first round talent who has suffered setbacks in his 2nd year
I mean his 2nd year in a pro style offense.
Kylesaurus Rex Williams Pro Bowl 2010
by The Buffalo Kid on Feb 13, 2011 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Please no more about Bulaga! :)
Do we think Locker makes it to 34?
by greysquirrel on Feb 13, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
I would disagree about not only McNabb… but Culpepper pre-injury was a beast, Palmer is definitely a franchise qb. If he were on a more stable franchise his career would be different. Also, I think disregarding both Young and Cutler are mistakes as well. Young is a headcase, but still young enough to mature.
I’m not disregarding anyone. All these individuals are clearly talented athletes. I am simply going by the criteria set forth above for elite QBs (4000 yd. passer, completion % 60+, 4th qtr comeback ability, leading a team to the playoffs, etc.). By this definition McNabb only gets in due to leading his team deep into the playoffs on a consistent basis and to the Super Bowl on one occasion. Culpepper, Palmer, Young, and Cutler have never or have not yet done these things consistently. I like Carson Palmer and Jay Cutler. They just haven’t shown elite ability in their careers. Young IS a head case (I live in Nashville and have met the guy on a couple of occasions), and I don’t know that he will ever mature.
I’m not saying good quarterbacks can’t be found in the first round of the draft. I’m saying that you’re much more likely to end up with a decent (Pennington-esque) quarterback than an elite quarterback when drafting in the first round. We already have a guy like that in Fitzpatrick, and since this does not seem to be an elite QB year with regards to the draft, I think the Bills can get a high upside guy in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and grab an immediate impact player with their first. We cannot afford to bust this year’s draft. We need to succeed every single one of our draft picks if we are going to compete in the AFC East in the next few years.
by APhoenixDestiny on Feb 13, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
1999: Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Culpepper, McNown
I think one could make the argument that Culpepper was and would have continued to be a franchise QB except for his brutal knee injury.
Perception is reality; but if your perception is off, you live in your own reality. -- perkispower
by thefourwinds on Feb 14, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
I question Roethlisberger!!
Your statement of leading team to the playoffs. Look real close at Him. Any year of the seven that Roethlisberger has been in the league, he has not led the team to the playoffs when his defense was not ranked #1in scoring. Does this mean that without the defense being #1 in scoring Pittsburg would not have made the playoffs any of those years. I believe so!!!
the steelers were 11th in scoring this year
via nfl.com. check up on your facts
I may have scored a hundred points yesterday, but I scored a lot more off the court.
11th in scoring defense, i mean
I may have scored a hundred points yesterday, but I scored a lot more off the court.
Not #1 every time but close
I checked this on pro-football-reference.com because I thought that was an interesting stat. The Steelers have been to the playoffs 5 times with Roethlisberger as their starting qb. They were #1 in points against 3 times, #2 once, and #3 once. The two years they missed the playoffs, they #11 and #12. This could back up the claim that at least their regular season success is due to their defensive play.
Moral of the story?
Perhaps the moral of the story should be this: By all means take a QB high up in the first round if you are really sure he has the stuff to be a franchise-level player, but if you are not sure don’t take the risk. Pulling the trigger on a QB in the second or lower rounds if you think he might have real potential is a smaller risk in the sense that the salary and expectations are a lot less and you are not using a first-round pick, but the chances the QB will become elite are also lower. I.e., like all things in life it’s a trade-off.
by Macktruck on Feb 13, 2011 12:27 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Once again
This years class of eligible QB’s, one could say is flooded. The question remaining his who, what, when and where is that diamond to be found. With the number thought highly of between now and last year at this time there could very well be more than one potentially elite type QB available.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
Are there sure-fire elite QB’s available or a number of QB’s who could possibly have elite status after (and if) they have developed? I don’t see a Sam Bradford or Matthew Stafford this year (and Stafford has now become a question mark on the grounds of durability). Newton, Gabbert and Kaepernick all have elite potential, but they could also turn out to be mediocre or busts. Locker and Ponder are even more iffy. All five could end up as starters for years to come, but it is also possible that none of them ever makes it to a Pro Bowl. So I would agree with Van (and I guess DJ) that there could be a real diamond or two here, but I also think the risk is higher than usual.
Another thing to point out
there have been 2 expansions recently, this means that the number of picks in the first round has changed.
Maybe we should count Brees as a first round pick as he was the 32nd player taken in 2001, ther may be other exceptions like this as well
"Sharks are as tough as those football fans who take their shirts off during games in Chicago in January, only more intelligent." DAVE BARRY
"You are drunk, sir!" "And you are ugly, madame! But I will be sober in the morning!"
How Many Elite QBs are Dual Threats
What scares me about Newton is how my dual threat guys have become elite?? Yes, Big Ben and Rodgers are mobile in the pocket but they are pure passers first….Vick has succeeded but only for 1 year…McNabb is sort of a dual threat but more of a passer first. I can’t think of any dual threats to win a Super Bowl except maybe Steve Young but again, he was a passer first.
Maybe Newton can become a solid passer but all we’ve seen so far is an amazing athlete, great runner and okay passer…
Why does Newton have to be a dual threat QB? Here is the thing that most people are not realizing. Cam Newton did not invent or choose the offense that he ran at Auburn. His coaches saw his amazing athleticism, and they made him a dual threat QB because he was the best athlete on the field.
It is clearly a gamble to take someone who is not a pocket passer in college, but just because he ran an offense one way in college does not mean that whoever drafts him has to run that offense in the NFL. Lots of QB’s play the spread option in college, and then come to the NFL and learn the pro style, under center offense. That is what Newton has to do.
by Eric Murawski on Feb 13, 2011 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
You mean a player drafted in the first round is better than those drafted later usually? This is really breaking news…Go by the player not statitics. Last week someone made this arguement about defensive linemen. You could break down every position in the nfl and im willing to bet that 1st rounders are more successful in every case.
Welcome to the 1st round vs. non-1st round quarterback argument!
It’s been going on a for a while now. Even the local and national media is debating this.
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
The Opposite Opinion
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/2/13/1990752/the-low-round-quarterback#59134977
"War Memorial Stadium looks as if whatever war it was a memorial to had been fought within its confines."-Brock Yates
I get that
Holmgren has taken the “draft QB’s late by volume” approach.
He hit on Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselback, and Aaron Brooks. Brunell and Hasselback were close but never true franchise QB’s.
But to get them, he missed on Ty Detmer, Jay Barker, Kyle Wachholtz, Ron McAda, Craig Nall, David Greene, and Jeff Kelly.
Starting the official Buffalo "Draft Owen Marecic in 2011" campaign.
maybe
But I don’t see people wanting a ‘franchise’ defensive end or a ‘franchise’ wide receiver. What this article shows is that stats wise going BPA doesn’t really work when you don’t have a franchise QB because the chances of getting a good QB later in the draft is so low. Other positions I would argue you have a better chance of ‘filling holes’ as you move down the draft board.
by Billsdownunder on Feb 14, 2011 11:05 AM EST up reply actions
Interesting. Here is my take.
1. ELITE – NOVAS – P. Manning, Brady, Roethelisberger, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers
Outstanding players who are still regularly carrying teams into playoffs and deep into the playoffs.
The next two groups are divided by style and performance. Members of either group can advance into the Elite category.
2. Playmakers – Pulsars – E. Manning, T. Romo, Schaub, Vick, Cutler, Garrard
Excellent athletes who at the top of their game can dominate a game or string of games and lead a team to success against any quality opponent. Have not demonstrated the consistency to be considered Elite. Prone to horrendous errors which can drag a team down too.
3. Managers – Stars – M. Ryan, J. Flacco, J. Campbell, Orton, M. Cassell, Shaun Hill
Steady performers who have demonstrated the ability to slightly exceed the performance of their team, or conversely, play just below that level. Need a favourable environment to be successful.
4. Fading Fast – Black Holes – Hasselbeck, McNabb, Palmer, K. Collins
In rapid decline phase of careers. Can still flash some skills, but need an outstanding team surrounding them to be successful consistently. No longer able to beat high quality opponents.
5. Mysteries – Alex Smith and Fitzpatrick. They show the ability to belong to either the Managers or Playmakers, but because of their up and down careers, it is hard to definitively place them.
Anyone with less than three years starting experience was not categorized, although the tendencies are becoming very clear.
Sorry about the astronomy references, but that seemed to me the best way to label these guys.
great article
It was really good to see this all broken down. As someone that has been BPA all the way, this argument is so compelling to me that I am changing my tune. The numbers don’t lie. If the Bills don’t draft a QB as one of their top two picks then it is almost a guarantee we will be having this same conversation this time next year.
by Billsdownunder on Feb 14, 2011 11:07 AM EST reply actions
Totally agree
If Buffalo can find a true 1st round talent at QB, they need to pounce. Having not seen a lot of Gabbert (I loathe the Big 12), and not believing in Newton as a pro, I’m just not sure there is a 1st round talent out there. That being said, I have no expertise in projecting college players, so if Buffalo can identify one that they like, the stats outlined above tell you all you need to know about what they should do.
"There's only one C.J. Spiller." -Buddy Nix
I posted this info in response to Ron's article, but I think the point bears repeating...
I did a post last year analyzing HOF and SB QBs vs. draft selection and found the following:
55% of SB winning, 44% of SB losing and 50% of HOF QBs were selected in Round 1 of the draft. However , an average of 2 QBs were selected before each HOF QB and 3 before each SB QB.(normalized)
In addition, of all the Round 1 QBs drafted 38% went on to play in the SB and 17% were inducted in the HOF.
Now HOF QBs are an extreme example as you obviously can be successful without one. But this indicates to me that not only do you have to go early on a QB, but you will most likely be wrong!
Odds
for a franchise quarterback, you may have to historically draft two to get one (46% from WGR’s study).
You very well might need to draft three or more. If one first-round qb means a 46% chance for success, and a 54% chance of failing, then if you take two, you still have a 29% chance that neither works out, 0.54 × 0.54, for a 71% chance that either one or both will turn out to be good. Drafting 3 first-rounders increases your odds to 84%, but you still can still fail.
"This is a tough gayem for tough peepole." -- Chan Gailey
"The Bills will be bad, but Chan Gailey can fake it pretty good." --Jason Cole before the 2010 season.
by Backup to Farve's Backup on Feb 15, 2011 4:21 AM EST reply actions
Let's not confuse cause and effect
Picking Clausen at 9th in the first round last year would not have made him a better quarterback. You shouldn’t pick a qb in the first round just because that’s where good qbs are most likely to be found. You pick a guy there only if he looks like the best player available. Sorry to use that phrase, but think about it. Considering the importance of the qb to the game, if a qb prospect does not look like the best player available, then he probably doesn’t look like he’ll be a great qb. The fact that most great qbs were drafted early simply means that the opinions of scouts, on average, are worth something, that’s all.
"This is a tough gayem for tough peepole." -- Chan Gailey
"The Bills will be bad, but Chan Gailey can fake it pretty good." --Jason Cole before the 2010 season.
by Backup to Farve's Backup on Feb 15, 2011 4:38 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Buffalo Rumblings
Related FanShots on Buffalo Rumblings
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
