|
|
Post by Paradis on May 24, 2015 22:23:21 GMT -5
Are you one of those people who bitch about QB play, daily? Well, how about you put a sock in it, and read this. Lets take a moment to actually reflect on what the reality of QB success is.
Below I've listed all the QBs drafted in rounds 1 and 2 since 2007, an 8 year sample (...number of relevant QBs taken after round 2 is negligible). For obvious reasons I didn't include the 2014 class.
Jamarcus Russell
Brady Quinn
Kevin Kolb
John Beck
Drew Stanton
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
Brian Brohm
Chad Henne
Matt Stafford
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Pat White
Sam Bradford
Tim Tebow
Jimmy Clausen
Cam Newton
Jake Locker
Blaine Gabbert
Christian Ponder
Andy Dalton
Colin Kaepernick
Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin
Ryan Tannehill
Brandon Weeden
Brock Osweiler
EJ Manuel
Geno Smith
Total: 29 (17/11)
Out of the league entirely, or career on life support:
Jamarcus Russell
Brady Quinn
Kevin Kolb
John Beck
Brian Brohm
Josh Freeman
Pat White
Tim Tebow
Jake Locker
Christian Ponder
Blaine Gabbert
Total: 11 (7/4)... Aprox 38% of QBs drafted in rounds one and two, including 80% of the 2007 class, are not even in the conversation today.
No longer seen as a (or didn't developed into) viable starter in the NFL. AKA Backup.
Drew Stanton
Chad Henne
Mark Sanchez
Jimmy Clausen
Brandon Weeden
EJ Manuel
Total: 6 (3/3)... 20% became Backups. Together with the washouts, that's nearly 60% of all QBs, including a STAGGERING 75% of ALL QBs drafted before 2011... This sample suggest if you go back more than 4 years, 75% of all QBs drafted in the first 2 rounds will be out of the league or holding a clipboard.... What's interesting here? All of them besides our very own Mark Sanchez, needed only a year to expose themselves as back up caliber talent. Tells you what we here in "New York" know about developing a QB. We had career back up under our noses and continued to pretend he wasn't.
Jury's still out on this group for various reasons:
Sam Bradford
Robert Griffin
Brock Osweiler
Geno Smith
Total: 4 (2/2)... 14% are still on the fence. 2 of them had injury issues, 1 is being tutored, and the other has had mixed results on a questionable team.
NFL Starters:
Matt Ryan*
Joe Flacco***
Matt Stafford*
Cam Newton*
Andy Dalton*
Colin Kaepernick**
Andrew Luck*
Ryan Tannehill
(*= playoffs/Superbowl/Winner)
Total: 8 (6/2)... 28% are considered viable starters in the NFL. Some more successful than others, but nonetheless, they'd be starting on someone's team.
Interesting notes:
--Outside of those fabled 8, only 3 played in playoffs; Sanchez, Tebow, Griffin.
--The success rate of the first QB taken in the draft is 80%, which is remarkably high. If you concede Bradford's health kept him off that list, and Geno really should have gone before Manuel, its nearly 100%.
--None of the 8 starters were "discovered" by a 2nd team. In other words, it's not like one franchise didn't know what they had, and someone else discovered a diamond in the rough. If you suck, you suck.
--Within 4 years, 80% of them are either out of the league or forgettable backups. Conversely 80% of those who become starters for more than 3 years, tend to stay starters for the majority of their careers.
--Of the QBs taken in rnds 1-2, who did develop into viable starters -- almost all of them have taken their team into the playoffs. That's a very promising stat to remember.
Conclusions:
Feel free to draw your own meaning from this, but I'll tell you what I see; the "nurture vs nature" dichotomy argument. Some will say, draft QBs in volume it's a numbers game until you hit on one (nature). While others will say, it's a numbers game, you're going to chase your tail and never know what you got because it requires patience to find out (nurture).
Solution A) Draft a QB every year till you finally hit on one
Problem: Statistically speaking, chances of you actually hitting on that pick is about 1 in 5, UNLESS if you have the first pick. 1/5 isn't a statistic a franchise can afford to gamble away their 1st/2nd pick on yearly.
Solution B) Groom your QB for at least 3 years, as statistically by year 4 they either get it, or they're out of the league.
Problem: We simply don't have time to wait around for 3 years to find out if we hit on the 20%-28%
Solution C) Just trade the farm away for the 1st pick and take the top QB, the success rate is 80%-100%
Problem: Not so fast. I didn't say superbowl winning QB. There's a reasonable chance Matt Ryan, Cam Newton never amount to anything more than Jay Cutler & Michael Vick.
What I'm taking away from all this:
You gotta put in the time. There's no way around it.
Manning and Luck are not individuals you can use as measuring sticks, and even they didn't look at the good early on. Rodgers, Rivers, Alex Smith, Flacco, Brees, Romo, Eli, etc etc.. 80-90% off all successful QBs had to be developed, on or off the field. Nobody but the physically gifted will ever look that great in the first couple years. And some of them will actually get worse if they rely on that too heavily on said gifts (Griffin, Kaep). I think when you get carried away playing the numbers game, you BECOME the 75% washout rate. Manuel, Gabbert, Ponder, these guys had no right being taken as early as they were, and DEFINITELY no right starting games in the first 1-2 years.
It comes down to support, coaching, and development. Support of a good defense and fucking playmakers, coaches that understand how and when to increase your reps and playbook, and patience to get there.
******************
SO... WHERE DOES GENO FIT? ...Is he statistic? Has he be given ample time to develop? Coached up? Support of playmakers? Is 20ish games really a good enough sample size for him?
I'll say this, he should be given year 3 to answer those questions, and we will know where things unequivocally sit next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverback on May 24, 2015 22:45:16 GMT -5
Just proves how awful I am at evaluating talent because I thought Brian Brohm was gonna be a good one when he came out.
Nice job on this btw very well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by lileprechaun on May 25, 2015 6:10:14 GMT -5
Good stuff. Just to throw another wrinkle into the equation, I think we are all seeing the impact of QB scarcity. The game is adjusting to the supply. Teams are reviving the running game and stacking defense to compensate (or simply write a different script). In that scheme, the demand on the QB is reduced and the idea of stocking with mid-range game managers or QB's who exchange elite traditional skills with good legs and an ability to break out of the pocket. Nothing here that all of us aren't aware of, but I think what is perhaps unconventional thinking is that this model will actually break the historical pattern of elite QB's being essential to win SB's. Little by little, I'm betting we will see the trend change. Based on your data, it has to.
P.S. The Jets represent exactly the strategy above. Take QB's with solid potential in the mid rounds to avoid breaking the bank. Not quantity over quality, but buying what is there at the right price. |
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on May 25, 2015 7:48:42 GMT -5
The TLDR is a well known axiom: At any time there are only 4-6 "Franchise QB's" active in the NFL.
If you don't have one of them, you don't have a QB.
And everybody wants/needs one, so QB's become overvalued and selected higher than their talent/potential would indicate combined with a rush-to-play-them mentality, leading 80% of top-pick QB's to fail.
This has been the way of the NFL for ages now. Only the rush-to-play ethic has gotten slightly worse.
But such a top-down analysis fails to breach the real reasons most QB's fail, almost always the specific scenarios they find themselves in, on bad teams, who rush them to play, with inferior talent supporting them, and coaching befitting a bottom-tier, high-drafting team. When placed in such a scenario, any weaknesses will be exposed and the player will be a bust if time is not given and additional support not provided.
I.e. TLDR: Most QB's bust because their team and coaches are poor and don't improve in their tenure. Their own failings are a factor of course, but not always primary. And these busts almost always will be shoveled off to backup status or to a second chance on an equally bad team.
What this speaks to is that perhaps building up ones team as a whole should take priority over taking potshots at QB's in the early rounds. That overall team talent may be more important, that coaching and patience may be far more required then not, that adequate positional coaching is a must, and that QB talent in depth (but perhaps not 1st/2nd round depth) is vital. That giving young developing QB's time on the bench to learn before they play needs to return to the NFL.
With all that said, some QB's simply won't succeed in the NFL no matter the support. No amount of excuses or explanation will change that players inherent faults, flaws and inability.
The trick for a GM is knowing where your QB lies, is he a failure due to lack of support, or does his play (even with minimal support) shows flaws that no amount of support can overcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paradis on May 25, 2015 9:43:59 GMT -5
The TLDR is a well known axiom: At any time there are only 4-6 "Franchise QB's" active in the NFL. If you don't have one of them, you don't have a QB. And everybody wants/needs one, so QB's become overvalued and selected higher than their talent/potential would indicate combined with a rush-to-play-them mentality, leading 80% of top-pick QB's to fail. This has been the way of the NFL for ages now. Only the rush-to-play ethic has gotten slightly worse. But such a top-down analysis fails to breach the real reasons most QB's fail, almost always the specific scenarios they find themselves in, on bad teams, who rush them to play, with inferior talent supporting them, and coaching befitting a bottom-tier, high-drafting team. When placed in such a scenario, any weaknesses will be exposed and the player will be a bust if time is not given and additional support not provided.I.e. TLDR: Most QB's bust because their team and coaches are poor and don't improve in their tenure. Their own failings are a factor of course, but not always primary. And these busts almost always will be shoveled off to backup status or to a second chance on an equally bad team. What this speaks to is that perhaps building up ones team as a whole should take priority over taking potshots at QB's in the early rounds. That overall team talent may be more important, that coaching and patience may be far more required then not, that adequate positional coaching is a must, and that QB talent in depth (but perhaps not 1st/2nd round depth) is vital. That giving young developing QB's time on the bench to learn before they play needs to return to the NFL. With all that said, some QB's simply won't succeed in the NFL no matter the support. No amount of excuses or explanation will change that players inherent faults, flaws and inability. The trick for a GM is knowing where your QB lies, is he a failure due to lack of support, or does his play (even with minimal support) shows flaws that no amount of support can overcome. I don't think i failed to breached subject, it's pretty my conclusion and final thoughts. It's exactly what I was able to surmise from what the numbers suggest. I agree though, some prospects won't take flight. No matter the tutor, nor matter the tutelage. And i think that number can be drastically reduced by simple things like, "maybe Jake Locker isn't a 1st round pick"...or maybe "EJ Manuel needs at least healthy Rodgers sized 3 years on the bench" etc etc. I said this past year, that the jets would be far more the wise to beef up the roster before bringing in a guy like Mariota. Not only does it allow us to do some more homework on Geno, but also actually prepare the team and roster to put a guy into a successful situation. What Geno was asked to do, especially in 2013, was beyond reproach. |
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on May 25, 2015 11:05:47 GMT -5
The TLDR is a well known axiom: At any time there are only 4-6 "Franchise QB's" active in the NFL. If you don't have one of them, you don't have a QB. And everybody wants/needs one, so QB's become overvalued and selected higher than their talent/potential would indicate combined with a rush-to-play-them mentality, leading 80% of top-pick QB's to fail. This has been the way of the NFL for ages now. Only the rush-to-play ethic has gotten slightly worse. But such a top-down analysis fails to breach the real reasons most QB's fail, almost always the specific scenarios they find themselves in, on bad teams, who rush them to play, with inferior talent supporting them, and coaching befitting a bottom-tier, high-drafting team. When placed in such a scenario, any weaknesses will be exposed and the player will be a bust if time is not given and additional support not provided.I.e. TLDR: Most QB's bust because their team and coaches are poor and don't improve in their tenure. Their own failings are a factor of course, but not always primary. And these busts almost always will be shoveled off to backup status or to a second chance on an equally bad team. What this speaks to is that perhaps building up ones team as a whole should take priority over taking potshots at QB's in the early rounds. That overall team talent may be more important, that coaching and patience may be far more required then not, that adequate positional coaching is a must, and that QB talent in depth (but perhaps not 1st/2nd round depth) is vital. That giving young developing QB's time on the bench to learn before they play needs to return to the NFL. With all that said, some QB's simply won't succeed in the NFL no matter the support. No amount of excuses or explanation will change that players inherent faults, flaws and inability. The trick for a GM is knowing where your QB lies, is he a failure due to lack of support, or does his play (even with minimal support) shows flaws that no amount of support can overcome. I don't think i failed to breached subject, it's pretty my conclusion and final thoughts. It's exactly what I was able to surmise from what the numbers suggest. I agree though, some prospects won't take flight. No matter the tutor, nor matter the tutelage. And i think that number can be drastically reduced by simple things like, "maybe Jake Locker isn't a 1st round pick"...or maybe "EJ Manuel needs at least healthy Rodgers sized 3 years on the bench" etc etc. I said this past year, that the jets would be far more the wise to beef up the roster before bringing in a guy like Mariota. Not only does it allow us to do some more homework on Geno, but also actually prepare the team and roster to put a guy into a successful situation. What Geno was asked to do, especially in 2013, was beyond reproach. good write up. imo i would've taken mariota because of your premise that it takes 3 or 4 seasons to groom the qb and the team might not be in position to have such a high draft pick. even under genot they've proven to be a middling team and they could stay around 8-8 for quite some time. and i say this because while you say you can acquire pieces to go around a top flight qb after you find one, those pieces also take time to develop. an oline needs two or three seasons playing together before they are all on the same page. maybe not so much now because of the emphasis on pass protection. i also think you analysis shows that maybe teams need to be looking for other ways to win games. (or maybe the rules need to be changed to deemphasize the passing game). rex's strategy (and even herm's and mangini's) is sound. a ball control game with a stout defense can take a team pretty far. the thing is they will need to pass at some point to win games. |
|
|
|
Post by ryu79 on May 25, 2015 12:36:22 GMT -5
Outstanding original post.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossfire on May 25, 2015 14:21:00 GMT -5
SO... WHERE DOES GENO FIT? ...Is he statistic? Has he be given ample time to develop? Coached up? Support of playmakers? Is 20ish games really a good enough sample size for him? I'll say this, he should be given year 3 to answer those questions, and we will know where things unequivocally sit next year. This. I love competition for starting positions but I sure as shit don't want Fitpatrick starting for the Jets. IMHO, he has no upside. And I am by no means a Geno guy. But I also think he hasn't had a good offense around him. Put him out there this year with weapons and see how he does. If he shits the bed, well, at least he had a shot. Fitzpatrick is a smart guy. Let him hold a clipboard and help coach up Petty on the sideline. And if Geno does shit the bed... and that wouldn't shock anyone... then you bring Fitzpatrick in and Geno is put out to pasture for good. Geno has talent and we have all seen it. But there have been a load of QBs over the years that have talent but not the football IQ to put it together. With the waepons we have on offense this year, Geno is in a position to put up or shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by joepnyj1 on May 26, 2015 11:05:55 GMT -5
Are you one of those people who bitch about QB play, daily? Well, how about you put a sock in it, and read this. Lets take a moment to actually reflect on what the reality of QB success is. Below I've listed all the QBs drafted in rounds 1 and 2 since 2007, an 8 year sample (...number of relevant QBs taken after round 2 is negligible). For obvious reasons I didn't include the 2014 class. Jamarcus Russell Brady Quinn Kevin Kolb John Beck Drew Stanton Matt Ryan Joe Flacco Brian Brohm Chad Henne Matt Stafford Mark Sanchez Josh Freeman Pat White Sam Bradford Tim Tebow Jimmy Clausen Cam Newton Jake Locker Blaine Gabbert Christian Ponder Andy Dalton Colin Kaepernick Andrew Luck Robert Griffin Ryan Tannehill Brandon Weeden Brock Osweiler EJ Manuel Geno Smith Total: 29 (17/11)Out of the league entirely, or career on life support:Jamarcus Russell Brady Quinn Kevin Kolb John Beck Brian Brohm Josh Freeman Pat White Tim Tebow Jake Locker Christian Ponder Blaine Gabbert Total: 11 (7/4)... Aprox 38% of QBs drafted in rounds one and two, including 80% of the 2007 class, are not even in the conversation today. No longer seen as a (or didn't developed into) viable starter in the NFL. AKA Backup.Drew Stanton Chad Henne Mark Sanchez Jimmy Clausen Brandon Weeden EJ Manuel Total: 6 (3/3)... 20% became Backups. Together with the washouts, that's nearly 60% of all QBs, including a STAGGERING 75% of ALL QBs drafted before 2011... This sample suggest if you go back more than 4 years, 75% of all QBs drafted in the first 2 rounds will be out of the league or holding a clipboard.... What's interesting here? All of them besides our very own Mark Sanchez, needed only a year to expose themselves as back up caliber talent. Tells you what we here in "New York" know about developing a QB. We had career back up under our noses and continued to pretend he wasn't.
Jury's still out on this group for various reasons:Sam Bradford Robert Griffin Brock Osweiler Geno Smith Total: 4 (2/2)... 14% are still on the fence. 2 of them had injury issues, 1 is being tutored, and the other has had mixed results on a questionable team.
NFL Starters:Matt Ryan* Joe Flacco*** Matt Stafford* Cam Newton* Andy Dalton* Colin Kaepernick** Andrew Luck* Ryan Tannehill (*= playoffs/Superbowl/Winner) Total: 8 (6/2)... 28% are considered viable starters in the NFL. Some more successful than others, but nonetheless, they'd be starting on someone's team. Interesting notes:--Outside of those fabled 8, only 3 played in playoffs; Sanchez, Tebow, Griffin. --The success rate of the first QB taken in the draft is 80%, which is remarkably high. If you concede Bradford's health kept him off that list, and Geno really should have gone before Manuel, its nearly 100%. --None of the 8 starters were "discovered" by a 2nd team. In other words, it's not like one franchise didn't know what they had, and someone else discovered a diamond in the rough. If you suck, you suck. --Within 4 years, 80% of them are either out of the league or forgettable backups. Conversely 80% of those who become starters for more than 3 years, tend to stay starters for the majority of their careers. --Of the QBs taken in rnds 1-2, who did develop into viable starters -- almost all of them have taken their team into the playoffs. That's a very promising stat to remember. Conclusions:Feel free to draw your own meaning from this, but I'll tell you what I see; the "nurture vs nature" dichotomy argument. Some will say, draft QBs in volume it's a numbers game until you hit on one (nature). While others will say, it's a numbers game, you're going to chase your tail and never know what you got because it requires patience to find out (nurture). Solution A) Draft a QB every year till you finally hit on one Problem: Statistically speaking, chances of you actually hitting on that pick is about 1 in 5, UNLESS if you have the first pick. 1/5 isn't a statistic a franchise can afford to gamble away their 1st/2nd pick on yearly. Solution B) Groom your QB for at least 3 years, as statistically by year 4 they either get it, or they're out of the league. Problem: We simply don't have time to wait around for 3 years to find out if we hit on the 20%-28% Solution C) Just trade the farm away for the 1st pick and take the top QB, the success rate is 80%-100% Problem: Not so fast. I didn't say superbowl winning QB. There's a reasonable chance Matt Ryan, Cam Newton never amount to anything more than Jay Cutler & Michael Vick. What I'm taking away from all this:You gotta put in the time. There's no way around it. Manning and Luck are not individuals you can use as measuring sticks, and even they didn't look at the good early on. Rodgers, Rivers, Alex Smith, Flacco, Brees, Romo, Eli, etc etc.. 80-90% off all successful QBs had to be developed, on or off the field. Nobody but the physically gifted will ever look that great in the first couple years. And some of them will actually get worse if they rely on that too heavily on said gifts (Griffin, Kaep). I think when you get carried away playing the numbers game, you BECOME the 75% washout rate. Manuel, Gabbert, Ponder, these guys had no right being taken as early as they were, and DEFINITELY no right starting games in the first 1-2 years. It comes down to support, coaching, and development. Support of a good defense and fucking playmakers, coaches that understand how and when to increase your reps and playbook, and patience to get there. ****************** SO... WHERE DOES GENO FIT? ...Is he statistic? Has he be given ample time to develop? Coached up? Support of playmakers? Is 20ish games really a good enough sample size for him? I'll say this, he should be given year 3 to answer those questions, and we will know where things unequivocally sit next year. Yeah good job putting this together Paradis. I do agree with you here and Geno is a good example of why you need the right coaching, support on the field and time for development. A lot of people on here are ready to throw Geno under the bus and chalk this up as a bust. But lets face the facts, the guy came into the league onto a team where their head coach has zero clue on how to put an offense together. On top of the fact that there was no proper support, aka zero talent at wide receivers, a leaky offensive line and a system implemented by Marty Morningweg that is both complicated and convoluted. Guys like Andrew Luck and Tony Romo and Matt Ryan etc...had legit weapons on the offense that they can rely on. Now that we have guys like Marshall and Smith and a system that is quarterback friendly under Gailey, if this team is in the middle of the pack as far as offense is concerned we can easily be a 9-10 win football team, especially if this crazy defense pans out. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishooked on May 26, 2015 11:56:44 GMT -5
So where are these beers I was promised?  |
|
|
|
Post by Peebag on May 26, 2015 12:03:10 GMT -5
So where are these beers I was promised? one liners are sooo lame. |
|
|
|
Post by Conkboy on May 26, 2015 16:09:22 GMT -5
Nice analysis and I enjoyed reading it... However, my feeling is that there is a sub sample that needs to be looked at. I will just compare Geno and Sanchez...
Sanchez did not have great stuff his first two year but you thought that he was progressing and on the path to proper development. Obviously with hind sight being 20/20 it does not appear as thought he will make it as a full time starter in the NFL. At some point he was unable to progress any further than the type of QB we saw in year 1 and 2.
Geno has shown some flashes... 20 games is not enough to come to a final conclusion but any concept that there is some kind of upside that we have not seen looks to be unlikely. At his best he may only be a serviceable QB... I don't think he develops into the type of player like a Brees became. He has not shown that type of ability in my opinion. I imagine he will get more time.
Overall however a great point that i derive from your article is that development is not just a talent thing. Understanding playing QB in the NFL can be a talent inhibitor in the first year. Eventually once they learn the system and understand NFL defenses better, it become about talent. Unfortunately, talent to be successful at the college level is not as indicative as to talent to succeed at the NFL level.
|
|
|
|
Post by greengeek on May 26, 2015 16:52:08 GMT -5
Numbers! I love it! Let me add some graphical representation of these numbers and a statistical analysis. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis will demonstrate the trouble with small counts. Here are the raw numbers concerning "fates" of the first and second rounders by each of the defined categories. I have not changed any of the determinations from Paradis since I agree with them all.  Numerically, the number of first round starters is significantly higher than the second rounders. However, if we want to track the probabilities, then we will have to convert these to percentages. That is shown in the plot below:  Now that the areas are plotted the advantage of the first rounders by probability is still seen, but less prominently (~2X instead of 3X). However, we need to keep in mind that all these probabilities are based upon small samples of data. In that case, we should put error bars on the plot. Propagation of an error bar into an efficiency ratio is actually somewhat tricky as there can NEVER be a probability of success greater than 1, nor can there be a probability of success less than zero. The correct mathematical treatment is to use a Bayes Estimator . Although this is not fully supported by excel, more powerful analysis engines like root do this as the default when dividing two histograms into a graph sporting asymmetric error bars  . In that case we can overlay the statistically bounded regions as shown below:  Here 100% is known as 1.0. The error bars are drawn to represent +/- "sigma" errors and represent a roughly 2/3 probability that the truth lies in the shaded region. As you can see, the blue (first rounders) pokes a little below the orange (second rounders) for the backup and uncertain categories. The blue (first rounders) pokes a little above the orange (second rounders) in the starters category. The probability of bust is statistically the same. Although the statistical evidence is VERY weak, one sees hints of the following trends from this data: - The probability of bust for first and second round selections is statistically equivalent.
- The probability of hanging around but not begin a "true starter" is possibly higher for second rounders (but not by much).
- The probability of being a true "starter" is possibly higher for first rounders (but not by much).
 |
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on May 26, 2015 17:46:39 GMT -5
Yea well this all fine and good, but like Fish say's, where's the beer?
Postulating, throwing out numbers and even graphs, all I suspect to make us distracted and forget the said promised beer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on May 26, 2015 17:58:56 GMT -5
Yea well this all fine and good, but like Fish say's, where's the beer? Postulating, throwing out numbers and even graphs, all I suspect to make us distracted and forget the said promised beer. Enjoy.  |
|
