NFL: Don't ever draft a QB in the bottom half of the 1st round

[TonyGraziani]

As we were discussing the Browns pick of Brandon Weeden, I started thinking about why he won't succeed and the risks involved. One point I thought of is the bust rate of QBs drafted in the bottom half of round 1. I'm going to go through all of them over the last 30 years:

1983:
Tony Eason- bust
Ken O'Brien- mediocre
Dan Marino- HOF

1986:
Jim Harbaugh- bust

1991:
Dan McGuire- bust
Todd Marinovich- bust

1992:
Tommy Maddox- bust

1997:
Jim Druckenmiller- bust

2002:
Patrick Ramsey- bust

2003:
Kyle Boller- bust
Rex Grossman- bust

2004:
J.P. Losman- bust

2005:
Aaron Rodgers-BOOM
Jason Campbell- mediocre

2007:
Brady Quinn- bust

2008:
Joe Flacco- boom

2009:
Josh Freeman- mediocre

2010:
Tim Tebow- ....bust

2012:
Brandon Weeden- ?

So out of the 19 taken, only 6(31%) were either "boom" picks or decent enough to play. In contrast, About 57% of QBs(by my calculations) turned out somewhere between decent and great. Of course, it's a crapshoot drafting a QB period, but the success rate is greatly reduced once you get past the first 15 or so picks. Why? Couple of reasons I have come up with:

1- "Need is the worst talent evaluator"- Brian Billick
Several of these QBs were the 3rd or lower in their class. Only in the cases of McGuire and Druckenmiller were they the top QB picked in their class. We also have the example of 1999 when the 3rd, 4th, and 5th QBs all went in the top 12. This is not to say that a draft can only have 2 good QBs(2004 disproves that), but several of these QBs were drafted(and traded up for) because a team felt they had to have a QB in round 1.

2- The pressure/expectations of a bottom 1st round QB are too high.
Anytime a QB is drafted in the 1st round, they are expected to be franchise QBs. They are supposed to have the potential to be top 10-top 15 at their position, or they are a bust. These are the expectations of top 10 picks, and rightfully so. But at any other position, you are looking for a solid contributor that can help your team out. If they don't end up as a Pro Bowler it's still ok. QB is definitely the most important position, with which comes the highest expectations, but why place that pressure on a player that doesn't have that talent level(based on bust %)?

3- Only good ones drafted in this area "fell" to that spot.
Marino would've been a top 10 pick if it wasn't for a failed drug test. Rodgers was talked about as the #1 pick on draft day, and unfortunately happened to be in a draft where no one really needed a QB. Flacco would've been the 8th pick if the Ravens didn't trade down with the Jags, after skyrocketing from a projected 2nd-3rd round pick. Of course, Quinn was the same situation as Rodgers and busted, but history tells us that no QB "projected" and then drafted in this area has succeeded.

If a QB prospect is not worth a top 10 pick then he is not worth a 1st round pick at all. If he hasn't earned that elite rating, then he should be "projected" and drafted in the 2nd round or further. Rating a QB as a mid-late first rounder is ludicrous. He is obviously missing something that makes him a top prospect, but will be drafted with the same expectations of one and it seems as though logic would dictate that he fails. What a prospect is projected to be will not determine his NFL career(Leaf/Brady), but a mid-late 1st round projected/drafted QB looks to me like a catch-22 destined for failure.

I hope I explained all my points sensibly and yall got my point. I know it was a long read, so thank you for making it through. Thoughts?

[Dale4Saul2Red0]

I made a similar post to QB's drafted past the 20th pick in the 1st round since Michael Vick was drafted. It's not pretty.

[Beef]

Except for the fact you have no clue at all what category Weeden will fall in to. There's 5 or 6 QB's listed there who weren't complete flops. So it's clearly not impossible for a QB selected in the second half of the 1st round to be successful.

I would never only use this method to evaluate sombody and make a prediction. In fact I would use this method strictly in the least amount of quantification possible because it has by far the greatest amount of standard deviation. This is akin to assessing the reliability of a car based on it's color, it's just that obtuse.

And sadly, this is exactly the only method some of you are using to make predictions about Weeden.

I absolutely could give two shits about the guy making it or not. I am not a fan of OK St. or Cleveland. But just from an observer of the game and curiousity about the guy, it's clear to me from his college stats and watching some of his video and simply looking at what he did against certain high caliber competition, Weeden has just as good a chance as anyone to be a productive QB in the NFL. There's not a single other QB listed up top in your illustration that threw for 72% completion rate with a 157 QB rating, over 4700 yards and 37 TD's in a single season.

And to discount that like it doesn't matter because the guy is already 28 and because there's some obtuse stat showing 2nd half 1st round pick QB's are more likely to bust, is just asinine.

[TonyGraziani]

(04-30-2012 02:46 PM)Beef Wrote:  Except for the fact you have no clue at all what category Weeden will fall in to. There's 5 or 6 QB's listed there who weren't complete flops. So it's clearly not impossible for a QB selected in the second half of the 1st round to be successful.

I would never only use this method to evaluate sombody and make a prediction. In fact I would use this method strictly in the least amount of quantification possible because it has by far the greatest amount of standard deviation. This is akin to assessing the reliability of a car based on it's color, it's just that obtuse.

And sadly, this is exactly the only method some of you are using to make predictions about Weeden.

I absolutely could give two shits about the guy making it or not. I am not a fan of OK St. or Cleveland. But just from an observer of the game and curiousity about the guy, it's clear to me from his college stats and watching some of his video and simply looking at what he did against certain high caliber competition, Weeden has just as good a chance as anyone to be a productive QB in the NFL. There's not a single other QB listed up top in your illustration that threw for 72% completion rate with a 157 QB rating, over 4700 yards and 37 TD's in a single season.

And to discount that like it doesn't matter because the guy is already 28 and because there's some obtuse stat showing 2nd half 1st round pick QB's are more likely to bust, is just asinine.

I get your point, but I think my main point may have been missed. A QB drafted in the mid/late 1st will have the same pressure/expectations of a QB drafted in the top 10 but, as a prospect, they don't have the talent/upside of one. It's not smart IMO to invest that much into or place those high expectations on someone who doesn't have(on paper) that level of ability. Does that make more sense? You don't have to agree, I just want to be certain my point is clear.

Regarding Weeden, he will be 29 at the start of the season. Besides Warner, who was 27, what other QB came in the league that old and played elite? He came out of the same offense as Graham Harrell, Case Keenum, Tommy Chang, and countless other pro failures who put up numbers like his and just weren't drafted as high. He's taken the same path to NFL QB as Chris Weinke, Chad Hutchinson, and Drew Henson, all terrible QBs. Weinke was a Heisman and National Championship winner the year(s) before he came out. Henson was talked about as a 1st round pick, maybe even #1 ahead of David Carr.

So we have a 29 year old former baseball player from a spread, stat inflating offense. I agree that everybody is their own person and others' success/failure won't necessarily determine his, but what part of him sounds good to you? Why would you invest a first round pick and your team's future into him?

[Dale4Saul2Red0]

Trends are not obtuse. Why do you think sports handicappers are so good at what they do? Trends and analysis of what many think are meaningless little tidbits of information actually add up.

[TonyGraziani]

(04-30-2012 03:22 PM)Dale4Saul2Red0 Wrote:  Trends are not obtuse. Why do you think sports handicappers are so good at what they do? Trends and analysis of what many think are meaningless little tidbits of information actually add up.

Exactly. And it's not as if I just throwing up numbers and saying "look! this must be a fact! itz n da numbazzzz!". I'm giving reasonable explanations behind my thought process.

[Templar]

The thing I wonder about, and it would be an interesting study is what the percentage of Quarterbacks taken in the first 15 picks who lasted more than 5 seasons. The reason I am wondering about this is that I keep hearing how Luck is the most NFL ready quarterback since Elway (and it took Elway a couple of season). I also remember hearing similar things about Tim Couch. I recall how the debate was that there wasn't a bad choice between Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning. Alex Smith was supposedly the real deal, and while still in the league, he has not exactly set the league on fire.

The thing is, they can look at how all these guys perform in college. They can measure all the measurables at the combine. They can judge however they see fit, but in the end, it's all up to that guy on the field. Is he going to be able to adjust to the speed of the pro game? Is he going to be able to get back up and forget what it felt like on the last play when that 300 guy slammed into him at 20 mph?

[mdrake34]

The back and forth on this board on the Weeden pick is baffling.

[Beef]

(04-30-2012 03:21 PM)TonyGraziani Wrote:  Regarding Weeden, he will be 29 at the start of the season. Besides Warner, who was 27, what other QB came in the league that old and played elite? He came out of the same offense as Graham Harrell, Case Keenum, Tommy Chang, and countless other pro failures who put up numbers like his and just weren't drafted as high. He's taken the same path to NFL QB as Chris Weinke, Chad Hutchinson, and Drew Henson, all terrible QBs. Weinke was a Heisman and National Championship winner the year(s) before he came out. Henson was talked about as a 1st round pick, maybe even #1 ahead of David Carr.

So we have a 29 year old former baseball player from a spread, stat inflating offense. I agree that everybody is their own person and others' success/failure won't necessarily determine his, but what part of him sounds good to you? Why would you invest a first round pick and your team's future into him?

Drew Brees went 7-9 when he was 28 years old. 8-8 when he was 29 years old. And then won a SB at age 30, all in a spread offense. He also came from Purdue where he played in a spread offense. His first 5 years in the league it was like he didn't even exist. His career essentially didn't start until he was 28 and he didn't turn elite until he was 30.

He's now 33 years old going on 34 and he just broke every record known to man and he's not slowing down any time soon.

Your argument is meaningless.

What I like about Weeden is he's already played pro baseball, he's already mature, respectable, smart, and he's got a strong as hell arm that's more accurate than 99% of other QB's that have ever come out of college.

Again, I didn't look at the guy but a few times before this draft, but have quite a bit since, and he's a damn good QB with plenty of tread left on his tires.

[TonyGraziani]

(04-30-2012 05:46 PM)Beef Wrote:  Drew Brees went 7-9 when he was 28 years old. 8-8 when he was 29 years old. And then won a SB at age 30, all in a spread offense. He also came from Purdue where he played in a spread offense. His first 5 years in the league it was like he didn't even exist. His career essentially didn't start until he was 28 and he didn't turn elite until he was 30.

He's now 33 years old going on 34 and he just broke every record known to man and he's not slowing down any time soon.

Your argument is meaningless.

What I like about Weeden is he's already played pro baseball, he's already mature, respectable, smart, and he's got a strong as hell arm that's more accurate than 99% of other QB's that have ever come out of college.

Again, I didn't look at the guy but a few times before this draft, but have quite a bit since, and he's a damn good QB with plenty of tread left on his tires.

I didn't say who got good at that age, I said who CAME IN THE LEAGUE. Even Warner and Jeff Garcia(29 when he signed with the 49ers) were playing pro football at other levels before getting their chance, not just 2 years starting in the Big Ten. There's plenty of QBs that got better the longer they were in the league. But the key point is THEY WERE IN THE LEAGUE. If the Aints drafted Brees in 06(or whenever those fuckers signed him) then I almost guarantee he wouldn't be who he is now.

I never said spread QBs couldn't succeed. But it isn't a positive on a scouting report. Yes, Brees did play in a spread at Purdue. He also was drafted in the 2nd round. And there is no comparison between a college spread and an NFL spread. Even if there is, is Weeden running the spread in Cleveland? NO.

Why is it a positive that he played baseball? Name me a QB(or any player besides Bo Jackson really) that took time off/away from his football career/development to play baseball and was better for it? Again, let me give you the names of Chris Weinke, Chad Hutchinson, and Drew Henson. That's not a good thing. And it doesn't mean he's any more mature than any other 28 year old. I would actually argue, all things being even, that he may be a little less mature the average 28 year old QB because he hasn't been in THIS league for 5-7 years. Just because you were a high-selling Real Estate agent for years doesn't mean you're gonna be good at being a chef and running a restaurant. Whole new business. Some transferable skills cross over, but not all.

Regardless of his age, I never thought of him to be that good. I would say if he was 22 that he may develop into something decent, but the FACT is he simply doesn't have the time(being 28) or the chance(being a 1st round pick) to do so.