The Mid Round QB fallacy

You're famous "Paint Rain"!

The folks at TheWarpath.net, for example, have an interesting conversation going about the potential for drafting a successful QB in the later rounds. Someone posting there as Paintrain (a name that I found intriguing when I was reading it as "paint rain," and a bit less so as "pain train," which I'm guessing it actually is) has broken down the playoff QBs from the last five years, and his numbers seem revealing (the names in parentheses are that year's non-first-round QBs):

A Whole Mess Of Links, Many Dealing With Quarterbacks (http://blog.redskins.com/2010/02/16/a-whole-mess-of-links/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

I've been quoted (although mis-named) by Matt Terl. My life's work is complete.

I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?Without using the Skywalker/Solo Halloween Regression Method.... quickly looking at some franchise level QBs taken in the 1st (Brees & Favre may as well have been); Manning x 2, Brees, Favre, McNabb, Palmer, Rivers, Rodgers, all those guys records improved within the 1st-3rd years without a major supporting cast change. Once they understood the NFL and started "getting it". They made those around them better.

This has nothing to do with I was just saying before (and shouldn't be considered an extension to the argument), but I don't actually believe that either of the quarterback prospects have a metaphorical high ceiling as players. I think there's a scheme evaluation that will occur with Shanahan's system where he will look at all the available players, and ask which ones can execute the bread and butter of his route tree the very best. And if the answer is either Clausen or Bradford, I think he will take them at No. 4.

But a scheme evaluation is not a player evaluation. It's probably a lot more complicated. I don't know, I've never really tried to do one. Player evaluation wise, these aren't high ceiling prospects. I think I have a very good (if not complete) idea of who these two guys are. And to reach towards that franchise quarterback level, I think you need to be willing to scale a playbook away from the things that Clausen and Bradford struggle with. With Bradford, that may be harder because I don't think the things he struggles with are readily apparent (different than saying they do not exist -- a lot different). If you create a QB friendly system for them, I think either of these guys is capable of reaching their top level potential.

Of course, you could do the same thing for Chad Pennington or Jason Campbell or Dan Lefevour. I fully support Mike Shanahan's ability to evaluate all possible options in this draft...but the point comes when you make so many concessions in your offense to try to create a great player out of a top prospect, that you wonder exactly why these are the top prospects in the draft.

Maybe we think about it the wrong way.

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

I've been quoted (although mis-named) by Matt Terl. My life's work is complete.

Hey guys check it out. I haz picture of Paintrain
http://whybenormal.today.com/files/2009/02/rainbow-paint.jpg

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

What a battle. The two biggest number guys (albeit different number types) on the warpath going head to head.

I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.
Of course.

Its interesting that you say of course now but i was responding to your statement that:
I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs

Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.

An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.

I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?

Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?

Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the situation is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.

That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.
Its like being a No.1 receiver anyone can label Roy Williams a No.1 receiver but Miles Austin's play on the field made him the No.1

I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

I think in a raw skills competition like the combine or an arm strength throwing/accuracy/ touch contest some will do better in different areas but at the end of the day most will be in the same ballpark. And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.


The physical differences in QBs is far more vast than a mere tenth of a second in the 40-time or 10lbs in a bench press. You've got their release, velocity, accuracy, accuracy on the move, foot speed, foot quickness, etc. Most importantly is the mental and leadership aspect of a QB prospect, what type of competition has the prospect played in college, what type of system, all important factors to consider.

Shuler and Leaf were tops physically, but I believe both had question marks about their mental approach to the game.


And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different physically measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB. Naturally if their all similiar physically the difference has to be the immeasureables.
And that is why picking a QB is such a crap shot at the end of the day after everything has been measured you still don't know.
*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)

Imo another reason you can't predict a QBs success has nothing to do with the player its about the situation more then the player.

Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.

I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the situation is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different physically measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB.That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).

If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.

2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.

It might only be two bullet points but they're easily two of the most important aspects of being an NFL QB.
Agreed; they talk about his long ball but it's never where it needs to be. He's even missed several with Moss or whoever nearly wide open.

The reading def needs to be improved, I'll defend him to an extent saying that he might only have time to make his basic reads before he has to get rid of the ball, however with a little more time he might get some extra looks in. He needs to compensate by having better pocket presence or having the pocket move (which obviously would be coming from above his call).

I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?
Are you an economist or something? Football isn't only a science and it can be hard to measure art. I know that I've said it before but your pretty and obscure numbers can't explain everything for good or for bad. Some things are unquantifiable or just aren't represented well by numbers. There are too many factors to consider to break it down to something so concise; with all of the tape that you watch I figured you'd have this down by now because at times it seems like you only watch the stats board.

Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"
hahahaha

we'd never draft a QB, that's for certain