The Mid Round QB fallacy

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[30gut]

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

Originally Posted by 30gut

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

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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).

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

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).

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

And that's the reason that once a QB becomes elite.. that the team is rarely in the position to draft a top QB prospect again.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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 think Jason Campbell could easily enter the top echilon of quarterbacks. Still. Problem is that I absolutely do not think that he WILL, and especially not here. I used to think it was only a matter of time before he'd be in the top ten, but the quality of our offense has declined greatly since 2007 and the beginning of 2008. And thusly, while I can still see the potential there, I think the longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to achieve anything beyond what he already has.

Same deal with any rookie we might draft. The quality of the offense he'd be in from day one is pathetic. The system, however, would be the one proven thing we'd have to work with. We don't have great talent on the outsides or in the backfield, or up front, so in effect what we're looking for is a system quarterback. Can he execute the Shanahan playbook as well as any other player in this draft? If the answer is yes, I don't see why we wouldn't take one at four.

I honestly have no idea if a system quarterback drafted in the second round is as good as a system quarterback drafted in the first. I really don't think any team has ever tried to take a system quarterback in the top ten picks. And I don't see why Washington would be any different. But I think Shanahan has to at least evaluate all the options. If his system values accuracy above all, and Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are the two most accurate passers in the entire class (ignoring McCoy), then I think you almost have to take one of them.

But are we rebuilding on offense? Or are we just adding Shanahan players to what already exists? And if we're rebuilding, why did we hire Shanahan? And what of 2011? There's so much context I can't answer here, but the one thing I think I can answer is that, context-neutral, Bradford and Clausen are both reaches at No. 4.

[GTripp0012]

Shanahan's mentor, Walsh, was famous for taking undervalued quarterback prospects and building a system that hid their weaknesses while exposing those of the defense. In a class like this, I find it hard to believe we won't even try that.

And that's why I feel that we will spend a first round pick on a quarterback, but that it won't be at No. 4. It will be at No. 25 or something, and it will be McCoy.

But it's an interesting thought that we may do that, and Clausen might still be available at that point. And then there's a legitimate dilemma that we'll have to pick between Clausen and McCoy at the back end of the first round to be our quarterback of the future.

[PHazard]

I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!

[SmootSmack]

Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last