There has been a lot of calls for selecting a franchise QB with the #2 overall pick this year. Many have said selecting a QB high is the best way to ensure you have the QB positioned locked down for the next 10 years or so.
So, I took all the QB's selected in the top 10 between 1998 and 2007 to see the probability that a top 10 selection at QB would last 10 years. I picked this period because it gives us a view of at least 10 years in their career. No point evaluating recent draft picks from a historical perspective because their history hasn't been written yet.
Here's the QBs:
1998 - Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf
1999 - Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith
2000 - none selected
2001 - Michael Vick
2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington
2003 - Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich
2004 - Eli Manning, Philip Rivers
2005 - Alex Smith
2006 - Vince Young, Matt Leinart
2007 - Jamarcus Russell
So of that list, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers were the only ones who made it ten years as a starter for the team that drafted them. Michael Vick might have made it were it not for the dog fighting stuff. That's four 10 year starters among 16 players drafted, or 25% of the picks who made it 10 years. Not a great percentage.
Why is everyone so certain that picking a QB @2 will deliver a ten year QB solution when history tells us this is not likely to be the case? Also, look at the bust rate. 7 of the 16 (~44%) picked had absolutely no success in the NFL.
What about RB?
1998 - Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor
1999 - Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams
2000 - Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones
2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson
2002 - None selected
2003 - None selected
2004 - None selected
2005 - Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Cadillac Williams
2006 - Reggie Bush
2007 - Adrian Peterson
What is the bust rate among top RB's picked? Only one (Enis) never reached 1000 yds rushing in any season. You can probably add Williams in as a bust as well, given he only reached 1000 yds once.
True, the careers are shorter and certainly the peaks are shorter if you go HB over QB in the top ten, but the likelihood of selecting an impact player is much greater selecting RB than QB.
Bottom line: select a QB in the top ten and caveat emptor, while selecting a RB in the top ten likely means getting a difference maker on the field for several seasons.
Why is the analysis for the top 10 ?
The Giants are picking second
Barkley is the best player in the draft but he isn't the most important player in the draft, one of the QB (or maybe 2) are more important to a team's success.
Barkley is the best player in the draft but he isn't the most important player in the draft, one of the QB (or maybe 2) are more important to a team's success.
Haha.
-Blake Bortles
-Case Keenum
-Nick Foles
Why is 1000 yards significant?
I think that question is what is the probability of success in drafting a QB or RB second in the draft?
Success is hard to define but let’s say its player that you can win a super bowl with at his position
Correspondingly there are more great RBs that haven't made it to the game -- take your lists for example -- more QBs on those two lists made it to the Superbowl then RBs.
There is no doubt that a team with a great QB has a better chance of being in the Superbowl than a team featuring a great running back.
Now I'm not saying there isn't appeal for Barkley - but your argument doesn't wash using your own examples in the context of successful football
The other factor is the overall value of the position. QB is involved with every offensive decision, pass and run play, and is a factor on almost every scoring play. Even the best featured RB in today’s league handles the ball a much lower % of plays.
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB(25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
Quote:
Without a top notch QB, it is very hard to go deep in the playoffs. A team can go far with a so-so RB but most are going nowhere with a so-so QB.
Barkley is the best player in the draft but he isn't the most important player in the draft, one of the QB (or maybe 2) are more important to a team's success.
Haha.
-Blake Bortles
-Case Keenum
-Nick Foles
So let's take the very rare exception as the general rule. And who were the 4 qbs in the championship last year, Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Ryan. Most years you don't have a shot without a top qb. This year is an anomaly.
Quote:
Without a top notch QB, it is very hard to go deep in the playoffs. A team can go far with a so-so RB but most are going nowhere with a so-so QB.
Barkley is the best player in the draft but he isn't the most important player in the draft, one of the QB (or maybe 2) are more important to a team's success.
Haha.
-Blake Bortles
-Case Keenum
-Nick Foles
Tom Brady....Muah Ha Ha
That being said, I like Saquon at #2 because I think he is BPA and he elevated the Giants the most. There is no Lawrence Taylor or Khalil Mack type of edge, no Franchise Left Tackle and I like Darnold but think he goes to CLE.
Not sold on 56% comp Josh Allen or concussion and Injury prone and immobile Josh Rosen
While the bust rate is high for qbs the prospects of finding one later in draft is even more difficult. Sure there are a few like Wilson, Brady Etc but much harder.
And just because a player has a 1,000 yard season hardly makes that good value for a top 10 pick.
BINGO! BPA. Don't reach based on need. If they determine that one of the QBs is truky worthy of that pick, fine. If not, take whoever is.
It is a sure thing a top prospect at qb will go high and it’s rare NYG pick this high. The other sure thing is rbs are available later that can replicate the production of a #2 overall pick at back.
So BPA analysis has to consider the relative worth of the position and the typical cost of acquiring.
This is a qb rich draft so unless Giants hate the qbs after scouting I’m betting they go this way.
I think those that want Barkley, Chubb, Nelson, etc will have to live with the realization that the Giants are likely to go QB in the first round.
If the Giants feel they need a QB, and if they feel any of the QB’s available are truly franchise QB’s, then you take them. We hope that they will not be drafting this high for a while, so they need to get the QB situation settled.
If they think they have the QB situation figured out with Eli and Webb, and/or none of the QB’s available are worthy, than they should trade down. Even a very good RB is rarely worth the extra picks they can grab.