for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Article on how inexact drafting a QB is

BestFeature : 5/10/2018 12:22 am
I was on the draft a QB or bust bandwagon and was even upset when we drafted Barkley. But the linked article talks about how inexact drafting a QB is. Maybe it was worth not taking QBs in a draft where all of them had warts and taking the guy that's more of a sure thing. Now granted this guy didn't do a study on RBs so maybe the RBs are even more inexact, but something to think about.

Excerpt:

In the end, it doesn't appear that anything NFL teams look at does a good job predicting future performance. In a forthcoming study, I observe that there isn't much of a correlation between where an NFL quarterback is selected in the draft and how he performs. Yes, quarterbacks selected earlier get more playing time. But draft position and per-play performance aren't really related.

Again, that shouldn't be surprising. The list of quarterbacks selected in the first round who failed is very long. Likewise, teams have won Super Bowls with quarterbacks many teams passed on (like Tom Brady, Russell Wilson and Kurt Warner).

So what can the Browns do? Again, what we know today about these prospects doesn't predict NFL performance. In addition, we should remember that it's very hard to simply predict the performance of veteran quarterbacks in the NFL who switch teams. So if you can't be sure how a veteran quarterback will perform when they switch teams in the NFL, maybe there is really no way to predict how a drafted quarterback will do when that quarterback has never faced an NFL team in his life.
Link - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 | Show All |  Next>>
IMHO .... just my opioin -  
short lease : 5/10/2018 12:55 am : link

The Browns got, who they thought they were getting - when they drafted Manziel.

The difference is Mayfield loves the game and will be a good player for them.

The Browns already announced that Tyrod Taylor will be the starting QB in 2018 but, I would bet a small amount of money ($1.00?) that Mayfield wins the job when the season starts. He has got a competitive spirit that is so strong it might be harmful at times (to him and his team).

Anyway, (no crystal ball) just my perception/vibe.


Tyrod Taylor to start - ( New Window )
RE: IMHO .... just my opioin -  
short lease : 5/10/2018 12:56 am : link
In comment 13959928 short lease said:
Quote:

The Browns got, who they thought they were getting - when they drafted Manziel.

The difference is Mayfield loves the game and will be a good player for them.

The Browns already announced that Tyrod Taylor will be the starting QB in 2018 but, I would bet a small amount of money ($1.00?) that Mayfield wins the job when the season starts. He has got a competitive spirit that is so strong it might be harmful at times (to him and his team).

Anyway, (no crystal ball) just my perception/vibe.
Tyrod Taylor to start - ( New Window )


yeah, I know - I spelled "opinion" wrong.
Not drafting a quarterback  
joeinpa : 5/10/2018 7:47 am : link
Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys.

I ve stated my opinion before, but:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions
Drafting is an inexact science  
Archer : 5/10/2018 8:01 am : link
You can do a similar analysis of all players and you will find a disparate opinion by scouts and management.

Not only will there be a difference in opinion in first round picks , but even those players who are consensus sure things, fail almost 50% of the time.

It is expected that the QB position would have significant differing opinions. The QB position requires a combination of divergent skills and ,therefore, the position has the most variables for success or failure.


Different teams and scouts place varying significance and emphasis on different skills. It is possible that a QB can be successful with one team and a flop with another.

The role that a QB plays in a specific offense requires different skill sets.
What???  
FatMan in Charlotte : 5/10/2018 8:06 am : link
Quote:
If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions


What if Barkley is a solid RB for the next decade and while Darnold, Allen or Rosen have solid "franchise" careers, none of them wins a SB, drafting Barkley will be a blunder of historic proportions??

History somehow keeps getting exaggerated.
Ok I will play  
Jimmy Googs : 5/10/2018 8:12 am : link
What if Barkley and all the said QBs have major injuries early next year and basically become backups for most of their careers. But 5 years from Darnold comes off the bench in the 4QTR of the Superbowl when the starter gets hurt and helps win the game for his team?

What a blunder for DG and the Giants...
RE: Not drafting a quarterback  
giants#1 : 5/10/2018 8:27 am : link
In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys.

I ve stated my opinion before, but:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions


Why do the Giants have to win a SB, but those 3 only need to be 'franchise guys'? And what is a 'franchise guy'? Kirk Cousins just got $27M per season. Is he a franchise QB?
First Round Draft picks...  
BamaBlue : 5/10/2018 8:33 am : link
are an inexact science. There are no guarantees in the NFL or in life... the alternative is to curl-up in a ball, suck your thumb and rock gently isn't very appealing.

Drafting a QB, RB or long-snapper involves a reasoned decision process with probability, but no certainty...
For those who accuse the Giants of being too conservative, the Giants  
Ivan15 : 5/10/2018 8:38 am : link
Took the biggest risk in the draft by not taking a QB. It was a calculated risk that Eli gives them a better chance for the super Bowl than Darnold would have.

Secondly, they may feel that there is a better chance that they will find their future QB before Darnold becomes a winning QB.
RE: Not drafting a quarterback  
BestFeature : 5/10/2018 8:41 am : link
In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys.

I ve stated my opinion before, but:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions


The point is with how inexact it is why not take the player who most scouts think is closer to a sure thing and possibly generational when you have the opportunity and get a quarterback when you don't get a chance to draft someone like that?
FMIC  
joeinpa : 5/10/2018 8:57 am : link
In your scenerio if the quarterbacks aren't franchise guys like an Eli, then it s was a goo le move for Giants.

Guess I should have been more specific. If any of those quarterbacks turn out to be an Eli, Rivers or Rithlisberger, bad mistake by Giants
So if..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 5/10/2018 8:59 am : link
one turns out to be Rivers with very good seasons, but no titles, even if barkley is an excellent back, it was a terrible mistake?

Not following the logic.
For those of you who don't have the time to read the article  
Marty in Albany : 5/10/2018 9:10 am : link
Here's the executive summary: You can't predict the future.

If there's one thing  
GeorgeAdams33 : 5/10/2018 9:12 am : link
that has been proven in all of this debating, it's that when it comes to drafting you should go with your convictions and never be afraid of mistakes.
Damn Marty...  
BamaBlue : 5/10/2018 9:13 am : link
In comment 13960071 Marty in Albany said:
Quote:
RE: For those of you who don't have the time to read the article. Here's the executive summary: You can't predict the future.


THANKS for ruining it!
That is, unless you are  
GeorgeAdams33 : 5/10/2018 9:13 am : link
the Jets
RE: For those who accuse the Giants of being too conservative, the Giants  
KeoweeFan : 5/10/2018 9:15 am : link
In comment 13960039 Ivan15 said:
Quote:
Took the biggest risk in the draft by not taking a QB. It was a calculated risk that Eli gives them a better chance for the super Bowl than Darnold would have.

Secondly, they may feel that there is a better chance that they will find their future QB before Darnold becomes a winning QB.

I believe that's over simplified.
It's more like the Giants calculated that their team would be more competitive with Barkley along with Eli, Webb, and a later QB selection (who turned out to be Lauletta), than they would have by selecting Darnold #2.

We can each evaluate the decision differently, by I think that was the conservative choice.

Just  
crick n NC : 5/10/2018 9:17 am : link
Because a player is part of a championship on one team doesn't mean by it would happen on another team. There are lots of variables in football.
Just point out that when you take a 50-50 shot  
Bill L : 5/10/2018 9:18 am : link
half the time it works out.

Of course, then we delude ourselves into thinking that we knew it all along and that's the paradigm.
Assuming it was Barkley v Darnold  
Wazzat : 5/10/2018 9:19 am : link
Let's assume Draft Score = Performance score x Positional Factor x Need Factor.

In evaluating Darnold's Need factor, one has to estimate in how many years Darnold could likely replace Eli. Let's assume not in 2018 or 2019, and Eli retires in 2020.

If more than two yrs away, then need to estimate when Darnold could replace Eli's current replacement ie Webb? And what 2020 value added over Webb?

If there was not much estimated upside of Darnold over Webb in 2020, that makes Darnold's Need factor pretty low compared to Barkley's Need factor who is estimated to start immediately over his replacement say Stewart.

Then applying Darnold's low Performance score (turnovers, poor decisions)
and high Positional Value of QB v RB combined with a low Need score puts
Barkley ahead of Darnold on the Draft score tiers.

Great article. Also the one on lack of correlation of vet QBs performqnces when they move teams.
FMIC  
CT Charlie : 5/10/2018 9:28 am : link
Which QB should we have picked?

Using your logic and assumptions, you have only a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding "a blunder of historic proportions."
What??  
FatMan in Charlotte : 5/10/2018 9:30 am : link
I was fine with them taking Barkley.

If I had a QB rated as high as Barkley, then that's when I would've taken one.

My point was to joeinpa that if Barkley becomes a successful player, how the hell can it be classified as a terrible mistake to select him?
RE: What??  
Bill L : 5/10/2018 9:32 am : link
In comment 13960101 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
I was fine with them taking Barkley.

If I had a QB rated as high as Barkley, then that's when I would've taken one.

My point was to joeinpa that if Barkley becomes a successful player, how the hell can it be classified as a terrible mistake to select him?
Because even if that happens and even if we win 2 SB championships, the year after Eli retires the most pressing thing will be that we had a chance to take a QB this year and failed to do it and thus made a horrific blunder.
If you assume Eli is done in 2019  
Wazzat : 5/10/2018 9:38 am : link
after a bad 2018, then Darnold's Need factor is almost as high as Barkley's.
And since the QB Position factor is much higher than RB, offsetting the slightly higher Need factor,
Then it boils down to Barkley's much higher Performance factor and slightly higher Need Factor v Darnold offsetting higher Poition Factor.
I can still see the rationale for a higher overall Draft tier score for Barkley even in the scenario that Eli is done.
Poition = Position  
Wazzat : 5/10/2018 9:40 am : link
.
Ok first  
joeinpa : 5/10/2018 9:40 am : link
You guys realize it s only my opinion, right.

Secondly, if the Giants don t win a Super Bowl with the guys we have now, and one of the three quarterbacks becomes a star, I think it will have been a colossal mistake.

By the way, Bob Papa shared a similar point of view yesterday on Sirius yesterday, I had that view prior to hearing him speak.

Seems like some of you who wanted Barkley, don t like the standard I ve set for evaluating the decision in the draft.

I think it s fair, but that s me
Obviously  
crick n NC : 5/10/2018 9:42 am : link
The Giants did not feel that any of thes QBs were special. From the Giants POV it wasn't a good year to take a QB high. Only time will tell if they were right.
RE: FMIC  
BestFeature : 5/10/2018 9:48 am : link
In comment 13960059 joeinpa said:
Quote:
In your scenerio if the quarterbacks aren't franchise guys like an Eli, then it s was a goo le move for Giants.

Guess I should have been more specific. If any of those quarterbacks turn out to be an Eli, Rivers or Rithlisberger, bad mistake by Giants


But there will be other drafts. Drafting Barkley won't preclude us from getting a possible franchise guy on a different draft or maybe we got one in Webb or Lauletta.
Bill L re blunders  
Wazzat : 5/10/2018 10:00 am : link
A blunder is when you make a bad decision. A bad decision is when you choose a lower risk adjusted expected value instead of a higher one.
A bad actual outcome does not make a good decision into a bad one.

For example: let's assume you had a choice of betting $1000 at one of two roulette tables. Table A gives you 1/20 odds of winning while Table B gives 1/5 odds. You choose Table B and lose. Was that a blunder? No.
One thing that strikes me funny sort of  
eli4life : 5/10/2018 10:02 am : link
Is if you take a guy and miss you are doomed for years. With the rookie pay scale you have a bad year or two start over and move on. Granted at the top of the draft they make a little more but it’s like everyone forgot how it used to be top pick was getting 100 mil +. Now that set teams back for years
Forgot to mention  
Wazzat : 5/10/2018 10:09 am : link
Both Tables pay $10,000 if you win.
I preferred Darnold at #2  
JonC : 5/10/2018 10:09 am : link
but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.


RE: I preferred Darnold at #2  
jcn56 : 5/10/2018 10:17 am : link
In comment 13960134 JonC said:
Quote:
but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.



I'm OK with that, but taking comfort from a 3rd and a 4th round pick being liked by the Giants as a potential future starter at QB seems misplaced.

Maybe it's just me, maybe I carry the name Mike Cherry around for too long, or I remember that they picked Dave Brown in the first round. Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB, aside from drafting high enough to pick Rivers (and trade for Eli) just does not allow me to believe the Giants are planning for this accordingly.
RE: RE: I preferred Darnold at #2  
JonC : 5/10/2018 10:22 am : link
In comment 13960146 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13960134 JonC said:


Quote:


but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.





I'm OK with that, but taking comfort from a 3rd and a 4th round pick being liked by the Giants as a potential future starter at QB seems misplaced.

Maybe it's just me, maybe I carry the name Mike Cherry around for too long, or I remember that they picked Dave Brown in the first round. Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB, aside from drafting high enough to pick Rivers (and trade for Eli) just does not allow me to believe the Giants are planning for this accordingly.


I'm not settling on them either, but it suggests they didn't feel the new prospects were worth the extra investment and bypassing the best prospect in the draft at the same time.

Drafting the future QB at #2 looks like the right strategy on paper, but if the talent isn't actually there ... then go where the talent is.
Gettleman made it very easy on himself. He loved Barkley  
Jimmy Googs : 5/10/2018 10:27 am : link
and nobody convinced him the QBs were a better pick.

Is there more to it?
RE: RE: I preferred Darnold at #2  
ron mexico : 5/10/2018 10:34 am : link
In comment 13960146 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Something about the Giants inability to set themselves at QB


Inability to set themselves at QB?

Aside from 4 or so years after Simms, this team has had a good to great quarterback for the past 35 years.

The vast majority of teams in the league would sign up for Simms/Hoss -> Collins -> Manning

Side note, Collins doesn't get the love he deserves here. Never got us a ring and not a HOFer but he was a gamer and tough as nails
RE: Not drafting a quarterback  
Coach Red Beaulieu : 5/10/2018 10:46 am : link
In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys.

I ve stated my opinion before, but:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions


Stupid argument is stupid. DG can't draft all 3 QBs. What if Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph wins the SB, you have teh 31 brain dead moronic front offices derp!
If Lauletta and/or Rudolph Become Franchise QBs,  
clatterbuck : 5/10/2018 12:16 pm : link
Did teams that traded up to draft Qbs in first round made made mistakes of historical proportions?
RE: So if..  
giants#1 : 5/10/2018 12:20 pm : link
In comment 13960062 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
one turns out to be Rivers with very good seasons, but no titles, even if barkley is an excellent back, it was a terrible mistake?

Not following the logic.


That's because the logic is ridiculous. If Barkley turns out to be Faulk and the best of the QBs (Mayfield aside) turn out to be Rivers (great regular season stats, no SBs), then the Giants made the right choice.

Now, if one of the QBs turn out to be Eli/Big Ben and win a couple SBs while Barkley is *just* Tiki, then it was the wrong decision.
RE: I preferred Darnold at #2  
Go Terps : 5/10/2018 12:26 pm : link
In comment 13960134 JonC said:
Quote:
but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.



Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.
Terps  
JonC : 5/10/2018 12:29 pm : link
The NFL has spoken tho and every QB other than Mayfield was there for the Giants to pick, and they stuck with the prospect rumored to be their #1 player since early March. Rosen fell, Allen would've fallen if the Bills hadn't moved up, and it seems the NFL didn't love the QBs in the way the pundits thought. The pundits and fans overrated the QBs, imv, myself included with regards to Darnold.
RE: Not drafting a quarterback  
Knee of Theismann : 5/10/2018 12:32 pm : link
In comment 13959993 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Because it is an inexact science has not stopped NFL teams from drafting franchise guys.

I ve stated my opinion before, but:

If Giants don t win a Super Bowl with Eli before he is done, or fail to win a Super Bowl(s) with Webb or Lauletta, while any of Darnold, Allen or Rosen become franchise guys; it will be a Giants blunder of historic proportions


God you are such a drama queen. Even if Darnold or Allen or Rosen win a super bowl that never would have guaranteed the Giants would have won one with that guy. If Saquon turns out to be a bust or just average or just a “situational back” like Reggie Bush then yeah the Giants fucked it up, if he turns out to be a perennial all-pro then it was a great pick regardless of what the QBs go on to do. It’s as simple as that, just like any other draft pick, the stakes are simply a bit higher because we had the #2 pick.

And what about when Bradley Chubb wins a super bowl with Denver, as the leader of that defense, but Barkley doesn’t win a super bowl but still has a great career... that would also be a blunder of historic proportions.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.
So if 1 of the top 4 selected QB's becomes a franchise guy,  
PatersonPlank : 5/10/2018 12:37 pm : link
and Barkley becomes the next Faulk, Thurman THomas, or Bell, it was a waste? You do realize that this means 3 out of the 4 QB's were busts. How do you know we would have picked that one and not the other 75%? We don't get all 4 you know.
RE: RE: I preferred Darnold at #2  
Knee of Theismann : 5/10/2018 12:37 pm : link
In comment 13960284 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 13960134 JonC said:


Quote:


but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.





Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.


Wrong. I can easily find you like 20 of the most respected draft sources who had Barkley rated #1 and I don’t even have to look hard. Maybe it wasn’t consensus in the sense that it was every single person but it was the majority of people and everyone agrees on that.

Why do you think the Browns wanted to trade 2 2nd round picks to live up 2 damn spots? Barkley was the most coveted player in the draft but Dorsey knew he couldn’t fuck up choosing the QB he wanted, everyone knew that.
RE: RE: I preferred Darnold at #2  
Bill L : 5/10/2018 12:38 pm : link
In comment 13960284 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 13960134 JonC said:


Quote:


but you don't force the QB, especially if your conviction in another prospect is sky high.

It also suggests they like their own QBs enough to put the effort and belief behind them.

Not securing a QB at #2 in this draft was not their one and only chance to supply Eli's successor. Let's not overrate the prospects.





Let's also not underrate them either. I think stating that Barkley was clearly the top prospect is a case of revisionist history from those that want to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt. Gettleman may have graded Barkley higher, but that was not the consensus view.
As long as consensus doesn't mean unanimous and as long as rating means talent/ability, I'm pretty sure it was. At least a my recollection of services and publications was that it was.
Move up  
Knee of Theismann : 5/10/2018 12:38 pm : link
***
ha  
giantfan2000 : 5/10/2018 1:11 pm : link
I am sure the Oakland Raiders thought the same thing about lack of QB talent in 2004 draft
that is why the passed on Phillip Rivers andBen Roethlisberger and drafted Robert Gallery
Knee of T  
joeinpa : 5/10/2018 2:59 pm : link
Little sensitive there pal.

RE: Terps  
Go Terps : 5/10/2018 3:00 pm : link
In comment 13960288 JonC said:
Quote:
The NFL has spoken tho and every QB other than Mayfield was there for the Giants to pick, and they stuck with the prospect rumored to be their #1 player since early March. Rosen fell, Allen would've fallen if the Bills hadn't moved up, and it seems the NFL didn't love the QBs in the way the pundits thought. The pundits and fans overrated the QBs, imv, myself included with regards to Darnold.


I wonder how much of that could be attributed to circumstance though. Many of the teams picking in the top 10 (Cleveland's #4 pick, Indy, SF, Chicago) weren't going to pick a QB. The one that surprised a bit was Denver, but I could see the appeal of pairing Chubb with Miller.

In the next two years (presumably Eli's remaining time here) it is unlikely we'll have a shot to draft a QB prospect as good as Darnold. Not impossible, but pretty unlikely. As a result, the long term picture for the team hinges on a couple questions:

1. Will our coaches be able to develop Webb and/or Lauletta into a viable NFL starting QB?

2. What will be the approach to team building as we enter the post-Eli era?
Shurmur reportedly pounded the table for Lauletta  
JonC : 5/10/2018 3:39 pm : link
and we've seen his previous work with Foles, Keenum, etc, hopefully he's got a solid read on his QBs.
Pages: 1 2 | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner