I was curious what the count was of 1st round QBs, and 1st overall QBs since 2000.
1st round: 12x (2 Eli, 2 Peyton, 1 Stafford, 2 Mahomes, 1 Flaco, 1 Rodgers, 2 Ben, 1 Dilfer)
1st overall: 5x (2 Eli, 2 Peyton, 1 Stafford)
Brady was a once in a lifetime(s) occurrence, so his total doesn't hold that much weight.
Getting 1st overall and drafting a QB is not a franchise saver. It does not equal a Superbowl. Only 3 different QBs drafted 1st overall in the last 25 years have won a Super Bowl. More than that number of 1st overalls have either busted or were nowhere near a franchise saver. Only 1 of the QBs regarded as the best in the game today was taken 1st overall (Burrow).
The 1st overall production is less than impressive. 2 of the wins (Stafford w/ LAR, Peyton w/ Den) came in older age on a different team than the one that drafted them. Another 2 came from Eli, who we all love but let's be honest, his regular season stats are not what people point to when they think franchise saver. I'm not even sure he's going to make the Hall, though I think he should absolutely.
I'm seeing a lot of talk about taking advantage of a QB on a cheap entry contract. The overlap with DJ means it won't be "cheap" at the QB position regardless for a year or two. The team may not even be good by then, and they'll be coming off it shortly after. It won't be even close to a sure thing we know if they are even any good by then either. A lot of times it's tough to tell if a QB is good when the team is bad. Look at Bryce Young. Nobody knows if he's a good QB moving forward at all after this season, let alone a franchise altering one. Trevor Lawrence is another. Pretty unimpressive 3rd season. He's had some good moments, but franchise altering? Not seeing it personally.
The overarching point here is if the Giants get the 1st overall pick, I'm not so sure they should put all their eggs in that basket especially when we know what the offers will look like. The Bears just got 2 1sts, 2 2nds, and a high quality roster player at a skill position. If you want to build a team, I think that's probably the way to go. DJ may not be the answer, but it's solvable as we go, and trading down doesn't mean not drafting a quality QB...it doesn't even mean not drafting a QB in the 1st round this year or next.
Build a team.
I'd rather Jones not be the focal point of the conversation. It's pretty divisive. I get we have to mention him to some degree, but this is more about weighing the successes of 1st overall QBs over a long period of time versus the value of trading it. Like I said, trading != not picking a QB with one of the picks in the return if the QB quality is there
There is also math out there that confirms drafting in a higher draft position increases the chances you will get a better player
Put these two mathematical certainties together and you can devise a strategy for the top 2 picks of the draft. Pick a QB with a higher chance of landing a top 10 guy which results in a higher chance to go to and win a Super Bowl.
Teams who normally pick this high are usually bad, and they're usually bad because they don't have a QB. And it's why QBs are disproportionately taken at the top of the draft. Excellent QBs are linked to success.
Yeah more 1st overall QBs have busted then won a super bowl, but if you do that bust/super bowl analysis for every QB ever picked in the draft, I think you'll see that drafting a QB 1st overall gives you the best percentage of winning a super bowl compared to any other draft spot.
From 1970~1999 ten QBs were selected with the first pick overall - just over 3 each decade. All but 1 had successful NFL careers and 5 won Super Bowls.
From 2000-2019 fourteen QBs - 7 each decade - were drafted #1 overall. Far more busts and only 2 have won Super Bowls as yet. Teams started picking the best QB available, rather than the best player available. Many of those QBs probably should have gone much farther down.
Point is: you shouldn’t be afraid to draft a QB with the first pick. Just don’t do it because you’re desperate for a QB. Do it because he’s the really the best player.
If so, maybe we should cash in and trade down to the #2 pick and grab some extra assets, because we desperately need that. Als i think Maye looks like a rock solid QB himself.
Williams
Maye
Harrison
If you have the opportunity to draft your QB - you do it. It’s pretty simple.
if the 2000 draft were to happen again, knowing what we know now, who goes #1 overall? If you say anyone other than Brady you are be willfully ignorant.
When people draft QB's they are looking to draft the next Mahomes, Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Roethlisberger, etc. they are not trying to get the next Trent Dilfer.
The overwhelming evidence suggests you need to do that at the top of the first round.
Of course there are anomalies, but if you are a GM is your strategy to add the most important player on the team, the one you are betting your paycheck on, going to be to wait until later and hope a QB pans out because Brady was a 6th round comp pick or Drew Brees is 5' 10" and lasted to the 2nd round? No you are going to put your conviction behind the guy you believe in that gives your team the best chance to win and you take him the first chance you have or trade up to do it.
Having the #1 overall pick obviously does not guarantee that you will win a Super Bowl. You need a great team to win a Super Bowl - football is a team sport. But having the #1 pick does increase your chances of drafting a top QB and having a top QB radically increases your chances of winning a Super Bowl.
You can win a Super Bowl with a good QB, but I don't like your chances.
There is also math out there that confirms drafting in a higher draft position increases the chances you will get a better player
Put these two mathematical certainties together and you can devise a strategy for the top 2 picks of the draft. Pick a QB with a higher chance of landing a top 10 guy which results in a higher chance to go to and win a Super Bowl.
Teams who normally pick this high are usually bad, and they're usually bad because they don't have a QB. And it's why QBs are disproportionately taken at the top of the draft. Excellent QBs are linked to success.
Bingo
From 1970~1999 ten QBs were selected with the first pick overall - just over 3 each decade. All but 1 had successful NFL careers and 5 won Super Bowls.
From 2000-2019 fourteen QBs - 7 each decade - were drafted #1 overall. Far more busts and only 2 have won Super Bowls as yet. Teams started picking the best QB available, rather than the best player available. Many of those QBs probably should have gone much farther down.
Point is: you shouldn’t be afraid to draft a QB with the first pick. Just don’t do it because you’re desperate for a QB. Do it because he’s the really the best player.
I've posted in the past month that only 6 of 19 QBs taken no.1 overall since 1994 would have been considered top 5 (7 if you count Eli) in the league during their career. The jury is still out on Lawrence and Young. My point in saying that is that getting the no. 1 pick is a less than 33 percent chance of getting a franchise QB. If there are 3 QBs worthy of a top 10 pick, you are just as likely to get a franchise one if you take the second or third option.
Your numbers and mine seem to indicate teams have been forcing QB picks at no. 1. Ten were taken first from 1970 to 1999 (30 drafts), and 19 from 1994 to 2023 (also 30 drafts). But it's actually 19 in the last 26 drafts. Those results show the odds are not if you overvalue a QB just because you have the first pick.
I'm all for taking a QB, but if you think Williams, Maye and Daniels are going to be 3 of the first 4 picks and you have the no. 1 picks, then history and odds tell you to trade down to 3 or 4 and take the 3rd QB while adding more high picks either this year, next, or both.
I think they are saying do a better job scouting/projecting and make a better pick at #1.
There is nothing unique about the top pick other than you have your pick of players. IOW, pick 1 vs pick 3 is not going to indicate which QB has a better career. that is not how odds work. If you don't have a conviction on a specific player then a trade down a couple spots can be wise, if it's all the same to you as an organization, but saying you want to trade down to pick 2 or 3 to have a better chance at picking the franchise QB is not solid, math, logic, stats or odds.
Trading a "QB" pick reflects that so you get lots more back.
Whether you pick or trade is based on whether anyone will give you the value and whether you think the guy is truly "the guy". Said more simply, pick the guy unless someone offers you much more than you think he is worth.
OP's stats support the importance of the QB. From 2000-2019 the number of SB wins for the top non QB pick in the draft, in which he actually played is 3. Which is less than 5. And both numbers have zero statistical significance.
Myles Garrett, a really good/great player was picked first. His teams haven’t done anything. They did the pick-the-QB-in-round-2 thing that year and went 0-16.
Eric Fisher was an OL picked first overall. He had a solid but unspectacular 8 year career, most of which was not spent at LT where he was drafted.
I think they are saying do a better job scouting/projecting and make a better pick at #1.
There is nothing unique about the top pick other than you have your pick of players. IOW, pick 1 vs pick 3 is not going to indicate which QB has a better career. that is not how odds work. If you don't have a conviction on a specific player then a trade down a couple spots can be wise, if it's all the same to you as an organization, but saying you want to trade down to pick 2 or 3 to have a better chance at picking the franchise QB is not solid, math, logic, stats or odds.
I don’t even think the original question is posed in the correct way. A better question would be “ was there a QB worthy of the #1 pick in this draft?”
If you go all the way back to 1998, I only count 7-8 years when there wasn’t a legit #1. Out of those, only 4-5 times was there a QB actually taken #1.
The odds are obviously very much in your favor if you’re drafting #1 assuming you do a proper evaluation and don’t reach.
No one said it does.
1st over all gives you the *opportunity* to draft the guy you think is in best position to help the team without expending extra draft capital or having another team snake you.
That's the easy part.
The hard part is the scouting and interviews and all the other shit that the NYG have not done particularly well post Accorsi. The book on Schoen is still TBD in that regard.
But again, the reason for wanting to draft as high as possible is not to get a guarantee, that's foolish--it's to get the opportunity.
2013: Geno Smith, no other starters.
2014: Derek Carr, Jimmy Garropolo, Blake Bortles, Teddy Bridgewater and ten others you would struggle to remember the names of.
2015: Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota go #1 and #2. Neither cemented their position as long-term starting QB's, let alone justifying being the first two off the board.
No one said it does.
1st over all gives you the *opportunity* to draft the guy you think is in best position to help the team without expending extra draft capital or having another team snake you.
That's the easy part.
The hard part is the scouting and interviews and all the other shit that the NYG have not done particularly well post Accorsi. The book on Schoen is still TBD in that regard.
But again, the reason for wanting to draft as high as possible is not to get a guarantee, that's foolish--it's to get the opportunity.
Perfect answer. Should be pinned.
The weight of potentially passing on your top prospect at QB is a heavy and not to be taken lightly. But if Schoen's evaluations on next year's QB crop has the numbers very close then there is some merit to taking extra collateral (picks/players) and dropping down some. It would have to be a nice haul and only drop down a few spots.
No one said it does.
1st over all gives you the *opportunity* to draft the guy you think is in best position to help the team without expending extra draft capital or having another team snake you.
That's the easy part.
The hard part is the scouting and interviews and all the other shit that the NYG have not done particularly well post Accorsi. The book on Schoen is still TBD in that regard.
But again, the reason for wanting to draft as high as possible is not to get a guarantee, that's foolish--it's to get the opportunity.
Yep, all of this. The one corollary I would add: if for some reason Schoen looks at Williams and Maye and Daniels and McCarthy and says that he doesn't think any are The Guy, then he should trade down, ideally just a couple of spots, for a haul from someone who is convinced by one of those guys.
Ideally the story of the offseason is something like:
- The Giants have the #1 overall pick.
- The Giants are convinced Daniels is The Guy.
- They "know" the Bears (drafting at #2) are enamored with Caleb Williams.
- They swap with the Bears for a boatload of picks.
- They get Daniels.
That's the dream scenario IMO. But in the meantime... if they think that Williams is The Guy, they should take Williams. Jones shouldn't factor into the decision at all.
You just can't remove the data you don't like.
Based on that set the quarterbacks drafted 199th have a 30% chance of winning the Super Bowl, and quarterbacks drafted 1st have a 22% chance.
I know your intention was to apply logic and statistics to this argument, but you didn't. You made two points everybody already knows - a) picking a QB first overall does not guarantee you win a Superbowl; 2) high draft picks bust.
The point you never made was "taking X instead of a QB first overall has historically been more successful."
I truly want to hear everyone's thoughts on something I feel may a be a bit different. It's regarding the high draft pick but not necessarily the franchise QB (although I believe that would be my preference).
There are teams that seem to just run themselves professionally and seamlessly year after year. Kansas City, (hold your noses) Philadelphia, The Ravens. They don't always result in championships but are in the discussion every year. However, year after year they seem to put a successful product out. San Francisco?
What are (if any) recent examples of teams that historically pick in the top 10 and get out of the funk? I was trying to look at recent successful teams and their records and it is more challenging than I thought.
I guess Cincinnati and maybe too soon, the Texans are examples of getting out of the loser bracket. (This lends to hitting on the QB).
I understand the business and long term vision of "the tank" but I fear it is very difficult and dangerous to pull off.
Thanks in advance, guys. I really am curious of a franchise that has "the blueprint".
Teams like KC, Philly and Baltimore never really hit rock bottom because they typically draft well and are coached well. Detroit, although it is just a couple of years, is starting to show signs of doing that. Each has either a top tier QB, or a top tier Oline (or both).
The point is, the QB does not solve all problems, but imo they are the most critical piece. Those teams above all have their QB and outside of Philly, none have built the entire team first and then looked for the QB. That is not at all practical.
The QB is the most important piece, and the hardest piece to acquire. When you pick at the top of the draft like the Bengals and Texans, you need to find that guy.
Or it's an argument that you should draft a QB who has Archie Manning's Y chromosome.
Teams who normally pick this high are usually bad, and they're usually bad because they don't have a QB. And it's why QBs are disproportionately taken at the top of the draft.
They are not "usually bad because they don't have a QB". They are usually bad because they stink at talent evaluation.
I'm glad someone besides me has taken this on.
Paraphrasing Stalin about counting the votes: It doesn't matter much where you pick - it matters a lot who does the picking.
Quote:
You would stick with Jones another year?
Absolutely! He has the talent and skills to be a championship qb. Once the Giants fix their oline and defense you will see Jones is the answer. How owuld you like to be responsible for drafting the next Justin Fields, Kyler Murray, Mack Jones, Zack Wilson, JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf! Come on man, I have been a Giants fan since 1955 and have seen the trash the Giants brought in to play qb.
Just out of curiosity, how did you reach the conclusion that Daniel Jones can be a championship QB but Justin Fields and Kyler Murray do not?
Very curious about your methodology and evaluation process. I'm sure it's highly specific and detailed.
Quote:
You would stick with Jones another year?
Absolutely! He has the talent and skills to be a championship qb. Once the Giants fix their oline and defense you will see Jones is the answer. How owuld you like to be responsible for drafting the next Justin Fields, Kyler Murray, Mack Jones, Zack Wilson, JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf! Come on man, I have been a Giants fan since 1955 and have seen the trash the Giants brought in to play qb.
I would be with you if Jones did not have the injury history. I agree with you about OL. I am a fan since 1956.
Jones was rated as a 2nd round pick....if the Giants had not picked him, he would not have been a 1st rounder......doesn't count
Jones was rated as a 2nd round pick....if the Giants had not picked him, he would not have been a 1st rounder......doesn't count
Quote:
In comment 16290748 IchabodGiant said:
Quote:
You would stick with Jones another year?
Absolutely! He has the talent and skills to be a championship qb. Once the Giants fix their oline and defense you will see Jones is the answer. How owuld you like to be responsible for drafting the next Justin Fields, Kyler Murray, Mack Jones, Zack Wilson, JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf! Come on man, I have been a Giants fan since 1955 and have seen the trash the Giants brought in to play qb.
I would be with you if Jones did not have the injury history. I agree with you about OL. I am a fan since 1956.
If you have seen this guy post, you know his evaluation process begins and ends with "I am a huge Jones fan!"!
And if you are advocating to continue to build around Daniel Jones 6 seasons in with that contract and injuries, I can't take you seriously as a fan.
Quote:
sounds like a great argument to use a first overall pick on a qb. if we include mahomes and wentz and ben r it’s double the number. all picked in top 11. seems like a great case to use a high first round pick on a qb.
Or it's an argument that you should draft a QB who has Archie Manning's Y chromosome.
Get new material. Your foray into statistical analysis is a flop.
Quote:
Teams who normally pick this high are usually bad, and they're usually bad because they don't have a QB. And it's why QBs are disproportionately taken at the top of the draft.
They are not "usually bad because they don't have a QB". They are usually bad because they stink at talent evaluation.
I'm glad someone besides me has taken this on.
Paraphrasing Stalin about counting the votes: It doesn't matter much where you pick - it matters a lot who does the picking.
What matters about where you pick is the opportunity. It's not an auction; you can't just outbid the teams ahead of you no matter how strong your scouting skills.
Myles Garrett might win DPOY this year. Would it matter if the Giants had an even higher grade on him than the Browns did? Would it matter if the Giants' scouting process for Myles Garrett was absolutely airtight and they had nailed his projection perfectly? Would it matter if the Giants knew in advance that Garrett would be the second coming of Michael Strahan on their own roster?
No, it would not. Because Garrett went 1st overall to the Browns and no other teams had a chance to select him.
You could do the same thing with Peyton Manning (especially comparing him to Ryan Leaf, for example). And you could similarly do the same thing with every #1 overall pick at any position, regardless of whether they were a boom or bust pick. Because picking high is about the opportunity to select from as wide an assortment as possible. Scouting, evaluation, game theory, etc. all matter when it comes to executing those picks in the best possible way. But the opportunity itself is only achieved in one of three ways:
1) Suck badly enough to earn the highest picks possible.
2) Pay enough in assets (typically draft capital) to move up for the highest picks possible.
3) Get lucky enough to have the team(s) in front of you make mistakes with who they choose.
The Giants greatest player of all time, most would say, was Lawrence Taylor. I would agree. He was chosen #2 overall. The only reason why the Giants had a chance to pick him is because the Saints took George Rogers #1 overall. If the Saints had made the correct pick, and taken Taylor, it wouldn't matter how well the Giants had scouted LT. They simply could not have chosen Taylor if the Saints had picked him first.
That's the point. No matter how often you repeat this same mind-numbing post in however many different formats you choose to write it, it's still invalid.
Get new material.
Quote:
there is math out there that confirms having a top 10 QB increases your chance at winning a Super Bowl.
There is also math out there that confirms drafting in a higher draft position increases the chances you will get a better player
Put these two mathematical certainties together and you can devise a strategy for the top 2 picks of the draft. Pick a QB with a higher chance of landing a top 10 guy which results in a higher chance to go to and win a Super Bowl.
Teams who normally pick this high are usually bad, and they're usually bad because they don't have a QB. And it's why QBs are disproportionately taken at the top of the draft. Excellent QBs are linked to success.
Bingo
I'm a fan of your analysis. I think a game theory analysis would strongly suggest doubling down, maybe tripling down, on drafting QBs, until you find the answer.