QB Success Rate

Those picking #1 that trade up and their success rate vs not trading up.

Also picks 2-10 arent that bad for hit on payoffs/pro bowls.

Go back 25 years and go through and see how many number 1 draft picks (at QB) won the Super Bowl for the team that drafted them.

That we shouldn't ever draft a QB? That because we aren't guaranteed to get a franchise QB we shouldn't try?

There is no one on earth who is saying that if we draft a QB in the 1st or 2nd he is definitely, 100% going to work out. You can't say that about literally any position, in any sport in any round, ever. Hell, we already have a QB on the roster who we took in the first round who isn't a franchise guy. We also took a WR in the first round a few years ago who is not a starting NFL wide receiver. Does that mean we should forgo drafting WRs from now on?

What you can guarantee though is that if you don't draft a QB and take that risk, you won't get a franchise guy.

QBs are hard to find, period. It's even harder to determine how good that QB once he's in the pros if the team he plays for has sore spots all along the offense and to some extent even on defense. Yes you need the balls of steel QB and you need the QB who can make the throws against the league's best during the toughest moments in the game, but you can struggle to identity those "clutch" traits when the team sucks balls.

This isn't a DJ reference. This is any QB. Any team. An time. Any era. Period. It's the NFL where the team concept is more pronounced than any other pro sport.

let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year.

In comment 16394142 JonC said:

Quote:

let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year.

Essentially, what is being sold here is that we aren't going to get more of a "sure thing" than Jones, so it doesn't make sense to risk taking a non-sure thing.

Buckle up. More #8 will eventually be great. Just be a little more patient.

In comment 16394163 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 16394142 JonC said: Quote: let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year. Essentially, what is being sold here is that we aren't going to get more of a "sure thing" than Jones, so it doesn't make sense to risk taking a non-sure thing. Buckle up. More #8 will eventually be great. Just be a little more patient.

Danny Breadsticks!

Is that the Giants can be successful if they draft a QB in the later rounds.

They don't need to trade up (at a huge cost) for one of the "top 3" and they don't need to spend the #6 pick on a QB with later-round talent.

There is a lot of angst on this site generated from the belief that the Giants cannot succeed if they don't land one of those "top" kids. There is plenty of historical evidence that indicates such angst isn't necessary.

Bob very rational and hard to argue.

In comment 16394170 Bob in VA said:

Quote:

Is that the Giants can be successful if they draft a QB in the later rounds. They don't need to trade up (at a huge cost) for one of the "top 3" and they don't need to spend the #6 pick on a QB with later-round talent. There is a lot of angst on this site generated from the belief that the Giants cannot succeed if they don't land one of those "top" kids. There is plenty of historical evidence that indicates such angst isn't necessary.

Where in this article does it mention later round QBs? It doesn't, at all. If you can show that later round QBs have similar hit rates as mid first round QBs, that would be a logical conclusion, but that's just not at all what the article states. The fact is that its really fucking hard to find a good QB. It gets harder the later in the draft you pick one. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a QB in the later rounds, but no one drafts a QB in 3rd or later expecting that guy will be a franchise guy.

Your argument was basically "This article says first round QBs aren't guaranteed to hit, so lets take a guy who has even less likely chance to hit."

Its like saying pocket Kings doesn't guarantee you a win in poker, so you shouldn't be heavy when you get them, but you should bet on a 3 9 off-suit because sometimes you'll luck into 3 of a kind.

In comment 16394202 Blue The Dog said:

Quote:

Where in this article does it mention later round QBs? It doesn't, at all. If you can show that later round QBs have similar hit rates as mid first round QBs, that would be a logical conclusion, but that's just not at all what the article states. The fact is that its really fucking hard to find a good QB. It gets harder the later in the draft you pick one. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a QB in the later rounds, but no one drafts a QB in 3rd or later expecting that guy will be a franchise guy. Your argument was basically "This article says first round QBs aren't guaranteed to hit, so lets take a guy who has even less likely chance to hit." Its like saying pocket Kings doesn't guarantee you a win in poker, so you shouldn't be heavy when you get them, but you should bet on a 3 9 off-suit because sometimes you'll luck into 3 of a kind.

Easy there big fella - - I wasn't quoting the article at all. I said "a takeaway", which means there can be a broad range of conclusions drawn from the information the article provides. My perspective lands on that range somewhere.

In comment 16394163 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 16394142 JonC said: Quote: let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year. Essentially, what is being sold here is that we aren't going to get more of a "sure thing" than Jones, so it doesn't make sense to risk taking a non-sure thing. Buckle up. More #8 will eventually be great. Just be a little more patient.

I don't think so. If they have conviction on a guy, than do what you need to get him. If they don't have conviction on a guy being better, than what's the point in taking them?

It comes down to good scouting, good coaching, surrounding the QB with good players, and putting him into the right system.

The reason so many QBs fail is not always for the reasons people think. There are an extremely rare number of people on the planet with the level of talent that they can simply walk onto any one of the 32 teams and regardless of the situation be assured success. You have to get a good guy, and then you still have to appropriately develop him and successfully build around him.

NYG needs to identify their guy, go get him, and then do a lot of things right from there. I don't care where the guy is drafted, to be honest. But it needs to be someone they are confident in, and someone they have a plan for. If we need to get our guy a #1 wideout at 6, and Oline next and can still get our guy with the other round 2, so be it. If we need to use the #6 pick to get him, or use that pick elsewhere and then package picks to deal back into round 1, that's fine too. I don't care how we do it. Just get the guy we want and make smart choices to surround him with talent.

In comment 16394142 JonC said:

Quote:

let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year.

So you are not in favor of being informed of decades long trends? You must be awesome at your job....

4,000 yard season
30 TD season
80 starts

They are all indicators of season long successful play. The bar chart shows these similar

More arbitrary categories:
playoff win - Daniel Jones has one - it was lightning in a bottle, aside from that - the bottle is half empty of flat beer
pro bowl - arbitrary voting process & could be an injury fill-in

needs 21 to get to 80 . . . I would not bet on it (at least on NY)

on a QB is not a science and it’s not. Giants need to take every opportunity they can to hit on one and need to learn when to move on and try again when it’s clear they aren’t the answer.

If something is not guaranteed to work, don't try it. The failure you know is much better than the failure you may suffer.

In comment 16394317 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

If something is not guaranteed to work, don't try it. The failure you know is much better than the failure you may suffer.

Crushing it today Mike!

that predicted that Josh Allen would be a failure because his completion percentage.

You might as well say that if you want a QB, get one who is at least 6' 2" tall. Has as much validity.

In comment 16394286 4xchamps said:

Quote:

In comment 16394142 JonC said: Quote: let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year. So you are not in favor of being informed of decades long trends? You must be awesome at your job....

I would say those trends are soft. Each draft and the allocation of talent is completely independent of the prior(s).

And so much of a QB's success will hinge on coaching, the GM, and the overall infrastructure of the team. And those are very dynamic factor depending on the timing.

...ok, there may be a few exceptions, that would love it if the Giants didn't go QB and DJ had a top 3 season.

But while his tenure may have legitimately been hampered by a myriad of "things," the likelyhood of that happening has to be, at the very least, on par with the success rate of RD1 QBs in the draft.

OK, so the success rate of "new QBs is low...but, to borrow an old, but always relevant cliche, you miss 100% of the shots that you don't take.

If they like a QB who's availability presents itself to the Giants...take the damned shot!

In comment 16394344 bw in dc said:

Quote:

And so much of a QB's success will hinge on coaching, the GM, and the overall infrastructure of the team. And those are very dynamic factor depending on the timing.

Not to belabor the point, but isn't that kind of what we've been saying. Jones success, or lack of it, has been hugely tied to the fact that for all those 5 years the team around just hasn't been very good.

Have no idea what a soft trend is; trends are trends. Of course every year is different but I believe the point was made in response to those (and you may be one of them) who have rather cavalierly said that the Giants should just dump Jones, draft a guy and throw him out there. Easy-peasy! The reality is that QBs taken after #1 overall, and especially outside the top 10 have a very low success rate. In fact teams taking QBs even that low are seldom in immediate need of a starter; rather they see a guy they like and take him as a development type hoping that he might turn out to be the next Hurts, Russell Wilson or Prescott but understanding full well that they are far more likely to get Desmond Ridder, Christian Hackenburg or DeShone Kizer.

Understands the point of the article.

Schoen & Daboll are betting their Giants employment on Jones. They could both be gone at end of season if Jones isn't very good or injured. Drafting a QB will give them another year or two.

In comment 16394286 4xchamps said:

Quote:

In comment 16394142 JonC said: Quote: let's commit to Jones for another decade, there's nothing like mediocrity and more of it every year. So you are not in favor of being informed of decades long trends? You must be awesome at your job....

As a matter of fact, I am.

1) For any given year there is a higher probability that a franchise quarterback will be chosen after the first pick than with the first pick.
2) Your probability of success is not franchise quarterbacks chosen over all quarterbacks chosen or all first round quarterbacks chosen. It is over your narrowed down list of viable candidates. That is what you are picking from. You just need to do a good job evaluating talent. That goes for whether you pick first or last.

Over the last 30 years quarterbacks drafted that had a season of 4000 yards passing, 30 passing touchdowns, made the playoffs and the pro bowl separated by first pick or not first pick. First pick average 1 every 6 years. Other picks average 1 every 2.3 years.

But as the post above illustrates you can look at stats 100000 ways.

1. If you are picking first w no trade up is a different situation than just picking first.
2. If you’re passing on a true stud line MJH I want more than the 4000 yards and 30 TD personally. My standards of what a “franchise” QB is is a lot more stringent. Jones has won a playoff game. To me there nice but really? You need to do odd than that. And I’d take 28 TEs if the guy can run. But you need to lift burn team and players up.

Taking a QB at any cost this year seems short sighted. And if one falls to say 5 the Giants love on to trade up. But Trevor Lawrence would be by far the higher rated guy to f he were I this years draft and half this site thinks the guy is a bust. Better be right Schoen whatnot you do. But I don’t think over ever seen more irrational posts on this site than this year. 21 years and you guys who hate Jonesreally need another hobby. If they stick a him this site will be even more unreadable than it is now

In comment 16394476 gogiants said:

Quote:

1) For any given year there is a higher probability that a franchise quarterback will be chosen after the first pick than with the first pick. 2) Your probability of success is not franchise quarterbacks chosen over all quarterbacks chosen or all first round quarterbacks chosen. It is over your narrowed down list of viable candidates. That is what you are picking from. You just need to do a good job evaluating talent. That goes for whether you pick first or last. Over the last 30 years quarterbacks drafted that had a season of 4000 yards passing, 30 passing touchdowns, made the playoffs and the pro bowl separated by first pick or not first pick. First pick average 1 every 6 years. Other picks average 1 every 2.3 years.

Fun with figures. Of course there's a higher probability that a QB gets taken with a layer pick; there's only 1 first pick every year and 250 or so other picks.

Your math is also woozy! In fact in the past 30 years only 20 QBs have been selected first overall and have produced 14 of those special years. At the same time 350 QBs have been chosen with other picks and have produced 38 elite years. That means QBs picked 1st overall made up 5% of all QBs drafted but accounted for 27% of the elite years. It also means that on a per capita basis there were .7 elite years for every #1 QB versus only .1 for all others. (As an aside note it would be more interesting to compare QBs taken after #1 in the later 1st round and maybe 2nd because that would be the more relevant discussion for the Giants.)

starters from last year and where they were drafted to judge them as a success or not.

NYG- Jones (1st, No)

Dallas- Dak (4th, Yes)

Wash- Howell (2nd, Kinda too early, but he wasnt great and they are likely drafting his replacement

Philly- Hurts (2nd, yes)

Bears- Fields (1st, No)

Packers- Love (1st, no but that could change)

Lions- Goff (1st, yes)

Vikings- Cousins (3rd, yes)

Atlanta- Ridder )3rd, early, but prob not)

Carolina- Young (1st, really early, bit he did not look good last year... Neutral)

Tampa- Baker (1st, yes, assuming they re-sign Baker, he has been to the playoffs twice)

New Orleans- (2nd, No)

Seattle- Geno (2nd, Im going to say no as he has had nice seasons but has squat to show for it

Arizona- Murray (1st, yes)

Rams- Stafford (1st yes)

Niners- Purdy (7th, yes... Should be negated by missing on Lance but they made the right decision)

Pats- Mac (1st, No)

Phins- Tua (1st, Im going to say no)

Jets- Rodgers (1st, tech yes, but NO because of his injury so early and Wilson sucking so bad, neither have been a successful choice for the Jets)

Bills- Allen (1st, yes)

Steelers- Pickett (1st, no. Early, but so far, not good)

Browns- Watson (1st, no... Last successful season was 2019 for another team)

Bengals- Burrow (1st, yes)

Ravens- LJax (1st, yes)

Houston- Stroud (1st, yes, still early but MVP caliber season)

Colts- AR15 (1st, has to be neutral)

Jags- Lawrence (1st, Im going to say yes but 2/3 not good years is a concern. Hes still a good qb whom other teams covet)

Tenn- Levis (2nd, too early, he looked promising but team is in transition)

Raiders- Garropalo (2nd, no)

Chargers- Herbert (1st, yes)

Broncos- Wilson (3rd, yes... It was with another team, but he has been yremendously successful and started coming around last year before the wheels came off

KC- Mahomes (1st, yes)

11 are considered good QBs and helped their team, 7 have not lived up to their draft position (like Fields, Jones or Love) yet and 5 QBs drafted after the 1st have been quite successful for their teams.

So that 1st round bust rate is at 38% (which doesnt count Rodgers and omits Fields/Love because it jasnt happened for them YET... that number could be under 25%) and there is a 15% chance you would draft a successful QB in rounds 2+. The thing is when you draft a QB in the 1st, you pretty much are giving them a roster spot and expect him to start for 4 years. You can draft a late round QB every year and see what he's got in Camp.

I dont feel like going back at all the drafts to see which teams drafted the most QBs post 1stround, but you get the idea. Drafting a QB in the 2nd or later (trading back into the end of the first counts too) is a feadible way of nabbing a good player

Norman: One of the problems with those numbers is that they are somewhat skewed by the success rate for players taken first overall. There is almost no other way to say it but QBs taken after the first pick are just not a sure thing by a longshot.

Looking at the table got me thinking a bit. First, Rivers and Roethlsiberger the two guys we essentially passed on for Eli in 2004 had three of those years, Eli none. But them I looked at Eli's numbers and he actually had a number of 4,000-yard/30+ TD years but the Giants either had a losing record that or he didn't make the Pro Bowl (or whatever) which are either somewhat outside the control of the QB or very subjective.

I know we have moved on from the OL was the root of all are evils to Jones being the root of all are evils, but everything taken into account 2014 was arguably Eli's best year ever with 4,400 yards, 35TDs, just 14 picks (and 2015 wasn't far behind) which was right in the middle of the 'Eli's career allowed to go to pot because of the lousy OL' era but when he had a healthy elite receiver in Odell.

In comment 16394622 Snorkels said:

Quote:

Norman: One of the problems with those numbers is that they are somewhat skewed by the success rate for players taken first overall. There is almost no other way to say it but QBs taken after the first pick are just not a sure thing by a longshot.

Wyf does that even mean and5 wtf are you talking about? Of those first overall picks, only 3 jave gotten their team to the super bowl and of the 6 1 overalls only 2 have winning records on the postseason (Goff and Burrow).

This is also not including players picked one overall who were colossal failures for their teams. By my count, since 1999, 5 were monumental failures (Winston, Bradford, Carr, Russell and Couch), 7 were successes (Eli, Vick, Stafford, Luck, Burrow, Goff, Cam... If you want to sneak Palmer in there thats 8) and 4 were just middling (Baker, Kyler, Alex Smith, Carson Palmer)

How is it skewed? The point is over the last 20+ years the odds of a number 1 overall QB being a success is actually less likely thn to disappoint. Of the successes, 2 have won super bowls.

You made a vague challenge and its par for the course with your arguments