| hometeam |
01-07-2013 08:06 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990
(Post 9293863)
You can find franchise QBs in the lower rounds....Montana, Brady, Russell Wilson.
|
Russel Wilson remains to be seen if he is a true franchise QB. Montana and Brady are the exceptions, not the rule. Brady was pure fluke, as far as where he was drafted to what he became.
The rule is that franchise QBs come in the first round, most in the top side of rd1 if not #1 overall.
Sure there are misses.
This is from 2009 but it still illustrates my point. In fact you could argue since 09 the balance is skewed more to QB favor...
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftqu...ckriskmyth.php
Quote:
Quarterbacks:
There were 29 quarterbacks selected in the top 16 of the NFL Draft since 1993...
Hits: 13
Busts: 12
OK: 2
TBA: 2
Defensive Tackles:
There were 33 defensive tackles selected in the top 16 of the NFL Draft since 1993...
Hits: 15
Busts: 15
OK: 2
TBA: 1
Now, let's look at the hit and bust rates for each position:
Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Defensive Tackle Hit Rate: 46.9%
Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%
Defensive Tackle Bust Rate: 46.9%
|
So what does this really show? Its a close hit/bust rate on QBs? Yes. But pay attention. 50% Hit rate, thats a good QB. You have a 50% shot at a franchise guy. TAKE IT. Don't be stupid Clark! Quit being a pussy and go for the gold~
edit - another nice tidbit.
Quote:
It's a small sample size, but the disparity is even larger in the top five. In that area, only one defensive tackle has panned out of five opportunities, whereas five of 10 quarterbacks have been "hits," and only four of 10 quarterbacks have been busts.
Considering how important the quarterback is in relation to the defensive tackle, if a team is deciding between the two positions, the "risk" factor should not sway them away from taking a signal-caller. In fact, it's actually riskier to take a defensive tackle.
***
One more thing - I wanted to see how these two positions translated into winning and losing on the football field. I took all of the "hit" players listed in the two tables, and looked up how their initial franchise fared while they were on the roster:
Hit Quarterback Original Team Record: 828-593 (.583)
Hit Quarterback Average Years on Original Team: 6.9
Hit Quarterback Average Playoff Years on Original Team: 3.8
Hit Defensive Tackle Original Team Record: 966-745 (.565)
Hit Defensive Tackle Average Years on Original Team: 6.4
Hit Defensive Tackle Average Playoff Years on Original Team: 3.1
No one should be shocked that teams with hit quarterbacks were more successful than teams with hit defensive tackles. I actually thought there would be more of a disparity until I realized that the numbers are skewed; after all, did the Patriots win three Super Bowls because of Richard Seymour and Ty Warren (two of the hit defensive tackles that affected these numbers), or because of Tom Brady? Brady is the correct answer just in case you have Bucky Brooks Syndrome and inexplicably hate quarterbacks.
At any rate, I'm going to look into the hit and bust rates of the other positions soon. But with all of these facts and numbers in mind, hopefully the notion of taking a quarterback won't be seen as risky too much longer. In fact, the real risk is passing up on a franchise quarterback.
|
|
So, how do you guys react if the Walrus waits to pick a QB until later rounds
(https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268599)