Originally Posted by Fat Elvis
The article doesn't treat Geno as a plain-vanilla generic player. The article looks at #1 overall picks. Period. Geno isn't part of the equation in terms of the article. Geno is only part of the equation in this discussion because we have been talking about taking Geno with that first pick and talking as though it is a franchise saving move. Crush is proof positive of this when he gives examples of "franchise quarterbacks."
We aren't talking about first round talent; we are talking about the first pick. Typically, you aren't going to get a player that Crush describes, you are going to get a Brad Johnson type of player. A player that everyone says isn't a franchise QB.
This is simply a matter of stripping out the emotion.
Yes, I know the article doesn't specifically discuss Geno Smith, but it treats draft pick slots as generic players and talks about value of that pick in terms of previous statistics instead of the individual attributes of that particular prospect. I'm not criticizing the article, I actually think it's very good. I'm pointing out that it has the same predictive flaw that those who use the draft position of prior super bowl winning QBs to make a case for "trying" by taking a QB in the first round (or with the first pick) in a particular draft.
It's probably pretty good for predicting results on average over a long period, but it's not so good for predicting results of a specific pick. For example, if the 1.1 pick is used on a QB this year, it's pretty unlikely that they'll end up with a QB whose Career Approximate Value is extremely close to that of Brad Johnson (like +/- 1 or 2 points). Like someone else said, it's probably more like a bell curve distribution around BJ.
I'm not being critical of the article. I'm being critical of anyone who would try to misuse the article.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will