QBs picked in the first two rounds 06-10....and their fates.
 

From Peter King.....



I think it wasn’t a good weekend for bonus baby quarterbacks, and not just ones named Tebow. Five quarterbacks picked in the top 50 of the last seven drafts were cut: Vince Young and Matt Leinart (2006), Brady Quinn (2007) and Tim Tebow and Jimmy Clausen (2010). Brian Billick says picking a quarterback is no better than a 50-50 proposition between success and failure. Let’s see, based on the five drafts between 2006 and 2010. (It’s too early to make definitive judgments on quarterbacks in the league for two or fewer years.) Let’s look at the quarterbacks picked in the top two rounds from 2006 to 2010, and their fate:

Of the 21 quarterbacks drafted in the top two rounds of these five drafts, six are solid starters, and eight are out of football.


Let’s now cut it down to first-rounders only. Billick, it turns out, is on the money. If you don’t count Sanchez as a starter—and I don’t see how you can term him a starter right now—six of the 12 first-round picks over a five-year period are starting in the league. So it’s still a crapshoot. Six players in the first two rounds of the ’11 draft will be opening-day starters, but let’s see if Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder, among others, can stand the test of time.


http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/02/kevin-...quarterback/4/

12 first round QBs and 5 legit starters. At less than 50% it is certainly no guarantee, but I still believe that is the best place to find a QB to win SuperBowls with.

The overall stats agree with you.

Only one had been to a Super Bowl let alone won it....

Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers have blocked a couple of the Gus on that list and there both first rounders.

Russell Wilson and Kaepernick could definitely skew the numbers the other way over the next ten years.

8% isn't the type of success rate I would bang the table over....

Yeah, it's better to not take the risk by picking one at all.

Only 4 of those on that list have won a playoff game..

When you find your franchise qb, you also tend to keep him for 8-10 years.

Also, its great fun to pick a stretch of substandard quarterbacks.

Heh, yes, that 5 year stretch was a particularly bad run of QBs.

I'm sure the success rate increases exponentially in the subsequent rounds. No sense in wasting an important 1st round pick on a QB.

WTF is wrong with you people; I swear some people on this board seriously do not know the difference between risk and sheer stupidity. I have yet to encounter a single poster who says "Do not pick a QB in round 1 at all costs." Yet, that is what you people twist in your minds as being said.

And yet the failure rate outside of the first 2 rounds is so much higher.

All draft prospects are a crap shoot. Some pan, some don't, some exceed expectations. But it is not like it is a random draw. Your ODDS of success are so much higher in the 1st round than in the 7th.

The article is sheer stupidity. YO BREAKING NEWS A 1ST ROUND QB ONLY HAS A 50% SUCCESS RATE.

Well no ****ing shit.

The only thing this article teaches is... you don't take a 1st rnd QB just to take one.. you take one that you genuinely like. Duh.

As we have been shown time and again, there will never be such a safe thing in the draft. Dorsey was supposedly the best and most nfl ready, now he is yesterdays news. Jake Long was no longer wanted by his team. Curry is now retired, the list goes on. One can always argue against taking a qb early, but you cannot argue no other position impacts a teams chances to win the superbowl more.

stupid article is stupid

How so? Most QBs drafted after the first round aren't drafted to be starters, are they? Aren't most QBs drafted after the first round drafted to backup a team's incumbent QB? If that is the expectation, how can you say they don't pan out? If a QB drafted after the first round overtakes the starter, then that is a pleasant surprise. Seriously, how many QBs drafted after the first round were drafted to be the starter for the team when they were drafted? The only one to potentially come to mind is Kaep. Wilson wasn't drafted to start; he was a surprise.

As most here know, you should never overreach in the draft for need. Teams do, and always will on QBs because its the most important position on the field. Your basically handcuffed for at least 3 years with a top 10 QB whether he's good or bad because of financial reasons. I believe JaMarcuss Russell got 3 years....and looks like Gabbert is getting 3.

Quarterbacks hit their prime at age 27/28. Basically the guys drafted 2006 and 2007 are there, 2008 is close.

Russell was before the new rookie salary scale. If anything, teams will be more willing to reach on QBs in the first round because if you swing and miss you aren't out $30m.

This last draft was incredibly weak at the QB position and only one QB was drafted in the first round, EJ Manual. We shall see how Manual pans out for the Bills but regardless, the Bills liked him and took him, even when all the "experts" said Manual was not first round talent.

basically, there aren't many "franchise" QB's in any decade. certainly not enough to go aound in the NFL.

not even close.

Completely absolutely lost in this discussion is the contribution of QB development. Rex Ryan couldn't get jack spit out of Andrew Luck. He would have ruined him.

I can't begin to imagine what Mike McCarthy or Mike Shanahan could have done with Matthew Stafford.

Cue the Rich Gannon article on QB development...

At least Rich Gannon understands the importance of superior QB development.

So just how many of those failed 50% 1st & 2nd round QBs were due to poor raw material or work ethic, vs INCOMPETENT QB development like Ryan or the Raiders?

I still remember Mike Singletary telling Alex Smith "Just do something. You have to do something". That is QB development? Give me a ****ing break.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The way former NFL quarterback and most valuable player Rich Gannon sees it, the development of quarterbacks in the league is seriously lacking. Says Gannon:

"I don't think we're doing a good enough job developing the quarterback position. Some teams do a much better job, with the Green Bay Packers being one of the best.

"There are situations in the league where the quarterback is struggling, and you say, "Who's coaching him?" It's, "Well, it's the guy who was the receivers coach two years ago, but we elevated him to the quarterback coach." Well, did he ever play the position? No. Did he ever coach the position? No. And that's part of the problem.

"I remember when I played in Kansas City in the off-season we had eight-page quarterback tests. First page would be an essay; second page: multiple choice; third page: fill in the blank; fourth, fifth, sixth pages would be protections, where you had to draw up a protection versus eight different fronts. Then there would be short-answer questions. Honestly, it was about a 45-minute test. It was unbelievable.

"There was some peer pressure to get a good score, because there were other quarterbacks in that room, and you didn't want to be the one to miss five or six questions on that test. Second, it allowed the coach to know who knew what and who didn't know what. What were your areas of strength, and what were the areas where you needed more work?

"Packers Coach Mike McCarthy coached the quarterbacks in Kansas City at the time, and he took those tests to another level.

"But I go in and ask some quarterbacks, "Who makes the calls at the line of scrimmage?" and it's like, "Oh, the center does that." I'm thinking, the center? He's in a three-point stance and he's got some nose tackle in front of him. He's bent over and can't even see the safeties.

50/50 is too risky for the Chiefs.

No, it is like how you never have enough quality starting pitchers in baseball. The talent of the top guys is just so high on the bell curve, they put the rest of the guys to shame. Just the way it is. There just aren't many who come in with the raw talent AND get the QB development AND the coaching AND the supporting cast.

Ahhhhh....yes...the ultimate question of our times......Does a highly picked QB bust because of lack of proper coaching/development.....or does he bust be because he just sucks?

if a team spends a high round pick on a QB and doesn't develop him, that has to be just about the dumbest, most incompetent franchise in the NFL. So, if the NYJ's never had a QB coach or an OC and a QB coach to spend time with Sanchize and coach him up and make sure he's mentally and physically prepared to play the position at a high level, then that's on the NYJets. On the flipside, if the NYJets did do all the can to develop Sanchize, if they did provide a competent QB coach and OC for Sanchize and they really spent time with him and he still sucks, then cut your losses and move on.

All 32 Quarterbacks As Their Team Name!

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/...team-name.html

Without a doubt, Jamarcus Russell was going to be a bust if Bill Walsh came back from the grave to coach him personally. But there are plenty of other promising prospects that were just ruined with inadequate development. Rushed into playing without a couple of years of solid coaching and a vet to mentor him. Some greats can learn on the fly and have the brilliant coaching to teach them on the fly. Some needed to sit and build a slower base before achieving greatness. Some were more self-taught and some had to be taught.

Nobody ever did a study on why top QB prospects busted out and who seemed to be to blame.

King is a drooling mother****er who believes that Pioli actually understands football. By the way, has that **** had to return his "Executive of the Year" awards in shame?

**** you, Scott Pioli. Crawl the **** out of KC any time now you worthless piece of mother****ing shit. I know that you're on this board, and we still all ****ing hate you.

Reread this post about 200 times before you go to bed. Because I know that you will.

Sure there are...for the teams that you know, actually try to find them and develop them.

Guys like Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson, Kaepernick, Brees, Brady and many others were all deemed "not good enough" for the Chiefs to draft at the time.

It's not a matter of "there simply aren't enough franchise quarterbacks. Waaaahhh waahhh."

It's a matter of some teams always look for the instant gratification, low ceiling and small window player (KC) and some teams understand that good things come to those that wait (75% of NFL teams)

Yup.

A lot of people have been arguing just that here on CP. That you keep taking a 1st round QB until you get it right, and some are still saying we should have taken Geno Smith at 1.1 even though no team thought he was worth a 1st. It seems like for some people getting a 1st round QB is the most important thing.

Look at all of the superbowl quarterbacks of recent history (last 15 years or so) and you will get depressed as you realize how many of them "weren't good enough" for the Chiefs to draft.

Hopefully, Bray works out...but the odds are firmly against that.

Why does no one ever do a study of "safe" 1st round RT's?

Hopefully, we'll never have to know that crushing feeling of picking a first round bust!/Lil'Chiefy

If you were to come back in two years and include 2011/2012, the number of legit starters would be much higher.

chiefs fans spend their off days coming up with reasons to not draft QB...


of course

i love how this fat **** left off 11,12 QBs, even if the sample is too small, the players have had such an obvious impact after 1 or 2 seasons it would have ruined his
"Fat Scott Pioli defense of shitty drafts offensive lineman and bust WRs over QBs" argument

Over the last ten years the league became a QB driven league. Mainly because of rules that protect the quarterback and rules that make life hard for CBs. In that time, there have been five Superbowl QBs that weren't taken in the first round. The whole first round QB thing is outdated imo. I think King's article is irrelevant.