SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisWhere should you do your quarterback shopping?
Matt Schaub: Superstar was traded to Houston the other day for a price that I'd call high but not extravagant. That means we can expect to see David Carr on the move soon, with Minnesota, Miami, and Oakland being mentioned as possible destinations.
Everyone has draft on the brain right now and, as seems to be the case every year, there are a couple of quarterbacks who are being considered as potential first overall picks and who, barring something unforeseen, should go in the top ten. Both have their strong points, but both also have significant questions and, as usual, we're starting to hear the chorus of "drafting a quarterback with a top 10 pick is too expensive and too risky" from media and fans.
The three teams mentioned above --- the Vikings, Dolphins, and Raiders --- could conceivably be in position to draft either JaMarcus Russell or Brady Quinn this year. Or they could trade for David Carr on the cheap. Until a few days ago, they could also have traded for Matt Schaub.
I don't think anyone denies that your chances of winning a Super Bowl are drastically improved if you have a good quarterback. But where people differ is on how you go about acquiring one. If you're the Oakland Raiders, where are you most likely to find the quarterback on your next Super Bowl team?
- You could draft JaMarcus Russell or Brady Quinn - the risks here are well-documented: you're paying a lot of money for someone who could end up playing like Ryan Leaf or Akili Smith. What might even be worse than that is if you end up with a Joey Harrington or a David Carr (or an Alex Smith? or a Michael Vick???) who doesn't ever play particularly well, but shows enough flashes of competence that you end up hanging onto him for several years. On the other hand, lots of first overall picks do end up winning Super Bowls with the team that drafted them.
- You could have traded for Matt Schaub - this gets you someone who is slightly more proven than Russell or Quinn. And you pay slightly less money. But Rob Johnson and Scott Mitchell remind us that this strategy isn't bust-proof either. And it seems like your upside is more Hasselbeck/Delhomme/Brunell than Palmer/Aikman/Manning.
- You can trade for David Carr or some other relatively young and seemingly talented quarterback who might be resuscitated by a change of scenery. Pacifist Viking has been calling David Carr the next Jim Plunkett for months now. This is a cheap strategy but, Plunkett notwithstanding, it has a low probability of netting you the starter on your next Super Bowl contender.
- You can try to draft your own Matt Schaub in the middle rounds - the problem here is that, even if you do find that gem, you're looking at a minimum of two years before he's even your starter and you get to see what he's really capable of. For the record, here are the quarterbacks drafted in the 3rd and 4th round between 2000 and 2004: Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Chris Weinke, Sage Rosenfels, Jesse Palmer, Josh McCown, David Garrard, Rohan Davey, Dave Ragone, Chris Simms, Seneca Wallace, Matt Schaub, Luke McCown. This strategy could leave you spinning your wheels for a long time.
So what's it going to be? I fully understand the reluctance to hitch your wagon to JaMarcus Russell or Brady Quinn. I'm just not sure I see a better option.
This entry was posted on Friday, March 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 am and is filed under General, NFL Draft. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I think your point is perfectly valid. I have been looking at a related question. Yours is "when do draft or acquire a QB", mine is "if you don't take the QB early, and you take a different position, what are the outcomes."
Here is the data for QB's vs Offensive Lineman. So far, I also have RB and WR. I have looked at top 12 picks in the draft since 1978, and looked at the team's record the year before the pick was made, and the 5 years that followed.
Year N-1 is the year before the pick, Year N is the player's rookie year, etc.
The information provided is the # of qualifying teams, followed by overall winning percentage in the year in question, average wins in a 16 game schedule, number of qualifying teams who made the playoffs that year, and finally, the number of qualifying teams that advanced to at least a conference championship game.
QUARTERBACKS
Year N-1: 41 . . . 0.280 . . . 4.5 . . . 2 . . . 2
Year N : 41 . . . 0.371 . . . 5.9 . . . 4 . . . 1
Year N+1: 38 . . . 0.471 . . . 7.5 . . . 12 . . . 4
Year N+2: 37 . . . 0.480 . . . 7.7 . . . 12 . . . 2
Year N+3: 34 . . . 0.492 . . . 7.9 . . . 13 . . . 7
Year N+4: 32 . . . 0.486 . . . 7.8 . . . 10 . . . 4
OFFENSIVE LINEMEN
Year N-1: 49 . . . 0.362 . . . 5.8 . . . 2 . . . 0
Year N : 49 . . . 0.402 . . . 6.4 . . . 4 . . . 1
Year N+1: 48 . . . 0.404 . . . 6.5 . . . 7 . . . 3
Year N+2: 47 . . . 0.455 . . . 7.3 . . . 13 . . . 6
Year N+3: 47 . . . 0.472 . . . 7.6 . . . 17 . . . 3
Year N+4: 46 . . . 0.513 . . . 8.2 . . . 16 . . . 6
When compared to teams drafting offensive linemen, teams drafting quarterbacks were (1) worse on average the year before the pick was made, (2) still worse the player's rookie year, though neither performed well in terms of playoffs and the gap closed, and (3) better over the next 4 years in terms of winning percentage, playoff appearances, and championship game appearances.
I don't know if this is directly responsive to the question, but here's the drill.
Most of the starting QBs in this league are first round picks. Most of the truly outstanding QBs of the last 30 years have been guys taken pretty high in the first round. QBs taken first overall have a pretty good rate of return on Super Bowl appearances.
So, if I'm running a franchise, I try to build the defense and offensive line and get as many good players as I can and then I trade up for my QB.
The alternative can be decades of mediocrity. Look at the Jets....they're 6-10 or 10-6 or somewhere in between every year but they haven't been to the Super Bowl since 1969.
Mike Ditka took a load of crap for trading up for Ricky Williams, but I submit that if you've put the rest of your team together, a huge trade for a premium QB is probably a good thing for your franchise.
Thanks to p-f-r.com, I was able to quickly cook up a spreadsheet containing acquisition data on super bowl starting quarterbacks (winners and losers) going back to 1990. That's 17 SBs, so 34 QBs, as I counted repetitions.
What I found was that 13 of the 34 were acquired via trades. An asterisk is required because two of these were John Elway, who, of course, never played for the Colts.
Considering initial draft position, 18 of the 34 were drafted in the first round; 2 in the second, 3 in the third, 1 in the fourth, 0 in the fifth, and 6 in the sixth (a bit surprising). One was selected in the ninth round, and 3 others were undrafted.
As better than half of these quarterbacks were first round draftees, it appears that spending a high pick on a QB may be the best strategy -- pitfalls notwithstanding. It also appears that in the absence of outstanding addressable team needs, spending that sixth round pick on an overlooked QB might be a smart move.
I love the old post, but just for the comment thread.
(ok not just, but let's say "especially").
You forgot being really cheap and grabbing a guy like Drew Bledsoe
"As better than half of these quarterbacks were first round draftees, it appears that spending a high pick on a QB may be the best strategy"
Maybe the reason so many QBs that were taken in the first round got to the Super Bowl is that...
"Most of the starting QBs in this league are first round picks."
So, if all QBs were equally good, and most of the starters were taken in the first round, you would expect that most of the QBs in the Super Bowl would be first round picks.
If we want to find out what strategy is most likely to succeed, we need more than raw totals. We need the success rate for QBs taken in each round. If a QB taken in the first round didn't have a higher likelihood of success than a QB taken in a lower round, there would be no reason to take Russell or Quinn in the top ten.
Of course, drafting a QB in the first round does not make him a good QB. Of the 18 that were drafted in the first round, were they all drafted by the team that he took to the Super Bowl?
I think the problem comes in years when the QB talent in the draft is weak, but teams maybe force some QB's into the first round that shouldn't be there.
Here's another interesting thing. Since 1990, there have been 39 QB taken in the first round. Of those 39:
- 24 were drafted in the first 10 picks of the draft that year
- 29 were taken in the top half of the first round (top 16).
- I am classifying 16 as busts, 9 as good QB's and the jury is still out on 14.
The 10 QB's taken in the bottom half of the first round were:
Chad Pennington
Kyle Boller
J.P. Losman
Rex Grossman
Aaron Rodgers
Todd Marinovich
Jason Campbell
Tommy Maddox
Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
....not a great list of players.
From 1990 through 1997 only 13 QB's were drafted in the first round (less than 1 per draft). 1998 through 2006 there were 26 taken in the first round (nearly 3 per draft).
Here's my list of busts:
David Carr
Michael Vick
Tim Couch
Ryan Leaf
Rick Mirer
Joey Harrington
Akili Smith
Heath Shuler
David Klingler
Andre Ware
Cade McNown
Dan McGwire
Todd Marinovich
Tommy Maddox
Jim Druckenmiller
Patrick Ramsey
Good QB's:
Carson Palmer
Peyton Manning
Drew Bledsoe
Jeff George
Donovan McNabb
Steve McNair
Kerry Collins
Trent Dilfer
Ben Roethlisberger
Jury is out:
Alex D. Smith
Eli Manning
Vince Young
Philip Rivers
Byron Leftwich
Matt Leinart
Jay Cutler
Daunte Culpepper
Chad Pennington
Kyle Boller
J.P. Losman
Rex Grossman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell
Another option:
You could hire an expert - Say Ron Wolf - to help with your QB evaluation process, thereby improving your chances of getting a high quality QB regardless of which method you choose.
The more I think about it, the change in rate of QB's taken in the first round is very interesting:
1990-1997 - 8 drafts, 13 1st round QB's = .62 QB's per first round
1998-2006 - 9 drafts, 26 1st round QB's = 2.9 QB's per first round
That means lately QB's have been taken 4 times as often as they were a decade ago.
But the success rate hasn't changed. In the first period, 5 of the 13 QB's I am classifying as "good". In the second period, 4 of 12 QB's I am classifying as "good" and the jury is still out on 14.
For the guys that the jury is still out on, I think Eli Manning is leaning towards good. Leftwich is leaning towards bust. I really don't know what to think about Culpepper. Pennington is leaning towards good. Boller leaning towards bust. The others I just don't know what to think of.
How many high quality QB's did Wolf find? Stabler and Favre?
I'm wondering, rather than measure the QB's themselves, if it's possible to consider a mangement/coaching regimes performance in terms of evaluating QB sourcing?
Basically, every QB has to make the transition to the pro game and maybe it doesn't matter how high your pick is if your team is frankly awful at grooming QB talent (ahem, Oakland...)? So maybe it's possible to somehow factor in a "Succesful QB's groomed" modifier into each team's evaluation of its potential QB options? This would probably help expose teams that should probably go the cheap route and point out the ones who can better manage the risk of a high pick. For example, maybe a club with awful player development really is getting better value by going for a QB retread and bolstering other 'impact' positions.
Wolf also drafted Brunell, Detmer, Hasselbeck, and Aaron Brooks.
I think teams are better off taking the risk of the first-round QB. It seems like that's the best place to find a Pro Bowl, Super Bowl, franchise QB--even if there's a strong possibility of a bust.
I'm high on the Vikes acquiring David Carr because it seems so low-risk. They're so far under the cap that his salary means nothing to the team from a competitive standpoint. If he earns the starting job and performs well, great. If either Tarvaris Jackson or Brooks Bollinger outperform him and Carr is a backup, what is lost?
"I think teams are better off taking the risk of the first-round QB. It seems like that’s the best place to find a Pro Bowl, Super Bowl, franchise QB–even if there’s a strong possibility of a bust."
That does seem like a very sensible viewpoint, but consider this:
Of the last 8 Super Bowl winners, only two drafted their starting quarterback in the first five rounds of the draft:
-Ben Roethlisberger, 2005 Steelers (and I hear they had a decent defense, too)
-Peyton Manning, 2006 Colts (I'm pretty sure they didn't have a good defense)
The other six are:
-Kurt Warner, undrafted, 1999 Rams
-Trent Dilfer, 1st round draft pick by Buccaneers, 2000 Ravens (I think they might have had a decent defense, too)
-Tom Brady, 6th round, 2001, 2003, and 2004 Patriots (and they had pretty good defenses, too)
-Brad Johnson, 9th round draft pick by Vikings, 2002 Buccaneers (I hear his team also had a good defense. Funny pattern developing here.)
I guess my point is that unless you've already got a great defense, drafting a quarterback in the first round probably isn't your ticket to a Super Bowl win. Of course, it would be if you could find the next Peyton Manning...but just ask the Giants how that's working out for them.
If I am the Raiders:
I snag Johnson with the first and then grab BYU's John Beck at the top of the 2nd.
For any of you Pro Football Prospectus readers, there is a way to make sure the guy you get at the top of the draft will not be a colossal bust.
Simply, pay attention to college stats.
Draft highly touted prospects with lots of experience and a decent career completion percentage. Avoid the highly touted prospects who have less than 30 college starts or those guys who only have completed 55% for their careers.
Basically, if you are Oakland, don't draft JaMarcus Russell because he only has 29 career starts. Draft Brady Quinn because he has 46 career starts.
But back to the subject of the post, drafting a QB in the first round is the best way to go. As a GM, you don't have multiple years to hope to get lucky on mid round picks. Just make sure to pay attention to college experience and production so you don't end up drafting the next Akili Smith.
JaMarcus Russell is the answer.
#17: Right, and that's why taking Tom Brady at the top of the draft would have been a big mistake, because he only started 25 games in college. Maybe that's why he slipped to the 6th round.
Seriously, though, I do like the QB projection system, but it shouldn't be applied blindly. For instance, it has trouble distinguishing between truly great QBs and ones that are just a product of their team's offensive system. Also, it obviously won't help you find untouted QBs that are nonetheless likely to succeed in the NFL, like Brady (or even Joe Montana, who fell to the 3rd round of the draft).
To me the fascinating thing is the lack of success of QBs drafted in rounds two through five. How the heck does that happen?
There's a great study to be written on that topic, dang it.
#
Brad R. Says:
April 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
To me the fascinating thing is the lack of success of QBs drafted in rounds two through five. How the heck does that happen?
There's a great study to be written on that topic, dang it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's probably not the whole answer, but i suspect that teams that need a new franchise quarterback tend to draft one in the first round, meaning that many quarterbacks that are only 2nd-3rd round value get taken early. Conversely other teams don't need a starting quarterback and therefore won't spend early-mid round picks on a backup so 4-5th round value quarterbacks end up not getting taken til 6th round or later.
So it's not that 2-5th round quarterbacks aren't ever good, there's just fewer of them than there should be.
To expand the topic to acquiring players at all positions, My intuition tells me that a good strategy is to spend 1st-3rd round picks on defensive players and a few offensive standouts, then draft multiple QBs in later rounds, if after a few years you have a strong defense and some good receivers and backs, and none of your QBs have panned out, you can go all in on a 1st round QB, and even if you bust you'll still have a playoff contender.