I am a horrible, rotten excuse for a Redskins fan.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No offense, this seems like some of the logic that a few others on ES are having. Needless to say it's idiotic.


You actually have guys thinking you'll get a better draft pick the more you lose. Guess what? Just because you pick high, doesn't mean or guarantee that pick will ever pan out. Should I go down the list of top 5 QBs that have become bust? If there was a guarantee that we would score big on that draft pick then I could see the reasoning behind it. As it is though, the draft is a crap shoot. There are too many factors that are in play that determine whether a prospect fails at the next level. So why wish your team lose when there is so much uncertainty in a draft pick?

It's disheartening to see fans think they are looking at the "long run" of this franchise when they hope we lose out to secure a better draft pick. It's the current excuse they are using to justify wishing this team loses the remaining games. I would link you to some of the moronic ramblings, but stupidity is a disease that spreads unfortunately.

Every pick can fail. Higher picks just do so less than others.

The "violation of morals" argument against cheering for your team does have some credence. The argument that having a higher pick is not better than a lower pick has no credence. Between a 50% chance of "failing" and a 4% chance of making it, I'll take the 50%.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Every pick can fail. Higher picks just do so less than others.

The "violation of morals" argument against cheering for your team does have some credence. The argument that having a higher pick is not better than a lower pick has no credence. Between a 50% chance of "failing" and a 4% chance of failing, I'll take the 50%.

Yes but if that 4% chance of failing comes with a prolonged detriment factor it hurts exponentially more. Case in point, Oakland is just now recovering from Jamarcus Russell (see R. Leaf, A. Smith, etc). Had Russell been say a late first round draft pick with a 50% risk factor such as a campbell or ramsey, while the chance of failure is higher the brunt of such failure moving forward is significantly less of an impediment in recovering from said risk failure.

Therefore, I always go with value based decisions.

Albeit such risk factor analysis of award v. detriment for top 10 draft picks has been hedged with the new but yet to be applied slotting system.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Yes but if that 4% chance of failing comes with a prolonged detriment factor it hurts exponentially more. Case in point, Oakland is just now recovering from Jamarcus Russell (see R. Leaf, A. Smith, etc). Had Russell been say a late first round draft pick with a 50% risk factor such as a campbell or ramsey, while the chance of failure is higher the brunt of such failure moving forward is significantly less of an impediment in recovering from said risk failure.

Therefore, I always go with value based decisions.

Albeit such risk factor analysis of award v. detriment for top 10 draft picks has been hedged with the new but yet to be applied slotting system.

50% is for 1st round QBs. 4% is for QBs taken afterwards. These are estimates.
Russell is one of those 50% who fail. 4% failures are guys like Painter, Hoyer, John Beck.

Russell hurt them for three years, but his poor play is part of the reason why Darren McFadden and Rolondo McClain are on that team, both critical components on their respective side of the ball. For the GM making the pick, the only thing that might dissuade them from gambling like that on a QB is job security.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

50% is for 1st round QBs. 4% is for QBs taken afterwards. These are estimates.
Russell is one of those 50% who fail. 4% failures are guys like Painter, Hoyer, John Beck.

Russell hurt them for three years, but his poor play is part of the reason why Darren McFadden and Rolondo McClain are on that team, both critical components on their respective side of the ball. For the GM making the pick, the only thing that might dissuade them from gambling like that on a QB is job security.

Wouldnt Russell a 1st overall draft pick have a 4% risk of not being successful vs a late 1st round pick who would have a higher 50% chance of not being successful?

other than that, i agree 100%.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Wouldnt Russell a 1st overall draft pick have a 4% risk of not being successful vs a late 1st round pick who would have a higher 50% chance of not being successful?

other than that, i agree 100%.

Ack, I meant to say 4% chance of making it. My gaffes just keep on coming. Sorry about that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Every pick can fail. Higher picks just do so less than others. ... The argument that having a higher pick is not better than a lower pick has no credence. Between a 50% chance of "failing" and a 4% chance of failing, I'll take the 50%.

The problem is that it is not a 50% success rate v. a 4% success rate. Here are all the QB’s chosen in the first rounds since 2005 (I originally had the first 3 rounds but since the allegation is higher in the first round = higher success and consider it a given that we will be picking a QB in the first round, I only included these QB’s):

2011:
Cam Newton 1(1)
Jake Locker 1(8)
Blaine Gabbert 1(10)
Christian Ponder 1(12)

2010:
Bradford 1(1)
Tebow 1(25)

2009:
Stafford 1(1)
Sanchez 1(5)
Freeman 1(17)

2008:
M. Ryan 1(3)
Flacco 1(18)

2007:
JaMarcus Russell 1(1)
B. Quinn 1(22)

2006:
Vince Young 1(3)
Matt Leinart 1(10)
Jay Cutler 1(11)

2005
Alex Smith 1(1)
Aaron Rodgers 1(24)
Jason Campbell 1(25)

I’ll concede that Newton is a Keeper if we can concede that we really can’t make a call on Locker or Ponder but that Gabbert has been underwhelming and will probably be an average at best kinda guy.

With that said, of the QB’s pick in the top 10 we are left with Newton, Bradford, Stafford, Ryan (all of whom appear to be keepers), Sanchez (Nope), JaMarcus (uhhh….) Young, Lienart (Nope) Smith (I think he goes in the failed category b/c he would not last that long with this franchise) and Gabbert (maybe). So its less than that’s a 50% pass rate. With the washouts (Russell, Lienart, Young) being pretty epic.

Outside the top 10 we have Tebow, Freeman, Flacco, Quinn, Cutler, Rodgers & Campbell. Of these, only Quinn was a complete bust. The rest are starters of varying quality (and Tebow – not sure what to call him).

Looking at the top 5 QB's of those chosen in the 1st rounder, I would rate them as follows:
Rodgers (not top 5)
Ryan (top 5)
Cutler (not top 5)
Stafford (top 5)
Cam Newton (top 5)

Of the worst:
Russell (top 5)
Young (top 5)
Lienart (not top 5)
Quinn (not top 5)
Campbell (not top 5)

So the best of the best (Rogers) was a Not Top 5’er and the worst of the worst (Russell) was a Top 5’er.

All this shows to me, as NC_Skins is saying, is that the draft is a crap shoot. Given the odds, you aren’t significantly improving your chances by tanking.

Do your best, build a culture of hard work and “never say die” attitudes and you give a rookie a chance. Create a culture of losing and you will be doomed to the culture you create.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem is that it is not a 50% success rate v. a 4% success rate. Here are all the QB’s chosen in the first rounds since 2005 (I originally had the first 3 rounds but since the allegation is higher in the first round = higher success and consider it a given that we will be picking a QB in the first round, I only included these QB’s):

2011:
Cam Newton 1(1)
Jake Locker 1(8)
Blaine Gabbert 1(10)
Christian Ponder 1(12)

2010:
Bradford 1(1)
Tebow 1(25)

2009:
Stafford 1(1)
Sanchez 1(5)
Freeman 1(17)

2008:
M. Ryan 1(3)
Flacco 1(18)

2007:
JaMarcus Russell 1(1)
B. Quinn 1(22)

2006:
Vince Young 1(3)
Matt Leinart 1(10)
Jay Cutler 1(11)

2005
Alex Smith 1(1)
Aaron Rodgers 1(24)
Jason Campbell 1(25)

I’ll concede that Newton is a Keeper if we can concede that we really can’t make a call on Locker or Ponder but that Gabbert has been underwhelming and will probably be an average at best kinda guy.

With that said, of the QB’s pick in the top 10 we are left with Newton, Bradford, Stafford, Ryan (all of whom appear to be keepers), Sanchez (Nope), JaMarcus (uhhh….) Young, Lienart (Nope) Smith (I think he goes in the failed category b/c he would not last that long with this franchise) and Gabbert (maybe). So its less than that’s a 50% pass rate. With the washouts (Russell, Lienart, Young) being pretty epic.

Outside the top 10 we have Tebow, Freeman, Flacco, Quinn, Cutler, Rodgers & Campbell. Of these, only Quinn was a complete bust. The rest are starters of varying quality (and Tebow – not sure what to call him).

Looking at the top 5 QB's of those chosen in the 1st rounder, I would rate them as follows:
Rodgers (not top 5)
Ryan (top 5)
Cutler (not top 5)
Stafford (top 5)
Cam Newton (top 5)

Of the worst:
Russell (top 5)
Young (top 5)
Lienart (not top 5)
Quinn (not top 5)
Campbell (not top 5)

So the best of the best (Rogers) was a Not Top 5’er and the worst of the worst (Russell) was a Top 5’er.

All this shows to me, as NC_Skins is saying, is that the draft is a crap shoot. Given the odds, you aren’t significantly improving your chances by tanking.

Do your best, build a culture of hard work and “never say die” attitudes and you give a rookie a chance. Create a culture of losing and you will be doomed to the culture you create.

I notice you cut off the year before 2004...include it and I'd say its 50%. Include top third of the draft hits vs misses and not top third hits vs misses. The higher up you go, the vast more chances you have of success.

I'd say even if it was a 30% hit ratio (which I believe it to be much higher), it is still roughly 8 times more likely to hit than any other qb taken in any other round. Don't split hairs, its clear that the far and away best chance of getting a quality qb is to pick as early as possible. We can pray for an undrafted tom brady, but I wouldn't bank on it, I'd lay my bed with a top pick.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem is that it is not a 50% success rate v. a 4% success rate. Here are all the QB’s chosen in the first rounds since 2005 (I originally had the first 3 rounds but since the allegation is higher in the first round = higher success and consider it a given that we will be picking a QB in the first round, I only included these QB’s):

All this shows to me, as NC_Skins is saying, is that the draft is a crap shoot. Given the odds, you aren’t significantly improving your chances by tanking.

Do your best, build a culture of hard work and “never say die” attitudes and you give a rookie a chance. Create a culture of losing and you will be doomed to the culture you create.

It is my fault for tossing out a concrete number and not specifying a range. 33% to 45% is still pretty good.
Imo, 11th is still a high pick. Hence, I'd bunch Cutler with the group Leinart is in.

What if we add a few more drafted QBs to look at though...

In 2004
1st Eli
4th Rivers
11th Roethlisberger
22nd Losman

In 2003
1st Carson Palmer
7th Leftwich
19th Boller
22nd Grossman

In 2002
1st Carr
3rd Harrington
32nd Ramsey

In 2001
1st Vick

In 2000
18th Chad Pennington

There are 8 more "high" picks to add to the ten you have mentioned. 4 hits and 4 duds, assuming Vick is considered a dud. This would increase the percentage from 40% to ~44%

There are 5 "lower" picks to add to the seven you have mentioned. All of them not franchise material. Your percentages for lower round guys plummets to 50%, 42%, or 33% depending on whether Tebow and Campbell are considered studs or not.

And yes, if we included 1999, the success percentage for "high" QBs decreases big time. At the same time though, very few late 1st round QBs were taken in the 90s, and those that were taken did very little of consequence.