First vs. Best

[The Gipper]

Much ado has been made about the fact that the Browns likely have the chance now to take the first QB that will be available in the forthcoming draft and that the Browns should make hay with that opportunity.

But....in the words of Lee Corso "Not so Fast My Friends"....maybe taking the first QB in a draft does not often mean that you get the best QB in the draft.

Here is a list of each of the first drafted QB in each draft in the Common draft era: 1966 to current, along with what QB was actually the best QB taken in that draft. If it is one and the same, then there will be a # sign, in a few years it is debatable and I will note those:

 

1966 Randy Johnson #

1967 Steve Spurrier....vs. Bob Griese

1968 Greg Landry....Ken Stabler

1969 Greg Cook.....James Harris

1970 Terry Bradshaw #

1971 Jim Plunkett....Ken Anderson# (but also Archie Manning/Joe Theisman in mix)

1972 Jerry Tagge....Brian Sipe

1973 Bert Jones.....Dan Fouts

1974 Danny White#

1975 Steve Bartkowski....Steve Grogan

1976 Richard Todd#

1977 Steve Pisarkewiscz....Tommy Kramer

1978 Doug Williams

1979 Jack Thompson....Joe Montana

1980 Marc Wilson....Eric Hipple (actually about equal between two mediocre QBs)

1981 Rich Campbell....Neil Lomax

1982 Art Schlichter....Jim McMahon

1983 John Elway....vs. Dan Marino (Jim Kelly also close)?

1984 Bommer Esiason#

1985 Randall Cunningham# (but Kosar in Supp draft??)

1986 Jim Everett

1987 Vinny Testaverde.....vs. Rich Gannon (close matchup)

1988 Tom Tupa ...Chris Chandler

1989 Troy Aikman#

1990 Jeff George....Neil O'Donnell

1991 Dan McGwire.....Brett Favre

1992 David Klingler....Brad Johnson

1993 Drew Bledsoe#

1994 Heath Shuler....Gus Frerotte or Trent Dilfer

1995 Steve McNair#

1996 Tony Banks#

1997 Jim Drukenmiller....Jake Plummer

1998 Peyton Manning#

1999 Tim Couch....Donovan McNabb

2000 Chad Pennington.....Tom Brady

2001 Michael Vick.....Drew Brees

2002 David Carr....David Garrard

2003 Carson Palmer#

2004 Eli Manning....vs. Phillip Rivers or Ben R. debateable

2005 Alex Smith....Aaron Rodgers

2006 Vince Young....Jay Cutler

2007 Jamarcus Russell....Trent Edwards

2008 Matt Ryan# (or Joe Flacco?)

2009 Matt Stafford#

2010 Sam Bradford#

2011 Cam Newton

2012 Andrew Luck....Russell Wilson

2013 EJ Manuel...or Geno Smith (equally bad)

2014 Blake Bortles.....Teddy Twatwater...so far

2015 Jameis Winston# so far

 

Out of 50 years, only 19 times did the first QB taken in the draft turn out to be the best QB to come out of that draft. In 5 other years I think it is debateable (1971, 1980, 1987 2004, 2013) leaving at least 26 times where clearly the better QB was not the first QB taken.

So that means that, historically, we have a 38% to get the best QB in this draft, if we take one at #2 .

Food for thought.

Bold= HOF or certain HOF.

[calfoxwc]

no, it doesn't. But that is why the qb's you think are going to

be the guy....so often end up targeted very high in the draft.

 

Sometimes it's a lack of character, physical skills, leadership,

lack of football IQ, failure to mentally process the fluid action

after the snap very quickly...lack of loving the game...

 

The top notch candidates end up being in the first round, generally.

 

It's just that all things need to be considered. And if the right qb

happens to be there at the top of the first round, before any qb's are

taken....you take your qb.

[Guest]

2014 ... Don't forget about Derek Carr.

 

He already has 7,200 yards, 53 TDs and a Pro Bowl.

Zombo

[hoorta]

 

2014 ... Don't forget about Derek Carr.

 

He already has 7,200 yards, 53 TDs and a Pro Bowl.

Zombo

 

 

I had to fix one thing for Gip. Brady is a mortal lock for the HOF, and I'd put Brees as highly probable. Regardless where you pick in the first round- your odds of hitting on a quarterback are around 33%. We've busted three times @ #22, so it's our turn for a hit.

[The Gipper]

no, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't what?

 

But that is why the qb's you think are going to

be the guy....so often end up targeted very high in the draft.

 

Sometimes it's a lack of character, physical skills, leadership,

lack of football IQ, failure to mentally process the fluid action

after the snap very quickly...lack of loving the game...

 

The top notch candidates end up being in the first round, generally.

Sure....but as pointed out...a good chunk of them are not the first QB taken.

 

It's just that all things need to be considered. And if the right qb

happens to be there at the top of the first round, before any qb's are

taken....you take your qb.

Sure....but what you mean to say is: "you take the QB that you think will be the right one". That does not mean that in reality years later that they will have turned out to be the right one.

I bet the team that drafted Dan McGwire instead of Brett Favre thought they were getting "the right one". Turns out...ah....No, they didn't.

[The Gipper]

 

I had to fix one thing for Gip. Brady is a mortal lock for the HOF, and I'd put Brees as highly probable. Regardless where you pick in the first round- your odds of hitting on a quarterback are around 33%. We've busted three times @ #22, so it's our turn for a hit.

I guess I would have to go back and check....but in some instances, the first QB taken in a draft was not actually taken in round one.

And, of course, in any number of other cases the best QB in the draft was taken in rounds lower than the first round. Like a Brady, Montana etc. I would have to go back and check which rounds these "best" QBs were taken in. Many of the best were also first rounders....just not the first guy taken....like Donovan McNabb.

And sometimes even the undisputed first and Best Guy was not all that and a bag of chips....see Tony Banks , Sam Bradford. etc.

[Bob806]

 

2004 Eli Manning....vs. Phillip Rivers or Ben R. debateable

 

 

Out of 50 years, only 19 times did the first QB taken in the draft turn out to be the best QB to come out of that draft. In 5 other years I think it is debateable (1971, 1980, 1987 2004, 2013) leaving at least 26 times where clearly the better QB was not the first QB taken.

So that means that, historically, we have a 38% to get the best QB in this draft, if we take one at #2 .

Food for thought.

Bold= HOF or certain HOF.

Not debatable to me. Big Ben, as much as I and many loathe him, is superior to both.

[Flyin J]

your logic is flawed.

You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.

If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.

[The Gipper]

Not debatable to me. Big Ben, as much as I and many loathe him, is superior to both.

Phillip Rivers is actually, statistically the most productive of those 3 2004 QBs. But he is the one without titles. The other two have two each.....so they have that edge.

Of course....what would Rivers have done with the Steelers defenses over the years? Possibly just as good or better.

[The Gipper]

your logic is flawed.

I didn't apply any logic. I simply recited facts and statistics. If I had applied logic, I would have been right in the logic I applied.

You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.

If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.

 

I don't disagree with that at all. But it is still an historical statistical fact that the first QBs taken in all the previous drafts had only a 38% chance of being the best QB taken in that draft.

And don't be surprised if that happens again.

Its just a cautionary note.

[Flyin J]

 

 

your logic is flawed.

I didn't apply any logic. I simply recited facts and statistics. If I had applied logic, I would have been right in the logic I applied.

You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.

If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.

 

I don't disagree with that at all. But it is still an historical statistical fact that the first QBs taken in all the previous drafts had only a 38% chance of being the best QB taken in that draft.

And don't be surprised if that happens again.

Its just a cautionary note.

While duly noted as a cautionary tale, historical facts also say that the 1st QB taken has the best chance of being good, and has far more relevance.

[Bob806]

Phillip Rivers is actually, statistically the most productive of those 3 2004 QBs. But he is the one without titles. The other two have two each.....so they have that edge.

Of course....what would Rivers have done with the Steelers defenses over the years? Possibly just as good or better.

I guess I should elaborate.

 

I don't see Rivers or Eli escaping the hits Big Ben has taken, and extending the play. The guy is built to withstand a beating, and in his absence (games he hasn't started), Pitt suffers a tad (although Maddox filled in for him well in 2002).

 

You're correct on the Pitt D for the most part, as it's been stellar, especially early on in his career. The guy will be a 1st ballot HOFer, and maybe Eli as well. Rivers probably gets there in time.

[The Gipper]

While duly noted as a cautionary tale, historical facts also say that the 1st QB taken has the best chance of being good, and has far more relevance.

OK.....but, as noted....so many on here are saying..."If now instead of taking the dregs of the first round....like JMZ/Weeden/Quinn...we can now get the top prospect at QB because of our #2 position, ergo, we are going to get a great franchise QB!! Hallelujah, Glory Be, Va Va Voom"......well

yea, we are in a better position than we have been in the past with those guys......but our chances go up to having the franchise player we want from like 10-15% to 38%. Better, yes. A sure thing...by no means.

[Flyin J]

OK.....but, as noted....so many on here are saying..."If now instead of taking the dregs of the first round....like JMZ/Weeden/Quinn...we can now get the top prospect at QB because of our #2 position, ergo, we are going to get a great franchise QB!! Hallelujah, Glory Be, Va Va Voom"......well

yea, we are in a better position than we have been in the past with those guys......but our chances go up to having the franchise player we want from like 10-15% to 38%. Better, yes. A sure thing...by no means.

Haha well hopefully were all well aware theres no such thing as a sure thing.

[The Gipper]

Perhaps here is the point that some of you are trying to make:

 

The first QB drafted was the best 19 times in the last 50 years, by my count

 

The second QB drafted was the best 11 times in the last 50 years, by my count

 

The third QB drafted was the best 4 times in the last 50 years. Cutler, Grogan, Favre, Bridgewater.

 

The 4th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Stabler, Montana, Hipple

 

The 5th QB drafted was the best 2 times in the last 50 years....Garrard, O"donnel

 

The 6th QB drafted was the best 6 times in the last 50 years. (Wilson, edwards, Frerotte, Fouts, Anderson, and arguably Marino)

 

The 7th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Brady, Gannon, Harris

 

The 12th QB drafted was the best one time in the last 50 years.....Sipe

 

The 13th was the best drafted one time in the last 50 years....Brad Johnson

 

So, yes, getting the first QB is still best....but getting #2 is not far behind.

[Tour2ma]

your logic is flawed.

You ranked 1st QB against all other slots.

If you looked at the percentages of all slots (1st QB taken vs 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th etc.) Im sure 1st QB taken has by far the best percentage.

 

Yup... it's a "1st vs. The Field" exercise. Among many factors that render it useless. Does not mean it is uninteresting, however.

[Flyin J]

Perhaps here is the point that some of you are trying to make:

 

The first QB drafted was the best 19 times in the last 50 years, by my count

 

The second QB drafted was the best 11 times in the last 50 years, by my count

 

The third QB drafted was the best 4 times in the last 50 years. Cutler, Grogan, Favre, Bridgewater.

 

The 4th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Stabler, Montana, Hipple

 

The 5th QB drafted was the best 2 times in the last 50 years....Garrard, O"donnel

 

The 6th QB drafted was the best 6 times in the last 50 years. (Wilson, edwards, Frerotte, Fouts, Anderson, and arguably Marino)

 

The 7th QB drafted was the best 3 times in the last 50 years. Brady, Gannon, Harris

 

The 12th QB drafted was the best one time in the last 50 years.....Sipe

 

The 13th was the best drafted one time in the last 50 years....Brad Johnson

 

So, yes, getting the first QB is still best....but getting #2 is not far behind.

Looks to me your chances of getting the best almost double by taking the first, and quadruple over the third!

[darren15]

Bortles is better than Twatty

[Guest]

Bortles is better than Twatty

Carr is better than both.

 

Z

[darren15]

Carr is better than both.

 

Z

Debatable

[The Gipper]

 

Yup... it's a "1st vs. The Field" exercise. Among many factors that render it useless. Does not mean it is uninteresting, however.

Sure, there is no real practical use for this other than as I said....knowing that the first QB taken is more often than not not the best QB to come out of a particular draft.

I mean....if a team has the opportunity to take the top QB available, and if they need one....they should take him regardless of the above statistic. That team should not wait around and say "oh, we will wait to take the 2d QB in this draft because the first one taken has only a 38% chance of success". You take that QB if you want him.....provided that there is not a more talented prospect to take at another position that you need as well. Then, if you get that other more talented player you might be willing to take a chance on the 2d/3rd/6th QB taken

[The Gipper]

Carr is better than both.

 

Z

So far in their short careers the Transvestite has the better stats by just a bit. Of course it remains to be seen who will ultimately come out the best. Carr could be it....but my money would go with Bortles.

[Guest]

So far in their short careers the Transvestite has the better stats by just a bit. Of course it remains to be seen who will ultimately come out the best. Carr could be it....but my money would go with Bortles.

 

Not sure what you mean by better stats.

 

Carr is 698 completions 1,172 attempts 7,257 yards 53 TDs 25 Int

Bridgewater is 551 completions 841 attempts 6,150 yards 28 TDs 21 Ints

 

Carr has more yards, more yards per start, more yards per attempt, nearly twice as many TDs, lower int %, much lower sack % ...

 

The only meaningful stat that Bridgewater is better is completion percentage, which is easily attributable to the fact that plays a much more conservative game on a better team with the leagues 4th ranked running game (Raiders were 29th).

 

Zombo

[The Gipper]

 

Not sure what you mean by better stats.

 

Carr is 698 completions 1,172 attempts 7,257 yards 53 TDs 25 Int

Bridgewater is 551 completions 841 attempts 6,150 yards 28 TDs 21 Ints

 

Carr has more yards, more yards per start, more yards per attempt, nearly twice as many TDs, lower int %, much lower sack % ...

 

The only meaningful stat that Bridgewater is better is completion percentage, which is easily attributable to the fact that plays a much more conservative game on a better team with the leagues 4th ranked running game (Raiders were 29th).

 

Zombo

Bridgewater has a better CA....for what that's worth. But by all means I agree with you that if I were picking one of them now for the future I would take Carr over Bridgewater (and why is it that when you type Bridgewater now it comes out right instead of Twatwater?

This is actually one of those too soon to tell cases. Or too close to call cases. Arguable. But I think the basic concept of the first QB taken in a draft of having about a 35-40% chance of being the best QB in a draft still holds.

Though...in some cases it doesn't matter.

You would take either a John Elway #1 taken....or a Dan Marino #6 taken.

And you would want no part really of an EJ Manuel #1 taken or a Geno Smith #2 taken.

As someone said....this exercise is just interesting entertainment.

[The Gipper]

Let's apply this to another position: Wide Receiver. I will list the first WR taken in drafts (this time only going back to 1990), then the best WR taken in that draft....at their position....and compare. # means first WR taken was the best:

 

2015 Amari Cooper # so far

2014 Sammy Watkins....Odell Beckham, 3rd WR picked (or could be too soon to tell)

2013 Tavon Austin....D'Andre Hopkins, 2d pick

2012 Justin Blackmon...Alshon Jeffrey 7th pick

2011 AJ Green/Julio Jones#....These guys picked 1 and 2 have almost identical statistics

2010 Demaryious Thomas.....Antonio Brown 23rd pick WR picked

2009 Darius Heyward-Bey....Mike Wallace 11th

2008 Donnie Aubrey....DeSean Jackson 7th

2007 Calvin Johnson #

2006 SAntonio Holmes...Brandon Marshall 14th

2005 Braylon Edwards...Roddy White 6th

2004 Larry Fitzgerald#

2003 Charles Rogers...Andre Johnson 2d

2002 Donte Stallworth...Deion Branch 11th

2001 David Terrell....Reggie Wayne 6th

2000 Peter Warrick...Plaxico Burris 2d

1999 Tori Holt#

1998 Kevin Dyson....Randy Moss 2d

1997 Ike Hilliard ...Derek Mason 9th

1996 Keyshawn....Marvin Harrison/Terrelle Owens 6th and 12th

1995 Michael Westbrook...Joey Galloway 2d

1994 Charles Johnson....Isaac Bruce 6th

1993 Curtis Conway#

1992 Desmond Howard...Jimmy Smith

1991 Herman Moore#

1990 Alexander Wright....Terence Mathis 17th pick

 

Only 6-7 of the first WRs taken since 1990 turned out to be the best of their WR class. About 25%. This is worse than QBs.

So...perhaps there are a couple of lessons there for the Browns this season:

A. Taking a WR further down the list may not be all that bad

B. Never take a Michigan receiver as the first WR taken in a draft...Howard, Terrelle, Braylon all flunkies as first WR taken. At least Howard has some decent kick returning skills.

Also note: just because a WR (or QB or anyone else) taken first at their position may not turn out to be the best at their position in their draft class does not mean they are a bust.

Like Sammy Watkins, Demarious Thomas, Santonio Holmes, Keyshawn Johnson. All good...perhaps even outstanding players....just someone else surpassed them.

Though, also there have been plenty of outright busts at the 1st WR position: Charles Rogers, Justin Blackmon, Braylon imo, etc.

[Guest]

Bridgewater has a better CA....for what that's worth. But by all means I agree with you that if I were picking one of them now for the future I would take Carr over Bridgewater (and why is it that when you type Bridgewater now it comes out right instead of Twatwater?

This is actually one of those too soon to tell cases. Or too close to call cases. Arguable. But I think the basic concept of the first QB taken in a draft of having about a 35-40% chance of being the best QB in a draft still holds.

Though...in some cases it doesn't matter.

You would take either a John Elway #1 taken....or a Dan Marino #6 taken.

And you would want no part really of an EJ Manuel #1 taken or a Geno Smith #2 taken.

As someone said....this exercise is just interesting entertainment.

 

Ya, agreed on all.

 

If they redrafted it would probably go Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater with all of them going in the top half of the first round, Bortles and Carr Top 5 for sure.

 

The guy we took ahead of Bridgewater AND Carr would go undrafted.

 

We are Retard. At least we were Retard. Very Recently.

 

We could have stayed right where we were in that draft, no draft day trades and taken:

 

#4 Khalil Mack

#26 Derek Carr

and still had the pick for

#35 Joel Bitionio

 

Instead, we got Gilbert and Manziel, and the Raiders, who were slated one spot behind us, got Mack and Carr

 

Pro Bowlers Mack and Carr.

 

It is just criminal how we draft.

 

It deserves its own 30 for 30 just on our drafts the past five years. It is mind blowing.

 

Zombo

[The Gipper]

 

Ya, agreed on all.

 

If they redrafted it would probably go Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater with all of them going in the top half of the first round, Bortles and Carr Top 5 for sure.

 

The guy we took ahead of Bridgewater AND Carr would go undrafted.

 

We are Retard. At least we were Retard. Very Recently.

 

We could have stayed right where we were in that draft, no draft day trades and taken:

 

#4 Khalil Mack

#26 Derek Carr

and still had the pick for

#35 Joel Bitionio

 

Instead, we got Gilbert and Manziel, and the Raiders, who were slated one spot behind us, got Mack and Carr

 

Pro Bowlers Mack and Carr.

 

It is just criminal how we draft.

 

It deserves its own 30 for 30 just on our dafts the past five years. It is mind blowing.

 

Zombo

And what happened to Retard for Retard. Gettin's soft on us are you?

Or, do you think that since it appears the Browns are turning a new leaf, that you should do so as well.

For all we know, you are going to give Vagitron and the other Steeler fan vermin on here their real names back.

(err...wait....in the quoted part it does say Retard).

Still....do you want to turn that leaf.

(otherwise I agree with what you say)

[Guest]

And what happened to Retard for Retard. Gettin's soft on us are you?

Or, do you think that since it appears the Browns are turning a new leaf, that you should do so as well.

For all we know, you are going to give Vagitron and the other Steeler fan vermin on here their real names back.

(err...wait....in the quoted part it does say Retard).

Still....do you want to turn that leaf.

(otherwise I agree with what you say)

 

I haven't changed anything, when I type as an Admin those changes don't apply.

 

But it still should be Twatwater and Retard for the masses.

 

Z

[hoorta]

OK.....but, as noted....so many on here are saying..."If now instead of taking the dregs of the first round....like JMZ/Weeden/Quinn...we can now get the top prospect at QB because of our #2 position, ergo, we are going to get a great franchise QB!! Hallelujah, Glory Be, Va Va Voom"......well

yea, we are in a better position than we have been in the past with those guys......but our chances go up to having the franchise player we want from like 10-15% to 38%. Better, yes. A sure thing...by no means.

 

We'll see Gip if Hue & company view Wentz or Goff as franchise quarterbacks. Our odds are certainly better than reaching for guys like Weeden or Manziel. (I don't think Quinn had the flaws of the previous two, but I just had a strong gut feeling he was seriously going to bust) I like the fact if someone jumps to #1 overall to take a quarterback, we still get a top prospect if we have both of them rated equally.

[The Gipper]

 

We'll see Gip if Hue & company view Wentz or Goff as franchise quarterbacks. Our odds are certainly better than reaching for guys like Weeden or Manziel. (I don't think Quinn had the flaws of the previous two, but I just had a strong gut feeling he was seriously going to bust) I like the fact if someone jumps to #1 overall to take a quarterback, we still get a top prospect if we have both of them rated equally.

The Tits want a king's ransom they say to trade for the #1 pick. I heard on the radio that some teams are so hot on Goff that they might be willing to do that. Do you think that could happen?