Drafting Quarterbacks

by 3nS on Mar 16, 2010 11:32 AM MDT

I've been doing research the last few days on the Quarterbacks of 2009 that threw for more than 1000 yards. I've found some interesting trends. The trend that I thought I'd use for this post is Quarterbacks that have a rating over 90 and when and what round they were drafted.

In my research there is an anomaly his name is Matt Moore. He is a 2007 CFA of Carolina that 1053 yards and had a QB rating of 98.5. I leave him out in my discussion because he disrupts the trend set by the other 34 Quarterbacks that threw for at least 1000 yards in 2009.

Now that is out of the way lets discuss the other 11 players that had a rating of +90. Of those players 6 were drafted in the 1st round, 2 in the 2nd, 1 in the 3rd and 1 was a CFA. Only 1 Player, Aaron Rodgers, came into the league after 2004 and he came in 2005. This tells me that it takes about 4 years of development for a QB to become a top 10 QB in QB rating.

So I wondered about quarterbacks drafted between 2000 and 2004 and if how many were starters on their teams and how many were backups and how what rounds they were selected.

In those 5 years these are the amount of picks and how many starters and how many backups. I know this would be better in graph form but I'm still a little computer illiterate.

Round 1: 13 selected 4 starters 4 backups

Round 2: 3 selected 1 starter 0 backups.

Round 3: 7 selected 1 starter 2 backups

Round 4: 7 selected 1 starter 3 backups

Round 5: 13 selected 0 starter 2 backups

Round 6: 17 selected 2 starter 2 backups

Round 7: 11 selected 0 starter 0 backups

CFA: 1 starter 2 backups

What does this all mean? You tell me what it means to you?

I'd say it is a risk anytime a team drafts a QB.

Orton is progressing nicely his QB rating is next after these 11 and Flacco. He has less experience than all with a higher QB rating except foe Flacco and equal with Rodgers,who had the privilege of backing up Favre for 3 years while he developed.

Brady Quinn based on his 1st round selection has an equal chance of being a starter, a backup, or out of football in 3 years.

Brandstater must be an exception to the rule for 6th round picks but it is possible.

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

3nS

Interesting post.

Seems to indicate that, as a general rule of thumb, the more you invest in a field general, the more likely he is to be a successful team leader. Similarly, the later you draft a QB, the more likely it is that you will have to settle for him being a backup (case in point – John Elway and Gary Kubiak!). There are always exceptions of course, but for the most part, the most scrutinized position on the field can be the easiest and the most difficult to assess, so I’m not sure that there’s a formula out there that can be determined. The perfect example of this is Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. Who knew their careers would diverge at such an extreme rate, despite the evidence presented by their collegiate careers?? I’m sure there are others out there who are more qualified to comment on your hypothesis though. The post comes from a different angle, so thanks!

by MileHighMan on Mar 16, 2010 1:26 PM MDT reply actions

Or even Lienart for that reason...But he might get a chance yet to redeem himself.

by bfree2bronc on Mar 16, 2010 2:52 PM MDT up reply actions

Nice to see you 3nS and Brian Shrout presented a similar post about a month ago.

We all know how risky it is drafting quarterbacks in the early rounds and Brady is the exception of the rule, being drafted in the 6th and winning 3 SuperBowls is a risky assumption, but it happened. Much can be said by the way he was brought into the game with development and great instruction. That leaves me the equation of quarterbacks that should be starters on a good team who aren’t. The uncertainty of their training leaves the doubt of them ever being successful in this league. Going back to the Brady Quinn issue and his development over at Cleveland, did he have proper instruction to develop? Was his team a high calibre, high offense output team? Did they ever in the last decade or two win a SuperBowl or in fact, did they make the playoffs at all? I tend to believe that there are quarterback who have been swept through the cracks of mediocracy and they will never enjoy the spotlight. Quinn now has a chance to reward himself with the instruction he will receive and how he uses it will be up to him, i.e., show me what you got junior.

I’m not very big on stats in a situation like this because it can never portray the truth, in fact it leaves a lot for the imagination of what should of been or could have been. But with all of that said, there are some prospects that a team just can’t afford to pass on and their future depends on their decision making at the time. A glaring example is the Rams of this draft. They hold the first pick and they are in a conundrum of making a right decision or a wrong one. Do they pull the trigger on the most accurate passer coming out of college this year, Sam Bradford or do they (because of where Spagnuolo comes from) P all over themselves for Suh? That’s a question that they will have to work out amongst themselves, but I know what I would do and it would of been announced way before now. Sam Bradford. That;s about the only hope for a fledgling team that has so many gapping holes and if they don’t do it now and Bradford turns into a superstar Brady/Manning type then they will pay the consequiences

by bfree2bronc on Mar 16, 2010 2:51 PM MDT reply actions

Agree

I view Stats as a way to see trends not as proof for or against. True in the confines of any profession, there will be those who fall into cracks and those who are given chances that don’t deserve it. I am interested in seeing how Quinn turns out. from the trends that I’ve seen I much rather spend 2 future low round picks on Quinn than to draft someone after the 1st round.

If I was St. Louis I would pick Bradford. I think Rodgers is an example of taking a player in the first round and developing him over a couple years. It was intersting of the 35 players that threw for a 1000 yards 3 of them were rookie first round picks and those 3 along with Russell and Delhomme had the worst passer ratings.

So in St Louis case playing Bradford his first year will be less productive than Bulger. Bulger IMO is a capable QB but will never be an elite QB. So take Bradford and train him a year or two behind Bulger will be in the best interest of player and team. Year 3 you should have an elite or close to elite qb.

... if you have a belief, you will tend to find things that support it. But if you have a prejudice, you’ll move heaven and earth to maintain it. BroncoBear

by 3nS on Mar 16, 2010 3:34 PM MDT up reply actions