What do these QBs have in common (1 Viewer)

Chase Stuart said:

This isn't really a trivia question, but here's a group of players. Perhaps some of you will figure out what they all have in common (and this is a trait that no other QB drafted since 1990 has):Carson PalmerDavid CarrAkili SmithTrent DilferMatt LeinartDan McGwireKyle BollerJ.P. LosmanTodd MarinovichAaron RodgersJohn BeckTony BanksTroy TaylorJonathan QuinnTrent EdwardsRob JohnsonSeneca WallacePerry KleinMark BrunellDave BarrSteve StenstromRandy FasaniJ.T. O'SullivanDrew HensonGino TorrettaCraig WhelihanJay WalkerTom BradyTodd HusakMatt CasselGibran HamdanMoses MorenoKen DorseyScott Covington

Click to expand...

Mister CIA said:

Chase Stuart said:

This isn't really a trivia question, but here's a group of players. Perhaps some of you will figure out what they all have in common (and this is a trait that no other QB drafted since 1990 has):Carson PalmerDavid CarrAkili SmithTrent DilferMatt LeinartDan McGwireKyle BollerJ.P. LosmanTodd MarinovichAaron RodgersJohn BeckTony BanksTroy TaylorJonathan QuinnTrent EdwardsRob JohnsonSeneca WallacePerry KleinMark BrunellDave BarrSteve StenstromRandy FasaniJ.T. O'SullivanDrew HensonGino TorrettaCraig WhelihanJay WalkerTom BradyTodd HusakMatt CasselGibran HamdanMoses MorenoKen DorseyScott Covington

Click to expand...

I did not check them all, but it does look like they all went to high school in California.

Click to expand...

Mister CIA said:

Here is a bonus football/geography question. The object is to compile the best trio ever (QB/RB/WR) all from one state - feel free to mix high school attended or university attended to get the best trio. What state do you pick?Here's a hint - Do not select Texas, Florida, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan.

Click to expand...

Mister CIA said:

Here is a bonus football/geography question. The object is to compile the best trio ever (QB/RB/WR) all from one state - feel free to mix high school attended or university attended to get the best trio. What state do you pick?Here's a hint - Do not select Texas, Florida, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan.

Click to expand...

mosesberg said:

Mister CIA said:

Chase Stuart said:

This isn't really a trivia question, but here's a group of players. Perhaps some of you will figure out what they all have in common (and this is a trait that no other QB drafted since 1990 has):Carson PalmerDavid CarrAkili SmithTrent DilferMatt LeinartDan McGwireKyle BollerJ.P. LosmanTodd MarinovichAaron RodgersJohn BeckTony BanksTroy TaylorJonathan QuinnTrent EdwardsRob JohnsonSeneca WallacePerry KleinMark BrunellDave BarrSteve StenstromRandy FasaniJ.T. O'SullivanDrew HensonGino TorrettaCraig WhelihanJay WalkerTom BradyTodd HusakMatt CasselGibran HamdanMoses MorenoKen DorseyScott Covington

Click to expand...

I did not check them all, but it does look like they all went to high school in California.

Click to expand...

Yep I think they all were born in California.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

mosesberg said:

Mister CIA said:

Chase Stuart said:

This isn't really a trivia question, but here's a group of players. Perhaps some of you will figure out what they all have in common (and this is a trait that no other QB drafted since 1990 has):Carson PalmerDavid CarrAkili SmithTrent DilferMatt LeinartDan McGwireKyle BollerJ.P. LosmanTodd MarinovichAaron RodgersJohn BeckTony BanksTroy TaylorJonathan QuinnTrent EdwardsRob JohnsonSeneca WallacePerry KleinMark BrunellDave BarrSteve StenstromRandy FasaniJ.T. O'SullivanDrew HensonGino TorrettaCraig WhelihanJay WalkerTom BradyTodd HusakMatt CasselGibran HamdanMoses MorenoKen DorseyScott Covington

Click to expand...

I did not check them all, but it does look like they all went to high school in California.

Click to expand...

Yep I think they all were born in California.

Click to expand...

They were all born in California.It seems to me that there's an extraordinarily high bust rate there. Cecil and Bloom alluded to this on the audible, which prompted me to look this up. Judging by the first 100 picks....everyone up to Rob Johnson.... I see 10 busts and 6, at best, in the "not yet boom or bust" or "neutral" category. I see no one that's outplayed his draft position.As far as the whole list, outside of Brady and Brunell, who has outplayed their draft position? There are 34 QBs on there, and Tony freakin Banks looks like the third biggest overachiever. Rob Johnson -- yes, that Rob Johnson -- looks like the other biggest "overachiever". Those sort of sound laughable, but look at the list.So what's up with CA QBs? Or is this just random variation in a relatively small sample size? (After all, I did consciously start the year after Troy Aikman was drafted.)

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Maybe this should be compared to a list from another state. Out of 34 guys, I wouldn't expect many more than the 2 legit franchise quarterbacks considering how rare those are. Then you have a few guys who managed to have several seasons as a starter (Dilfer, Banks, Brunell) and a few still with the opportunity to succeed (Leinart, Rodgers, Edwards). So that's 8 worthwhile QBs out of 34. Is that really horrible? What are the overall ratios of franchise QBs/total drafted, long-term starters/total drafted, and developing QBs/total drafted?

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

mosesberg said:

Mister CIA said:

Chase Stuart said:

This isn't really a trivia question, but here's a group of players. Perhaps some of you will figure out what they all have in common (and this is a trait that no other QB drafted since 1990 has):...Drew Henson

Click to expand...

I did not check them all, but it does look like they all went to high school in California.

Click to expand...

Yep I think they all were born in California.

Click to expand...

They were all born in California.It seems to me that there's an extraordinarily high bust rate there. Cecil and Bloom alluded to this on the audible, which prompted me to look this up. Judging by the first 100 picks....everyone up to Rob Johnson.... I see 10 busts and 6, at best, in the "not yet boom or bust" or "neutral" category. I see no one that's outplayed his draft position.As far as the whole list, outside of Brady and Brunell, who has outplayed their draft position? There are 34 QBs on there, and Tony freakin Banks looks like the third biggest overachiever. Rob Johnson -- yes, that Rob Johnson -- looks like the other biggest "overachiever". Those sort of sound laughable, but look at the list.So what's up with CA QBs? Or is this just random variation in a relatively small sample size? (After all, I did consciously start the year after Troy Aikman was drafted.)

Click to expand...

Jeff Tefertiller said:

I think Aikman is from Henryetta, OK.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Maybe this should be compared to a list from another state. Out of 34 guys, I wouldn't expect many more than the 2 legit franchise quarterbacks considering how rare those are. Then you have a few guys who managed to have several seasons as a starter (Dilfer, Banks, Brunell) and a few still with the opportunity to succeed (Leinart, Rodgers, Edwards). So that's 8 worthwhile QBs out of 34. Is that really horrible? What are the overall ratios of franchise QBs/total drafted, long-term starters/total drafted, and developing QBs/total drafted?

Click to expand...

Well I'm only focused on whether CA QBs fail to live up to their draft hype. So in that sense, 34 is a pretty significant number, and Dilfer is a bust, and Palmer is in the 'up in the air' category.

Click to expand...

wdcrob said:

Am I misunderstanding? Why wouldn't Brady be a massive overachiever?

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Maybe this should be compared to a list from another state. Out of 34 guys, I wouldn't expect many more than the 2 legit franchise quarterbacks considering how rare those are. Then you have a few guys who managed to have several seasons as a starter (Dilfer, Banks, Brunell) and a few still with the opportunity to succeed (Leinart, Rodgers, Edwards). So that's 8 worthwhile QBs out of 34. Is that really horrible? What are the overall ratios of franchise QBs/total drafted, long-term starters/total drafted, and developing QBs/total drafted?

Click to expand...

Well I'm only focused on whether CA QBs fail to live up to their draft hype. So in that sense, 34 is a pretty significant number, and Dilfer is a bust, and Palmer is in the 'up in the air' category.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but shouldn't you of all people know that you need to do some statistical analysis to test your hypothesis? We have no idea if the bust rate is actually higher than expected without looking deeper. I strongly disagree with Palmer being 'up in the air'. 2 Pro Bowls in a competitive AFC field, high completion %, high YPA, and low int % up until this past year, which was a disaster for the whole team. You might point to his winning %, but this is the Bengals we're talking about. They've been poorly run for nearly two decades. His defenses the last 4 years have been ranked 19th, 28th, 30th, and 27th. That's a far cry from the defenses many other franchise quarterbacks have enjoyed in recent years (Brady, both Mannings, Favre, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc.)

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Maybe this should be compared to a list from another state. Out of 34 guys, I wouldn't expect many more than the 2 legit franchise quarterbacks considering how rare those are. Then you have a few guys who managed to have several seasons as a starter (Dilfer, Banks, Brunell) and a few still with the opportunity to succeed (Leinart, Rodgers, Edwards). So that's 8 worthwhile QBs out of 34. Is that really horrible? What are the overall ratios of franchise QBs/total drafted, long-term starters/total drafted, and developing QBs/total drafted?

Click to expand...

Well I'm only focused on whether CA QBs fail to live up to their draft hype. So in that sense, 34 is a pretty significant number, and Dilfer is a bust, and Palmer is in the 'up in the air' category.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but shouldn't you of all people know that you need to do some statistical analysis to test your hypothesis? We have no idea if the bust rate is actually higher than expected without looking deeper. I strongly disagree with Palmer being 'up in the air'. 2 Pro Bowls in a competitive AFC field, high completion %, high YPA, and low int % up until this past year, which was a disaster for the whole team. You might point to his winning %, but this is the Bengals we're talking about. They've been poorly run for nearly two decades. His defenses the last 4 years have been ranked 19th, 28th, 30th, and 27th. That's a far cry from the defenses many other franchise quarterbacks have enjoyed in recent years (Brady, both Mannings, Favre, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc.)

Click to expand...

The default is the average player at that draft spot. So it's already built it when saying a player is a bust or not.I think the jury is still out on whether Palmer lives up to the expectations of a #1 pick.

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Maybe this should be compared to a list from another state. Out of 34 guys, I wouldn't expect many more than the 2 legit franchise quarterbacks considering how rare those are. Then you have a few guys who managed to have several seasons as a starter (Dilfer, Banks, Brunell) and a few still with the opportunity to succeed (Leinart, Rodgers, Edwards). So that's 8 worthwhile QBs out of 34. Is that really horrible? What are the overall ratios of franchise QBs/total drafted, long-term starters/total drafted, and developing QBs/total drafted?

Click to expand...

Well I'm only focused on whether CA QBs fail to live up to their draft hype. So in that sense, 34 is a pretty significant number, and Dilfer is a bust, and Palmer is in the 'up in the air' category.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but shouldn't you of all people know that you need to do some statistical analysis to test your hypothesis? We have no idea if the bust rate is actually higher than expected without looking deeper. I strongly disagree with Palmer being 'up in the air'. 2 Pro Bowls in a competitive AFC field, high completion %, high YPA, and low int % up until this past year, which was a disaster for the whole team. You might point to his winning %, but this is the Bengals we're talking about. They've been poorly run for nearly two decades. His defenses the last 4 years have been ranked 19th, 28th, 30th, and 27th. That's a far cry from the defenses many other franchise quarterbacks have enjoyed in recent years (Brady, both Mannings, Favre, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc.)

Click to expand...

The default is the average player at that draft spot. So it's already built it when saying a player is a bust or not.I think the jury is still out on whether Palmer lives up to the expectations of a #1 pick.

Click to expand...

Huh? I still don't see any analysis. You're just assuming that they are busting more than others at their spot. I'm not sure what else you can expect from Palmer. His numbers the last three years are only surpassed by a select few guys like Manning, Brady, and Brees. And besides, using your own yardstick of draft position he's vastly outperformed every other QB taken at the top spot since Peyton. That's Couch, Vick, Carr, Eli, Smith, and Russell. Only Eli has accomplished anything meaningful, but his seasonal numbers are well below Palmer's. So clearly Carson has outperformed 6 contemporaries taken at the same draft spot. How does that not meet your criteria?

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

... because we know a default group of 34 QBs will have 17 busts and 17 booms.

Click to expand...

GregR said:

Chase Stuart said:

... because we know a default group of 34 QBs will have 17 busts and 17 booms.

Click to expand...

The NFL drafts enough QBs to replace every starter and a few of the backups about every 3 years. Seeing that good QBs often are starters for a decade and won't be replaced that fast, I would expect 2/3 of QBs to not be worthwhile NFL players before I'd expect only 1/2 would be. That's even before I take issue with your use of boom or bust. You're relegating everyone who doesn't outperform his position to being a bust. What about guys who performed at the level of their position? Shouldn't this be a sizeable percentage? How is Carson Palmer a bust? At worst he's playing at a level that someone of his draft position should play. Most teams with the #1 overall pick if you told them they could have a rookie Carson Palmer with it, would jump at the opportunity. So how is that a bust if teams would take him there when they already know with hindsight what it is they would get?How is it that a 5th, 6th, or 7th round QB who was never expected to be an NFL starter is a bust if he never became one? Sounds like he met his expectations to me.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

(I think I've made my stance clear on Palmer. He's good. But I'm not ready to grade his career after four seasons. I don't find it clear that in 20 years, we're going to say Palmer was clearly better than Jeff George, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe or Eli Manning. He's obviously got some work to do to pass Manning, Bradshaw and Elway. Even Mike Vick made 3 Pro Bowls in his career. It certainly wouldn't floor me if Palmer ended his career in the middle tier of all QBs selected first overall, or if he ended up being a relative underachiever for being the first pick. Do I expect that? No. But I wouldn't be shocked. And that's not even taking into consideration the stud WRs he's been fortunate enough to play with so far in his career.)

Click to expand...

GregR said:

Chase Stuart said:

... because we know a default group of 34 QBs will have 17 busts and 17 booms.

Click to expand...

The NFL drafts enough QBs to replace every starter and a few of the backups about every 3 years. Seeing that good QBs often are starters for a decade and won't be replaced that fast, I would expect 2/3 of QBs to not be worthwhile NFL players before I'd expect only 1/2 would be. That's even before I take issue with your use of boom or bust. You're relegating everyone who doesn't outperform his position to being a bust. What about guys who performed at the level of their position? Shouldn't this be a sizeable percentage? How is Carson Palmer a bust? At worst he's playing at a level that someone of his draft position should play. Most teams with the #1 overall pick if you told them they could have a rookie Carson Palmer with it, would jump at the opportunity. So how is that a bust if teams would take him there when they already know with hindsight what it is they would get?How is it that a 5th, 6th, or 7th round QB who was never expected to be an NFL starter is a bust if he never became one? Sounds like he met his expectations to me.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

Let me address your last point, first.It's an ambiguous matter, to be sure. But the "average" 6th round pick is 1/100 Tom Brady, 1/100 Trent Green, etc, and a ton of busts. On average, the 6th round QB will at least throw a few TDs and have a few starts. So take Randy Fasani. Yes, he was only a fifth round pick, but you expect more than 0 TDs and 4 INTs for his career from your average 5th round pick. So he falls in the bust category, even though he's obviously not nearly as big a bust as many other QBs.I'm not using boom and bust in the colloquial sense; it's just shorthand for "performing above average" or "performing below average". I could also take all QBs that say, fell within 10% on either side of their expectations, as neither boom nor bust. I haven't come up with the exact methodology yet. Honestly, though, I think under almost any standard you use, the majority of CA QBs over the last 15 or so years are going to look a lot worse than the default group. I could -- and one day may -- come up with a complicated and precise formula to measure this effect, but I wanted to wade into the pool here first for some theories. I thought you could pretty much go by gut and see that there are way more overachievers than underachievers on here.My question is why.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

(I think I've made my stance clear on Palmer. He's good. But I'm not ready to grade his career after four seasons. I don't find it clear that in 20 years, we're going to say Palmer was clearly better than Jeff George, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe or Eli Manning. He's obviously got some work to do to pass Manning, Bradshaw and Elway. Even Mike Vick made 3 Pro Bowls in his career. It certainly wouldn't floor me if Palmer ended his career in the middle tier of all QBs selected first overall, or if he ended up being a relative underachiever for being the first pick. Do I expect that? No. But I wouldn't be shocked. And that's not even taking into consideration the stud WRs he's been fortunate enough to play with so far in his career.)

Click to expand...

Comp  Att   %	Yards  YPA  TD  IntManning 1357 2226 61.0%  16418  7.4  111  81Palmer  1305 2036 64.1%  14899  7.3  104  63

Chase Stuart said:

That said, being a "bust" means you've underperformed your draft spot. So if I'm looking at all CA QBs, and I say that 30 of the 34 have been busts, that's bad -- because we know a default group of 34 QBs will have 17 busts and 17 booms. So to see a 30-4 ratio is pretty odd. I agree that you can't just look at the QBs and say this guy is good or this guy is bad, but when you compare his performance to what you'd expect from that draft slot, that gives you a default group. When we say CA QBs bust at their draft spot more than others, "others" is the default group. (It might have been confusing because I didn't explicitly state that I'll consider half of all draft picks "booms" and half of all draft picks "busts". My bad.)

Click to expand...

Sidewinder16 said:

Chase Stuart said:

That said, being a "bust" means you've underperformed your draft spot. So if I'm looking at all CA QBs, and I say that 30 of the 34 have been busts, that's bad -- because we know a default group of 34 QBs will have 17 busts and 17 booms. So to see a 30-4 ratio is pretty odd. I agree that you can't just look at the QBs and say this guy is good or this guy is bad, but when you compare his performance to what you'd expect from that draft slot, that gives you a default group. When we say CA QBs bust at their draft spot more than others, "others" is the default group. (It might have been confusing because I didn't explicitly state that I'll consider half of all draft picks "booms" and half of all draft picks "busts". My bad.)

Click to expand...

I'm a little shuked about the bolded parts.Why is this 50/50 split a given? What's the reasoning behind the numbers? It certainly doesn't jive with what I previously perceived (apparently GregR, and now valhallan, agree).

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

I haven't actually done that yet, because I'm not positive how I want to measure the QBs and how I want to handle the still active QBs. But I thought looking at the list, the QBs from CA seemed to really underperform. That's all. I was looking for a theory to support the data.

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that we don't agree with you. I would never expect half of the QBs drafted in any single year to be "in the black", let alone half of the QBs from an entire decade. [

Click to expand...

stevegamer said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that we don't agree with you. I would never expect half of the QBs drafted in any single year to be "in the black", let alone half of the QBs from an entire decade. [

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are taking a property - "half will be above average value" - of the entire sample - "all drafted NFL players" (technically it's not the population with UDFA's) and assigning it to a subset of the sample - "all drafted QB's" without seeing if it holds true.

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that we don't agree with you. I would never expect half of the QBs drafted in any single year to be "in the black", let alone half of the QBs from an entire decade. Of 34, I'd expect maybe 6 to be "in the black".

I haven't actually done that yet, because I'm not positive how I want to measure the QBs and how I want to handle the still active QBs. But I thought looking at the list, the QBs from CA seemed to really underperform. That's all. I was looking for a theory to support the data.

Click to expand...

I'd love to tell you CA QBs underperform because they're all surfers who smoke too much reefer, but again, I don't see a unexpected set of data that would necessitate a theory to explain it. I'll let the others have at this now.

Click to expand...

stevegamer said:

Based on the way you're doing this: ALMOST EVERY late round QB is going to be in the red - they aren't up to the snuff of Green, Brady, etc. It isn't like a position where multiple players get snaps every game regularly, so you need to be careful. It's more likely that the QB's from almost all states underperform - yes there need to be some states that come out ahead, but the majority of your long-term QB value is concentrated in fewer players than any other position - except maybe kicker & punter.You need to have 3 groups:Roughly on valueOver achievedUnder achievedA 6th round pick who essentially does nothing is basically spot on.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

stevegamer said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that we don't agree with you. I would never expect half of the QBs drafted in any single year to be "in the black", let alone half of the QBs from an entire decade. [

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are taking a property - "half will be above average value" - of the entire sample - "all drafted NFL players" (technically it's not the population with UDFA's) and assigning it to a subset of the sample - "all drafted QB's" without seeing if it holds true.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that QBs in general underperform relative to non-QBs? I don't really follow this.

Click to expand...

stevegamer said:

Chase Stuart said:

stevegamer said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that we don't agree with you. I would never expect half of the QBs drafted in any single year to be "in the black", let alone half of the QBs from an entire decade. [

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are taking a property - "half will be above average value" - of the entire sample - "all drafted NFL players" (technically it's not the population with UDFA's) and assigning it to a subset of the sample - "all drafted QB's" without seeing if it holds true.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that QBs in general underperform relative to non-QBs? I don't really follow this.

Click to expand...

Essentially, I'm saying that there are more QB's taken every year in the draft than have a reasonable chance to do anything in the NFL. You may get 12-18 QB's drafted a year. There are essentially 32 weekly jobs available - slightly more due to garbage time & injury. That would replace ALL starters every 2-3 years - that doesn't happen, and guys who aren't starters produce squat at QB. The number coming in is too great for team rosters to hold them all for any length of time - this may be true for other positions - teams add over 7 players a year now through the draft with compensatory picks, plus UDFA's. However, there are less QB spots than anything except P & K - and few of those are drafted.

QB's who have long careers will skew the numbers, and lets take a further subset: Brady round QB's. So you end up averaging Brady, some who saw some PT due to injuries or got a brief shot, and a bunch of nothing from that round. Half of those guys won't be above average for the round. You're doing the same thing by assuming all QB's are split 50-50.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

Once again, maybe it's me, but if you're saying that you expect only 6 of 34 QBs to exceed expectations, then you need to re-tune your expectations. As a simple matter of logical probability, you should expect about half of all drafted players to exceed their draft value, and half to fall below it. And when I say draft value, I mean historical draft value, not the "RB X in the third round reminds me of Eric Dickerson" perceived value.

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

Once again, maybe it's me, but if you're saying that you expect only 6 of 34 QBs to exceed expectations, then you need to re-tune your expectations. As a simple matter of logical probability, you should expect about half of all drafted players to exceed their draft value, and half to fall below it. And when I say draft value, I mean historical draft value, not the "RB X in the third round reminds me of Eric Dickerson" perceived value.

Click to expand...

My expectations <> "a simple matter of logical probability"Yes, it could easily be just you considering you have the time to map out historical draft value. But are you saying here that if the 4th pick of the 5th round is worth 200 value points historically, then a guy that provides 150 value points is an underperformer while a guy who provides 250 points outperformed his draft position? How could you possibly expect us to gauge 34 players based on some contrived set of historical draft pick values like that?When I look at that list, I see several first round guys and a heap of later round picks. As expected, there are some first round successes, some busts, and some guys who we don't know about yet, as well as two or three successful late round guys. It just doesn't seem very divergent from my expectations. I've always assumed only first round quarterbacks and the rare late round guy will ever perform at an adequate level in the NFL. There have even been articles on this very site detailing the failures of 2nd round QBs.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

Once again, maybe it's me, but if you're saying that you expect only 6 of 34 QBs to exceed expectations, then you need to re-tune your expectations. As a simple matter of logical probability, you should expect about half of all drafted players to exceed their draft value, and half to fall below it. And when I say draft value, I mean historical draft value, not the "RB X in the third round reminds me of Eric Dickerson" perceived value.

Click to expand...

My expectations <> "a simple matter of logical probability"Yes, it could easily be just you considering you have the time to map out historical draft value. But are you saying here that if the 4th pick of the 5th round is worth 200 value points historically, then a guy that provides 150 value points is an underperformer while a guy who provides 250 points outperformed his draft position? How could you possibly expect us to gauge 34 players based on some contrived set of historical draft pick values like that?When I look at that list, I see several first round guys and a heap of later round picks. As expected, there are some first round successes, some busts, and some guys who we don't know about yet, as well as two or three successful late round guys. It just doesn't seem very divergent from my expectations. I've always assumed only first round quarterbacks and the rare late round guy will ever perform at an adequate level in the NFL. There have even been articles on this very site detailing the failures of 2nd round QBs.

Click to expand...

Your 150/250 example is correct, actually. I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not .I haven't run the numbers yet, though, for a couple of reasons already explained in the thread. It just seemed to me that when I went through the guys, it was mostly busts.Carson Palmer -- i'll cave to popular demand and say good pickDavid Carr -- awful pickAkili Smith -- awful pick Trent Dilfer -- bad pickMatt Leinart -- looks bad so far, but too early to sayDan McGwire -- badKyle Boller -- badJ.P. Losman -- badTodd Marinovich -- historically badAaron Rodgers -- no clueJohn Beck -- no clueTony Banks -- mehTroy Taylor -- badJonathan Quinn -- badTrent Edwards -- too earlyRob Johnson -- mehJust not very impressive. I'd expect, given the number of first and second rounders, some better production. To have that many QBs and to have none of them blow you away, and maybe only one of them live up to the hype seems pretty high. Maybe you're right, though, and I'm being too hard on California.

Click to expand...

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

Once again, maybe it's me, but if you're saying that you expect only 6 of 34 QBs to exceed expectations, then you need to re-tune your expectations. As a simple matter of logical probability, you should expect about half of all drafted players to exceed their draft value, and half to fall below it. And when I say draft value, I mean historical draft value, not the "RB X in the third round reminds me of Eric Dickerson" perceived value.

Click to expand...

My expectations <> "a simple matter of logical probability"Yes, it could easily be just you considering you have the time to map out historical draft value. But are you saying here that if the 4th pick of the 5th round is worth 200 value points historically, then a guy that provides 150 value points is an underperformer while a guy who provides 250 points outperformed his draft position? How could you possibly expect us to gauge 34 players based on some contrived set of historical draft pick values like that?When I look at that list, I see several first round guys and a heap of later round picks. As expected, there are some first round successes, some busts, and some guys who we don't know about yet, as well as two or three successful late round guys. It just doesn't seem very divergent from my expectations. I've always assumed only first round quarterbacks and the rare late round guy will ever perform at an adequate level in the NFL. There have even been articles on this very site detailing the failures of 2nd round QBs.

Click to expand...

Your 150/250 example is correct, actually. I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not .I haven't run the numbers yet, though, for a couple of reasons already explained in the thread. It just seemed to me that when I went through the guys, it was mostly busts.Carson Palmer -- i'll cave to popular demand and say good pickDavid Carr -- awful pickAkili Smith -- awful pick Trent Dilfer -- bad pickMatt Leinart -- looks bad so far, but too early to sayDan McGwire -- badKyle Boller -- badJ.P. Losman -- badTodd Marinovich -- historically badAaron Rodgers -- no clueJohn Beck -- no clueTony Banks -- mehTroy Taylor -- badJonathan Quinn -- badTrent Edwards -- too earlyRob Johnson -- mehJust not very impressive. I'd expect, given the number of first and second rounders, some better production. To have that many QBs and to have none of them blow you away, and maybe only one of them live up to the hype seems pretty high. Maybe you're right, though, and I'm being too hard on California.

Click to expand...

I did say earlier that there appeared to be more first round busts than expected, so we agree on that. The rest of the of the list, though, looks like any other set of late round QBs. I expect at least one of Leinart, Rodgers, and Edwards to have a good career and Boller and Losman to get second chances (Carr did), but certainly there's not much to write home about with these guys.I think the rub came from having all of those late rounders in the mix. Most of us only formulate expectations for players in the top 2 or 3 rounds.

Click to expand...

stevegamer said:

Chase Stuart said:

stevegamer said:

valhallan said:

Chase Stuart said:

As a factual proposition, I think you should work from the assumption that roughly half of all players are in the black in career value, and half are in the red. Once you do that, if you see that 30 out of 34 guys fitting some criteria are in the red, that would make you think twice.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that we don't agree with you. I would never expect half of the QBs drafted in any single year to be "in the black", let alone half of the QBs from an entire decade. [

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are taking a property - "half will be above average value" - of the entire sample - "all drafted NFL players" (technically it's not the population with UDFA's) and assigning it to a subset of the sample - "all drafted QB's" without seeing if it holds true.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that QBs in general underperform relative to non-QBs? I don't really follow this.

Click to expand...

Essentially, I'm saying that there are more QB's taken every year in the draft than have a reasonable chance to do anything in the NFL. You may get 12-18 QB's drafted a year. There are essentially 32 weekly jobs available - slightly more due to garbage time & injury. That would replace ALL starters every 2-3 years - that doesn't happen, and guys who aren't starters produce squat at QB. The number coming in is too great for team rosters to hold them all for any length of time - this may be true for other positions - teams add over 7 players a year now through the draft with compensatory picks, plus UDFA's. However, there are less QB spots than anything except P & K - and few of those are drafted.

QB's who have long careers will skew the numbers, and lets take a further subset: Brady round QB's. So you end up averaging Brady, some who saw some PT due to injuries or got a brief shot, and a bunch of nothing from that round. Half of those guys won't be above average for the round. You're doing the same thing by assuming all QB's are split 50-50.

Click to expand...

Chase Stuart said:

We can run a regression analysis using draft pick value and "NFL value" once give a draft value and NFL value to each player. That can tell us what we'd expect each draft pick to produce, and it would be the best equation to fit the data. We could then compare how each player actually did relative to his expected production, based on his draft value. Then we would expect, roughly, half the players to exceed their production, and half to underwhelm.

Click to expand...