After Bradford, Which Rookie QB do You Like? (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

The problem with this analysis is that several 1st round talents fell to the 2nd round in this years draft. The reason for that is this class happened to be on of the very best to come into the the league in years. IMO, it was the best class in the last 10 years at least. In 90% of the previous drafts Clausen and several other players probably don't fall to the 2nd round. Guys like Taylor Mays, Sergio Kindle, Lamar Houston, Daryl Washington, Brian Price, Koa Misi, Terence Cody, Jermaine Cunningham and Arrelsous Benn all had 1st round draft grades as well yet they all slipped to the 2nd, mid-2nd. See there are only 32 1st round picks no matter how much talent is available. Some years there may only be 25 1st round talents. Others there may be 40. Using this fixed number as some sort of justification when there is no fixed status on talent availability is flawed logic IMO. Now if you just don't like Clausen, or any of the slew of players who fell to the 2nd in this years class because of the insane depth, then fine. But But there is certainly more to it than you are leading on here. Unless of course you are negotiating a contract.

You can't have "40 first round talents". You can't have "25 first round talents". "First round" means "top 32". I mean, that's the absolute literal definition of "first round". So when you say that you have 40 first round talents, you're saying that there were 40 top-32 players this year. Hey, while you're at it, why not declare that there are 15 top-10 QBs in the league? That might fly if you work for Arthur Andersen, but not in the real world.If you want to say that, in any other draft, Clausen would have been a first round talent... well, I'd disagree again (like EBF said, QBs tend to go far higher than their talent would dictate- just look at Bradford, who was the #1 pick despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that he's not the #1 talent). But at least you'd have an argument- an unprovable argument based entirely on the speculation of "draft experts" who were demonstrably wrong about Clausen already.

I heard that Carolina tried to move up to the Rams spot at 33 to get him but weren't able to do so. I believe I heard someone on the NFL Network say this during the draft. So, Carolina did have a significant interest in drafting him a lot higher.

They couldn't have had that significant of an interest, since 3 picks were traded between #33 and #48, all for relatively cheap prices (a 5th or 6th rounder), and Carolina didn't get any of them.

 

[jurb26]

The problem with this analysis is that several 1st round talents fell to the 2nd round in this years draft. The reason for that is this class happened to be on of the very best to come into the the league in years. IMO, it was the best class in the last 10 years at least. In 90% of the previous drafts Clausen and several other players probably don't fall to the 2nd round. Guys like Taylor Mays, Sergio Kindle, Lamar Houston, Daryl Washington, Brian Price, Koa Misi, Terence Cody, Jermaine Cunningham and Arrelsous Benn all had 1st round draft grades as well yet they all slipped to the 2nd, mid-2nd. See there are only 32 1st round picks no matter how much talent is available. Some years there may only be 25 1st round talents. Others there may be 40. Using this fixed number as some sort of justification when there is no fixed status on talent availability is flawed logic IMO. Now if you just don't like Clausen, or any of the slew of players who fell to the 2nd in this years class because of the insane depth, then fine. But But there is certainly more to it than you are leading on here. Unless of course you are negotiating a contract.

You can't have "40 first round talents". You can't have "25 first round talents". "First round" means "top 32". I mean, that's the absolute literal definition of "first round". So when you say that you have 40 first round talents, you're saying that there were 40 top-32 players this year. Hey, while you're at it, why not declare that there are 15 top-10 QBs in the league? That might fly if you work for Arthur Andersen, but not in the real world.If you want to say that, in any other draft, Clausen would have been a first round talent... well, I'd disagree again (like EBF said, QBs tend to go far higher than their talent would dictate- just look at Bradford, who was the #1 pick despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that he's not the #1 talent). But at least you'd have an argument- an unprovable argument based entirely on the speculation of "draft experts" who were demonstrably wrong about Clausen already.

So you think every draft class is created equal then? Like I pointed out in the post, several players who likely had 1st round draft grades went in the 2nd round. Not just Clausen. You think it's just a coincidence that so many teams look like they had great drafts? That is all just a product of there being such great talent available this year. Yes, you can have 23, 40 or 100 1st round talents. You just can't have any more than 32 of them picked in the 1st round because that's all there is as far as available picks. If we end up with 40 Pro Bowl caliber players from this class are you going to say that 8 of those 40 would not be worthy of a 1st round pick? If you could mix this years class with last years class I'd venture to guess that this years class would push at least 20 1st rounders out of the 1st round from last year.This has little to do with Clausen. I don't really know where all 32 teams had him slotted and neither does anyone else. Quite frankly I don't care either. But I think a lack of mentioning how deep and talented this class was in regard to players that slipped is a shortsighted argument. The available talent pool certainly was a driving factor. There is some irony in that this exact opposite thing happened to the previous ND QB to come out, Quinn. Quinn was by no means a 1st round talent but because of a lack of talent in the pool he managed to go 22nd.

 

[lyon812]

Clausen, easily. He was unanimously rated a first-round talent by NFL scouts. Many rated him a top-10 talent.

He was ranked as the 16th best 2nd round prospect on the leaked Cowboys draft board, so there's at least one team that didn't give him a first round grade. I understand that you're pretty high on him, but I think your personal affinity for Clausen is clouding your perception of reality here. Honestly, there's really no way that he would've fallen nearly that far if he had been a "unanimous" first round talent.

Actually, I think that the confusion lies in my usage of "NFL scouts", which was rightfully misconstrued. My apologies for being unclear. Allow me to rephrase. However, it’s worth noting that just as you accuse me of being biased because I like his talent, you show the same bias in being quick to label him a bust solely based on his second round status. First, what I should have said was: Before the draft, I could not find a single NFL pundit/analyst/person who scouts the NFL/blogger whose information was made publicly available that didn’t have Clausen rated as a first round pick/Top 32 talent. Maybe I’m missing it. Maybe dynastyleagueforever.com has an awesome writer that said “dude, he’s terrible.” Mayock, Kiper, Lande, CFN, CBS, Draft Bible, Draft Countdown, Waldman, Bloom, seriously. Everyone.

Second, you’re confusing message board perception of “needing a quarterback” with NFL GMs thinking they need a quarterback, while simultaneously ignoring that it was a defense-rich draft.

Were there QB -needy teams in the draft? Yes. In Cleveland, where Holmgren confirmed that the draft board was very set from the start. In Seattle, they traded for Whitehurst so that they could address far greater needs--OL and the secondary. Kansas City? After Pioli got his boy and gave him a 6 yr $60+million deal, it’s highly doubtful they’re going to give up on him. Likewise with Leinart. It makes far more sense for Arizona to see what they have--much like SF did with Alex Smith--than to pick up an early QB. Oakland recently suffered through their own bust-o-rama and went for a veteran QB in trade that they didn’t have to wait to develop. The only surprising team was Buffalo. I thought they’d take someone.

Third, after the draft, NFL sources told Kiper that Clausen dropped because of concerns about the condition of his toe. He had limited mobility at his pro day and they were concerned about its stiffness and his ability to step into his throws.

Players sometimes slide. Could he bust? Sure. Maybe he’s Quinn, part 2. However, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps there were mitigating circumstances is severely stubborn of you. Heck, there was even an article written in March about this very situation, called “Whitehurst deal might put Clausen in free fall” http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Whiteh...-free-fall.html At the end of the first round, I said Clausen would fall to the mid-to-late second, and people were all “psssh, no way, man!” Yet he did.

I understand you don't like him, and that you think his freefall dooms him to busthood. But honestly, there's plenty of evidence he was perceived as a first round talent.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

sounds like a bunch of NFL GMs invaded this thread.

"don't wanna take a QB early. we can get value late."

ya, those 6th round picks work out so well, so often.

Actually in a study I did for Draftguys, found here, the 6th round was the second most productive round for QBs in terms of fantasy points scored.

Hey Construx, I broke mine out a little differently. I wanted to know the average number of seasons in the NFL, avg years as fantasy starter and avg years as elite starter. To me, we are all on the quest for the next elite starter. Updating this series is on my "to do" list this summer.

without getting too in depth, how much does Brady skew those numbers?because when i was looking at QB draft rounds in terms of superbowl wins, Brady really screws up those stats.

Some but not that much really. IIRC in the 5 years I looked at, Brady had 5 top 12 finishes, Hasselbeck had 3 and Bulger had 3. The other interesting take away about QBs from that study, IMO, was that there were so few 2nd round QBs drafted. I think it was about 8 in 10 years of the study. Of course 3 of them were very good in Favre, Brees and Plummer. But my theory was that it seemed more often that a team traded back up into the end of the first round to get a QB rather than wait until their turn in the 2nd. I would use that as something to chew on for the argument against Clausen being a 1st rounder on many boards.

 

[EBF]

Actually, I think that the confusion lies in my usage of "NFL scouts", which was rightfully misconstrued. My apologies for being unclear. Allow me to rephrase. However, it’s worth noting that just as you accuse me of being biased because I like his talent, you show the same bias in being quick to label him a bust solely based on his second round status.

I never said he's a bust, actually. I just said he's a 2nd round QB and he should be treated like one.

First, what I should have said was: Before the draft, I could not find a single NFL pundit/analyst/person who scouts the NFL/blogger whose information was made publicly available that didn’t have Clausen rated as a first round pick/Top 32 talent. Maybe I’m missing it. Maybe dynastyleagueforever.com has an awesome writer that said “dude, he’s terrible.” Mayock, Kiper, Lande, CFN, CBS, Draft Bible, Draft Countdown, Waldman, Bloom, seriously. Everyone.

And none of those people are involved with the process of making draft picks for NFL teams.I respect draft "experts" to varying degrees, but at the end of the day many of them are totally unqualified and reactive, merely regurgitating opinions that they absorbed from other sources. You might as well cite Bleacher Report articles written by your next door neighbor as "proof" that Clausen was rated as a first round talent by "NFL scouts."

Were there QB -needy teams in the draft? Yes. In Cleveland, where Holmgren confirmed that the draft board was very set from the start. In Seattle, they traded for Whitehurst so that they could address far greater needs--OL and the secondary. Kansas City? After Pioli got his boy and gave him a 6 yr $60+million deal, it’s highly doubtful they’re going to give up on him. Likewise with Leinart. It makes far more sense for Arizona to see what they have--much like SF did with Alex Smith--than to pick up an early QB. Oakland recently suffered through their own bust-o-rama and went for a veteran QB in trade that they didn’t have to wait to develop. The only surprising team was Buffalo. I thought they’d take someone.

This analysis is colored by your personal bias. You're making excuses for why these teams would pass on a franchise QB rather than considering the possibility that maybe some of these franchises didn't think Clausen would amount to a lump of crap in the NFL. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that one of those teams wouldn't have moved up to grab him if they felt he was really on the level of a Bradford/Sanchez/Stafford/Ryan/Flacco. The fact that he was drafted significantly later than all of those guys is a strong suggestion that he plain and simply wasn't as highly-regarded by NFL front offices.

Third, after the draft, NFL sources told Kiper that Clausen dropped because of concerns about the condition of his toe. He had limited mobility at his pro day and they were concerned about its stiffness and his ability to step into his throws.

If it's a short term issue, I don't buy it as an excuse for him falling out of the first round (see: Crabtree, Demaryius, Stewart). If it's a long term issue, it's not something that should be glossed over because it might affect his future (if NFL teams were worried enough about the toe to downgrade him then shouldn't we do the same?).

Players sometimes slide. Could he bust? Sure. Maybe he’s Quinn, part 2. However, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps there were mitigating circumstances is severely stubborn of you. Heck, there was even an article written in March about this very situation, called “Whitehurst deal might put Clausen in free fall” http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Whiteh...-free-fall.html At the end of the first round, I said Clausen would fall to the mid-to-late second, and people were all “psssh, no way, man!” Yet he did.

I understand you don't like him, and that you think his freefall dooms him to busthood. But honestly, there's plenty of evidence he was perceived as a first round talent.

I never said anything about him being doomed to fail. I don't care if you think he's a top 10 talent destined to become a perennial Pro Bowler. You're entitled to your opinion and you might end up being correct.

Where I disagree is with this notion that Clausen was a unanimous first round talent who fell deep into the second round by some miracle of chance and misfortune. Studies that correlate success with draft position don't factor in subjective notions of "Well, he was a second round pick, but really he should've been a first round pick because Mel Kiper had him rated as a top 10 talent!" None of that matters. All that matters is where he was taken.

He was a second round pick. Like it or not, that's how it played out. So when I'm looking at his pro prospects from an objective standpoint, I have to figure that his odds of success are comparable to that of a typical 2nd round QB, which are considerably lower than the odds of success for a first round QB.

Here's one of the inconvenient truths about the draft that people don't like to accept. On average, higher picks have a higher probability of becoming quality players. It's really straightforward and there are mounds of evidence to support the idea. So while specific players will buck the trend on occasion, it's not in any way "biased" or "stubborn" to hold a player's draft position against him. It's actually a really sound way to approach the process of attaching a value to a prospect.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

sounds like a bunch of NFL GMs invaded this thread.

"don't wanna take a QB early. we can get value late."

ya, those 6th round picks work out so well, so often.

Actually in a study I did for Draftguys, found here, the 6th round was the second most productive round for QBs in terms of fantasy points scored.

Hey Construx, I broke mine out a little differently. I wanted to know the average number of seasons in the NFL, avg years as fantasy starter and avg years as elite starter. To me, we are all on the quest for the next elite starter. Updating this series is on my "to do" list this summer.

without getting too in depth, how much does Brady skew those numbers?because when i was looking at QB draft rounds in terms of superbowl wins, Brady really screws up those stats.

Brady has not had many top fantasy finishes. My study just looked for elite seasons as a starter. He has finished as QB6 or better twice while a guy like Hasselbeck has three.

 

[SSOG]

So you think every draft class is created equal then? Like I pointed out in the post, several players who likely had 1st round draft grades went in the 2nd round. Not just Clausen. You think it's just a coincidence that so many teams look like they had great drafts? That is all just a product of there being such great talent available this year. Yes, you can have 23, 40 or 100 1st round talents. You just can't have any more than 32 of them picked in the 1st round because that's all there is as far as available picks. If we end up with 40 Pro Bowl caliber players from this class are you going to say that 8 of those 40 would not be worthy of a 1st round pick? If you could mix this years class with last years class I'd venture to guess that this years class would push at least 20 1st rounders out of the 1st round from last year.This has little to do with Clausen. I don't really know where all 32 teams had him slotted and neither does anyone else. Quite frankly I don't care either. But I think a lack of mentioning how deep and talented this class was in regard to players that slipped is a shortsighted argument. The available talent pool certainly was a driving factor. There is some irony in that this exact opposite thing happened to the previous ND QB to come out, Quinn. Quinn was by no means a 1st round talent but because of a lack of talent in the pool he managed to go 22nd.

Again, agree to disagree. Everyone said that this year's draft class was exceptionally deep... just like everyone said that Clausen was a top 10 draft pick. I didn't see anyone making much of an effort to trade future picks for picks in this draft.As for Quinn... no, he wasn't one of the 32 most talented players in the draft, but I think he went 22nd not because the draft class sucked, but because teams have a demonstrable tendency to overdraft QBs. Which makes Clausen's fall all the more damning.

Here's one of the inconvenient truths about the draft that people don't like to accept. On average, higher picks have a higher probability of becoming quality players. It's really straightforward and there are mounds of evidence to support the idea. So while specific players will buck the trend on occasion, it's not in any way "biased" or "stubborn" to hold a player's draft position against him. It's actually a really sound way to approach the process of attaching a value to a prospect.

Agreed 100%. Which is why I think it's so ludicrous that some people are leaving Sam Bradford off their lists entirely, or putting him 4th behind guys drafted 2 rounds later. The dude was the #1 overall draft pick. No other QB went until pick #25 (and that QB is something of a polarizing figure). The next QB went 48th overall. That's a gargantuan difference in terms of expected success.