This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So if other things are equal, the taller QB will be drafted higher.But in this case the taller QB wasn't drafted higher, which means we know that other things aren't equal.
I would say so. I agree with the other poster who said the poll is a bit confusing in the wording though.
But if scouts saw them worthy of same draft slot, then chances are the shorter QB is superior in some other facet. For that reason alone, I would say the question is somewhat flawed. If ALL skills truly were equal, then the taller guy would indeed have the advantge, but that would almost certainly show up in his dratf position.Chase....what's the average height of 1st/2nd round vs 5/6th round QB's in the draft? I think we'll find that scouts probably already account for height (even if by accident) in their rankings.
I agree that the scouts already account for height.My question (which I appear to have worded poorly) is whether scouts overemphasize the importance of height, under emphasize the importance of height, or properly value height.
With this in mind, I'm not sure that a scout has to even consciously consider the height for it to make a difference in how he percieves a QB.With all things = or unknown, the taller QB always has the advantage. Being taller simply allows him to see more of the field and over the LOS.Not too mention that studies show taller people come off with more authority and thus are more likely to be followed as leaders.
I would say tall is 6'4 or taller, and short is 6'1 or shorter.
Well I meant if you know nothing else besides their height and the fact that they were taken in the same draft slot.Knowing where they were taken in the draft is different from knowing they were drafted at the same slot.
I suspect they hardly use it at all, except as an extra measuring tool. Much like 40 speed on a RB...we only make it a serious measuring stick if the time is significantly higher or lower then the norm, or if we're unable to find any other characteristics to differentiate between two similar prospects.
But...as we've pointed out...if they really were in the same draft spot, then chances are their other skills are NOT equal.
Chase is asking whether teams tend to overrate or underrate tall QBs, or neither.I suspect the answer is neither. If you do some data-mining, you may find that "splits happen," but I'd be skeptical that it's a real effect.
Yes. That's the point.Think of it like this. QBs are good based on two things. Their height, and their non-height attributes. When you combine those two ratings, you get the overall rating for the QB. Maybe the "correct" ratio is something like 7 to 1 in favor of non-height attributes to the height attribute. But what does draft data tell us? Do GMs put the ratio at 7 to 1, or do they put it at 5 to 1? Or at 9 to 1?
Precisely. That's part of what Chase is getting at. One guy is an extra inch taller, while the other guy can throw four yards farther, so they have a similar overall grade. In giving them a similar grade, did the scouts weigh the trade-off correctly? Is an inch of height worth four yards of distance? Or do scouts tend to make trade-offs involving height incorrectly?
This is a good question, but not one a poll is likely to definitively answer.I suspect that, on average, they are weighed accurately...but scouting is such an inaccurate science to begin with, who's to say that one scout doesn't give height too big a factor, and another not enough?
I'll take Flutie over Ryan Leaf
I just ran some numbers for the 56 QBs drafted between 2000 and 2004. Once again, absolutely no correlation between height and NFL success, once you know draft value. Even if you exclude draft position, there's really no correlation. That isn't to say that height doesn't matter -- just that if you make it to the NFL, height really isn't going to hold you back.
Superb work Chase.
I'd actually lean more towards QBs in the middle 50% than the tallest 25% or the shortest 25%. Historically, those guys have far and away been the most successful group, and there has to be some reason for that. One thought is that a tall QB is naturally a long-legged QB, which means he's going to take longer to make his drops and I'd suspect he'd be more susceptible to sacks (just a hunch, I'd be curious to see the numbers on this).
Although height can be important, we also don't want our Qb's too tall. If I see a QB who's 6 foot 8 inches tall, he's very unlikely to be a quality starter in the NFL.When I think of tall, I'm thinking of 6 foot 4 to 6 foot 6, something like that. To answer your question, yes I'd certainly weigh someone with that stature initially higher than other QB's who are smaller.But I said something like this in the combine thread. With the RB's and the WR's, people look at their speed way too much as if that's the defining factor of what a quality RB or WR is. Sure, it's nice to have speed but we all know Olympic sprinters aren't the best football players in the world.Simply said......it's a starting point. You'd like to have certain things out of a QB and heighth would be nice but for me not a deal breaker.With that said, the said QB better have a lot of the other attributes I'm looking for if he's lacking in heigth.
Stellar stuff Chase!
SSOG said:
I'm not sure where you guys are going with this, but in the 750 or so QBs in NFL history, only one QB has been 6'8, and only two more were 6'7. The 6'6 group includes Derek Anderson and JaMarcus Russell, and obviously the 6'5 group includes Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger and Philip Rivers.Iwannabeacowboybaby! said:
I very much agree with you here SSOG - with the exception of Peyton Manning there's just not a whole lot of quarterbacks over 6´4´´ that do excel.That might be cause there aren't as many - but still 6´2´´ to 6´4´´ so far has proved to be a good build for a quarterback (and as pointed out maybe a large pool to select from).SSOG said:
Pure numbers have little meaning when you're talking about a height where less than 0.1% of the US is that tall. Based on what I've seen, I would guess that most people that height aren't overly athletic (roughly speaking, for most people I know, coordination seems inverse with height, after 6'0"), and those who are are more likely to play basketball. Percentages of boom/bust per height would have more meaning, if #'s are included - if there's only 1 QB 6'8" and he busted, that doesn't mean as much as if there were 100 QBs under 6'0" and all busted.
The link is to my post titled In Search of the Next Brady or Bulger on the PFR blog. Here is a chart contained in it regarding QB's taken outside of top 50 draft picks, and height.
Percentages of boom/bust per height would have more meaning, if #'s are included - if there's only 1 QB 6'8" and he busted, that doesn't mean as much as if there were 100 QBs under 6'0" and all busted.
Yeah.Except seeing as how McGwire is the only QB in NFL history that's 6'8, we don't really have much data on those guys.
Personally, I don't believe there's such a thing as being too tall. I don't think being 6'3 is better than being 6'5, but I could be wrong. If being 6'3 is better than 6'5 and better than 6'1, then my analysis wouldn't show it. There's no linear relationship between height and ability, after compensating for draft status. I'll look into a nonlinear relationship soon, hopefully today.The link is to my post titled In Search of the Next Brady or Bulger on the PFR blog. Here is a chart contained in it regarding QB's taken outside of top 50 draft picks, and height.Pure numbers have little meaning when you're talking about a height where less than 0.1% of the US is that tall. Based on what I've seen, I would guess that most people that height aren't overly athletic (roughly speaking, for most people I know, coordination seems inverse with height, after 6'0"), and those who are are more likely to play basketball.
Percentages of boom/bust per height would have more meaning, if #'s are included - if there's only 1 QB 6'8" and he busted, that doesn't mean as much as if there were 100 QBs under 6'0" and all busted.
GROUP 72 73 74 75 76 77=========================================================TOP GUNS 0 2 1 4 2 0STEADY 0 0 2 3 3 1UNEVEN 2 2 2 2 2 2JOURNEYMEN 2 3 3 4 4 1STOP GAPS 0 3 5 5 0 4SERVICEABLE 0 3 3 5 1 0DISASTERS 2 0 2 5 3 0ALL 150+ ATT 6 13 18 28 15 8=========================================================The "72" group includes all players 72 inches or shorter, the "77" group includes all players 77 inches or taller. The totals at the bottom represent all quarterbacks drafted outside the top 50 picks (including FA's) between 1983-2002 who threw at least 150 pass attempts in at least one NFL season. The various categories are defined in the post, and the QB's in each group identified, but quickly, SERVICEABLE and DISASTERS represent guys who threw 150+ passes in 2 or fewer seasons, sorted by efficiency. The other five categories are for all guys who threw 150+ passes in at least 3 seasons, with STOP GAPS being the worst (think Kent Graham) and TOP GUNS being the best (think Brady, Moon, Green, Garcia, Brunell, etc)For example, 1 of 8 who were 6'5" or taller reached at least STEADY STARTER status, compared with 5 of 15 who were 6'4", 7 of 28 at 6'3", 3 of 18 at 6'2", 2 of 13 at 6'1", and 0 of 6 at 6'0" or shorter.
I am just wondering why my conclusions are different. I conclude that height does matter, at least for later round QB's, if we consider good height to be 6'3", and 6'2" the grey area. But being taller than that isn't much of an advantage. Shorter guys can have success, but it isn't as sustained, if they are pocket passer types. The most successful guys under 6'2", Garcia and Brunell, were both mobile and could move a passing pocket, compensating for the height difference.
In addition to Manning, you've got:Esiason (4)Gabriel (4)EverettTestaverde (2)Bledsoe (4)Brad Johnson (2)Kerry CollinsPalmer (2)KosarRoethlisbergerGrbacRiversDerek AndersonVince YoungAll of those guys have had made a Pro Bowl. Then you've got Jason Campbell, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Schaub and Matt Leinart with some career potential, too.I don't think being 6'5 is bad for you.There's almost no data on being 6'7 or 6'8; only one QB has even made the NFL at that height in the last 30 years. Maybe it's really hard to make the NFL being that tall (or more likely, there are just very few 6'7 people who have a good enough arm to play QB in the NFL, just like a very small percentage of the 6'2 population has a good enough arm to play in the NFL) but if Vince Young or Matt Leinart were two inches taller, I don't think that would have been a bad thing.As for 6'6, it's sort of in the middle. We've got a bit more data, but it's still only eight QBs. Scott Mitchell was pretty good for a couple of years. Obviously Anderson had a huge year. Marc Wilson had a nondescript ten year career. Gibran Hamdan was a seventh round pick that didn't pan out. The book is open on Russell. Brian McClure was a 12th round pick in '86. John Navarre was a 7th rounder. Jonathon Quinn and Andrew Walter were third round picks that have barely played.I feel very confident in saying that up to 6'5, height is good for you. It's probably good for you up to 6'8, too, but I suppose it's possible that it becomes a negative. More likely, I think, is that we're simply blinded by the fact that of the last 500 or so QBs in the NFL, only one has been over 6'6.
