Posted this in another thread, thought it would be pertinent here as well Draft position of the last 15 Super Bowl winners 75th Overall 18th Overall 1st Overall 24th Overall 32nd Overall 11th Overall 1st Overall 1st Overall 11th Overall 199th Overall 199th Overall 227th Overall 199th Overall 6th Overall (Trent Freaking Dilfer went 6th overall) Undrafted The Mannings and Dilfer were the only top 10 picks, it's a myth you have to draft a guy really high. Roethlisberger was 11th, but you could easily trade up into that area if you see a guy you really want. NFL scouts aren't incompetent they know what they are doing so 1st round picks should be better, but I think 2nd -4th round picks would have a much highers sccsess rate if they were given the leash and treatment 1st round picks were given
My point if you just took the average mock draft and just picked players from there you would do just as well as an NFL team. Guys like clowney was predicted to be a no 1 pick coming out of highschool. Obviously the higher the draft picks will have more success because more people thought they would be successful. If these GM and scouts actually provide "value" their pick rates should be better than some random mock draft which they aren't.
I get your point. I just respectfully disagree with it. Because like I said, the draft isn't an exact science. No one can truly see around the corner regardless of what the consensus may think. And Clowney isn't a guarantee regardless of what anyone thinks. Check out these articles. Check out the ratio. http://www.thesidelineview.com/columns/draft/defensive-end-vs-quarterback-bust-battle-part-1 http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackriskmyth.php
Not much research went in to that, and on top of it, One of the articles suggest Mark Sanchez was a good pick.....
Over that 10 year period, a DE's bust rate was a staggering 42.5% vs. a QB’s bust rate of 36.7%.* Not only did DEs bust more than we thought, but we also missed the fact that DEs also busted more often than the QBs over that period.**The DE bust rate of 42.5% was the highest of all the positions during that 10 year period in the first round*(WRs were second at 37.8% with QBs nudging out DTs 36.7% to 36.1% for third.) There were more defensive ends selected (40) over that time frame than any other position as well.* It’s clear teams understood the way the league was transforming into a passing league, and it was imperative to rush the quarterback.* Unfortunately, less than half of that group selected was more of an asset than a liability (only 19 in first two categories).* A team didn’t even have a 50-50 chance of getting it right! More like 47-53.* Again, a team may have found defensive end value later in the draft, but if a team drafted one of those 17 busts over those 10 years, it lost significantly more value than it gained, especially given the first round money it had to pay those underperforming DE. You can argue with the numbers all you want tmacfor35
The difference is there are 2 defensive ends, WRs, and DTs on the field vs. 1 QB. So take all those bust rates for all the other positions and divide them in half.
No need to do that because not every team has 2 good players/pro bowl players etc at both of those positions. Most teams only have one good to great defensive end, one #1 calibre receiver, etc. So just because they have two of them doesn't mean both of them are good. And because you need two or more players for those positions on the field at the same time it even gives a wider view of how many of those guys get drafted and how many of those guys bust and or don't live up to their draft selection when you have so many more to chose from than at the QB position. It's probably around or over 150 WR's in the NFL and throughout any given year it's only 10-12 of them you can count on in your fantasy league on a weekly basis... Lol. You can say the same for DE's, and just about every other position. You would think most teams would have two dominant receivers or two dominant defensive ends considering so many play the position but but they don't. It's just depending on what point of view you want to take.
Actually this discussion was over the percentages of quarterbacks that bust that are selected in the 1st round compared to other positions. But thanks.
I thought I had posted my last post here but I came across an article I thought Teddy supporters as well as haters would like to read.... http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...orv-turner-decide-on-teddy-bridgewater#!Oe5jI
Are we comparing QBs or teams? If you want to contend with the elite defense + any fungible QB, I'm cool with that. But that seems to be what the Texans are doing. And with this route, the Texans can always grab their QB later in the draft or via FA/trade. Perhaps Sam Bradford next offseason? Says more about lack of needing top QBs more than whether or not Bridgewater can be one.
