what are the odds of getting a qb in rounds 2-3?

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › what are the odds of getting a qb in rounds 2-3?

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 29, 2016 at 12:14 am #41180
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    It is true that if you get a qb in rounds 2 or 3 it it a big deal. They say this draft has more developmental 2nd through maybe 4th round prospects at qb than most drafts do. Maybe this draft is an exception, then, but historically the numbers aren’t good.

    How many qb “hits” in the 2nd and 3rd rounds in the last 10 years (ending with 2013 so we can judge)?

    So, 2nd/3rd round qbs from 2004-2013

    Out of 26 taken, the hits I count are Schaub (in spite of crashing), Wilson, Dalton, and maybe Osweiler.

    Kaepernick and Foles crashed though they were okay for a bit. I will count them anyway…a couple of years of production just becomes the minimal standard, making it a generous count.

    All the rest, if they survived in the league at all, are back-ups. To put it more bluntly…they’re back-up caliber qbs.

    That’s 6 out of 26. 23%.

    March 29, 2016 at 10:16 am #41188
    PA Ram
    Participant

    If they take a QB in round 2 or 3 doesn’t that mean Mannion was a wasted pick?

    You have to focus on some young guy to develop eventually and there are only so many snaps to go around.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    March 29, 2016 at 10:30 am #41190
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    PA Ram wrote:

    If they take a QB in round 2 or 3 doesn’t that mean Mannion was a wasted pick?

    You have to focus on some young guy to develop eventually and there are only so many snaps to go around.

    Not to me, it doesn’t mean that (ie. wasted pick). It means they have 2 young qbs.

    I don’t think the “focus” thing matters that much. Not this year. Either one is going to be the #2, at so it would be a competition to see who the #2 is.

    March 29, 2016 at 10:39 am #41192
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    You can use historical data to assign probability values to any pick. You can also compare hitting on a pick to making a hand in poker after the draw. This means that hitting or not hitting isn’t proof of right or wrong but it is a result of the chance of hitting or not hitting.

    Agamemnon

    March 29, 2016 at 10:50 am #41193
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    Agamemnon wrote:

    This means that hitting or not hitting isn’t proof of right or wrong but it is a result of the chance of hitting or not hitting.

    Well, except, there’s more than chance at play here. Players are picked higher when they have more desirable qualities that make it at least look like they have a better chance. Naturally it’s not 100%, but then it seems to me that if you want a better shot at a qb, you take the one who looks like they have the best chance of succeeding. If you don’t someone else will. There are variations on that and exceptions and so on, but, as a rule if you want Rivers or Eli or Stafford or Roethlisberger or etc, you pick higher…cause they won’t fall lower, generally speaking.

    So I am not sure strict chance is the way to look at it. There is some honest comparative player evaluation at work.

    To me percentages = trends across time. Trends across time favor taking the qb higher.

    But then everyone says this year is an exception. There’s more solid, tier 2 qbs–developmental. So there may be more Daltons in this draft and fewer Mariottas.

    …

    March 29, 2016 at 11:12 am #41194
    PA Ram
    Participant

    I may be in the minority among Rams fans but I would rather they not take a QB in this draft. I’d rather use those picks to fill the holes of guys they’ve lost in free agency. And on offense–improve the line and receivers.

    I’m fine with Case starting and Mannion developing as his back up for now. Maybe Foles has a miracle resurrection. Chasing an elite QB comes at a cost. I’m not sure it’s worth it at this point and time. As for the later rounds–I’d rather they bring in depth at other positions.

    I may rethink that if that’s what happens and all the QBs melt down. But I’m sticking with it for now.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    March 29, 2016 at 11:19 am #41198
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant
    zn wrote:
    Agamemnon wrote:

    This means that hitting or not hitting isn’t proof of right or wrong but it is a result of the chance of hitting or not hitting.

    Well, except, there’s more than chance at play here. Players are picked higher when they have more desirable qualities that make it at least look like they have a better chance. Naturally it’s not 100%, but then it seems to me that if you want a better shot at a qb, you take the one who looks like they have the best chance of succeeding. If you don’t someone else will. There are variations on that and exceptions and so on, but, as a rule if you want Rivers or Eli or Stafford or Roethlisberger or etc, you pick higher…cause they won’t fall lower, generally speaking.

    So I am not sure strict chance is the way to look at it. There is some honest comparative player evaluation at work.

    To me percentages = trends across time. Trends across time favor taking the qb higher.

    But then everyone says this year is an exception. There’s more solid, tier 2 qbs–developmental. So there may be more Daltons in this draft and fewer Mariottas.

    …

    That means they have a better chance/probability. It doesn’t eliminate chance. It is just that the odds of hitting are higher. No matter how expert you get, it is a projection based on predicted success. No matter the reason for making a choice, it won’t change that if it contains unknowns there will be a certain probability in being right or wrong.

    Agamemnon

    March 29, 2016 at 12:53 pm #41202
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    Agamemnon wrote:

    That means they have a better chance/probability. It doesn’t eliminate chance.

    Yeah, I know…true. But still, I think it’s interesting that the trend is 60% v. 27%. That tells me that the more well-rounded and appealing prospects are just going higher. Yes there’s always a strong elements of chance either way, but at the same time the rankings are not just empty—there’s something to them, even if the best they can get is 60% success.

    And, again, all this may be moot, because everyone notes that this year is different when it comes to qb. There’s more 2nd tier guys (ie. 2nd tier in terms of draftibility…that’s not a claim about their future success).

    So maybe the percentages go up for the 2nd part of the 1st round this year.

    March 29, 2016 at 9:25 pm #41225
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator
    PA Ram wrote:

    I may be in the minority among Rams fans but I would rather they not take a QB in this draft. I’d rather use those picks to fill the holes of guys they’ve lost in free agency. And on offense–improve the line and receivers.

    I’m fine with Case starting and Mannion developing as his back up for now. Maybe Foles has a miracle resurrection. Chasing an elite QB comes at a cost. I’m not sure it’s worth it at this point and time. As for the later rounds–I’d rather they bring in depth at other positions.

    I may rethink that if that’s what happens and all the QBs melt down. But I’m sticking with it for now.

    i certainly am not opposed to drafting doctson in the first round and then adding a hunter henry in the second to give keenum some more support. and even if keenum isn’t the answer maybe mannion steps up. then spend the rest of the draft finding a free safety and lbs and d linemen.

    March 29, 2016 at 9:55 pm #41226
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    InvaderRam wrote:
    PA Ram wrote:

    I may be in the minority among Rams fans but I would rather they not take a QB in this draft. I’d rather use those picks to fill the holes of guys they’ve lost in free agency. And on offense–improve the line and receivers.

    I’m fine with Case starting and Mannion developing as his back up for now. Maybe Foles has a miracle resurrection. Chasing an elite QB comes at a cost. I’m not sure it’s worth it at this point and time. As for the later rounds–I’d rather they bring in depth at other positions.

    I may rethink that if that’s what happens and all the QBs melt down. But I’m sticking with it for now.

    i certainly am not opposed to drafting doctson in the first round and then adding a hunter henry in the second to give keenum some more support. and even if keenum isn’t the answer maybe mannion steps up. then spend the rest of the draft finding a free safety and lbs and d linemen.

    I belong to the camp in favor of taking a qb no matter what. I actually don’t think they have much in the way of major holes, compared to qb. If both Mannion and the new guy work out, that’s just fine with me.

    March 29, 2016 at 11:48 pm #41228
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i’m not opposed to taking a qb either. i just think there’s various ways to go about this. just depends on how the draft shakes out.

    i will say this. i feel a lot more comfortable about the offensive players in this draft than i did a couple weeks ago the more and more i read.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.