quarterbacks drafted #1 since 1970

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › quarterbacks drafted #1 since 1970

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 27, 2016 at 1:50 am #42673
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    from off the net

    ===

    PARAM

    Of the 21 QBs taken #1 in the draft (since 1970), 16 of them have started a playoff game. That’s 76% and two who haven’t are still starting, so that number could increase. All 16 of those QBs started playoff games in multiple seasons, so it’s not just a one and done situation. Only 7 of the 21 first pick QBs didn’t play at least 10 seasons but 5 of those 7 are still active AND still starting. That 66% with a possibility of hitting 90%. 7 of those 21 have started a SB game. That’s 33%. In fact those 7 have started 21 Superbowls, winning 15 of them. But as I said, 4 of the 14 who haven’t started a SB are still active AND starting. So that number could rise.

    So it’s not just the first round. It’s the first pick….a huge difference from just “first round”. And yes, this is our 2nd go-round, tying the Falcons, the Patriots and the Buccaneers but still behind the Colts (4 times). Only 15 NFL teams have taken a QB first overall since 1970. So we’re in fairly rarefied air.

    April 27, 2016 at 7:49 am #42676
    Avatar photocanadaram
    Participant

    Jim Miller and Pat Kirwan had a very similar conversation on MTC yesterday. Although, they didn’t go back as far as the 70s for the purposes of their discussion. Similar stats, similar conclusions.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Avatar photocanadaram.
    • This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Avatar photocanadaram.
    April 27, 2016 at 8:06 am #42679
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    canadaram wrote:

    Jim Miller and Pat Kirwan had a very similar conversation on MTC yesterday. Although, they didn’t go back as far as the 70s for the purposes of their discussion. Similar stats, similar conclusions.

    My version fwiw:

    Since 1970, when Bradshaw was the first pick in the draft, to 2013 (2013 being far enough back from now to judge), 20 QB’s have been been picked 1st in round 1. Out of those 20 there are only 4 real misses—Couch, Vick (or arguably anyway), Carr, and Russell. So that’s a hit rate of 80%.

    Some bounced around and needed 2nd chances (Plunkett, Testeverde, A.Smith, Palmer)…but still, 80%. If you include Vick, the “hit” rate for #1 pick qbs is 85%.

    I am counting as a “hit” anyone who was a starter for consecutive years in the league. Doesn’t mean he’s elite, doesn’t mean the team was good enough to be a post-season winner. The minimum is just a good qb, or even someone who turns out to be one after a rough start with a bad team. I am setting the standard where I do without getting into a lot of detailed judgments because it amounts to this—you can win with a good qb and defense in the NFL and what you tend to get, at a minimum, is a good qb with the 1st pick. I wouldn’t be, for example, one of those Baltimore fans who gripes about Flacco or a Giants fan that gripes about Eli. Both are good when their OLs have not fallen completely apart.

    April 27, 2016 at 10:23 am #42687
    Avatar photosnowman
    Participant

    Well, not sure I understand what you mean by hits and misses if being a starter for two consecutive years is the benchmark for passing. Tim Couch started 59 games over 5 years for the Browns, for example. I would consider Bradford a miss because his performance with the Rams is the reason we moved up to #1 in this draft.

    April 27, 2016 at 10:52 am #42688
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    snowman wrote:

    Well, not sure I understand what you mean by hits and misses if being a starter for two consecutive years is the benchmark for passing. Tim Couch started 59 games over 5 years for the Browns, for example. I would consider Bradford a miss because his performance with the Rams is the reason we moved up to #1 in this draft.

    I didn’t mean literally “2.” I just said “consecutive seasons” which means any number of, and that criterion did not stand alone. I also said “the minimum is just a good qb, or even someone who turns out to be one after a rough start with a bad team.”

    Since Couch is an obvious bust, then, I should add “and isn’t an obvious bust, like Couch.”

    I don’t consider Bradford a miss. First, his performance was just fine when he had both a relatively healthy OL and an actual running thread (which unfortunately with Fisher amounts to only 11 games of 23 started.) He played for a few years except for injuries and then after the injuries when traded played very well in the 2nd half of the 2015 season (and just decent in the first half), enough to earn a top dollar contract and the chance at a trade. That’s not a “miss.” A miss is someone who doesn’t get chances to play again. Another example is Alex Smith. He’s playing well. He’s not a miss.

    ..

    April 27, 2016 at 11:39 am #42689
    Avatar photosnowman
    Participant

    I see what you mean, I did not intend to be nitpicky.

    It is hard to apply criteria to individual players in a team sport like football. So much depends on the abilities, performance and health/injuries of key players around the individual that affect his play. And personal expectations get folded in too. That’s why I consider Bradford a bust; I just expected him to play eight to ten years for us, and be among the top ten statistically each year.

    April 27, 2016 at 11:48 am #42692
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    snowman wrote:

    I did not intend to be nitpicky.

    Is it “nitpicky” or “nit picky”?

    I don’t mean to get…uh…

    Naw joking aside this is all fun.

    Upshot is, before the trade I was thinking “what about qb?” Now I know there will be one.

    Is either Goff or Wentz worth all the picks they traded? Probably not but then having a qb IS worth all the picks they traded, IMO.

    ..

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.