Since 2003. Brady is an anomaly and Brees should of been taken in round 1... by us. He was the first pick of round 2, basically a 1st.
He goes on: . He's wrong about Romo of course. He has one playoff win in his career (2009 over Philly, was then crushed the next week by Favre and the Vikings). Still, that's pretty telling. We had a huge thread about 1st Round QB's here a month or so ago, how it didn't mean anything etc., so forth.
I completely agree with what he's saying here. It's possible to find a franchise QB outside the 1st round, but as the Dolphins have found out the hard way, your odds are significantly worse.
Exactly. Call it better scouting, teams giving 1st round guys more chances, whatever. It's a legit trend.
list of cornerbacks that have won a playoff game that were selected in the first round in 2003 marcus trufant terrence newman Andre Woolfolk Sammy Davis
??? Either you're saying that Cornerback is as important as QB, or you're...I don't know what you're saying.
first round qbs selected in 2003 that haven't won a playoff game byron leftwich kyle boller carson palmer Here's an interesting tidbit rex grossman has won two playoff games. Wow, good for him. 1/4 of the qbs from the 2003 draft have one a playoff game. That qb is rex grossman.
His stats can be used to wipe your rear end. Ask him to put in print how many QBs taken prior to the second round from the dates he gave, have failed or turned out to be no better then later round picks. He will not answer that. Regardless of where Tannehill is taken in the draft, he is not qualified , nor will he ever be with exception of injury needs, to be a starting QB in the NFL. Miami drafts him with our first pick ? Ireland is bye bye and they can take Sherman with him. If we did not have Tannehills former ex HC who was fired by the way, we would not even think of drafting Tannehill. This is a joke taking this kid in the top 10. Lets put it this way, it he is as some say he is, he ain't getting past Cleveland. If he does, he should not be taken in the first round at all. The kid did nothing in college, nothing. The only thing he has going for him is his former coach that was given the axe by his former school now works for Miami. After that, there is nothing to reach for in this kid, nothing.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. No QB drafted in rounds 2-7 after 2003 has won a playoff game. The point is that 1st Round QB's have a much better chance of success. There's no debating that.
yeah, well except for Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Kurt Warner, Tim Hasselbeck, Jake Delhomme and quite a few others... All guys that were not 1st round picks that led their teams to the POs at one time or another... The list is long on guys that have been picked in the first round that have turned out to be good qbs, but the list is long of guys that have not been good qbs from the first round...It's not the only option to find a qb...it's likely the best option, but not the only option...This is exactly why guys like Tannehill will be drafted in the top 10 and guys like Weeden will slip into the first round as well....however, the thing is with any QB and whenever he is taken, if you miss....you pay dearly....
more likely because there are runs on qbs in the first round, yes. It doesn't mean however, you just select a qb in the first round to select a qb. See my stat above. And I won't even go into the qbs who teams probably got them the win. Like rex grossman, mark sanchez, etc.
How many playoff games has a QB the Dolphins drafted NOT NAMED Marino or Griese won? Don't hurt yourself looking that one up.
No one is saying take one just to take one. But it's almost not even worth taking one if you don't take one in the first.
How many QB's actually drafted by the Dolphins have won a playoff game? Now go look up where they were drafted. Then go look up ALL the QB's the Dolphins have drafted. Then tell me how many playoffs games they've won. So while drafting a QB in the 1st doesn't ALWAYS = Success, NOT drafting one in the first almost never does.
Or the dolphins have been really bad at evaluating qbs? Or the dolphins coaching was bad? Again, trying to take these stats as a tell all without looking at everything is misleading. And my point is, the statistics say, there isn't that much of a difference between the qbs that do win selected in the first round, and the qbs that lose selected in the first round.
But the stats ALSO say taking a QB after the 1st is almost a wasted pick, do they not? You're only looking at one side of it. I'm not saying there aren't busts in the 1st round. You have to take a chance. It's EXTREMELY rare for a QB to just fall in your lap. The reason everyone mentions Brady is because it's the ONE TIME it's ever happened. So, you can sit around and wait for a guy like that, or take a chance on a first round QB. And honestly, with the rookie cap, who gives a **** if they don't pan out? Draft another, if he fails, draft another one. Rinse, repeat.
So all QBs who are not drafted in the first round don't count unless they are anomalies ?? I'm sure the odds are better for guys drafted in the first round vs those not, but there's a good chance you can get a QB who is capable or even better than that in other rounds...it's just not a cut and dried rule that has no exceptions..
I think if you use stats to qualify where you pick any position in the draft to the detriment of game film, character issues, and other measurables you will always fail.
Again, the odds say no, you don't. It's really not that hard of a concept. Unless you can show me the success had by 2nd Round QB's drafted after 2003...?
There's kind of a selection bias going on there. A lot of those guys don't get the proper playing time because their team didn't invest much in them. So it's kind of difficult to judge them without the proper sample size, not to mention using wins is a poor way to measure QB performance.
I wonder if the increased focus and scrutiny of the combine has any bearing on that stat? Of course, the flip side of that would be that's only a nine year sampling. How long has the draft been around?
You mind giving me the lottery ticket numbers while you're at it? I'd like to retire next week. Thanks in advance.
How many were drafted after 2003? That was Hyde's stat. Nothing ever has NO exceptions. No one is arguing that, but the odds are so incredibly low it's almost not even worth it. Then again, picks that low usually don't pan out anyway (especially for the Dolphins) so what the hell, I hope Ireland drafts a QB in every round after 3.
Except that in this case, it kinda does Like I said, call it first round guys like Sanchez getting more chances or whatever, but it plays. It definitely plays.
There's a reason why they arbitrarily ended the date at 2003. 2002 included Garrard who got to an AFCCG, Brees was 2001 who has won a Super Bowl, and 2000 was Brady, who has won three Super Bowls.
So chances are the Bengals will not win a playoff game next season because Andy Dalton is a 2nd round quarterback.
Are you referring to this one from yours truly? http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...ince-Marino-Shula-Big-Hint-it-invovles-the-QB There were several folks in there who tried to say there were no stats whatsoever to support 1st round QBs being more successful than late round QBs. So there goes that theory...
You would say that because you misunderstand the concepts. They fail, not because they are taken in the second round or later, but because they're not good enough. They get taken in the 2-7 rounds because of various reasons, off-field concerns, talent issues, better talent above, but the point that I really want to make is that you can never tell anyone anything about Ryan Mallet being great again. Also, it's very convenient that they mention only Yates having done this. Funny because that game was between two quarterbacks drafted after the first round. Of course only one could win. It also fails to account for guys with less than first round talent who win playoff games. Is it only because Alex Smith was drafted in the first round that he got to the NFCCG this year? Then what about David Carr? Why has he not won anything? Now do you understand why it isn't causation but rather correlation?
