Top 10 pick "bust rate": QB vs. Tackle

by cyberwulf on Dec 10, 2008 8:59 AM PST Comment 15 comments

Given the vigorous debate about this post, I went to NFL.com's Draft History site and pulled the list of QBs and Tackles who were selected in the Top 10 picks over the past 10 years. Here's what I found:

QBs

Ryan, Russell, V. Young, Alex Smith, Manning, Rivers, Palmer, Leftwich, Carr, Harrington, Vick, Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Manning, Leaf

Out of the QBs, how many can you qualify as busts? Clearly Akili Smith, Leaf, Couch, Carr. Arguably Harrington, Alex Smith. Jury's still out on Young, Russell, but not looking so good. Jury's in on Vick. Overall, out of 16 QBs drafted in the Top 10 (most in the Top 5, actually), somewhere between 4 and 8 qualify as busts, for a "bust rate" of 25-50%.

Tackles

Long, Thomas, Brown, Ferguson, Gallery, Gross, Williams, McKinnie, L. Jones, Samuels (1997: Pace and W. Jones)

Some of these guys aren't household names, so I looked at games started. Mike Williams (#4, 2002) started all games for the Bills for three years, then dropped off the face of the earth. Probably a bust. Robert Gallery? Well, he *has* started all but one game for the Raiders since he was drafted, but it *is* the Raiders. Maybe a bust. Jury's still out on Long, maybe Brown. So, out of 10 tackles drafted in the Top 10, we have one probable bust, with perhaps one or two other possibles. The "bust rate" 10-30% (or about 7-25% if you add in '97)

It might be interesting to look at this for other positions as well; but this preliminary analysis seems to suggest that Top-10 tackles have a higher chance of being regular contributors than Top-10 QBs.

First FanPost; I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The sample sizes are extremely small.

by Phildopip on Dec 10, 2008 9:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Definitely an interesting little writeup, I'll commend you for that

but like Phildopip said, the sample sizes are pretty darn small (especially the tackles section).

by BrianL on Dec 10, 2008 9:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Sample size

Yep, small indeed. But really, it’s not a sample from a population, it’s the entire population for the given time period.

It’s all part of building a picture; John’s post, the analysis he mentions in it, etc. should all be considered but none gives the “right” answer.

by cyberwulf on Dec 10, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh no you definitely can't ignore it

I just don’t know how much weight you should give that sample.

by BrianL on Dec 10, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the problem is more the chance for variance and the ambiguity and shallowness of the term "bust"

Sample size has become a huge pet peeve for me. Sample size refers mostly to things with high rates of variability, like hitting a ball when you have virtually no control over where it will land relative to fielders. It does not mean that anything with a small sample is meaningless.

The problem is, you split this into bust/not bust. So the information is real shallow and kind of ambiguous and it compares two things that aren’t like: a quarterback “bust” and a offensive linemen “bust”. Then, with such a small sample, a couple players falling on one side or the other totally changes your results. And because we don’t know how to truly compare the two samples (and this is ignoring the fact that Bust/Not Bust completely strips any data of just how much each player contributes to their team) or really know how to equitably define what qualifies an offensive lineman as a bust compared to a quarterback we’re just not left with much to make take any conclusions from.

So, basically we’re not left with much information and the information provided isn’t real clear or conclusive.

by John Morgan on Dec 10, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I realized that almost immediately after I posted.

That’s the largest set of data to work with, but you’re right that it’s hard to place these QBs into either a “bust” or “success” category.

Out of curiosity, with the list of QBs listed in this fanpost, how many of them may have failed because there wasn’t enough talent around them?

by BrianL on Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

An interesting point about the QB busts,

is that most of them (Leaf, Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith, Russell) had/have terrible offensive lines. I’d include Akili Smith and Couch but I never watched them play so I don’t know about their lines. Only Vick and Vince Young have had good offensive lines, and Vick is only a bust because of personal douchebag issues. Even Eli was terrible when his O-line was bad. Also, I’d add Byron Leftwich to the busts lists.

The non-busts all inherited (Ryan, Rivers, McNabb) or at some point gained great offensive lines (Eli, Palmer, Peyton), even though in Palmer’s case it disappeared again.
So for QBs who had BAD O-lines to start:
QB still managed to be Good: Manning, Palmer, Peyton
QB ended up being Bad: Leaf, Akili Smith, Couch, Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith, Jamarcus Russell

I would say we should sort out the O-line first instead of taking the risk that we find the next Manning brother in Bradford.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 10, 2008 10:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm probably cherry-picking here

But along with the OL, a couple other trends jump out to me:

The “busts” tend to be chosen by teams that are notoriously bad – they’ve been perennial losers or expansion clubs. This would tend support the notion that they’re not going into the best situation. They probably going to be surrounded by bad overall talent, bad coaching, dysfunctional organizations, etc. And it’s more than likely that flawed scouting played a role in their selection.

The “busts” also tend to be guys that are thrown to the wolves right away once they reach the pros.

The success stories tend are guys that are chosen by better teams. They’re either teams that traded up aggressively to get them. Or they are teams that had been to the play-offs recently or were stuck around 8-8 mark … and then they have a down year and “luck” into the chance to grab the QB.

The success are also guys that have at least a season to sit on the bench, or an established vet mentor to learn from.

Really, Peyton Manning is the only one I can think of that stepped into a bad team, started since day 1, and wound up being productive. Vick and Young are guys who went to decent teams and/or got a chance to sit and still bombed … but with those guys the personal issues make them tough to judge.

I guess my point is that I think Seattle is more towards the “success” side of things – we’ve got a strong organization, we’ll have a vet that a youngster can sit behind and learn from for at least a season. And we’re probably a better overall team than our record indicates, we’re just having a flukey bad year. So the youngster would be surrounded by decent talent when he does step in.

So IMO, we should probably take advantage of this opportunity to get that potential franchise QB if he’s available. There’s no telling when will get this chance again … and if we do wind up drafting this high again in the future, it likely means the team has really fallen off the map as a whole and our chances of developing the guy into a productive player won’t be as good as they are now.

by jteckmann on Dec 10, 2008 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Anybody remember Payton's first year...

it was awful… but they stuck with him, and built around him… were patient.

If you find a rare talent that combines rare leadership and personality traits, then you go for it. I do not see anyone on this blog pinning for Robert Gallery…

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Dec 10, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Peyton really is a unique, amazing talent.

And with all due respect to Tom Brady, Peyton has been the MVP the last three or four years, solely in terms of value and not statistics. If you take Peyton away from that team, there’s no way a guy like Matt Cassel is going to lead them to more than 3 wins.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 11, 2008 12:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Many would strongly contest that

because of Peyton’s receivers. I do think that Peyton is a great QB, obviously, but he did have harrison and Wayne. Receivers like that mean that 2-3 times a game (at least) you get a completion that shouldn’t have been a completion. That really does a lot for a QB.

by Snuffleupagus on Dec 11, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Another interesting analysis

I don’t have time to put this together, and I’m not sure how easy it would be to do, but it would be interesting to compare the average draft position of starting QBs in the NFL to the average draft position of starting tackles. My bet would be that, on average, starting tackles are drafted quite a bit earlier. But I’d be interested to see the numbers.

by cyberwulf on Dec 10, 2008 10:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The QB's look a lot better

when it’s expanded to include the entire first round.

by Nate Dogg on Dec 10, 2008 11:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

A trade down for another 2nd round pick would be delicious

Look to fill that LG spot

by myx on Dec 10, 2008 11:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

can't draft an 'o-line'

For me the debate comes down to this:

Teams sometimes win with a mediocre QB. Or at the very least a QB of mediocre talent.

Has a team ever won with a bad offensive line? ever? Is there a ‘Dilfer’ like analogy for an offensive line?

So for me the analogy I would like to see is how much better can one lineman make a line? If this debate were about QB vs. ‘o-line’ it’s different. But I would like to know how much of an impact a single lineman can make. I’m sure it’s significant, but I’d be willing to guess that an offensive line consisting of 5 3rd round talents would be better than one 1st round talent and 4 5th round talents.

The game of football is won and lost on the line of scrimmage. That’s why I will always have an ‘o-line’ first philosophy to building a great team. But a single high draft doesn’t make an o-line.

by Snuffleupagus on Dec 11, 2008 11:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs