So, Let's Talk About Quarterbacks
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 12:01 PM PDT
53 comments
The NFL has a quarterback problem. To wit: Nobody in the NFL has the least idea what makes for a successful professional quarterback. Back in December, Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article for The New Yorker talking about The Quarterback Problem. An excerpt:
But Couch was a flop in the pros. It wasn't that professional quarterbacks didn't need to be accurate. It was that the kind of accuracy required to do the job well could be measured only in a real N.F.L. game.
Gladwell weaves it in to talking about a couple other professions where it's been very difficult to predict future success: teaching and financial advice.
When we start talking about the Seahawks' draft, this is a good point to keep in mind: Nobody really knows what predicts future success in an NFL quarterback. It'd be great if the Seahawks could find gold in a QB at the top of the draft, but it isn't a given. Drafting quarterbacks is an inherently risky proposition.
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
53 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Or
Drafting quarterbacks a football player who has not played in the NFL with the intent of letting them play in the NFL is an inherently risky proposition.
by abender20 on Mar 10, 2009 12:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not As Much As You Think
Different positions have different risks. Quarterback is the riskiest position of all, as Gladwell makes clear in the article.
Safeties, wideouts, linemen, etc. are all pretty much playing the same game in college that they do in the pros. Yeah, the level of competition is higher, but they’re pretty much doing the same thing they’ve always been doing. You can look at their performance and project it into the NFL.
There are more flameouts at QB than there are anywhere else on the field. Accordingly, you have to accept that risk.
And that’s the tricky question, isn’t it? How do we accept that risk? NFL teams that don’t accept enough risk end up mediocre, at best. Going for the sure thing doesn’t get a high enough variance to leap into the top end of the NFL. However, accepting too much risk, or bad risks, turns your team into the Oakland Raiders. Yeah, if everything works out okay, you’ve got a great team. More often, those risks pile up and sink your team.
The question Seahawks management needs to be asking is: How much risk do we need to accept to get a new quarterback? And is now the time to take that risk?
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFL teams that don’t accept enough risk end up mediocre, at best.
Are there really NFL teams which fall into this category?
by cyberwulf on Mar 10, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
The Buffalo Bills, currently. They don’t take risks on high-performing players, and they’re consistently mediocre.
I’d argue that the Minnesota Vikings, presently. Yeah, they’ve been a playoff team recently, but they’ve basically topped out their production because they’re unwilling to take risks at QB.
It tends to happen to teams that are on the downside of a rebuilding cycle. They try to hang on for a few years, taking few risks with talent, and then it all collapses at once as the core ages out. The best and most dramatic recent example is the ’02 Oakland Raiders. They lose Superbowl XXXVII, and then go into a tailspin.
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Much Risk There
The Bills took him on a one-year contract for a modest amount of money. That’s not a serious high-risk move. (Although it could be a high-reward move.)
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then why is it no other teams wanted him?
I say there’s a huge amount of risk. He basically destroyed team chemistry single-handedly in Dallas and I’m sure you remember how well he did in Philly…
by Ezzra on Mar 10, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Went to the SB?
Yeah TO went to the SB, and played well. But did he get them there? No. They got there without him.
by PascoJoe on Mar 11, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Terrell Owens, 2004:
77 rec, 1200 yds, 14 TD.
by waldo rojas on Mar 11, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yet the Eagles released him a year later.
by Ezzra on Mar 11, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Owens was released by the Eagles because he had become a major headache.
That doesn’t negate him being a major part of a Superbowl team.
by waldo rojas on Mar 12, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was regarding him being a major headache
and destroying team chemistry. He’s definitely a risk, even with the high reward.
by Ezzra on Mar 12, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dallas was a powderkeg of morons and egos waiting to happen. That soap opera was just destined.
And in reality, you can’t really destroy the Bills chemistry. They suck and are out in the middle of nowhere when it comes to the NFL, and even bad publicity would be a step up and provide them any publicity at all.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 11, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sadly, I actually agree with this summary of the Bills
Maybe he’ll just kick another leg out of the wobbly desk that is their chemistry
by Ezzra on Mar 11, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is quarterback really riskier than other positions?
I never read anything to support that statement. I think a quarterback bust is simply more memorable. Teams that draft top quarterbacks also typically happen to be awful, and the quarterback is unfairly blamed for the entire team’s failing. Quarterbacks get multiple seasons to start, even if they are bad, so you can’t hide them like say a wide receiver. Other than that, most thorough, supported studies I’ve read, unlike Gladwell’s unsupported assertion, indicate quarterback is roughly as uncertain as any other position, that the first quarterback drafted is typically the best quarterback in that draft, that the quality of quarterback experiences a linear drop by pick and round, and, essentially, that it’s gut wrenching, but teams need to draft a quarterback early and hope they turn out to be good.
by John Morgan on Mar 10, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Opportunity
I’d love to see those studies, because most of what I’ve read reinforces the notion that quarterbacks have higher failure rates. Hard data beats my notions any day of the week.
If anyone ever develops a reliable system for identifying college QB talent and turning them into pros, he’s going to make a mint.
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What have you read about quarterbacks having a higher failure rate?
You can find the studies I mentioned at AdvancedNFLStats.com.
by John Morgan on Mar 10, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only Impressions
And what I’ve picked up here. Your previous article on QBs implied that they have higher failure rates than other NFL players. I can’t point to chapter-and-verse studies, probably because I haven’t read any. So I’ll have to truck over to AdvancedNFLStats and learn.
But I look around the league at how many teams are willing to take risks on retread QBs, and I have to ask: Who knows how to fairly evaluate this talent?
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you give me a ballpark for success?
5+ starting season? 3+ seasons of 3000 passing yards or 1.5:1 TD:INT ratio?
Is Leftwich a success? How about Seneca Wallace?
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do NFL teams accept the extra risk that comes with a QB?
Probably because a good QB is more valuable than any other position in the sport. As John Morgan alluded to in his post about QBs, superbowl champs tend to have great QBs.
I think Abender was trying to say that entire draft is about looking at college talent, and evaluating whether or not they can adapt to the NFL. It’s true that QBs will have a harder time since there are so many factors involved, but all positions face a difference. For DE it’s facing bigger, faster, and more agile tackles on a consistent basis. For WRs it’s facing CBs that aren’t always short, and almost all of them are fast. And so on and so forth.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, Absolutely
When rewards are higher, you should be willing to accept a higher degree of risk. That’s elementary. Of course, high-variance strategies get into troubles all of their own.
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was an interesting (if not foolproof) article about QBs and ideas about why they 'bust':
by Misfit74 on Mar 10, 2009 12:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
edit: should read BUT not foolproof, because it has plenty of holes in it's logic, but not a bad read.
by Misfit74 on Mar 10, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The logic of that article is so flimsy, it borders on anti-knowledge
He makes one obvious point: “System” QBs need to be evaluated carefully, since they have more things to learn in adjusting to a pro-style offense. The other “reasons” for busting (poor intangibles, bad O-line) might be valid, but provide no guidance to a team deciding whether to draft a QB.
by cyberwulf on Mar 10, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to try and come with a logical argument with this...
but screw it. I’m hoping and praying that the hawks don’t take Stafford with the 4th pick. I’m hoping we go o-line and shore up a weakness.
Screw it, I am going to go logical. The Hawks o-line ranked 29th last year in adjusted line yards. They also ranked 21st in adjusted sack rate.
With Walt coming off microfracture surgery at his age, and with Wahle having the season he had last year, I’m hoping Ruskell goes O-line with the first pick. Who’s with me?
by PattyB on Mar 10, 2009 12:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sounds good to me. I'm all for Eugene Monroe.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto
I’m all for best player available, and Unger in the 2nd, if he’s still available.
Franchising Hill means if Curry isn’t there at 4, we’re OK. If he is, we rotate him in and let Hill go to FA next year. Same for Branch and Crabtree. Because we got TJ, if we take Crab also, Branch gets traded or released by this time next year. Same for Jones and Monroe. Because we re-signed Willis, if we take Monroe, Jones will be gone by this time next year, maybe Wahle too.
by diehard82 on Mar 10, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way for Curry.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruskell does enjoy surprising us on draft day
Therefore I’m gonna believe anything is possible, especially with his affinity for BPA.
by Ezzra on Mar 10, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What we have to prepare for is
both J.Smith and Monroe being gone by #4.
by Misfit74 on Mar 10, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With you
Also, just because it’s a ‘deep’ position this year, it doesn’t mean (if you evaluate your talent correctly) that the best isn’t available near the top.
by JamesMurphy on Mar 10, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From previous FG discussions,
there are (at least) two important conflicting factors at play:
1. QB is the most valuable position, and league-average (or better) QBs are hard to come by in free agency or via trade.
2. NFL performance appears less projectable for QBs than for any other position. Given the relatively high risk of a bust and the amount of money/effort invested in a Top 5 QB pick, taking a QB comes with a large potential downside.
by cyberwulf on Mar 10, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ESPN has an article
on predicting NFL success for a QB by using college stats.
It is, as expected, not a very good article and has a formula that left me skeptical about whether or not it is worthy of being published.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 3:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sold on the formula they're using.
by BrianL on Mar 10, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when 5 of their 15 Group 1 QB's were either unsuccessful or have yet to show anything.
It’s certainly not fair to judge Alex Smith or Jason Campbell yet (and Campbell hasn’t been dreadful by any means), but having Couch, Carr, and Leftwich score well on that list hints that either their system of flawed or their underlying assumptions are wrong. John mentioned earlier that the context into which a QB is drafted plays a huge role in their success, and that effectively renders this study useless.
by abender20 on Mar 10, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They left out a bunch of guys as well.
I wonder how Jason White did, or Hasselbeck, or Brady, or Timmy Chang?
For possibly cherry picking the players they showed, they sure didn’t do a convincing job of showing that their study is very solid.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Timmy Chang?
More like Patrick Chung.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not cherry picking
those were all the first round picks since 2000 i think.
by cro-mag! on Mar 10, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
on reflection
i don’t hate this article and formula.
a couple things I might do to refine the data would be remove all QBs freshmen year (because most everybody struggles when forced to play as a freshmen, and if anything it should come out as a positive that they get this game experience) and also instead of using the apparently arbirtrary 60% completions and 2.25 TD/Int ratio maybe using the league averages for that year or that conference just to give it some relevence.
by cro-mag! on Mar 10, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their Math is Shoddy
I may not understand every little thing about DVOA, but I understand the basics behind how it works, and how it’s derived.
I have no idea how they arrived at the parameters for their equation. This leads me to believe that I should not take them seriously. That particular article smacks of “anti-knowledge.”
by robbbbbb on Mar 10, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea but it's a step up for ESPN
Normally they just have someone say “this guy is good” or “this guy will fail” without any real evidence. This was at least an attempt to bring together a few stat categories in a tentative attempt to project future success. And I think they were pointing more at the people who failed to break 0 in their analysis as sure failures, as opposed to who would succeed.
Still, their sample size isn’t large enough to be convincing. And they need to take into account surrounding talent on college teams somehow as well as the defensive talent they faced in a given year. But now we’re talking about a drastically more complex formula, not ESPN’s forte.
by Fear on Mar 10, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good article
I thought it was more then a “step up”, it was pretty good. It is a raw formula, once you start accounting for talent around you then you back into pure perception. Maybe a much more complicated formula could be devised to take into account the talent level surrounding a player, but doubtfull. Too many variables.
by germpod on Mar 11, 2009 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ARGH!
Sorry, this isn’t directed you specifically, but…
ESPN’s formula is complete and utter bullshit! It’s not a step up. It’s a way to manipulate with bogus statistics. It reduces and muddies the argument by adding specious information. It is anti-knowledge. The lowest form of analysis. Please, please, please everyone hone your BS detector. If something has no logical framework, works backwards from the results, has no and has not been tested for any predicative power, seems convoluted, indecipherable and arbitrary, ignore it.
by John Morgan on Mar 11, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Somewhat unrelated but
I was reading the comments over at FO regarding this made up stat and someone said that Stafford completed ~200 of his 246 passes to a WR. Considering that Richt runs a pro style offense that would be a + on Staffords pro’s and con’s list wouldn’t it? Would you take a tid bit like that into consideration at all?
by Nate Dogg on Mar 11, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats even more unrelated than I intended
I completely agree, the stat is BS and I went to FO to see how they were reacting to it. While I was there….
by Nate Dogg on Mar 11, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Reilly
Love this guy.
03/11/09 – Central Washington Pro day: Central Washington’s contingent of two players at the combine doubled the number of players from the University of Miami-Fla. At the combine — and they doubled the number of NFL scouts that came to see them at pro day. Due to heavy snow, there was just one NFL scout on hand — the one who happened to get to town the night before. Prospects ran on an indoor rubber track with spikes (fast), and did drills on the basketball court. Mike Reilly, a 6-3, 212-pound QB, ran the 40 in 4.74 and 4.75, had a 32 ½-inch vertical jump, and 9-foot long jump. – Gil Brandt, NFL.com
03/05/09 – Mike Reilly opened a few eyes at the NFL scouting combine. The quarterback from Central Washington University also prompted at least one double take. It occurred during one of the countless meetings he had with one of umpteen teams in Indianapolis two weeks ago. “One of the coaches asked me that — ‘Coming from Division II, how is it coming to this combine?’ "Reilly said this week. "I told him straight up, ‘Hey, I think I’m the best quarterback in this year’s draft.” “I think I caught him off guard, because he looked at me kind of funny. Then I said, ‘Hey, I’m not projected as a first-rounder. I’m coming from a small school. But if I don’t have that kind of confidence, I’m never going to be able to compete at this level.” “Score one for the big-armed quarterback from the little school in Ellensburg. "You’ve got to love a kid with an attitude like that,” said Scot McCloughan, general manager for the San Francisco 49ers. “He’s a big kid (6 feet 3, 214 pounds) with a good arm and he’s going to get a shot somewhere — probably late in the draft,” Mayock said. But the 49ers rank players in three tiers, and they consider Reilly a second-tier player - which puts him into the late third to fifth-round category. “I hear a lot of positive things about him,” McCloughan said. “Our scouts think he’s a pretty good prospect. Not a high-round guy, but a middle-round guy that’s got some upside.” – Clare Farnsworth, Seattle Post Intelligencer
Ran same 40yd. at the combine as Chase Daniel. 4.92 (4.74 pro day)
Same vertical as Matt Stafford. 30.5" (32.5" pro day)
9’1" broad jump to Stafford’s 8’11".
Fastest 3-cone drill for QB’s. 6.76
Second fastest 20 yd shuffle. 4.11 followed by, Sanchez 4.21, and Daniel 4.31.
by C_HAWK1 on Mar 11, 2009 8:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like Reilly too.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 11, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the post.
I’m definitely intrigued.
That being said, Gil Brandt obviously means 9 foot broad jump, not long jump. It says broad jump in your third paragraph, but if had meant long jump, then he would have the long jump of a chubby short 8th grader who never long jumped before (me).
As for the other stats, combine stats for QBs never really mattered to me. I don’t really care how he moves or jumps, just how he reads, reacts, throws, anticipates, etc. I’m not even sure those stats mean much for buying time in the pocket, as Big Ben seems like a lumbering QB, but he obviously does a good job of eluding tackles with his strength and pocket awareness.
by LantermanC on Mar 12, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell yeah.
Mike Reilly would be a good fit in my opinion. What round is he projected to go in?
by SoCalHawksFan on Mar 12, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
