The "Science" of Drafting a Quarterback in the NFL

by Jacson Bevens on Apr 14, 2011 10:56 PM PDT

About a week ago, in one of the comments sections, there was a conversation about where quarterback value can be found in the draft. Someone pointed out that both Dan Marino and Aaron Rodgers were taken within a couple selections of the #25 pick that Seattle currently holds, which led to me looking at the landmark 1983 draft* that produced Marino, which in turn made me look at the five QBs taken in front of him, which in turn-- great googaly-moogaly, how is selecting a quarterback anything but dumb luck?

For reference, the first-round quarterbacks in the 1983 draft looked like this:

1.) John Elway
7.) Todd Blackledge
14.) Jim Kelly
15.) Tony Eason
24.) Ken O’Brien
27.) Dan Marino

Like buns in a Big Mac, Hall-of-Famers Elway, Kelly, and Marino hold this juicy group together, with Eason and O'Brien providing edible enough filler. Unfortunately, the already disgusting sandwich metaphor I'm using isn't complete without Todd Blackledge's secret sauce soggying everything up.

The trio of HOFers make this draft historic, but Eason and O'Brien also had very productive careers and lived up to their first-round billing. Five out of six ain't bad, and the case can be made that talent evaluators did a good job in rating these QBs before the draft, but all it takes is for one GM to choose Todd Blackledge 7th overall and all arguments about what makes for a good NFL quarterback go out the window.

It's a trend that continues throughout the history of the NFL draft. Alex Smith goes 1st overall in the same year that Aaron Rodgers goes 24th and Matt Cassel goes 230th. Chad Pennington gets picked 18th one day before Tom Brady gets picked 199th. Our own Matt Hasselbeck was taken 127 picks after Charlie Batch, and the list goes on. I mean, remember when THIS was the hottest debate in sports?

My point is that we hear a lot of noise regarding quarterback prospects before each draft: this guy won't fit a pro system; this guy has character concerns; this guy never took snaps from under center; this guy's too short; this guy's too tall; this guy smells funny, etc. Everyone's got an expert opinion as to why one guy will succeed and another will fail. Ultimately though, when it comes to drafting a quarterback, it's just really damn difficult to nail down what will make a guy successful.

Drafting a quarterback is as exact a science as Hungry Hungry Hippos is. We all know this, but just to highlight what a crapshoot it can be, I've compiled all the quarterbacks taken in NFL drafts since 2000, sans commentary. They are listed in order, with their selection round in parentheses.

* Side note -- As I was perusing the careers of the '83 quarterbacks, something occurred to me: if it hadn't been for Elway's final two seasons, this would have been an outrageously under-performing group of Super Bowl QBs, at least in terms of record. Everyone knows about Kelly's four consecutive SB losses; but between those, Elway's three, Marino's one, and Eason's historically-bad one, the group was a combined 0-9 in the Big Game between 1985 and 1994, and were outscored 359-139 in those contests.

On to the list. Keep it in mind as you draw conclusions about QBs the Seahawks may take this year.

2000:
Chad Pennington (1st)
Giovanni Carmazzi (3rd)
Chris Redman (3rd)
Tee Martin (5th)
Marc Bulger (6th)
Spergon --haha, "Spergon"-- Wynn (6th)
Tom Brady (6th)
Todd Husak (6th)
Tim Rattay (7th)
Jarious Jackson (7th)
Joe Hamilton (7th)

2001:
Michael Vick (1st)
Drew Brees (2nd)
Quincy Carter (2nd)
Marques Tuiasosopo (2nd)
Chris Weinke (4th)
Sage Rosenfels (4th)
Jesse Palmer (4th)
Mike McMahon (5th)
AJ Feeley (5th)
Josh Booty (7th)
Josh Heupel (7th)

2002:
David Carr (1st)
Joey Harrington (1st)
Patrick Ramsey (1st)
Josh McCown (3rd)
David Garrard (4th)
Rohan Davey (4th)
Randy Fasani (5th)
Kurt Kittner (5th)
Brandon Doman (5th)
Craig Nall (5th)
JT O'Sullivan (6th)
Seth Burford (7th)
Jeff Kelly (7th)
Ronald Curry (7th)
Wes Pate (7th)

2003:
Carson Palmer (1st)
Byron Leftwich (1st)
Kyle Boller (1st)
Rex Grossman (1st)
Dave Ragone (3rd)
Chris Simms (3rd)
Seneca Wallace (4th)
Brian St. Pierre (5th)
Drew Henson (6th)
Brooks Bollinger (6th)
Kliff Kingsbury (6th)
Gibran Hamdan (7th)
Ken Dorsey (7th)

2004:
Eli Manning (1st)
Phillip Rivers (1st)
Ben Roethlisberger (1st)
JP Losman (1st)
Matt Schaub (3rd)
Luke McCown (4th)
Craig Krenzel (5th)
Andy Hall (6th)
Josh Harris (6th)
Jim Sorgi (6th)
Jeff Smoker (6th)
John Navarre (7th)
Cody Pickett (7th)
Casey Bramlet (7th)
Matt Mauck (7th)
BJ Symons (7th)
Bradlee Van Pelt (7th)

2005:
Alex Smith (1st)
Aaron Rodgers (1st)
Jason Campbell (1st)
Charlie Frye (3rd)
Andrew Walter (3rd)
David Greene (3rd)
Kyle Orton (4th)
Stefan LeFors (4th)
Dan Orlovsky (5th)
Adrian McPherson (5th)
Derek Anderson (6th)
Matt Cassel (7th)

2006:
Vince Young (1st)
Matt Leinart (1st)
Jay Cutler (1st)
Kellen Clemens (2nd)
Tarvaris Jackson (2nd)
Charlie Whitehurst (3rd)
Brody Croyle (3rd)
Ingle Martin (5th)
Omar Jacobs (5th)
Bruce Gradkowski (6th)
DJ Shockley (7th)

2007:
JaMarcus Russell (1st)
Brady Quinn (1st)
Kevin Kolb (2nd)
John Beck (2nd)
Drew Stanton (2nd)
Trent Edwards (3rd)
Jeff Rowe (5th)
Troy Smith (5th)
Jordan Palmer (6th)
Tyler Thigpen (7th)

2008:
Matt Ryan (1st)
Joe Flacco (1st)
Brian Brohm (2nd)
Chad Henne (2nd)
Kevin O'Connell (3rd)
John David Booty (5th)
Dennis Dixon (5th)
Josh Johnson (5th)
Erik Ainge (5th)
Colt Brennan (6th)
Andre Woodson (6th)
Matt Flynn (7th)
Alex Brink (7th)

2009:
Matthew Stafford (1st)
Mark Sanchez (1st)
Josh Freeman (1st)
Pat White (2nd)
Stephen McGee (4th)
Rhett Bomar (5th)
Nate Davis (5th)
Tom Brandstater (6th)
Mike Teel (6th)
Keith Null (6th)
Curtis Painter (6th)

2010:
Sam Bradford (1st)
Tim Tebow (1st)
Jimmy Clausen (2nd)
Colt McCoy (3rd)
Mike Kafka (4th)
John Skelton (5th)
Jonathan Crompton (5th)
Rusty Smith (6th)
Dan LeFevour (6th)
Joe Webb (6th)
Tony Pike (6th)
Levi Brown (7th)
Sean Canfield (7th)
Zac Robinson (7th)

It was fascinating to look back over these drafts. I'm extremely interested in all y'all's thoughts, so lend me your observations in the comments section. Just keep in mind that whenever you think you've got it figured out, remember that a well-paid professional once chose this guy directly ahead of four Pro Bowlers at the same position.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Boy the 2002, 2006 and 2007 classes were bad.

by Coach Owens on Apr 14, 2011 11:25 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah

The best picks in those drafts were Garrard, Cutler, and Kolb, respectively. That’s out of what, almost 40 QBs in those drafts?

From Drexler to Roy
And all the Blazers between
Rip City Uprise

by MidnightWilliams on Apr 14, 2011 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions

agreed-

there are multiple years where a quality starting QB has been very difficult to find. Makes me wonder if this class will be similar to 2002, 2005-2007 Draft year where there is 1 guy each year who I would be happy with having or hopefully closer to the 2008/2009 Draft where multiple quality QBs are drafted. A class like 2004 is out of the question this year of course.

After looking over these groups, I agree with the idea of a “crapshoot.” I hope PC and Co. know what they are doing because my confidence level of finding a great QB based on being the “highest rated” has taken a big hit today. Each year has a few serviceable guys, but I am hoping we are able to land a high quality QB. Which brings me to another thought…

Would you rather take a player who has a good chance of being a quality quarterback but not a great QB, or taking a player who has a much higher ceiling but may be more of an “unknown” or who also has a chance of not living up to expectations. The idea of Risk/Reward is something I talk about alot in my Economics class and very curious to hear your thoughts as well.

by sdoebele on Apr 15, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Why can't this class be like the 2004 class?

by Nate Dogg on Apr 15, 2011 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions

That's the thing

It might be. I doubt it will be, but it’s just going to take a few years to find out.

I've got ridiculous upside.

by Jacson Bevens on Apr 15, 2011 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions

I dont think the overall

talent is there at the QB position as well as the amount of depth. 2004 had 2 legit possible #1 overall choices whereas we currently have 2 possibilities who may go number 1 but by default more than by ability. I would like to believe that this year would be similar to 2004 and you guys are right- it possibly may happen. However, based on who we are looking at and how special that 2004 draft was in retrospect, I believe it to be highly unlikely.

by sdoebele on Apr 15, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Holy AFC East.

Man That division was starving for QB’s in that 83’ draft. Even Indy technically (or was it Baltimore back then)
Great write up. I enjoy an in depth look at crap shoots. This goes to show you the one thing you can’t measure as well is poise under NFL pressure, and the intangibles.

by JRock419 on Apr 15, 2011 12:17 AM PDT reply actions

Intangibles are really difficult to predict

As they are, by definition, un-measurable. You just don’t know how a guy’s gonna act when he’s given millions of dollars and celebrity privilege.

I've got ridiculous upside.

by Jacson Bevens on Apr 15, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Here's the formula:

Find the perfectionist, the obsessive, the competitive, and the one who has something to prove.

by grinch11 on Apr 15, 2011 5:09 AM PDT reply actions

This only holds true

If there’s also a ton of talent. The catch is that human nature often dictates that those with excessive talent don’t push themselves as hard as those without. For every Peyton Manning, there are a handful of JaMarcus Russells. The exceptions to this rule are typically the ones that end up succeeding at the highest level.
Of course, being drafted into surrounding talent and a conducive system, goes a long way, too.

I've got ridiculous upside.

by Jacson Bevens on Apr 15, 2011 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions

Here are the QBs taken in the Top 10 of each draft from 2000 to 2008 (last 2 drafts too soon to judge):

Michael Vick, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Phil Rivers, Alex Smith, Vince Young, Matt Leinert, Jay Cutler (I think he was taken 10th overall), JaMarcus Russell and Matt Ryan. A lot of stinkers, to be sure, but you got a 50% chance of getting….well, maybe not Peyton, but a really good QB (with Russell being the worst of the worst). Now, if you expand this for the ENTIRE draft, then you’ll get more shitty QBs, sure, but there’s a few more decent QBs out there than I would have previously assumed (and since there are only 32 starting gigs in the NFL, some guys just fall through the cracks without getting a chance). I’d say that Russell was historically awful, and not such a common occurrence.

by J.L. White on Apr 15, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

2003--Gibran Hamdan

Seattle’s #3 QB for a couple of years, won the NFL Europe championship (more than once I think), REALLY looked the part, then… Gone.

That’s something that stuck out to me in this article. Lots of winners in college, Canada, Europe or wherever, but that doesn’t always translate to the NFL.

by Jackrabbit5683 on Apr 15, 2011 6:19 AM PDT reply actions

But how does QB compare with any other position?

Every position has its successes and its busts. You can say it’s a crapshoot no matter what position you take. Do we know how the track record at QB compares to any other position? I’ve long thought that a left tackle in the top 10 is the safest pick you can make, though the 2009 draft seriously makes me reconsider that.

by Suburban Shocker on Apr 15, 2011 8:19 AM PDT reply actions

Right there with you

DE actually has a higher bust rate. Not to mention, just look at the playoffs and tell me how many non-first round QBs are there on a consistent basis not named Brady or Brees (who was basically a late first rounder).

by MTJ on Apr 15, 2011 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions

Brian Burke broke down success rates by position a while back.

Most of the links can be found here, and DBs can be found here. It basically works out that teams are best at identifying DBs, worst at DEs and QBs are kind of in the middle.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 15, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

I really don't like the term "science" when talking QBs

I think it’s anything but a science. People love to make equations to find the perfect “can’t miss” QB. Problem is, there are so many variables in college that have to be accounted for using the old eye ball test.

The only “equation” or “stat” that justifies anything is that teams have a significantly higher chance of finding a franchise QB in round 1 compared to any other round. The second round is absolutely horrible from a “numbers” stand point. And the only 2 that come to mind (Favre and Brees) were the picked at the top of round 2.

The concept I am bothered by is this notion of “setting your franchise back for years,” if you miss on a first round QB. You know what else sets your franchise back for years? Not having a QB. You won’t find a QB unless you take a chance on one. Plain and simple.

*Now, this certainly doesn’t mean drafting an Andy Dalton in round 1 (puke). That’s just retarded.

by MTJ on Apr 15, 2011 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Yep, that's why I put quotations around it.

I've got ridiculous upside.

by Jacson Bevens on Apr 15, 2011 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Duly noted

by MTJ on Apr 15, 2011 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Quarterback vs the rest of the team

One other HUGE variable to throw into the equation is the quality of the coaching staff and the level of talent that were placed around each of those QBs. Talking specifically about the ’83 draft, it would be interesting to see what would have happened had each of those teams drafted a different QB that year.

Would Marino have done just as well had he been drafted by the Chiefs or the Jets that year? Elway famously forced his way out of Baltimore; would he have been just as successful there as he was at Denver?

by TMann_2 on Apr 15, 2011 9:20 AM PDT reply actions

Rex Grossman was a first round pick, not second.

Looks like the only years that the best quarterback didn’t come out of the first round were 2000, 2002 and 2007.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 15, 2011 10:03 AM PDT reply actions

You're right, he was 22nd overall.

I’ll update the article to reflect that. Thanks.

I've got ridiculous upside.

by Jacson Bevens on Apr 15, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Let's go to the Malcolm Gladwell!

He discusses “the quarterback problem” in this 2008 article (which is more about teachers): Most Likely To Succeed. Maybe some of you have seen this before?

Anyway, his conclusion, if you want to call it that, is that NFL teams would probably be better off accumulating “good” quarterbacks rather than obsessing over trying to predict who is going to be a “great” quarterback, because you just can’t predict that with any reliability. The job of NFL quarterback is unique: you don’t really know whether a promising college QB will succeed or fail until you actually let them try it at the pro level.

There are things to quibble with in the article itself (like the researchers who claim draft position has no correlation to NFL success), but I thought I’d pass it along for those who might be interested in reading it.

by busplunger on Apr 15, 2011 10:57 AM PDT reply actions