Eagles Move up to the #2 Pick

[Across The Field]

Well the NFL scouts don't seem to think it's a down year for NFL QB prospects. Why do you think that Goff or Wentz are over-valued? Don't you think that the NFL scouts know more than you or I?

Newsflash: QB is the most over-valued and over-drafted position in the draft every single year. This is common knowledge. Hell ESPN wrote an article yesterday about how these trades may push Christian Hackenberg into the first round, which is an absolutely absurd thing to think. Tim Tebow was once a first rounder, for crying out loud.

 

[Across The Field]

"Since 2010, 20 quarterbacks have attempted at least 2,000 passes. Among that group, Bradford ranks last in passer rating, yards per attempt and touchdowns. He's been afforded every excuse in the book, but expecting him to suddenly be a different guy after six seasons and 63 starts would be foolish."

What's trending in the NFL: Eagles move up to No. 2; Josh Norman is now a free agent

THIS^^^^

I don't know how people can still think this guy is somehow going to magically turn it around. He has, at his very best, been an average QB. Normally, he's just flat out bad. He's made of glass and doesn't have it upstairs. Regardless of what happens with Nick Foles, STL fleeced Philly in that trade last year simply because they got the 2nd rounder. If I was a QB-starved team, I would consider offering a 6th rounder at most for Bradford. It hurts having to strain my brain trying to figure out what Philly was thinking giving him the money they gave him this offseason. What an idiotic organization, but I look for that pick from Philly that Cleveland gets in 2017 to be top 10 at worst, which is sweet.

 

[Iggloo]

Last year, when all these people thought he had a decent season, I kept seeing a guy whose passes were always underthrown, always lacking zip, always these little tosses with air under them that required receivers to break stride and slow down to grab a ball below their waists. It's a friggin joke anyone thinks this guy is anything more than a mediocre backup at this point. Nice enough guy, but just not a starter. And yes, he was actually injury free last year.

 

[flyerhawk]

It is so tough to say that though when you look at the production by round. There was a study a few years ago, based on 20 years...

237 QB's drafted, 49 were in the first round. They accounted for 86 of the 133 playoff wins by those QB's. That's 65% of those playoff wins by 20% of the QB's... Brady really throws some of their numbers off, of the other 47 playoff wins, he had 18 of them at the time.

Really only the 6th round stood up to the first round in stats and play, again, Brady making up most of that success.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | NFL Draft: Round-by-Round QB Study

I'm a stats nerd and I like Scott Kacsmar's stuff(he was a regular poster on KFFL back before he got a job as ESPN) But he sometimes parses his data a little too much.

Let's look at his data from this perspective.

IN the range he was looking at there were 49 QBs drafted in the 1st round. Of those 49 he rates 19 as being good. That's a hit rate of 38%

There were 22 QBs drafted in the 2nd round. 6 of them were good. 27%

There were 24 QBs drafted in the 3rd round. 5 of them were good. 21%

And as you go down the draft the percentage gets worse. So clearly a 1st round draft choice has a much better chance of turning out to be good than any other round. BUT it is still less than a 50% chance that the QB will turn out to be good.

So let's look at what the Eagles gave up 2 1st round draft picks(38% with each pick), a 2nd round pick(27%), a 3rd round pick(21%) and some loose change. The Eagles would have been far better off,statistically, keeping their picks and drafting a QB with their 1sts this year and then next year if this one doesn't pan out.

Statistically speaking they traded away a near certainty to get a high impact player(4 picks would almost certainly yielded at least one good player) on a complete roll of the dice.

Look at the Redskins. When they moved up to draft RGIII, I told everyone that historically speaking, only one of RGIII/Luck was likely to turn out to be a quality QB. Most people scoffed at that. The Redskins, apparently understanding probability somewhat, decided to take another QB in the same draft, who is now their starting QB.

If you look at the times that do well drafting they almost ALWAYS are big draft pick accumulators. Teams that consistently trading up and losing picks, rarely build talent on their rosters.

 

[Across The Field]

Last year, when all these people thought he had a decent season, I kept seeing a guy whose passes were always underthrown, always lacking zip, always these little tosses with air under them that required receivers to break stride and slow down to grab a ball below their waists. It's a friggin joke anyone thinks this guy is anything more than a mediocre backup at this point. Nice enough guy, but just not a starter. And yes, he was actually injury free last year.

Throwing multiple INTs in over 1/3 of your games is ghastly. He had as many multiple-INT games as Phillip Rivers and Drew Brees combined, and they threw WAY more than Bradford.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I'm a stats nerd and I like Scott Kacsmar's stuff(he was a regular poster on KFFL back before he got a job as ESPN) But he sometimes parses his data a little too much.

Let's look at his data from this perspective.

IN the range he was looking at there were 49 QBs drafted in the 1st round. Of those 49 he rates 19 as being good. That's a hit rate of 38%

There were 22 QBs drafted in the 2nd round. 6 of them were good. 27%

There were 24 QBs drafted in the 3rd round. 5 of them were good. 21%

And as you go down the draft the percentage gets worse. So clearly a 1st round draft choice has a much better chance of turning out to be good than any other round. BUT it is still less than a 50% chance that the QB will turn out to be good.

So let's look at what the Eagles gave up 2 1st round draft picks(38% with each pick), a 2nd round pick(27%), a 3rd round pick(21%) and some loose change. The Eagles would have been far better off,statistically, keeping their picks and drafting a QB with their 1sts this year and then next year if this one doesn't pan out.

Statistically speaking they traded away a near certainty to get a high impact player(4 picks would almost certainly yielded at least one good player) on a complete roll of the dice.

Look at the Redskins. When they moved up to draft RGIII, I told everyone that historically speaking, only one of RGIII/Luck was likely to turn out to be a quality QB. Most people scoffed at that. The Redskins, apparently understanding probability somewhat, decided to take another QB in the same draft, who is now their starting QB.

If you look at the times that do well drafting they almost ALWAYS are big draft pick accumulators. Teams that consistently trading up and losing picks, rarely build talent on their rosters.

But you are including all first round picks, when that top 5 picks accounts for such a much higher rate of return.

And I'd kind of question his "good" rating...

6 good 2nd round QB's in the last 22. That's since 1996... Drew Brees, but he's 32 and in a 32 team league would be considered a 1st rounder.


Dalton.
Carr has had a good year.
Kaepernick
Plummer


The 5 3rd rounders in the past 24 I'd love to see who those are

Wilson
Brian Griese
Schaub
then??? Foles and McCown? maybe Chris Simms? I can't make his numbers work in reality. 1 playoff win by the rest of those guys right?

Now lets break down the firsts.. 17 guys in the top 2 right?

Of them you have the good (if you are counting Carr for a good season..) Winston and Mariota meet that level. Luck, Cam, Stafford, Alex Smith, Carson, Eli, Vick, McNabb, and Peyton.

I think those guys all meet the Plummer/foles mark by a long shot. I think Bradford and RGIII meet the Foles mark (which would make the success on a level field, 76% on the top 2 picks), but we'll leave them out and count HARDER on the top 2 QB's.

So you get 11 of the 17 guys in the top 2.

Which hands us 8 out of the other 32. (9 out of 33 with Brees included as a first rounder)

So 65% with a top 2

27% with a other 1st round.

24% with the 2nds

And I'm sorry I can't call Foles/Mcown good. I just can't. 2/24 or 8% in the 3rd...


So in order to beat the 65% chance, drafting back to back with two non-top 2 overall picks isn't getting you close. In fact you need to throw in a 2nd round pick so, 1st, 1st and 2nd all on QB's just to equal that chance..

and you are also forgetting, of the 17 top 2 pick QB's, there are four 80 game winners in that group. Of the 79 other QB's taken in the first 3 rounds that weren't top 2... Same number. Four 80 game winners. So nearly 5 times as likely as finding a TRUE franchise QB, and not just a Brian Griese good QB.


QB is the ONLY position I would hope for any team to make that move.

 

[flyerhawk]

Again, I don't want to parse the data too far.

Let's assume your data is correct. 65% chance of hitting with a top 2 pick. On itself that may be acceptable. But when you factor in the value a team gives up to get a top 2 pick, that 65% is a lot riskier.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Great Thread Dirt

 

[shopson67]

So let's look at what the Eagles gave up 2 1st round draft picks(38% with each pick), a 2nd round pick(27%), a 3rd round pick(21%) and some loose change. The Eagles would have been far better off,statistically, keeping their picks and drafting a QB with their 1sts this year and then next year if this one doesn't pan out.

...except that you're not allowing time for those QB prospects to develop and forcing a decision after 1 year. The QB they would get with their 1st this year would be the 3rd QB (Lynch) who nobody expects to be an immediate starter. He would be 3rd string and inactive for the majority of the season behind Bradford and Daniels, which wouldn't give much of an indication whether they chose well or needed to draft another next year.

If the guy you really believe in is attainable and you feel is the future for your franchise, you have to seriously consider making the move. With the Eagles signing two other QBs to multiyear deals this summer, I don't know what to think with this move.

 

[Clayton]

It's a friggin joke anyone thinks this guy is anything more than a mediocre backup at this point.

I think he is a very solid backup but thats it. Probably somewhere between the 20th and 30th best QB at any given time...not someone you want on your team but if he actually was a #2 then that wouldn't be that bad.

 

[jarntt]

You all are missing on this:

They moved up to take Elliot! They didn't want to risk missing out on him so they moved up to take the RB!

Someone forgot to tell this to the guy that made the trade!!!

Howie Roseman realizes Eagles blockbuster sacrifices 2016 season

 

[mcnabb7542]

Someone forgot to tell this to the guy that made the trade!!!

Howie Roseman realizes Eagles blockbuster sacrifices 2016 season

Howie stepping up and take the full heat, I like it....

He better hope Wentz is the next great thing, or they will tar and feather his arse!

 

[jarntt]

Howie stepping up and take the full heat, I like it....

He better hope Wentz is the next great thing, or they will tar and feather his arse!

My thinking is if he knows for sure who the Rams are taking and knows his guy will be there and absolutely feels that guy is a great QB prospect as compared to just the best this year, then I think it's not a bad move even if it doesn't pan out. But it just reeks of desperation to a complete outsider

 

[mcnabb7542]

My thinking is if he knows for sure who the Rams are taking and knows his guy will be there and absolutely feels that guy is a great QB prospect as compared to just the best this year, then I think it's not a bad move even if it doesn't pan out. But it just reeks of desperation to a complete outsider

totally agree:

Plus it also send a message to Bradford, "yes we gave you the money but now your playing for your next team."
Chase Daniels, " well you will always be a back up in Philly."


I guess if you believe in this guy then yes make the move, but I just don't think he or Geoff are the next great franchise QB's but then again that was said of Russell Wilson, but that kid just wins!

 

[Iggloo]

I'm a stats nerd and I like Scott Kacsmar's stuff(he was a regular poster on KFFL back before he got a job as ESPN) But he sometimes parses his data a little too much.

Let's look at his data from this perspective.

IN the range he was looking at there were 49 QBs drafted in the 1st round. Of those 49 he rates 19 as being good. That's a hit rate of 38%

There were 22 QBs drafted in the 2nd round. 6 of them were good. 27%

There were 24 QBs drafted in the 3rd round. 5 of them were good. 21%

And as you go down the draft the percentage gets worse. So clearly a 1st round draft choice has a much better chance of turning out to be good than any other round. BUT it is still less than a 50% chance that the QB will turn out to be good.

So let's look at what the Eagles gave up 2 1st round draft picks(38% with each pick), a 2nd round pick(27%), a 3rd round pick(21%) and some loose change. The Eagles would have been far better off,statistically, keeping their picks and drafting a QB with their 1sts this year and then next year if this one doesn't pan out.

Statistically speaking they traded away a near certainty to get a high impact player(4 picks would almost certainly yielded at least one good player) on a complete roll of the dice.

Look at the Redskins. When they moved up to draft RGIII, I told everyone that historically speaking, only one of RGIII/Luck was likely to turn out to be a quality QB. Most people scoffed at that. The Redskins, apparently understanding probability somewhat, decided to take another QB in the same draft, who is now their starting QB.

If you look at the times that do well drafting they almost ALWAYS are big draft pick accumulators. Teams that consistently trading up and losing picks, rarely build talent on their rosters.

While I am happy for Scott that he was able to parlay his message board act into a real-life NFL commentary gig (hope for all of us), he was always a good example of the term supposedly coined by Benjamin Disraeli: "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". He could find a stat to fit any preconceived notion he had.

 

[sooner4life130]

"Since 2010, 20 quarterbacks have attempted at least 2,000 passes. Among that group, Bradford ranks last in passer rating, yards per attempt and touchdowns. He's been afforded every excuse in the book, but expecting him to suddenly be a different guy after six seasons and 63 starts would be foolish."

What's trending in the NFL: Eagles move up to No. 2; Josh Norman is now a free agent

We'll see. I've watched every snap he's had in College and NFL so there's no need to give me a recap on his less than average NFL career. To be fair, this coming year will be the best group of wideouts/TE's he's ever had and probably the best OL as well. Also, looking back at his unlucky streak of injuries and his up and down play, the later half of 2015 to me looked like a solid improvement. Who knows, maybe it will carry over into this season.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Newsflash: QB is the most over-valued and over-drafted position in the draft every single year. This is common knowledge. Hell ESPN wrote an article yesterday about how these trades may push Christian Hackenberg into the first round, which is an absolutely absurd thing to think. Tim Tebow was once a first rounder, for crying out loud.

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue with you what ESPN said. IMO, the NFL scouts know a hell of a lot more than ESPN. Just my opinion.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Again, I don't want to parse the data too far.

Let's assume your data is correct. 65% chance of hitting with a top 2 pick. On itself that may be acceptable. But when you factor in the value a team gives up to get a top 2 pick, that 65% is a lot riskier.

Well I was going quite conservatively there in the top 2 but not the rest, not including Bradford or RGIII but throwing Foles in there. And if you consider RGIII and Bradford on the level of Foles/McCown (I'd say for sure), then guess where that trend heads as we become more recent. 11 out of 13 in the past 15 years (84%) and 100% since 2008. (IF you make that your baseline. I don't but it would really bring down the late 1st through 3rd round success rate if you actually used Franchise caliber QB more than 1-2 picks). You find yourself in a place where catastrophic knee injuries become your biggest drawback with the pick, not on-field performance.

And I didn't even think to include what they did for the team they first suited up for. All those top 1-2 guys all made impact's for the team they first practiced with. What was McCowns impact in Arizona, where were Plummers good years, where was McCowns positive years, where were Cassel and Schaub putting up the majority of their numbers. Where have Cutler and Brees really made their best impacts? Say Brock Osweiler wins 4 MVP's. How huge of a pick was that for DENVER?

And of course you can't just spend 2 firsts and a 2nd on QB's now to get that same level of success and do it all at once, that isn't real life. You can't give 3 QB's all starting reps in camp and pre-season. You can't give them all three 20 games to start and learn the game... UNLESS you are talking a 6 year plan there to build the same chance of success as that 2 years of a 1/2 overall pick is giving you (which is why so many of those later QB's fail to develop for the drafting team). Guess what happens if it isn't the first guy or the 2nd guy? before the odds start stacking in your favor.. What good did that do YOU the GM and coach, who are long gone? How happy are Pat Shurmer and Ray farmer that Weeden+Manziel+a 2nd round pick this year should turn the tide and give them that statistical edge in finding a franchise QB?

If you tell me today that hey, with a slightly less amount of draft capital you hit your break even point at getting your good QB in 2021... oh, and there's a chance it's the guy you drafted in 2016 but he's not seeing that good play until he's left as a FA and on the Cowboys... that's a tough sell. That's years of not being able to draw better FA's with a good QB in place, years of losing your own players to FA who want to find a better situation, new schemes and losing the consistency of a draft/coaching plan years of convincing fans to buy into your team, watch your non-primetime games and pay top dollar for seats and licenses without a face of the franchise.

It's just so hard to establish any consistency with the players and team if you aren't getting your QB established. Which is why I am fine going all in IF they think the guy is a franchise QB.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

And not saying it will work out. There is a very real chance he is another Couch/Leaf/Russell. Then it is a major fail. But I'd rather they take the best shot they have at the best franchise QB they have a chance for, then run the much higher risk they don't find that guy.

 

[Jim Rome is Flaming]

Julio worked out pretty well although Atlanta has had glaring depth issues since then.

That's the point. Even if Goff/Wentz works out, you're creating holes in several other positions based on the lack of picks available.