Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Here's a sobering fact...
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
D Rock
Since 1965, eight quarterbacks have been drafted second overall. Of those eight, only one has a winning record: McNabb.
Eyrie
In a desperate attempt to put a positive spin on this clusterfuck, that means that the Eagles have a 100% success rate when picking a QB at #2.

Nope, that didn't convince me either.
Reality Fan
Here is another one.....

Going back to the 1990 draft.....of the 30 QBs taken in the first five picks.....16 of them have never won a playoff game...of the remaing 14 who have you have guys like Sanchez...Jeff George...

You have about 6-7 studs out of 30...so they have about a 20% chance for a savior....and when you give away this much for a guy he has to be better than good..
Phits
Here's another sobering fact: The Philadelphia Eagles have never won a Superbowl.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 21 2016, 02:20 PM) *
In a desperate attempt to put a positive spin on this clusterfuck, that means that the Eagles have a 100% success rate when picking a QB at #2.

Nope, that didn't convince me either.



I'll go with this stat!!

biggrin.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 21 2016, 04:31 PM) *
Here is another one.....

Going back to the 1990 draft.....of the 30 QBs taken in the first five picks.....16 of them have never won a playoff game...of the remaing 14 who have you have guys like Sanchez...Jeff George...

You have about 6-7 studs out of 30...so they have about a 20% chance for a savior....and when you give away this much for a guy he has to be better than good..



Ouch.

I was going to do an analysis of QB's picked in the top 15 of the draft.

I got a hunch my results will be similar.

I was guessing a success rate of about 40%. Seems worse than that.

I think to put it in perspective, you need to judge that against the crap shoots they gave away.

Say my sample is a little better ( a stretch maybe) If I traded up to get a 33% chance at success but gave up a 25% chance at success (combined % of what they gave up, as an example of what it could be), then was it a bad deal??

It goes against my trade down research but it is a day for optimism!!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 21 2016, 07:58 PM) *
Ouch.

I was going to do an analysis of QB's picked in the top 15 of the draft.

I got a hunch my results will be similar.

I was guessing a success rate of about 40%. Seems worse than that.

I think to put it in perspective, you need to judge that against the crap shoots they gave away.

Say my sample is a little better ( a stretch maybe) If I traded up to get a 33% chance at success but gave up a 25% chance at success (combined % of what they gave up, as an example of what it could be), then was it a bad deal??

It goes against my trade down research but it is a day for optimism!!



message me your email and I will send you the spreadsheet...
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 21 2016, 08:03 PM) *
message me your email and I will send you the spreadsheet...



Yes a spreadsheet!!!

You really know how to touch an accountant's heart!!

nephillymike
Thanks for sharing RF.

Looking at the picks in the first round between #1 and #15 yields 15/42 with multiple Pro Bowls = 36%

Looking at the picks between 2-15 yields 8/27 with multiple Pro Bowls = 30%.

I submit that if the guy you drafted gets to multiple Pro Bowls, you did your job (BTW, this data was before the watering down of late of PB's. I would only count only those that they get selected, not a McNabb fill in special. But the old data is good.

So I would say there is a 30% success rate.

Lower than my 40% guess, but I would guess worlds better than picking QB's in rounds 2-4 on a % basis.

If there is a 30% success rate at #'s 2-15 and it is better than a 10% success rate ( a guess on my part) at 2nd -4th rounds, do you do the deal? I mean it is about getting a top two tier QB.

Now you can make the argument that you use three picks in rounds 2-4 over a two year period on QB's and hope to mimic the % chances at #2-15 by sheet lottery tickets and I hear you. But they are really the only two options I see.

Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 21 2016, 09:55 PM) *
Thanks for sharing RF.

Looking at the picks in the first round between #1 and #15 yields 15/42 with multiple Pro Bowls = 36%

Looking at the picks between 2-15 yields 8/27 with multiple Pro Bowls = 30%.

I submit that if the guy you drafted gets to multiple Pro Bowls, you did your job (BTW, this data was before the watering down of late of PB's. I would only count only those that they get selected, not a McNabb fill in special. But the old data is good.

So I would say there is a 30% success rate.

Lower than my 40% guess, but I would guess worlds better than picking QB's in rounds 2-4 on a % basis.

If there is a 30% success rate at #'s 2-15 and it is better than a 10% success rate ( a guess on my part) at 2nd -4th rounds, do you do the deal? I mean it is about getting a top two tier QB.

Now you can make the argument that you use three picks in rounds 2-4 over a two year period on QB's and hope to mimic the % chances at #2-15 by sheet lottery tickets and I hear you. But they are really the only two options I see.



Glad you are not doing my taxes...15 of 43!!!....lol

I am more concerned about the last 10 years where there have been 19 QBs taken and 14 have either never been to or won a playoff game....of the other 5 you have Cutler, Sanchez and Smith.....so int he last decade the only impressive pick in the first 15 is Newton........Ryan has been a letdown...
Zero
Stats too often forget to look at cause and effect.

Most teams taking a QB this early had horrible seasons due to shitty players and stupid management. Stopping there leaves the odds for success pretty low I'd guess. Then add to the equation some likelihood that there will be pressure for the coach to win and play the highly rated rookie. This may be OK with some positions but I don't think many think it's a good idea for a QB.

How many of those failures involved this kind of situation? I think it matters.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 22 2016, 06:32 AM) *
Stats too often forget to look at cause and effect.

Most teams taking a QB this early had horrible seasons due to shitty players and stupid management. Stopping there leaves the odds for success pretty low I'd guess. Then add to the equation some likelihood that there will be pressure for the coach to win and play the highly rated rookie. This may be OK with some positions but I don't think many think it's a good idea for a QB.

How many of those failures involved this kind of situation? I think it matters.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.



ummmm...you mean like Sam Bradford going to the Rams?.....hahahahah...yeah...I know...
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 21 2016, 09:07 PM) *
Glad you are not doing my taxes...15 of 43!!!....lol

I am more concerned about the last 10 years where there have been 19 QBs taken and 14 have either never been to or won a playoff game....of the other 5 you have Cutler, Sanchez and Smith.....so int he last decade the only impressive pick in the first 15 is Newton........Ryan has been a letdown...

Luck
Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 01:46 PM) *
Luck


As in the player, or the synchronicity of random events that line up favorably in one's fortunes?
Phits
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 22 2016, 06:32 AM) *
Stats too often forget to look at cause and effect.

They never tell a complete story. You can always find some statistic to help support an argument.

Some will use Bradford's passer rating stats, over the last 7 games, as an indicator for how good he was playing and for his potential. On the flip side his QBR rating (stats) tell another story. For example, in the loss to washington (12/26) his passer rating was 91.4, but his QBR was only 22.1. In the victory against the Pats his QBR was 32.5 and his passer rating was 99.3 There were only 3 games last season where his passer rating and QBR were (relatively) in sync with one another.

One stat tells you that he wasn't very good last season, the other indicates that he was good to very good.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 09:46 AM) *
Luck


Yes....missed him
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 22 2016, 11:32 AM) *
Stats too often forget to look at cause and effect.

Most teams taking a QB this early had horrible seasons due to shitty players and stupid management. Stopping there leaves the odds for success pretty low I'd guess. Then add to the equation some likelihood that there will be pressure for the coach to win and play the highly rated rookie. This may be OK with some positions but I don't think many think it's a good idea for a QB.

How many of those failures involved this kind of situation? I think it matters.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

And I'd emphasise the shitty players when looking at their OLs. A QB who is too busy trying to survive will never learn to read a NFL defence whilst his mechanics will fall apart.

Wentz/Goff are lucky in that we have some decent players there (if Kelce gets his act together). We need a LG and a replacement T (which side depends on whether Johnson slides over) but can address that next year.
D Rock
We won't be getting high quality replacements without that 1st rounder. Ugh
mcnabbulous
First, there is no reason to believe Wisniewski won't be a fine LG. He was an excellent college player, comes from great bloodlines, has performed well as a pro, and started every game of his career. His resume is far better than a Mathis when he got here.

Second, if we need a first rounder to replace a RT, we're fucking morons. If we spend a first rounder to do it, we're fucking morons.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 03:01 PM) *
First, there is no reason to believe Wisniewski won't be a fine LG. He was an excellent college player, comes from great bloodlines, has performed well as a pro, and started every game of his career. His resume is far better than a Mathis when he got here.

Second, if we need a first rounder to replace a RT, we're fucking morons. If we spend a first rounder to do it, we're fucking morons.


except for the fact that he played Center for all but his rookie year....and last year he was not very good...in fact, the Jax press butchered him saying he really sucked....

I hope he rebounds....great as a rookies but not so much since...certainly not the journeyman that Mathis was..

And you do realize that we took Lane Johnson in the first round? (and please don't say they did that so he could replace Peters in 5 years...)

A few notable first round right Tackles in the last 5 years.....Eric Fisher (even thought he played left tackle in college) KC....or New England's Nate Solder...quite a few actually..
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 22 2016, 02:17 PM) *
except for the fact that he played Center for all but his rookie year....and last year he was not very good...in fact, the Jax press butchered him saying he really sucked....

I hope he rebounds....great as a rookies but not so much since...certainly not the journeyman that Mathis was..

Left guard is an easier position than C. And his struggles were largely with shotgun snaps. He'll be fine at LG.

QUOTE
And you do realize that we took Lane Johnson in the first round? (and please don't say they did that so he could replace Peters in 5 years...)

A few notable first round right Tackles in the last 5 years.....Eric Fisher (even thought he played left tackle in college) KC....or New England's Nate Solder...quite a few actually..

We definitely took Lane with the expectation that he would ultimately be the LT. And if not, our FO should all be fired.

You named two. And Eric Fisher is garage. He and Lane were only taken so highly because that is quite possibly the worst draft class of all time.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 03:28 PM) *
Left guard is an easier position than C. And his struggles were largely with shotgun snaps. He'll be fine at LG.


We definitely took Lane with the expectation that he would ultimately be the LT. And if not, our FO should all be fired.

You named two. And Eric Fisher is garage. He and Lane were only taken so highly because that is quite possibly the worst draft class of all time.


I quit after the first 2.....there are several more....I was multi tasking...lol
nephillymike
I don't think it's a stretch that Wiz plays like a solid starter.

I think he's better than what we had and better than a pick there.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 08:01 PM) *
First, there is no reason to believe Wisniewski won't be a fine LG. He was an excellent college player, comes from great bloodlines, has performed well as a pro, and started every game of his career. His resume is far better than a Mathis when he got here.

Second, if we need a first rounder to replace a RT, we're fucking morons. If we spend a first rounder to do it, we're fucking morons.

You conveniently left out that taking a QB at #2 who then gets killed due to inadequate OL protection makes us fucking morons.

There is no reason to expect that Wisniewski will solve the LG problem, but he could be the missing piece. Right now however he is a veteran player who had to wait a month before finally getting an offer which is only for one year. He'd have had more offers and for longer periods if he was that good, or at least is generally viewed as having that potential.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 23 2016, 05:14 AM) *
You conveniently left out that taking a QB at #2 who then gets killed due to inadequate OL protection makes us fucking morons.

There is no reason to expect that Wisniewski will solve the LG problem, but he could be the missing piece. Right now however he is a veteran player who had to wait a month before finally getting an offer which is only for one year. He'd have had more offers and for longer periods if he was that good, or at least is generally viewed as having that potential.

We don't intend to play the rookie we are taking at #2. And yeah, Wizniewski will be more than fine.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 22 2016, 10:19 AM) *
They never tell a complete story. You can always find some statistic to help support an argument.

Some will use Bradford's passer rating stats, over the last 7 games, as an indicator for how good he was playing and for his potential. On the flip side his QBR rating (stats) tell another story. For example, in the loss to washington (12/26) his passer rating was 91.4, but his QBR was only 22.1. In the victory against the Pats his QBR was 32.5 and his passer rating was 99.3 There were only 3 games last season where his passer rating and QBR were (relatively) in sync with one another.

One stat tells you that he wasn't very good last season, the other indicates that he was good to very good.


I am not a big fan of passer ratings but QBR is a joke.....and everyone not working for ESPN in the NFL world admits it....remember the Tebow/Rodgers example? Espn tried to create a stat and it did not catch on.....they barely use it themselves anymore.
Phits
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 23 2016, 11:00 AM) *
I am not a big fan of passer ratings but QBR is a joke.....and everyone not working for ESPN in the NFL world admits it....remember the Tebow/Rodgers example?

It is still a useful indicator for how well a QB is playing. Taken in conjunction with passer rating, you can usually get a pretty idea of who is playing well. The problem is that some people pick and choose the stat they like and discard the other.

QUOTE
Espn tried to create a stat and it did not catch on.....they barely use it themselves anymore.

Fair enough, however, they do use both passer rating and QBR on their site.
Phits
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 23 2016, 06:14 AM) *
You conveniently left out that taking a QB at #2 who then gets killed due to inadequate OL protection makes us fucking morons.

If this is/was a concern what's the difference between taking him #2 and if he was the BPA at #8? We still have seven total picks for this years draft and potentially will have more .... if we can move Bradford.

I think it makes sense to move up and secure a player you desire. That's coming from a guy who has had no confidence in this FO.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 23 2016, 11:42 AM) *
If this is/was a concern what's the difference between taking him #2 and if he was the BPA at #8? We still have seven total picks for this years draft and potentially will have more .... if we can move Bradford.

I think it makes sense to move up and secure a player you desire. That's coming from a guy who has had no confidence in this FO.


If he is there and the BPA at 8 then you still have the other 3 picks including the first round pick next year....huge, huge difference.

The bottom line is pretty simple.....the sun will come up after draft day...the mess will get sorted out and the Eagles will likely get a guy who is even a good QB......and they will go on being a good team but not great team...which is likely what they would be without the move so I guess it is not all horrible..

Hopefully the surpass my expectations
Zero
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 23 2016, 12:06 PM) *
Hopefully the surpass my expectations

For a guy who adores Miller Lite that shouldn't be difficult. ac2.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 23 2016, 12:02 PM) *
For a guy who adores Miller Lite that shouldn't be difficult. ac2.gif



Easy on the Miller Lite bashing Z.

I've got a tab to pay!!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 23 2016, 02:26 PM) *
Easy on the Miller Lite bashing Z.

I've got a tab to pay!!



Hey...the 25 Integrity Ale is only $20 dollars a glass.....Maybe Miller Lite will have to take a day off....hahahahahahaha
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.