Success Rate of Second Round QBs

[chaz]

I don't post much anymore, but a few years back I posted an article on a similar subject. This article breaks down QBs drafted in the second round from 1991-2010 (Use your imagination with Dalton and Kaepernick).

http://blogs.rotoworld.com/Fantasy_F...of_secondr.php

Bottom line, it's not very pretty. Add in third and fourth rounders and I'm confident it won't look any better. I cringe when I hear all the talk about using second day draft picks on "developmental" QBs...these guys just don't tend to "develop." Give me DL/LB/OL/RB/just about anything else please in those higher rounds, we should be aiming for starters---we can draft a career backup QB on the third day/undrafted.

Just some food for thought.

[Lestat]

yeah but if you take into account how many QB's are taken in the first round and how many actually work out as a franchise QB that's even worse. so logic would dictate that you shouldn't take a QB unless it's high and he grades out as a Elway or Luck type.
history should never dictate what you do and why, it should help give you an idea of what to expect. but at the end of the day you stay true to your board and take the top player.

most of the time the players that badly bust out are guys teams reached on so they could have a guy they can point the fans to as the future.

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by Lestat

yeah but if you take into account how many QB's are taken in the first round and how many actually work out as a franchise QB that's even worse.

I think this is the bottom line. There are, at any given time, really only 3-4 true franchise QBs in the league. Simple math tells you that the failure rate is going to be high across ALL rounds of the draft.

[Bronco Boy]

Still worth it to take a late round flyer on a QB every other year or so. Sure, a lot of them will flame out but its low risk high reward. If you get one that actually ends up being any good its a godsend because you didnt have to sell the farm to get him.

[extralife]

of the above average starting QBs in the NFL, the only ones not taken in the first round are Brady, Dalton, and Schaub, two of which were second rounders (disclaimer: I'm cheating, Brees was picked at 33). of those taken in the first round, the only ones selected outside of the top eleven (more cheating, so as to including Rapelisberger and Cutler) are Rodgers, the aforementioned Brees, and Josh Freeman (if you think he counts, which is currently debatable). the only reason to draft a QB outside of the first round is to upgrade your backup.

[lolcopter]

See: dolphins, miami

[Jay3]

I think a more reliable method is signing other people's flyers after they have panned out, but don't have an opening in front of them (like Matt Flynn). They might go even bigger in their second stop. Just don't overpay what amounts to an unproven starter.

Examples where this has apparently worked: Matt Schaub, Matt Hasselbeck, Drew Brees, Trent Green

Sketchy results: Matt Cassell.

Most other current starting quarterbacks are high round picks, or complete luck outs on a flyer, like Tom Brady or Tony Romo.

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by extralife

of the above average starting QBs in the NFL, the only ones not taken in the first round are Brady, Dalton, and Schaub, two of which were second rounders (disclaimer: I'm cheating, Brees was picked at 33). of those taken in the first round, the only ones selected outside of the top eleven (more cheating, so as to including Rapelisberger and Cutler) are Rodgers, the aforementioned Brees, and Josh Freeman (if you think he counts, which is currently debatable). the only reason to draft a QB outside of the first round is to upgrade your backup.

In a strong QB class you can with success draft a QB pretty much anywhere in the 1st round, in a weak class any QB drafted outside of the top 10 is probably going to tank.

I prefer drafting QB in the top half of the 1st round and then again in rounds 5 and 6. The idea is that if you can get a development QB with a good skillset but limited experience or someone who played for a bad team, you can bring that player into a stable situation as a 2nd backup - after about 3 years you will know if that player worked out and you can either trade the player for value, cut them with minimal losses or decide if you want to try to build around them for the future.

[extralife]

oh yeah, I forgot Romo.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by Lestat

yeah but if you take into account how many QB's are taken in the first round and how many actually work out as a franchise QB that's even worse. so logic would dictate that you shouldn't take a QB unless it's high and he grades out as a Elway or Luck type.
history should never dictate what you do and why, it should help give you an idea of what to expect. but at the end of the day you stay true to your board and take the top player.

most of the time the players that badly bust out are guys teams reached on so they could have a guy they can point the fans to as the future.

But the number of ones that work out, and work out well, significantly favors the first round. The point isn't that QB's have a high bust rate. It's that the ones least likely to bust will be taken in the top 32. Outside of that you're looking at a career backup 99% of the time.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

But the number of ones that work out, and work out well, significantly favors the first round. The point isn't that QB's have a high bust rate. It's that the ones least likely to bust will be taken in the top 32. Outside of that you're looking at a career backup 99% of the time.

not according to Kyle Orton

[extralife]

Originally Posted by pricejj

not according to Kyle Orton

the other point: a solid QB doesn't cut it. if you drafted a player of Orton's talent at another position in the third round, that' s a pick well spent. it's a success. at QB? just isn't enough.

[shalowlow]

The whole "grooming a young quarterback" is merely a fallacy that has popped up very recently as a result of a very copy-cat league.

If you have a good quarterback, that does not play because he sits behind another QB, and then eventually does play and does well, I would say it was because he was a good quarterback to begin with, not because he sat.

Team dynamics help immensely (GB, NE, HOU) as is actually letting a QB you think is talented actually play (GB, NE, DAL, HOU)

But if you think that a guy is going to learn how to be a QB in this league, there is simply no patience and no time to find out.

That is why I don't think it's a good idea to take a QB in the middle rounds. First round based on talent is okay, as is 6 or 7 round based on low risk potential.

[Tombstone RJ]

with the new collective bargaining agreement and the rook salary cap, we are going to see a hella lot more reaches on first round QBs, especially in the top 10.

It's gonna happen. So this will mean more busts in the early first round as teams reach on QBs because they don't have to pay that QB mega bucks.

In essence, the bustality is going way up folks. Bank on it. And Tannehill will be the first example of a QB being "reached" on when a team trades up into the top 10 to take him. Also, look what DC gave up for RG3.

[snowspot66]

And that only serves to further erode the viability of taking a second round QB. It's just not worth it.

[Lestat]

that's because a true franchise guy who doesn't need a ton of development will never fall out of the first round. heck, out of the top 15.
QB is the most overdrafted and overreached for position in the draft, QB's value at the draft get dragged up by need more than talent.

you have 1 or 2 guys in most drafts who work out to be the man, most times you have 5-6 who get taken. more often than not the guys taken in the 2nd round or lower are low ceiling potentially ready to play now guys, like your Cousins type more than a Ryan Mallett.

Originally Posted by snowspot66

But the number of ones that work out, and work out well, significantly favors the first round. The point isn't that QB's have a high bust rate. It's that the ones least likely to bust will be taken in the top 32. Outside of that you're looking at a career backup 99% of the time.

[KevinJames]

I wouldn't worry about us taking a QB until the later rounds.

[BroncoMan4ever]

what is the success rate of all QBs drafted? probably less than 10% of all drafted become good starters and a fraction of those become elite. doesn't matter where QBs are drafted, the majority bust.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by Jay3

I think a more reliable method is signing other people's flyers after they have panned out, but don't have an opening in front of them (like Matt Flynn). They might go even bigger in their second stop. Just don't overpay what amounts to an unproven starter.

Examples where this has apparently worked: Matt Schaub, Matt Hasselbeck, Drew Brees, Trent Green

Sketchy results: Matt Cassell.

Most other current starting quarterbacks are high round picks, or complete luck outs on a flyer, like Tom Brady or Tony Romo.

You would think Kolb freaked some teams out with this method but Flynn did pretty well in the free agency game this year. I actually think Kolb will work out but Arizona spent waaaaay too much money on a guy that is a veteran just based on years and not games.

[sgbfan]

Originally Posted by sgbfan

When was the last time a team drafted a developemental QB in rounds 2-5 that ended up being good? Rodgers was a potential top ten pick that dropped to 24. Ryan Fitzpatric, Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Matt Flynn and Matt Hasselbach were all drafted in the 6th or later. Drew Brees was picked in the 2nd, but it was the first pick in the second, essentially a first rounder. Schaub, Orton, and Yates are the best of the 2-5 rounders I could find that are currently playing.

I posted this in another thread about "developmental QB's." Didn't do a lot of research so I'm sure I'm missing a few, but it seems you have just as much luck picking late as you do early if they are not blue chippers.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

what is the success rate of all QBs drafted? probably less than 10% of all drafted become good starters and a fraction of those become elite. doesn't matter where QBs are drafted, the majority bust.

But it does matter because if you are drafting one in the second or third you're getting a guy 99% certain to NEVER do anything of value for your team besides be a stop gap. You don't even get a special teams ace. The best teams in the league use those second and third round choices to fill their team with depth and find quality starters. It matters because it's a complete waste of resources on something that is almost certain to never return its value. What it comes down to is if you want a QB go big or go home.

[Agamemnon]

This kind of stuff means nothing. The all time leader in passing yards was a second round pick. Joe Montana was a third round pick. And of court there's good old Tom Brady. Meanwhile the list of failed QB's drafted in the 1st round is a mile long. Obviously you have a better chance of getting a great QB in the 1st round than in later rounds, like every other position, but to act like you simply should never draft a QB in the 2nd round because most don't pan out? Err...most QB's drafted in any round don't really pan out.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

In a strong QB class you can with success draft a QB pretty much anywhere in the 1st round, in a weak class any QB drafted outside of the top 10 is probably going to tank.

QB's drafted in the top 10 tank all the time as well.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

You would think Kolb freaked some teams out with this method but Flynn did pretty well in the free agency game this year. I actually think Kolb will work out but Arizona spent waaaaay too much money on a guy that is a veteran just based on years and not games.

Kolb never really looked as good as Flynn has though. Not even close honestly.

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

You would think Kolb freaked some teams out with this method but Flynn did pretty well in the free agency game this year. I actually think Kolb will work out but Arizona spent waaaaay too much money on a guy that is a veteran just based on years and not games.

Yeah, the lesson of Kolb is not to overpay. He got a trade value and contract as if he were an established NFL starter, when in reality the track record was very short.

And scouts still say he suffers from the #1 problem that separates quarterbacks -- inability to do it when a big guy is running at him.