QBs drafted No. 1 overall (20 total) in the last 30 years hit these benchmarks at an astonishing rate.
4,000+ yards: 70%
30+ TDs: 45%
80+ starts: 81%
Playoff win: 70%
Pro Bowl: 70%
Bryce Young, JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, and Tim Couch are the only busts by these standards.
Looking at QBs drafted 2-32 (63 total), the hit rates plummet.
4,000+ yards: 25%
30+ TDs: 24%
80+ starts: 35%
Playoff win: 38%
Pro Bowl: 33%
Only Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, Ryan Tannehill, Matt Ryan, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Daunte Culpepper hit.
You'd think trimming down to top-10 and top-5 picks would help, but it doesn't.
Picks 2-10 (34 QBs)
4,000+ yards: 29%
30+ TDs: 26%
80+ starts: 41%
Playoff win: 54%
Pro Bowl: 63%
Picks 2-5 (23 QBs)
4,000+ yards: 26%
30+ TDs: 22%
80+ starts: 39%
Playoff win: 35%
Pro Bowl: 43%
So it’s dumb to do a Trey Lance deal to move up to any position less than #1, because you don’t improve your chances by much. You are more likely than not to draft a Lance or Trubisky.
So it’s dumb to do a Trey Lance deal to move up to any position less than #1, because you don’t improve your chances by much. You are more likely than not to draft a Lance or Trubisky.
Not just that, you seem to find the most success QB's with the first overall pick. Meaning the #1 overall pick holds extreme value and these stats back it up.
80+ starts 81% (Only one QB had 80+ starts in our franchise history. Jay Cutler with 102) Playoff Win: 70% (Haven't won a playoff game since Jay Cutler) Pro Bowl 70% (Trubisky was our last Pro Bowl QB.)
Going by these stats. Needing a QB to throw 4k yards, win a playoff game, 30+ TDs, 80+ starts, and a Pro Bowl.
Going QB with the first round pick is the only thing we should be doing.
I don't understand how you can call Bryce Young a bust. He has only played one season so far. Allan did not break 4k yards until his 3rd season. So is he a bust? You gave Allan 3 years but not Young?
Going by these stats. Needing a QB to throw 4k yards, win a playoff game, 30+ TDs, 80+ starts, and a Pro Bowl.
Going QB with the first round pick is the only thing we should be doing.
I don't understand how you can call Bryce Young a bust. He has only played one season so far. Allan did not break 4k yards until his 3rd season. So is he a bust? You gave Allan 3 years but not Young?
Never called young a bust. As these stats usually take a few years for it to be properly graded. 3rd or 4th year in the NFL.
I never expected Young to reach most of those in year one. But in year 4, you should hit all the check marks. Also what I wrote in the OP is just copy and paste of the tweets in case others can't see them.
I don't understand how you can call Bryce Young a bust. He has only played one season so far. Allan did not break 4k yards until his 3rd season. So is he a bust? You gave Allan 3 years but not Young?
Never called young a bust. As these stats usually take a few years for it to be properly graded. 3rd or 4th year in the NFL.
I never expected Young to reach most of those in year one. But in year 4, you should hit all the check marks. Also what I wrote in the OP is just copy and paste of the tweets in case others can't see them.
Never called young a bust. As these stats usually take a few years for it to be properly graded. 3rd or 4th year in the NFL.
I never expected Young to reach most of those in year one. But in year 4, you should hit all the check marks. Also what I wrote in the OP is just copy and paste of the tweets in case others can't see them.
Bryce Young, JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, and Tim Couch are the only busts by these standards.
To be fair, he's grading them on his chart which Young has not shown anything in terms of being successful. That's going by his standards. I agree give Young more time but you have to be fair in grading all at once.
Cannot go back That far to delve I to stats, to many changes in the rules and evolution of the game. Anything before 2000 ,and really there were other rules changes after that, so even 23 years is to far back. Nothing beyond probably 15 yes is accurate. And notice how those that fell outside the trend tended to be from more recent years.
Not disagreing with the findings perse, I think most understand that the top pick should give you the best odds at the best player, kid of the point of the pick. Just the data set was poorly conceived, and my guess was bc the numbers were more blurred so he went back farther to get the contrast he needed.
To be fair, he's grading them on his chart which Young has not shown anything in terms of being successful. That's going by his standards. I agree give Young more time but you have to be fair in grading all at once.
Cannot go back That far to delve I to stats, to many changes in the rules and evolution of the game. Anything before 2000 ,and really there were other rules changes after that, so even 23 years is to far back. Nothing beyond probably 15 yes is accurate. And notice how those that fell outside the trend tended to be from more recent years.
Not disagreing with the findings perse, I think most understand that the top pick should give you the best odds at the best player, kid of the point of the pick. Just the data set was poorly conceived, and my guess was bc the numbers were more blurred so he went back farther to get the contrast he needed.
I argue QB's of today have it far easier with rules helping them get to those milestones that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady had to go through. WR's are almost always going to get calls in their favor. No way a QB like Jarred Goff would survive a 2000 style offense and put up 4k passer ratings, 30+ TDs, and make it up to the super bowl.
It can also be the fact that the more recent players have less games to prove the data right. He's matching them off of 1 playoff win, 1 pro bowl, 1 4k passing season, 1 30+ TD season. 80+ games (Which all the new players where the data isn't there yet) don't have as many x marks on them cause time is required to get them.