Extreme, I have to quibble with you on one statement. Draft position means nothing? That is no more correct than to say, as I have seen posted, that the "higher you pick the better you get...period" as if it were written in stone as an absolute truth. The draft carries with it a lot of uncertainty.
In a way, you're supporting my claim. I never said that all or most great players come from the later rounds, I'm just saying that no matter where you pick in the draft, it is the player you draft that will be responsible for his success, not his draft position.
I would be willing to bet that there are more QBs in the HOF or on their way that were not top 5 picks than there are that were top 5 picks. It proves position means nothing. Tony Romo was undrafted. Jeff George was the number 1 pick. It doesn't take any intricate breakdowns or analysis to see that fact alone shows what a crapshoot the draft is, and why position means nothing.
Are you more likely to get an elite player with a higher pick? Absolutely not. Every study that has ever been done on this shows there may be no more than a 3-5% edge toward better players being drafted in the 1st round. Since that is within the margin of error, it's a 50/50 chance that a 6th or 7th round pick will have just as good or better of a career than a 1st or 2nd round pick.
You know what drafting high gets you? Nothing more than a better shot at hype machines. Big school guys, who have proven more often than not to NOT be the ones worth getting. Remember when half of Redskins nation wanted to trade the future to get Bradford or Sanchez? Look how they've turned out. In fact, look at how most hyped QBs have turned out. Ryan Leaf is the easy example, but he's just one of many.
High position also gets people to gun for Heisman winners. Staubach, O.J., Tony Dorsett, Marcus Allen, and Barry Sanders went on to be worth their weight in gold as Heisman winners when they joined the NFL. Then you have a few guys that did ok but didn't live up to the hype, then you had 70 or so who went to the NFL and were totally worthless. But idiots in their infinite wisdom still insist on drafting hype over production and talent, and going for big name in the lights athletes, instead of scouting too see where the best talent really is. Scouts don't go to small schools, and they often produce major talent. T.O. came from nowhere, and he is one of the greatest receivers to ever play, and would have destroyed Rice's records had he not been a head case.
Is it more likely that a higher round QB will wind up having a better career than a lower round pick? There is evidence that this is the case-the question is not whether it does but to what extent it does.
There is absolutely no evidence of this. Look at a list of HOF QBs and tell me how many were high draft picks. The results will astonish you.
There are currently 29 QBs in the HOF. 12 were first round picks. Out of the other 17, 6 were undrafted and all but one were 3rd round or later. Since people put so much stock in first round picks, there should be more first rounders than low rounders in the HOF. The fact there isn't shows just how unimportant draft position is.
The draft is a crap shoot
I agree, that's why draft position means nothing
 }})
