Myth of the Top 5 Quarterback

[Jimbo]

Do you have a source for this? I can't really imagine why in hindsight he would regret his decision when Jay Cutler outperformed Jake Plummer.

In 2006, Denver started the season 7-2, including victories over Patriots, Ravens and Steelers. Plummer was a little banged up but nothing that would keep him from playing. The defense and offense took turns struggling the next two games in a 35-27 loss to San Diego and a 19-10 loss to San Diego. The team was 7-4 with a tough home game against Seattle, who always struggled on the road, and a rematch with the surging Chargers in San Diego.

Shanahan decided to sit Plummer and start Cutler against Seattle and that may have cost them the game. Cutler finished 10-21 for 143 yards with 2 TD's and 2 INT'S. The picks were would really killed him. One was returned by Darryl Tapp for a TD and the other set up the game winning FG by Josh Brown.

The highlight of the game was a 71 yard TD pass from Cutler to Brandon Marshall. This was enough to get the fans excited and Shanny decided to stick with Cutler the following week against San Diego. While Cutler was a little better, Denver was blasted 48-20. They would have to win their next three to make the playoffs.

They managed to play a total team game against the Cards in Arizona for a 37-20 victory and squeaked by the Bengals, 24-23, when Cincy couldn't manage the game-tying point.

On New Year's Eve, the final game of the 2006 season, Cutler threw two picks to our old buddy Walt Harris and the Broncos season ended with a 26-23 OT loss to San Francisco.

Asked, after the season, whether or not he had any regrets about starting Cutler the final five games, he praised Cutler but said (I'm paraphrasing here) "It probably wasn't fair to Jay to put him in that situation and have a rookie lead us to the playoffs".

Dave Logan, the former Bronco and now the radio play-by-play announcer, was talking on the radio after Mike had been fired and said Shanahan told him he was "urged" by Bowlan to start Cutler after the Broncos had lost back-to-back division games and it may have cost the team a playoff spot. Naturally, Mike took the high road and says it was "ultimately his decision". Logan also mentioned that once Cutler started, Plummer's days in Denver were over. He said Mike knew that and that's why they attempted to deal the Snake to the Bucs.

The stats may show a higher QB rating for Cutler's 5 games in 2006 but Plummer was a warrior, often playing hurt, and the leader of that offense. Cutler's time was coming and it definitely showed in 2008 but throwing a rookie in there in the middle of a playoff hunt is just NOT a good idea.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, QB's are always going to be hit or miss. Most have the tools but many can't adjust to the pro game or are thrust into the wrong type of offense. For every Peyton Manning, you have an Akili Smith, Tim Couch or Cade McNown (who I think would have excelled in a WCO). I think the due diligence done nowadays with QB's taken in the Top 10 is getting better every year, except in the case of the senile Al Davis, and perhaps will turn our case this year into less of a crapshoot.

Clausen is the most NFL-ready QB in this draft but I don't think we'll take him OR Bradford. If either is available at #4, I think we trade down if another team comes calling. Just make sure that any QB we take has "it", as Om calls it. "It" QB's just fare better. Peyton Manning has "it". So does Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Phillip Rivers and Drew Brees. Aaron Rodgers might even have "it". He seems to. Tim Tebow DEFINITELY had "it" in college but we don't know if he has the NFL version of "it" or not. That remains to be seen.

 

[Blackjack]

I was going to see if I could gather some stats and see if there was a correlation between the draft position a QB is taken in and his performance in the NFl-but it's been done already, thankfully.

The Wages of Wins Journal-a book published by three Stanford University professors of economics ( David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook) has articles involving statistical analyses of sports performance and what I found in one entitled "The Inconsistent Quarterback Story Told Again in Less than 3,000 Words" the author gathered various QB performance stats used in the NFL and calculated the statistical correlation between those and draft position.

The result-draft position as a predictor of QB performance is a dud. There is virtually no correlation between draft position and QB performance. Here are the numbers and some pertinent remarks


The majority of the article is a comparison between Jay Cutler and Kurt Warner from the perspective of consistency versus inconsistency. Some other very interesting results non-draft related were found also (including two sentences I put in bold which should, IMO, be the opening sentence to any discussion comparing QBs!)

Here's the article link.http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-inconsistent-quarterback-story-told-again-in-less-than-3000-words/

Sorry to be so lazy, but could you give Cliff Notes? I can only check this site in 2 minute intervals and if that article is implying that there is no correlation at all between draft position and the success of a quarterback, and it's backed up by empirical evidence, that's pretty amazing. In fact, it's pretty damn groundbreaking.

 

[Hog Fever]

Sage Rosenfels would make some sense as Kyle Shanahan worked with him in Houston for several years and certainly would be familiar with what he could or couldn't do.

Problem is he was traded by Houston to the Vikings in the off-season and signed a two year extension worth 9 million. If the Skins wanted Sage they'd have to trade for him unless he was released, which might happen since he'll be in the last year of his contract. If Favre returns next season I bet they'll release him to save some money.

 

[riggins44]

If they think we may have an interest in Sage chances are they would delay releasing him. They may try to work a trade with us.

The good thing here is we have Allen running the show versus Vinny, which think he will be a little more astute.

 

[servumtuum]

Sorry to be so lazy, but could you give Cliff Notes? I can only check this site in 2 minute intervals and if that article is implying that there is no correlation at all between draft position and the success of a quarterback, and it's backed up by empirical evidence, that's pretty amazing. In fact, it's pretty damn groundbreaking.

Blackjack, Cliff notes are going to be difficult but, hopefully, not impossible because the article cross references a bunch of other articles I'm still perusing but so far I can tell you what I've found so far.

One major aspect they were investigating was the factors involved in deciding to pick a QB high in the draft and how that affected the performance numbers. A lot of 1st round QBs, for example, get picked up by desperate teams who are forced to throw them into starting positions right away while others are looking for a good potential QB to do some bench time behind an established QB (think Rodgers at Green Bay sitting on the bench behind Favre) and the fact that situations and circumstances vary so much it is impossible to demonstrate any specific connection between where a QB is drafted and their future performance-thus the correlation is so low because the variables can't be isolated. This makes QB drafting, as has been stated, a "crapshoot" because you don't know what effect the other operating variables are going to have.

 

[Hog Fever]

The good thing here is we have Allen running the show versus Vinny, which think he will be a little more astute.

Agreed. If this is something we are considering we won't be broadcasting it to the world before hand.

 

[romberjo]

The study purporting no relationship b/w draft position and performance includes this line:

After a quarterback has played five seasons in the NFL (minimum 500 career plays), here are the correlation coefficients between draft position and various career statistics:

Once someone is included in the study--i.e., has played 5 seasons, w/ at least 500 career plays--it's much less surprising that draft position is not correlated with performance. But I'd bet that far more qb's drafted early qualify for inclusion (including the duds), whereas only the relatively few gems drafted later (or not drafted) meet that benchmark (Brady, Warner, Romo, etc.).

In other words, an NFL starter may potentially come from anywhere, but I suspect it's much more likely that an early pick will become an NFL starter, and you'd have to draft a large number of mid- or late-round qb's to get one as good as a mediocre NFL starter, like JC.

 

[romberjo]

Interestingly (at least to me), I poked around and it turns out my criticism of the qb study mentioned above is the same criticism at the heart of a debate on that precise question b/w Steven Pinker of MIT and Malcom Gladwell of the New Yorker conducted in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Letters-t-LETSGOTOTHET_LETTERS.html?_r=1

 

[Blackjack]

The study purporting no relationship b/w draft position and performance includes this line:

Once someone is included in the study--i.e., has played 5 seasons, w/ at least 500 career plays--it's much less surprising that draft position is not correlated with performance. But I'd bet that far more qb's drafted early qualify for inclusion (including the duds), whereas only the relatively few gems drafted later (or not drafted) meet that benchmark (Brady, Warner, Romo, etc.).

In other words, an NFL starter may potentially come from anywhere, but I suspect it's much more likely that an early pick will become an NFL starter, and you'd have to draft a large number of mid- or late-round qb's to get one as good as a mediocre NFL starter, like JC.

Thanks for the clearup.