The myth of the #1 pick

[NAS]

28 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

If the statistic of success is bound by SB wins then you’re looking at a lot of “wasted” picks across the lifespan of the NFL draft, and not exclusively at the QB position. 

Fair enough, but it isn’t just SB wins. Let’s take a look at the passing leaders over the last two decades and we see that most QBs leading the categories are the likes of Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc who were not number 1 picks.  The point is that it’s stupid to tank in hopes of landing a franchise QB when you have just as good of a chance of grabbing one later

[WarHeel]

34 minutes ago, NAS said:

Fair enough, but it isn’t just SB wins. Let’s take a look at the passing leaders over the last two decades and we see that most QBs leading the categories are the likes of Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc who were not number 1 picks.  The point is that it’s stupid to tank in hopes of landing a franchise QB when you have just as good of a chance of grabbing one later

For the record, I agree with you. I’m of the belief you can win it all without an elite QB. Plenty of teams have at least made a deep playoff run or competed in a SB without a Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Brees. 
 

 

[theinstrumental]

16 hours ago, NAS said:

Tanking or trading for a number 1 pick is no guarantee to land us a franchise QB so let's stop the nonsense.  If we're lucky, we need to find a future QB in mid to late round 1 , just like the Chiefs found Mahomes.  

Do this again for non-top-five first rounders. Cherrypicking here, but: Dwayne Haskins, Josh Rosen, Paxton Lynch, EJ Manuel, Johnny Manzel, Brandon Weeden, Christian Ponder, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Josh Freeman, Brady Quinn...the list of quarterbacks taken at the top of the draft looks much better on the whole than the mid-first guys. You can't just expect to luck into the GOAT in the sixth round (Brady) or hope to pair an injury reclamation project with one of the best offensive minds of all time and ride a historical drafting hot streak (Saints) to long-term contention. Investing a top pick in a quarterback isn't completely safe, but it's safer than anything else.

[NAS]

2 minutes ago, theinstrumental said:

Do this again for non-top-five first rounders. Cherrypicking here, but: Dwayne Haskins, Josh Rosen, Paxton Lynch, EJ Manuel, Johnny Manzel, Brandon Weeden, Christian Ponder, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Josh Freeman, Brady Quinn...the list of quarterbacks taken at the top of the draft looks much better on the whole than the mid-first guys. You can't just expect to luck into the GOAT in the sixth round (Brady) or hope to pair an injury reclamation project with one of the best offensive minds of all time and ride a historical drafting hot streak (Saints) to long-term contention. Investing a top pick in a quarterback isn't completely safe, but it's safer than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I think you draft one early when you can, but I don't think you tank the whole season in hopes of landing Lawrence because he's not guaranteed to be a success.  

[Wes21]

4 hours ago, NAS said:

Fair enough, but it isn’t just SB wins. Let’s take a look at the passing leaders over the last two decades and we see that most QBs leading the categories are the likes of Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc who were not number 1 picks.  The point is that it’s stupid to tank in hopes of landing a franchise QB when you have just as good of a chance of grabbing one later

What passing stats are you looking at in particular?  

[Bytes]

21 hours ago, bobowilson said:

None of those guys were as good of a prospect as Trevor, with the exception of Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck (who were both studs).

And Cam Newton is going to the Hall of Fame

 

I digress admittedly. But what stats gets Cam in the HoF?

[Mr. Scot]

Said this elsewhere: Here's the thing about the #1 pick.

The teams that earn that pick tend to be very poorly managed, and not just for a single year. So even when they get that prized possession, they don't know how to properly build around them.

Does that include us? You tell me.

[bobowilson]

2 hours ago, Bytes said:

I digress admittedly. But what stats gets Cam in the HoF?

best running QB in NFL history until Lamar Jackson passes him

iconic, one of a kind

 

[micnificent28]

I dont understand why people ever make this arugement. Having the number 1 pick means you get YOUR pick out of any player in the country that season. It doesn't mean they are a surefire hall of fame or success, it does mean you get who you feel is the best player in the country. Why anyone would want anything less or argue hey I would rather pick at 17 is not smart to me.

[BrianS]

Actually, in looking at that list, there are only 3 QB's on it that were obvious failures:  Jameis, Jamarcus and Couch.  You might say Carr as well . . . I dunno if that was as much Carr as it was the trauma from his situation ruining him.  The others all had/have productive NFL careers.  I agree, I don't think you tank to get there, that's dumb.  I don't think you sacrifice picks to get there.  But it's pretty clear that when a QB is taken first, chances are very good that you're getting a guy capable of producing.

[Wes21]

8 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Actually, in looking at that list, there are only 3 QB's on it that were obvious failures:  Jameis, Jamarcus and Couch.  You might say Carr as well . . . I dunno if that was as much Carr as it was the trauma from his situation ruining him.  The others all had/have productive NFL careers.  I agree, I don't think you tank to get there, that's dumb.  I don't think you sacrifice picks to get there.  But it's pretty clear that when a QB is taken first, chances are very good that you're getting a guy capable of producing.

I have never liked Winston from the time I first saw him interviewed before his first start in college.  Something about him just didn't jive with me.  But I can't call him an obvious failure, particularly in the context of Jamarcus and Couch.

On 4/15/2020 at 7:30 PM, Mr. Scot said:

Said this elsewhere: Here's the thing about the #1 pick.

The teams that earn that pick tend to be very poorly managed, and not just for a single year. So even when they get that prized possession, they don't know how to properly build around them.

Does that include us? You tell me.

Teams that pick in the top 5 to 10 picks tend to constantly pick in the top 5 to 10 picks.  Its crazy how the cycle repeats itself.  What I like to say is that if a team has the #1 pick, in most years that means that they had more than just a bad season.  They had a dumpster fire of a season, and the team most likely quit.  And that's what the #1 overall pick is walking into.

[Mr. Scot]

3 hours ago, Wes21 said:

Teams that pick in the top 5 to 10 picks tend to constantly pick in the top 5 to 10 picks.  Its crazy how the cycle repeats itself.  What I like to say is that if a team has the #1 pick, in most years that means that they had more than just a bad season.  They had a dumpster fire of a season, and the team most likely quit.  And that's what the #1 overall pick is walking into.

Pretty much.

If you're being picked number one, you're going to a team that's bad, and probably has been for a while.

Maybe the reasons why they were bad have been dealt with, or maybe somebody has been dealt with but the reasons why they're bad are still there.

The NFL doesn't have as many rags to riches stories as it does rags to slightly better rags then back to crappy rags stories.