A good and fair article about 1st round QB's

[teeray]

The moral of the story is that the article is neither good nor fair and the support to back it up is also neither good nor fair

Apparently not to people who don't seem to understand what it is saying.

You act like you debunked the story and have done nothing but prove you missed the entire point.

You have yet to produce one coherent counterpoint. You just said. Yeah but some of those guys weren't drafted to start.

But your original point was, "Yeah but what about Romo and Cassell. Guys can be good players late in the draft or undrafted." But now you are saying, "Yeah late round guys guys were never supposed to play so it doesn't matter."

So which one is it?? Do you think there is a lot of value in the later rounds or do you think that only first round picks are picked to be starters?? And if the latter is your argument didn't you just make my point that we need to use a first round pick on a QB because we are looking for a starter??

You have basically argued both sides of the argument in the same argument and failed on both counts!!

Well done sir. :rofl::rofl:

[panthers55]

My definition is narrow I guess. To me there are 32 starters, everyone else is a backup. There are different kinds of backups, such as career backups or backups like Rodgers who are expected to start in the future. But I consider both backups, just different kinds.

The difference is that most of them aren't drafted to be a backup it just works out that way. They were drafted to be starters when their opportunity arose.

[TheRealDeal]

I don't, I already knew that. How are you so dense you argue for pages about something that is obvious to everyone else.

I never argued that. Everyone knows that. The validity of the data came into question when they left of certain guys because they didn't fit this super specific criteria then I got really involved when someone posted a list of everyone drafted after the first round and started calling them busts like every QB drafted is for the same reason.

[TheRealDeal]

Apparently not to people who don't seem to understand what it is saying.

You act like you debunked the story and have done nothing but prove you missed the entire point.

You have yet to produce one coherent counterpoint. You just said. Yeah but some of those guys weren't drafted to start.

But your original point was, "Yeah but what about Romo and Cassell. Guys can be good players late in the draft or undrafted." But now you are saying, "Yeah late round guys guys were never supposed to play so it doesn't matter."

So which one is it?? Do you think there is a lot of value in the later rounds or do you think that only first round picks are picked to be starters?? And if the latter is your argument didn't you just make my point that we need to use a first round pick on a QB because we are looking for a starter??

You have basically argued both sides of the argument in the same argument and failed on both counts!!

Well done sir. :rofl::rofl:

My first post in this thread came after you posted that list of second round + QBs. I never argued for Romo or Cassell. I said I agree with the point of the article but when you posted the "secondary data" I said that doesn't help the argument because a lot of those guys weren't drafted to be starters so they cannot be busts. Sorgi, Canfield, Painter, LeFevour, Armanti, etc.

You are putting arguments in my mouth that I didn't make

[chef17]

The difference is that most of them aren't drafted to be a backup it just works out that way. They were drafted to be starters when their opportunity arose.

I agree, but I am also looking at the situation. Bradford was drafted to start right away. Rodgers was drafted to sit behind Favre. So I would still consider Rodgers a backup

[teeray]

I never argued that. Everyone knows that. The validity of the data came into question when they left of certain guys because they didn't fit this super specific criteria then I got really involved when someone posted a list of everyone drafted after the first round and started calling them busts like every QB drafted is for the same reason.

So you are upset that i used the word bust?? that is the crux of your argument??

Sorry. If the whole problem you have is that I used the word bust you truly did miss the entire point. I didn't post that to say HEY LOOK AT ALL THESE BUSTS after the first round. It is about drafting legit starting QB's and how there is no value in that regard in late rounds.

It is actually more punitive to your franchise to continue to pass on QB's in the first round every year and hoping we find a miracle. In Fa, trade market, or later rounds of the draft.

[TheRealDeal]

You really put Armanti on there as a QB? Really?

All that list shows is that some teams drafted backup QBs and people here are calling them busts.

Is Dan LeFevour the franchise in Chicago? Is he a bust if he isn't?

the biggest point being that QBs taken in the first are more likely to be franchise QBs than any other round.

That's a fair statement but saying the "Bust Rate" for QBs in the second round is 90% is ridiculous. Bust Rate? Really?

Even then it would take 15 Clausen busts (Conservatively) to make 1 Cam Newton Bust in terms of money and effect on a franchise.

My whole point is making a list of all QBs drafted and saying they are busts if they aren't starters is ludicrous. Sean Canfield and Jim Sorgi are busts because they didn't overtake Brees and Manning.

Tell me what my point was again Teeray?

[teeray]

My first post in this thread came after you posted that list of second round + QBs. I never argued for Romo or Cassell. I said I agree with the point of the article but when you posted the "secondary data" I said that doesn't help the argument because a lot of those guys weren't drafted to be starters so they cannot be busts. Sorgi, Canfield, Painter, LeFevour, Armanti, etc.

You are putting arguments in my mouth that I didn't make

again you are hung up on the word bust which means you missed the point.

[TheRealDeal]

So you are upset that i used the word bust?? that is the crux of your argument??

Sorry. If the whole problem you have is that I used the word bust you truly did miss the entire point. I didn't post that to say HEY LOOK AT ALL THESE BUSTS after the first round. It is about drafting legit starting QB's and how there is no value in that regard in late rounds.

It is actually more punitive to your franchise to continue to pass on QB's in the first round every year and hoping we find a miracle. In Fa, trade market, or later rounds of the draft.

I understood your whole point and no one is arguing that you have a chance of getting a better QB in the first round. But you posted all that data to show that there aren't good QBs drafted later on and the "Bust Rate" is higher later on. That's just dumb and I'm glad you changed the wording.

The conversation then transitioned to the meaning of the word backup and so on. I personally don't think every player drafted is meant to be a starting QB and I think some teams draft strictly to be a backup and other teams draft for starters and some draft projects.

I think the general range is that you want to draft starters early, backups in the middle, and projects late.

[TheRealDeal]

But your original point was, "Yeah but what about Romo and Cassell. Guys can be good players late in the draft or undrafted." But now you are saying, "Yeah late round guys guys were never supposed to play so it doesn't matter."

So which one is it?? Do you think there is a lot of value in the later rounds or do you think that only first round picks are picked to be starters?? And if the latter is your argument didn't you just make my point that we need to use a first round pick on a QB because we are looking for a starter??

Please tell me what my original point was again?

No, you don't pick a QB in the first just because you need a QB. You pick a QB in the first because they are a great QB that will make your franchise better. Do you see the difference?

[teeray]

That is out of 105 that have been drafted. A "bust" rate (not really bust bc the late round guys weren't drafted to be franchise guys) of 95%.

Apparently you missed this sentence from my original post so I have know idea what you fuggin point is.

If you are worried about someone calling them busts maybe you should actually read what I wrote.

Maybe. would have saved you a lot of time from looking stupid if you had.

[panthers55]

I never argued that. Everyone knows that. The validity of the data came into question when they left of certain guys because they didn't fit this super specific criteria then I got really involved when someone posted a list of everyone drafted after the first round and started calling them busts like every QB drafted is for the same reason.

And you are wrong about that as well. Few guys are drafted to be backups in the sense they sit the bench and don't get to start. Most backups are 1 injury away from being starters and as such are picked because the team feels like they have the ability to come in and start for him or at least can be developed to come in and start. Career backups are what we call guys who are good enough to play the game but not start regularly.

That is what happens when they aren't good enough to replace the starter already in place. But few teams would waste a draft pick on a guy knowing he won't be good enough to start. They also know that guys like Delhomme and Moore although undrafted are no worse than guys like Clausen, or Quinn who were taken high in the draft.

Backups are starters who aren't currently better than the present starters and don't get to play because the starter stays healthy. With few exceptions the difference between the backups and starters is experience not talent. The fact that a backup can come in and perform well is prove that the talent level between a starter and backup is not nearly as large or as well defined as you make it out to be.

Your whole argument is that because Sorgi for example didn't overtake Manning then the article is flawed. What you found is an exception to the rule not something that negates the primary premise. It doesn't follow that if you find a situation that defies the general trend you throw out the entire premise. You simply note that the concept is not without some exceptions and you move on. By and large what the article says is correct.

[teeray]

Did you ever stop to wonder why I had "bust" in quotation marks?????

[TheRealDeal]

Backups are starters who aren't currently better than the present starters and don't get to play because the starter stays healthy. With few exceptions the difference between the backups and starters is experience not talent. The fact that a backup can come in and perform well is prove that the talent level between a starter and backup is not nearly as large or as well defined as you make it out to be.

You are running in circles.

So undrafted guys and 2nd rounders with Top 5 talent are the same players and have the same talent right is what you are saying. So why is there such a big difference in starters in the league between 1st rounders and others? If they all have the same talent right?

There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge disparity in talent going from starters to backups. Huge.