Not Necessarily Panthers Related but....

[Jon Snow]

5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well, one generally assumes based on round that a player is "worth" more based soley on investment. So, this controls for the rank in each position group or whatever other things that don't relate to where they are selected.

I know that it's a long held assumption by fans and teams but to me that's been proven to not be the case. It's more about evaluation or more specifically whose doing the evaluation in my estimation. Thats where overdraft and undrafted comes into play. That skews the data to where you aren't getting what you are really looking for. 

[Jon Snow]

10 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I think you do change criteria based on round, TBH. The expectations should differ.

Why would you lower your standards? If you all you want is a  inferior qb that is already struggling in college just pick up an udfa. There's no reason to draft that type of qb in any round because there's hundreds of them. You are looking for someone overlooked by everyone on probably goes to a small school with little to know national coverage. Thats the type of guys you're looking at on day 3. Some drafts there isn't any so the numbers per round are not the same. An overwhelming majority of qbs are taken in the 1st round so the bust numbers should be higher or the time in the league will be longer. Teams will always give a 1st round pick more time to get it or will get more chances with other teams because of where he was picked alone. Im not sure how you factor that in.

[kungfoodude]

17 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Why would you lower your standards? If you all you want is a  inferior qb that is already struggling in college just pick up an udfa. There's no reason to draft that type of qb in any round because there's hundreds of them. You are looking for someone overlooked by everyone on probably goes to a small school with little to know national coverage. Thats the type of guys you're looking at on day 3. Some drafts there isn't any so the numbers per round are not the same. An overwhelming majority of qbs are taken in the 1st round so the bust numbers should be higher or the time in the league will be longer. Teams will always give a 1st round pick more time to get it or will get more chances with other teams because of where he was picked alone. Im not sure how you factor that in.

You lower your standards based on investment. A 6th or 7th round investment is massively lower than. 1st or 2nd.

If that wasn't the case, why would it matter if Burns was offered at a two 1st's and a 2nd instead of what we got for him?

[Jon Snow]

10 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

You lower your standards based on investment. A 6th or 7th round investment is massively lower than. 1st or 2nd.

If that wasn't the case, why would it matter if Burns was offered at a two 1st's and a 2nd instead of what we got for him?

You are talking about the cost of the pick itself. I just don't see that has any bearing on the value of the player. What was offered for Burns was what he was worth to the Rams at the time. It did not mean he was actually worth what was offered. Scott Fitterer set his value to the Panthers as more than that. Did he somehow become a better player because of that alone? No, he was/is the same player. 

[kungfoodude]

56 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

You are talking about the cost of the pick itself. I just don't see that has any bearing on the value of the player. What was offered for Burns was what he was worth to the Rams at the time. It did not mean he was actually worth what was offered. Scott Fitterer set his value to the Panthers as more than that. Did he somehow become a better player because of that alone? No, he was/is the same player. 

Well the entire intent of this is based on success of the pick based on the performance of the QB for an "expected" minimum return.

I think that is where maybe I am not explaining what I am doing as well as I need to.

The intent of all of this is to spit out a percentage of "success" for QB's picked in each round. The specific QB's are just lines of data in the spreadsheet that's feeding the minimums.

So what I am attempting to do is build out/fine tune a reasonable set of minimums you would expect to see given the round drafted(cost, if you will).

My logic is basically this:

1st Rounders

Hall of Fame - No explanation needed. This was an all time great player.

MVP/All Pro/Pro Bowl - Achievement that even if only happened once, this was a worthy investment. The player was able to reach near or league best play, even if briefly.  IMO, using just one as a threshold is fair. Even though it might only happen once, they reached their potential. This also filters out some other elements like injury shortened careers. Guys like Andrew Luck and RGIII pass as "successful" without being filtered out by the next minimum.

8+ Years as a Starter: This is a bit more debateable but I have included it as a function to catch some guys that might be a "soft success." The logic here being that perhaps a lengthy NFL starting career is "good enough" to be a success. Much more so than a failure. A drafted QB that was able to be a long term NFL starter is very desired, even if elite status was not ever truly reached. The only example of this that DOESN'T include some previously listed accolades in the almost 300 data points is.....Joe Flacco. And I think anyone at this point would have a hard time arguing that he was not a successful 1st round pick.

 

I am just gonna explain the first round logic but the rest of the rounds are similar. If you achieve any of these things, I would consider you a "success."

Perhaps that will make it my thought process more clear.

 

Once again, very grateful to have all the debates and input on this. I do want to make this a meaningful thing I can keep updating.

[Jon Snow]

21 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well the entire intent of this is based on success of the pick based on the performance of the QB for an "expected" minimum return.

I think that is where maybe I am not explaining what I am doing as well as I need to.

The intent of all of this is to spit out a percentage of "success" for QB's picked in each round. The specific QB's are just lines of data in the spreadsheet that's feeding the minimums.

So what I am attempting to do is build out/fine tune a reasonable set of minimums you would expect to see given the round drafted(cost, if you will).

My logic is basically this:

1st Rounders

Hall of Fame - No explanation needed. This was an all time great player.

MVP/All Pro/Pro Bowl - Achievement that even if only happened once, this was a worthy investment. The player was able to reach near or league best play, even if briefly.  IMO, using just one as a threshold is fair. Even though it might only happen once, they reached their potential. This also filters out some other elements like injury shortened careers. Guys like Andrew Luck and RGIII pass as "successful" without being filtered out by the next minimum.

8+ Years as a Starter: This is a bit more debateable but I have included it as a function to catch some guys that might be a "soft success." The logic here being that perhaps a lengthy NFL starting career is "good enough" to be a success. Much more so than a failure. A drafted QB that was able to be a long term NFL starter is very desired, even if elite status was not ever truly reached. The only example of this that DOESN'T include some previously listed accolades in the almost 300 data points is.....Joe Flacco. And I think anyone at this point would have a hard time arguing that he was not a successful 1st round pick.

 

I am just gonna explain the first round logic but the rest of the rounds are similar. If you achieve any of these things, I would consider you a "success."

Perhaps that will make it my thought process more clear.

 

Once again, very grateful to have all the debates and input on this. I do want to make this a meaningful thing I can keep updating.

I think I understand what you are trying to accomplish. Im thinking that a breakdown of all past drafted qb's with their college production and draft position vs actual nfl success is what you're looking for. But im thinking that the draft position really doesn't predict future success and that college prediction will have more of an impact regardless of draft position. At least that's how I understand the objective. If that's not where you're going with this then forgive my interruption on this topic. 

[kungfoodude]

13 hours ago, 45catfan said:

Okay then, minimums:

1st Round: Completion Percentage 62%, TD:INT 1.5:1

2nd Round: Completion Percentage 60%, TD:INT  1.25:1

3rd Round: Completion Percentage 56% TD:INT minimum 1:1

4th-7th Round: Completion Percentage 54%, TD:INT minimum .75:1

Edits in bold

As an initial test, I applied your 1st round criteria to that group(65 QB's of which 32 passed my "success" criteria).

As an ADDITIONAL component to the original criteria it added: Chad Pennington, Sam Bradford, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Marcus Mariota

 

As a REQUIREMENT for BOTH it,

Added: Chad Pennington, Sam Bradford, Marcus Mariota

Removed: Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Michael Vick, Byron Leftwich, Eli Manning, Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Joe Flacco, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Jameis Winston, Sam Darnold

Remaining after: Peyton Manning, Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater, Marcus Mariota, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, Baker Mayfield, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson

 

As an EITHER/OR REQUIREMENT component to the original criteria it,

Added: Chad Pennington, Sam Bradford, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Marcus Mariota

Removed: Trent Dilfer, Steve McNair, Kerry Collins, Byron Leftwich, Vince Young, Jameis Winston

Remaining after: Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, The Golden Calf of Bristol, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater, Marcus Mariota, Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson

 

Conclusion:

Of the different ways that I attempted to include the 1st round criteria it essentially adds some backup QB's or guys that were out of the league VERY quickly at the expense of some players that had by almost all measures very, very successful careers. 

I would say that is going to be a difficult requirement to add because of the people that get either added or subtracted as a result.

Take a look at the results and give me your thoughts.

 

[kungfoodude]

46 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I think I understand what you are trying to accomplish. Im thinking that a breakdown of all past drafted qb's with their college production and draft position vs actual nfl success is what you're looking for. But im thinking that the draft position really doesn't predict future success and that college prediction will have more of an impact regardless of draft position. At least that's how I understand the objective. If that's not where you're going with this then forgive my interruption on this topic. 

No, I take no account at all for college production. It has no value to NFL success. What you did before the NFL is irrelevant. That would be more of an "expectation vs. result" thing. That's SUPER difficult to quantify and going to be extremely subjective. 

It's not about predicting future success, I am just trying to show which NFL Draft Rounds generally have more "success" drafting a QB. 

The way it is currently built and using the 1994-2018 dataset this is the result using my criteria:

Edited 6 hours ago by kungfoodude

[Jon Snow]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

No, I take no account at all for college production. It has no value to NFL success. What you did before the NFL is irrelevant. That would be more of an "expectation vs. result" thing. That's SUPER difficult to quantify and going to be extremely subjective. 

It's not about predicting future success, I am just trying to show which NFL Draft Rounds generally have more "success" drafting a QB. 

The way it is currently built and using the 1994-2018 dataset this is the result using my criteria:

More qbs are taken in rounds 1 and 2 and the success rate will be higher as the supposed top guys are gone before round 3. That is always a given. After round 2 it's just pure luck to find a long term starter. That has always been the case. Im not sure you will find anything new there.

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

More qbs are taken in rounds 1 and 2 and the success rate will be higher as the supposed top guys are gone before round 3. That is always a given. After round 2 it's just pure luck to find a long term starter. That has always been the case. Im not sure you will find anything new there.

You might want to look at that table again. 

Round 2 has the least QB's taken in that time period. What is more interesting is how the "darts at a dart board" happens in the 6th and 7th round. Those are the 2nd and 3rd most frequently drafted rounds for NFL QB's. 

If you are strictly using my criteria for "success" it does lend credence to that not being an awful strategy. At 17-21% chance to get a bare minimum of 30+ starts OR a 5+ year career. That's pretty good for a very throwaway pick. I don't know how that would compare to other positions. I would maybe have to adapt what I have done to something like PFR's Career AV to set a line that accomplished roughly the same result as I have from the spreadsheet. If I can get to a number value, applying this to each position wouldn't be that hard. Not sure how "fair" that is without making some adjustment based on averages for each position. I would have to do that as well, I think. A positional "handicap" of sorts.