PDA

View Full Version : QB Draft History: Bradford vs McCoy- NOT so fast Sam


J-Mike88
04-09-2010, 02:48 PM
I just wrote this for B/R, thought some fans here would be surprised to learn a few of these historical notes.

All indications are that Sam Bradford is about to become the latest quarterback selected #1 overall in an NFL Draft. Obviously, that will make him the first QB selected in yet another draft.

Not so fast, says Mel Kiper. He rates Jimmy Clausen slightly higher and says he is more pro-ready than Bradford, while Super Bowl-winning QB Trent Dilfer agrees.

Dilfer believes that the Rams would be best off taking defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh first overall, then trading up from the 33rd pick to select Colt McCoy as their quarterback.
He thinks Jimmy Clausen is by far the best quarterback right now.

He thinks Sam Bradford faces a tough transition. He pegs McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft. What does Dilfer know? Well, he's played the position in the NFL, won a Super Bowl as a starting QB, and he has studied the players in great detail and using film that the general public doesn't have access to.

From ESPN, Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, and others. Dilfer attributes Bradford's perceived rise to hype and misinformation from personnel people with agendas.

"In my opinion," Dilfer said of Bradford, "he is not even close to the best player in this draft." McCoy's competitiveness, leadership and athletic ability to extend plays will set him apart over time, Dilfer predicted.

Now, we all can see the same thing and come away with different opinions. Scouts surely differed in their opinions in 1991 when Seattle chose Dan McGwire (Mark's brother) over Southern Miss's Brett Favre.
So did Raiders scouts that year when they selected Todd Marinovich ahead of Favre.

Let me focus on two areas which demonstrate why I believe the Rams should not select Bradford number one overall.

First, lets look back at some draft history regarding quarterbacks. While past results are not always an indication of results going forward, I believe lessons learned in the past can teach scouts and GM's a lot going forward.

Here are the past 35 or so drafts, showing who the first QB taken was in each of them.

1973
First QB: Bert Jones, #2 overall
QBs selected after: Dan Fouts, 3rd round; Ron Jaworski, 2nd round
Was the first QB the best one when all was said and done? No, Fouts was

1974
First QB: Danny White
QBs selected after: Crap. Was a terrible year for QBs.
Was the first QB the best one? Yes, and White was very underrated by Cowboy fans

1975
First: Steve Bartkowski, #1 overall QBs selected after:
Steve Grogan, round 5, Dan Pastorini, round 7
Was the first QB the best one? Close

1976
First: Richard Todd, #6 overall
QBs selected after: Crap. Was a terrible year for QBs
Was the first QB the best one? Yes, but nothing special

1977
First: Steve Pisarkiewitz, #19 overall
QBs selected after: Tommy Kramer, Vince Ferragamo, Steve Deberg
Was the first QB the best one? Not even close

1978
First: Doug Williams, #17 overall
QBs selected after: Matt Cavanaugh
Was the first QB the best one? Yes

1979
First: Jack Thompson, #3 overall (by your Cincinnati Bengals)
QBs selected after: Phil Simms, Joe Montana, Chuck Fusina
Was the first QB the best one? No, historical blunder

1980
First: Marc Wilson, #15 overall
QBs selected after: not great, but Mark Malone, Gary Hogeboom, David WoodleyWas the first QB the best one? No

1981
First: Rich Campbell, #6 overall (Packers, whoops)
QBs selected after: Neil Lomax, 2nd round
Was the first QB the best one? No

1982
First: Gambling Art Schlicter, #4 overall (by Baltimore Colts, whoops)
QBs selected after: Jim McMahon
Was the first QB the best one? No

1983
First: John Elway (by Baltimore Colts, but he wouldnt play a down for them)
QBs selected after: Jim Kelly #14, Dan Marino #27
Was the first QB the best one? Yes & No Elway was the right pick, but since he wouldn't play for them, they'd have been better off taking Marino, in hindsight

1984
First: Boomer Esiason, #38
QBs selected after: Steve Young, supl
Was the first QB the best one? I guess so because I don't know how the supplemental rule was in 1984 with the USFL

1985
First: Randall Cunningham, #37
Supplemental pick: Bernie Kosar Taken late: Doug Flutie, round 11
Was the first QB the best one? Yes

1986
First: Jim Chris Everett, #3 overall
QBs taken after: Bubby Brister, round 3, Mark Rypien, round 6
Was the first QB the best one? Tough call with Rypien

1987
First: Vinny Testacleverde, #1 overall
QBs taken after: Kelly Stouffer, Chris Miller, Jim Harbaugh, all round 1. Rich Gannon round 4. Don Majikowski, round 10
Was the first QB the best one? Tough call with former MVP Gannon, although Vinnie had the longevity, Gannon's peak was better

1988
First: Chris Chandler, 3rd round (was first QB, bad year) QBs taken after: crap. Horrible year for QBs
Was the first QB the best one? By default

1989
First: Troy Aikman, #1 overall Clear best QB
Was the first QB the best one? Yes

1990
First: Jeff George #1 overall
Next: Andre Ware #7 overall
QBs taken after: Neil ODonnell, round 3
Was the first QB the best one? No

1991
First: Dan McGwire #16 overall
Next: Todd Marinovich, #24
QB taken after: Brett Favre, #33
Was the first QB the best one? No, historical huge blunder

1992
First: David Klingler #6 overall
QBs taken after: Tommy Maddox, Jeff Blake, Brad Johnson round 9
Was the first QB the best one? No, verified bust

1993
First: Drew Bledsoe #1 overall
QBs taken after: Rick Mirer #2 overall, Mark Brunell round 5 (Packers), Trent Green round 8
Was the first QB the best one? Yes

1994
First: Heath Shuler #3 overall (ouch)
QBs taken after: Trent Dilfer, Gus Frerotte
Undrafted: Kurt Warner
Was the first QB the best one? No, certified huge bust

1995
First: Steve McNair #3 overall
After: Kerry Collins #5 overall, Kordell Stewart #60 overall, Rob Johnson round 4
Was the first QB the best one? Yes

1996
First: Tony Banks
After: Crap, this is one of the worst class of QBs in NFL history
Was the first QB the best one? NA, I can't certify Banks even though nobody else was better, just a horrible class of QB's.

1997
First: Jim Druckenmiller #26 overall
After: Jake Plummer #42, Koy Detmer round 7
Was the first QB the best one? No

1998
First: Peyton Manning #1 overall
Next: Ryan Leaf #2 overall
After Leaf: Chuck Batch round 2, Brian Griese round 3, Matt Haselbeck round 6 (Packers)
Was the first QB the best one? Yes!

1999
First: Tim Couch #1 overall (Browns)
Next: Donovan McNabb #2 overall
Next: Akili Smith #3 overall (your Cincinnati Bengals)
After Couch & Akili: Culpepper #11 overall, Aaron Brooks round 4 (Packers)
Was the first QB the best one? No, although he was better than Akili Smith

2000
First: Chad Pennington #18 overall
Next: Giovanni Carmazzi, 49ers, Chris Redman, Ravens, Tee Martin, Steelers, Mark Bulger, Saints, Spergon Wynn, Browns,
After: Tom Brady, Patriots round 6
Was the first QB the best one? No, even though Pennington has had a nice career, but Brady to New England fuled this rivalry to new heights

2001
First: Michael Vick #1 overall
After: Drew Brees round 2
Was the first QB the best one? No, even though Vick was electric and led Atlanta to some playoffs

2002
First: David Carr #1 overall
Next: Joey Harrington #3 overall, Patrick Ramsey round 1
After: David Garrard round 4
Was the first QB the best one? No, colossal bust at #1, although nobody great afterwards

2003
First: Carson Palmer #1 overall (bingo, although hes not the same after the knee)
Next: Leftwich #7, Boller & Grossman round 1 also
After: Tony Romo, undrafted > http://www.draftinsiders.com/node/94
Was the first QB the best one? Yes, although Romo is now better

2004
First: Eli Manning #1 overall
Next: Philip Rivers #4, Roethlisberger #11
After: JP Losman #22, Matt Schuab round 3, Jim Sorgi round 6
Was the first QB the best one? Won a Super Bowl, but Rivers is better, and Roethlisberger has won two Super Bowls, so I'd say no.

2005
First: Alex Smith #1 overall
After: Aaron Rodgers #24 overall
Next: Jason Campbell #25 overall
After: Charlie Frye, Andrew Walter, David Greene, Kyle Orton, Stefon LeFors, Dan Orlovsky, Adrian McPherson, Derek Anderson, Matt Cassell
Was the first QB the best one? No, but Smith still has a chance to become real good

2006
First: Vince Young #3 overall
Next: Matt Leinart #10, Jay Cutler #11
Was the first QB the best one? Has been benched, but revitalized. I'd say No because if they redrafted these QB's, Cutler would go highest

2007
First: JaMarcus Russell #1 overall
Next: Brady Quinn #22 overall
After: Kevin Kolb #36, John Beck #40, Drew Stanton #43, Trent Edwards #92
Was the first QB the best one? No, another all-time classic bust at #1

2008
First: Matt Ryan #3 overall
Next: Joe Flacco #18
After: Brian Brohm #56, Chad Henne #57
Was the first QB the best one? Too soon to declare, but looks good so far

2009
First: Matt Stafford #1 overall
After: Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman
Was the first QB the best one? Too soon to declare, but looks promising so far

COLT MCCOY
4-year starter, 53 games
Passer Rating: 158.25
Comp %: 70.2
Yards: 13,253
TDs: 112
Ints: 45
Rushing: 1589 yards, 20 TDs
In 2008, led the Longhorns in rushing with 576 yards, 10 TD rushes, and threw for 34 TDs with an NCAA record 77.6 completion percentage.

2006 Valero Alamo Bowl Offensive MVP
2008 Pacific Life Holiday Bowl Offensive MVP
2008 Big 12 Offensive Player of the Year by the Associated Press
2008 Walter Camp Award by the Walter Camp Foundation
2008 First-team All-America by the Walter Camp Foundation, FWAA, and Sports Illustrated
2008 Archie Griffin Award
2008 co-Sporting News Player of the Year
2008 Heisman Memorial Trophy Runner-up
2009 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl Offensive MVP
2009 First-team All-American by Associated Press, AFCA, FWAA, Walter Camp Foundation, Rivals.com, Scout.com
2009 First-team All-Big 12
2009 Big 12 Offensive Player of the Year by the Associated Press
2009 NCAA Quarterback of the Year
2009 Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award
2009 Davey O'Brien Award
2009 Chic Harley Award
2009 Maxwell Award
2009 Walter Camp Award by the Walter Camp Foundation
2009 Sporting News College Athlete of the Year
2009 AT&T ESPN All-America Player of the Year

SAM BRADFORD
3-year starter, 30 games
Passer Rating: 175.6
Comp %: 67.6
Yards: 8,403
TDs: 88
Ints: 16
Rushing:49 career yards, 5 TDs

2007 Sporting News Freshman of the Year
2007 Second-team All-American by Sporting News
2007 Honorable mention All-American by Pro Football Weekly, College Football News, and Sports Illustrated
2007 All-Big 12 honorable mention by the league's coaches
2007 All-Big 12 Academic Team
2008 Second-team Academic All-American by ESPN The Magazine
2008 All-Big 12 Academic Team
2008 Big 12 Offensive Player of the Year as named by the league's coaches, who also selected him to the All-Big 12 first team
2008 First-team All-American by CBS Sports, Rivals.com, ESPN, Associated Press and Sporting News
2008 Davey O'Brien Award winner
2008 Heisman Trophy winner
2008 Associated Press College Football Player of the Year
2008 Sammy Baugh Trophy
2008 co-Sporting News Player of the Year
2008 Harley Award
2008 Touchdown Club of Columbus Quarterback of the Year

2 Direct HEAD-to-HEAD Games
2007:
Bradford: 21-32, 244 yards, 3 TDs, 0 Ints, 7.6 yds per attempt, 160.6 passer rating
McCoy: 19-26, 324 yards, 2 TDs, 1 Int, 12.5 yds per attempt, 195.4 passer rating, Sooners win 28-21

2008:
Bradford: 28-39, 387 yards, 5 TDs, 2 Ints, 9.9 yds per attempt, 187.2 passer rating, 0 yards rushing
McCoy: 28-35, 277 yards, 1 TD, 0 Ints, 7.9 yds per attempt, 155.9 passer rating, 31 yards rushing
Longhorns win 45-35

2009:
Bradford was out injured, no H2H matchup. Texas wins ugly game.

2-Game H2H Cumulative:
Bradford: 49-71, 631 yards, 8.8 yards per attempt, 8 TDs, 2 Ints, 1-1 record
McCoy: 47-61, 601 yards, 9.8 yards per attempt, 3 TDs, 1 Int, 1-1 record (3-1 career vs. OU; beat OU in 2006 & 2009)

Now, what does all of this mean? It really means nothing going forward.

But looking back at QB history, and Colt & Sams history playing together in the same conference in the same era, and head to head. Theres not much separating them.

Both have been fantastic passing QBs, while McCoy also has some good running ability and instincts, ala an Aaron Rodgers. Both are accurate, and both have a history of winning.

The biggest difference is the two inches in their height. And take a look at that 30-year QB history I provided. Theres no correlation between two-inches determining who succeeds and who doesnt. In fact, the Seattle GM chose Dan McGwire ahead of Brett Favre for only one reason: he was taller.

Some say Sams arm is stronger. It probably is. Sure, in 1979 Jack Thompson had a stonger arm than Joe Montana and Phil Sims did. So what? Thompson was taken first. Who here has heard of Jack Thompson?

And hows Bradfords shoulder going to hold up the next time he gets sacked? The last two hits he took, his shoulder popped out. St Louis plays on turf too, not softer natural grass.

I agree with Trent Dilfer: The Rams should draft nDominator Suh at #1 because hes the best player available, and then trade up into the 20s and select Colt McCoy. That would be a phenomenal duo for the Rams and would set them back on track to winning more games in St Louis.

bored of education
04-09-2010, 03:00 PM
I don't get the comparison to the 1st Qb taken to the others. Their is no correlation to one's NFL success and where they were drafted.

prock
04-09-2010, 03:12 PM
I just wrote this for B/R, thought some fans here would be surprised to learn a few of these historical notes.

All indications are that Sam Bradford is about to become the latest quarterback selected #1 overall in an NFL Draft. Obviously, that will make him the first QB selected in yet another draft.

Not so fast, says Mel Kiper. He rates Jimmy Clausen slightly higher and says he is more pro-ready than Bradford, while Super Bowl-winning QB Trent Dilfer agrees.

Dilfer believes that the Rams would be best off taking defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh first overall, then trading up from the 33rd pick to select Colt McCoy as their quarterback.
He thinks Jimmy Clausen is by far the best quarterback right now.

1.He thinks Sam Bradford faces a tough transition. He pegs McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft. What does Dilfer know? 2. Well, he's played the position in the NFL, won a Super Bowl as a starting QB, and he has studied the players in great detail and using film that the general public doesn't have access to.

3. From ESPN, Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, and others. Dilfer attributes Bradford's perceived rise to hype and misinformation from personnel people with agendas.

"In my opinion," Dilfer said of Bradford, "he is not even close to the best player in this draft." McCoy's competitiveness, leadership and athletic ability to extend plays will set him apart over time, Dilfer predicted.

Now, we all can see the same thing and come away with different opinions. Scouts surely differed in their opinions in 1991 when Seattle chose Dan McGwire (Mark's brother) over Southern Miss's Brett Favre.
4. So did Raiders scouts that year when they selected Todd Marinovich ahead of Favre.

Let me focus on two areas which demonstrate why I believe the Rams should not select Bradford number one overall.

5. First, lets look back at some draft history regarding quarterbacks. While past results are not always an indication of results going forward, I believe lessons learned in the past can teach scouts and GM's a lot going forward.



Now, what does all of this mean? It really means nothing going forward.

But looking back at QB history, and Colt & Sams history playing together in the same conference in the same era, and head to head. Theres not much separating them.

Both have been fantastic passing QBs, while McCoy also has some good running ability and instincts, ala an Aaron Rodgers. Both are accurate, and both have a history of winning.

The biggest difference is the two inches in their height. And take a look at that 30-year QB history I provided. Theres no correlation between two-inches determining who succeeds and who doesnt. In fact, the Seattle GM chose Dan McGwire ahead of Brett Favre for only one reason: he was taller.

6. Some say Sams arm is stronger. It probably is. Sure, in 1979 Jack Thompson had a stonger arm than Joe Montana and Phil Sims did. So what? Thompson was taken first. Who here has heard of Jack Thompson?

7. And hows Bradfords shoulder going to hold up the next time he gets sacked? The last two hits he took, his shoulder popped out. St Louis plays on turf too, not softer natural grass.

I agree with Trent Dilfer: The Rams should draft nDominator Suh at #1 because hes the best player available, and then trade up into the 20s and select Colt McCoy. That would be a phenomenal duo for the Rams and would set them back on track to winning more games in St Louis.

There is SOO much wrong with this post. It is completely biased. I will start off by saying the stats you posted are irrelevant. If college stats meant pro success, there wouldn't be scouts. We wouldn't be arguing the draft at all.

Bold #1: A tough transition from what? A spread system to the pros? You know who else has to do that? Colt McCoy. Irrelevant point.
#2: Isiah Thomas is a top 25 basketball player of all time and won 2 titles, but he really was a good GM, wasn't he? Same with Michael Jordan. And Kevin McHale. Just because you were a good player doesn't make you a good exec.
#3: Oh, every snap from 2009? That wouldn't make his viewing biased against Bradford at all, considering he didn't even play over HALF of the ******* season. The season in which Bradford did play all the season, he won the Heisman. Maybe Dilfer should watch a little 2008 tape of Bradford.
#4: You could point out cases where **** happened in your favor, and I can come up with just as many if not more cases in which is failed. A short quarterback excelling is an exception, not the rule.
#5: Again, maybe you should look back at all the years in which your argument is proved wrong, and the scouts were right. The bias and ignorance in this post is appalling.
#6: Same **** as number 4 and 5. Look at both sides of the argument, don't just conveniently pluck out information that only supports your case, while ignoring the rest of the evidence.
#7: How did Colt's shoulder hold up last time he got hit? That hit was WAYYYY less hard than the ones Bradford took. Zzzz...

In conclusion, I ******* LOVE Colt McCoy and think Bradford is slightly overrated, but your post is completely ignorant. This argument is so fatally flawed, biased, and just stupid. If you want to actually convince people, you can't just use what information fits, but you need to use all information. Just because someone says it on ESPN doesn't make it true. Appreciate the effort you put into this post, but you are wrong.

3pac
04-09-2010, 03:17 PM
Interesting post, but part of the reason #1 draft pick QBs fail is that the team they are going to is (obviously) awful. Lack of talent plus usually a bad front office that doesn't know how to nurture a QB = less odds the QB will succeed.

So yeah, interesting post and I enjoyed skimming over it, but there are more factors than simply draft slot. Most good QBs that were drafted late went to great situations and were able to thrive with talent surrounding them.

SKim172
04-09-2010, 03:33 PM
I actually also believe that Clausen is better than Bradford and also like McCoy, but I have to go with the guy who made the point that the order you were drafted in has nothing to do with success in the league. There are literally an infinite amount of variables that go into that that it makes it a faulty comparison. Should the Rams keep trading back until someone else takes a QB to ensure they don't get it wrong? Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both have an "a" in their last name. Should this influence me to draft Bradford over McCoy?

But yeah, I do think Clausen will be a little better than Bradford, but I still don't believe either will be an elite NFL QB.

However, I'm ALWAYS wrong on quarterbacks. So Bradford and Clausen will be first-ballot HOF'ers, but Bradford will win 10 Super Bowls and Clausen only 9.

For future reference, I also like Zac Robinson, Dan LeFevour, Tony Pike, and Mike Kafka. I don't like Tebow, Snead, Skelton, Daryll Clark,or Rusty Smith.

Just watch - three years from now, you'll all be amazed by how absolutely wrong I was. Every single thing I think about QBs is wrong.

fear the elf
04-09-2010, 03:37 PM
I actually also believe that Clausen is better than Bradford and also like McCoy, but I have to go with the guy who made the point that the order you were drafted in has nothing to do with success in the league. There are literally an infinite amount of variables that go into that that it makes it a faulty comparison. Should the Rams keep trading back until someone else takes a QB to ensure they don't get it wrong? Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both have an "a" in their last name. Should this influence me to draft Bradford over McCoy?

But yeah, I do think Clausen will be a little better than Bradford, but I still don't believe either will be an elite NFL QB.

However, I'm ALWAYS wrong on quarterbacks. So Bradford and Clausen will be first-ballot HOF'ers, but Bradford will win 10 Super Bowls and Clausen only 9.

For future reference, I also like Zac Robinson, Dan LeFevour, Tony Pike, and Mike Kafka. I don't like Tebow, Snead, Skelton, Daryll Clark,or Rusty Smith.

Just watch - three years from now, you'll all be amazed by how absolutely wrong I was. Every single thing I think about QBs is wrong.

Except for the thing about "a" in the last name. I think that's a lock.

Marino
Unitas

Montana has two "a's", that means he was twice as sweet.

Cicero
04-09-2010, 03:39 PM
I see:

-Stats
-Irrelevant comparisons
-Lack of acknowledgment for McCoy's durability concerns
-No mention of McCoy's noodle arm or all of his 3 yard bubble screens

jth1331
04-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Are you an economics/business person?
Because everything in the post is bias and skewed to make Colt McCoy look awesome while Bradford look like crap.
Yeah, lets throw draft history out and say "Hey, #1 QB's have busted in the past, lets not take one so high!".
I don't get these things about Colt being so much better in the long run than Bradford. Because he can throw those bubble screens, run around and throw dump offs for 4 yard gains? Ugh.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 04:34 PM
I think Dilfer is developing into a top notch analyst of QB prospects. Can't tell yet if he's right or wrong about Bradford, but I tend to listen when he has question marks about a prospect.

Bradford appears to be the more physically gifted QB, but I understand Dilfer's overall point that McCoy is just a 'gamer'; the kid always makes plays to win games.

IMO McCoy is gonna be somewhere between Jeff Garcia and Drew Brees as a pro and his mobility is going to be a major asset.

That said, I would not be surprised if Bradford developed into a pro bowler in the NFL, but he's going to be tested like he's never been before during his first 2 years in the league; think Troy Aikman who was Reggie White's personal tackling dummy at the beginning of his career in Dallas.

I think it's much harder for college QBs who rarely took hits, let alone had to rush a throw, to make the jump to the NFL game.

yourfavestoner
04-09-2010, 04:49 PM
So they should draft Colt McCoy instead of Bradford even though he's tiny, has a weaker arm, more injury concerns, and came from an even more unorthodox spread system than Bradford? Makes sense...

And the list of QBs drafted nullified the point you're trying to make. People talk about first round QB busts all time time yet conveniently ignore the astronomically high rate of QBs drafted after the first round who never amount to anything in the NFL. They may not be "busts" because they never had the expectations of a first rounder, but they sure as hell never do anything in the NFL either.

ThePudge
04-09-2010, 05:01 PM
Why is so much emphasis put on the NOT?

nepg
04-09-2010, 05:01 PM
I wouldn't touch Bradford, and I think McCoy can come in and play right away (but not be the long-term answer), but I'm not sure of the logicical integrity of the overall OP.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2010, 05:13 PM
Are you an economics/business person?
Because everything in the post is bias and skewed to make Colt McCoy look awesome while Bradford look like crap.


You'd best explain yourself, sir. Economics people are awesome.

ericzedwards
04-09-2010, 05:13 PM
Just to indulge the original post, if you count up those draft histories, in 15 of those years, the first QB taken ended up being the best, while in 20, some quarterback taken later was better (this excludes the last two drafts since it's too soon to tell).

When you take into account that those quarterbacks who were taken later that ended up better were drafted afterwards, but in no specific position or round, that means that the number one quarterback taken has OVERWHELMINGLY had the better career than any one of the endless number of other possible positions where a QB can be taken.

Consensus #1 QBs are number one for a reason; just look at those numbers. These personnel guys know what they're doing a huge majority of the time. That being said, go Jimmy Clausen!

Brent
04-09-2010, 05:15 PM
I don't get these things about Colt being so much better in the long run than Bradford. Because he can throw those bubble screens, run around and throw dump offs for 4 yard gains? Ugh.
But his name is Colt and he played for Texas!

THAT'S SO ******* AMAZING! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!? OMGZZZZZ!

prock
04-09-2010, 05:19 PM
But his name is Colt and he played for Texas!

THAT'S SO ******* AMAZING! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!? OMGZZZZZ!

And Todd McShay says he is a gun slinger! He must be amazing!

hawkeye123
04-09-2010, 05:21 PM
Wait a second, Colt McCoy is expected to get drafted in the 1st? I thought he wasn't expected to get drafted until the late second, early third.

yourfavestoner
04-09-2010, 05:25 PM
Just to indulge the original post, if you count up those draft histories, in 15 of those years, the first QB taken ended up being the best, while in 20, some quarterback taken later was better (this excludes the last two drafts since it's too soon to tell).

When you take into account that those quarterbacks who were taken later that ended up better were drafted afterwards, but in no specific position or round, that means that the number one quarterback taken has OVERWHELMINGLY had the better career than any one of the endless number of other possible positions where a QB can be taken.

Consensus #1 QBs are number one for a reason; just look at those numbers. These personnel guys know what they're doing a huge majority of the time. That being said, go Jimmy Clausen!

THANK YOU! Somebody who finally ******* gets it.

batsandgats
04-09-2010, 06:07 PM
I just wrote this for B/R, thought some fans here would be surprised to learn a few of these historical notes.

Vinny Testacleverde

Testacle verde?

fontes
04-09-2010, 06:08 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/the_nfl_draft.php

This link speaks to your argument

jth1331
04-09-2010, 06:26 PM
You'd best explain yourself, sir. Economics people are awesome.

Economics/business people are notorious for skewing the statistics to make their argument valid, or a company to look better.
Why do we need them? So companies can flip numbers around to look like they have a better net income and etc.

So I was asking because this is something an economics/financial person would come up with to get people to side with him.

mqtirishfan
04-09-2010, 06:33 PM
Economics/business people are notorious for skewing the statistics to make their argument valid, or a company to look better.
Why do we need them? So companies can flip numbers around to look like they have a better net income and etc.

So I was asking because this is something an economics/financial person would come up with to get people to side with him.

Psh. That's a personality trait of all kinds of people, not just economic types. There's room for morality in economic situations. :P

J-Mike88
04-09-2010, 09:06 PM
Just to indulge the original post, if you count up those draft histories, in 15 of those years, the first QB taken ended up being the best, while in 20, some quarterback taken later was better (this excludes the last two drafts since it's too soon to tell).

Well I only see about 12 for sure yesses in there.
Even 15 out of 35 is still much more often not than more often yes.
The reason I mentioned that is because it (QB draft history) lends credence to Kiper & Dilfer's position, and they are historical facts.

Even though everyone else is in love with Bradford right now, it doesn't mean he's better or is going to end up better, which draft history backs statistically.

The other information I put in there is actual statistical.
TDs, Ints, Yards, Completions, etc. None of it was made up.
They both played in the same conference which helps. It's not like one was in the wild WAC or Mountain West.

If McCoy's arm was that weak, he'd never been able to make Quan Cosby and Jordan Shipley look like All-Americans. And name McCoy's OL guys compared to who has been there at Oklahoma in front of Bradford.

The bottom line is these guys stats and performaces are close enough to consider it a draw. The edge that Sam has is in heighth, and arm strength. But anyone who's paid attention realizes that arm strength was the main reason JaMarcus Russell went #1, while guys like Brady, Montana, and Brees weren't first rounders. Scouts knocked their arm strength.

The main reason Alex Smith was taken ahead of Rodgers was size. Rodgers was clearly the better quarterback, as the Sporting News said at that time.
I thought Dan McGwire over Favre in 1991 taught that height lesson, but it's apparent some people forgot in San Francisco.

I agree with Trent Dilfer and Melvin Kiper Jr.!
Take Suh, trade up and take McCoy.
Let someone else take Bradford and hold their breath when he's sacked on that shoulder again. The last two hits he took, it popped.

Disclaimer: I live in Dallas, but am not a fan of any of these schools down here. I did root for the underdog Texas Tech in 2008 as I have friends there in Lubbock. And I really thought Dez Bryant was more talented that year than Crabtree. I also was more impressed with McCoy for 4 years than I was with Bradford in 2 years. I have no bias here, except I will root for McCoy because I like him better, well unless he ends up in purple like AD did.
:(

yourfavestoner
04-09-2010, 09:36 PM
Well I only see about 12 for sure yesses in there.
Even 15 out of 35 is still much more often not than more often yes.
The reason I mentioned that is because it (QB draft history) lends credence to Kiper & Dilfer's position, and they are historical facts.
I love how you only quoted the small part that is conducive to your argument. 15 out of 35 isn't a great percentage, but that's only looking at it in the context of the first quarterback selected vs the entire field. When you look at it as first quarterback vs second quarterback, or first quarterbacks vs second round quarterbacks you'll see that the top quarterback selected fares a much better chance than a quarterback selected at any other spot in the entire draft.

Even though everyone else is in love with Bradford right now, it doesn't mean he's better or is going to end up better, which draft history backs statistically.
Strawman. Nobody is arguing that he'll be better because everyone loves him now. No statistics can back up an argument that was never made. Even then, I've two posters have tried to show you how your "statistics" are work against your argument.

The other information I put in there is actual statistical.
TDs, Ints, Yards, Completions, etc. None of it was made up.
They both played in the same conference which helps. It's not like one was in the wild WAC or Mountain West.
I'm sorry, but all college statistics do is tell you whether you've got a competent football player on your hands or not. TBH, statistics are more useful in analyzing quarterbacks when the QB puts up bad ones because you know just to eliminate him. A bad player in college isn't going to suddenly become good in the NFL. Every draft-worthy college prospect puts up good stats.

If McCoy's arm was that weak, he'd never been able to make Quan Cosby and Jordan Shipley look like All-Americans. And name McCoy's OL guys compared to who has been there at Oklahoma in front of Bradford.
Excuse me, but Texas has perennially has one of the best offensive lines in the country. And the one McCoy stood behind was equitable to Bradford's.

Also, a weak arm didn't stop Danny Weurffel from making all those Florida WRs look like All-Stars. Or Ken Dorsey at the U. Terrible argument.

The bottom line is these guys stats and performaces are close enough to consider it a draw. The edge that Sam has is in heighth, and arm strength. But anyone who's paid attention realizes that arm strength was the main reason JaMarcus Russell went #1, while guys like Brady, Montana, and Brees weren't first rounders. Scouts knocked their arm strength.
If you can't understand why size and arm strength are two of the most important factors when judging a quarterback then I can't help you. For every Jamarcus Russell, there is a John Elway.

Guys like Brady, Montana, and Brees are the exception. And both Brady and Montana have really underrated arm strength. People talk about those two like they are these completely unathletic lops with the arm of my little sister. Throwing the ball with touch doesn't mean a quarterback doesn't have arm strength.

The main reason Alex Smith was taken ahead of Rodgers was size. Rodgers was clearly the better quarterback, as the Sporting News said at that time.
I thought Dan McGwire over Favre in 1991 taught that height lesson, but it's apparent some people forgot in San Francisco.
Huh? Alex Smith was knocked on for being lanky and gangly. He went head of Rogers because he was more athletic, didn't have a funky/robotic delivery and mechanics, and because NFL teams were still afraid of Tedford products.

I agree with Trent Dilfer and Melvin Kiper Jr.!
Take Suh, trade up and take McCoy.
Let someone else take Bradford and hold their breath when he's sacked on that shoulder again. The last two hits he took, it popped.

Disclaimer: I live in Dallas, but am not a fan of any of these schools down here. I did root for the underdog Texas Tech in 2008 as I have friends there in Lubbock. And I really thought Dez Bryant was more talented that year than Crabtree. I also was more impressed with McCoy for 4 years than I was with Bradford in 2 years. I have no bias here, except I will root for McCoy because I like him better, well unless he ends up in purple like AD did.
:(

prock
04-09-2010, 10:05 PM
Reply to my post J-mike

Crazy_Chris
04-10-2010, 12:09 AM
So they should draft Colt McCoy instead of Bradford even though he's tiny, has a weaker arm, more injury concerns, and came from an even more unorthodox spread system than Bradford? Makes sense...

And the list of QBs drafted nullified the point you're trying to make. People talk about first round QB busts all time time yet conveniently ignore the astronomically high rate of QBs drafted after the first round who never amount to anything in the NFL. They may not be "busts" because they never had the expectations of a first rounder, but they sure as hell never do anything in the NFL either.

Great post, I can understand why some fans may be apprehensive about taking a QB high in round 1. As they tend to have a high bust rate, and if they do bust it can set your franchise back by years. But the facts are if you don't take a chance on a QB in round 1 your chances of getting a franchise QB plummet to almost 0.

In fact Scott wrote a very good piece on this specific topic, more people need to read this...

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/23qb/23qbs.php

J-Mike88
04-10-2010, 07:48 AM
And Todd McShay says he is a gun slinger! He must be amazing!
I don't put as much stock in what McShay says, but gunslingers are good sometimes, until the playoffs hit and their carelessness eventually bites them in the ass.
Farve taught Packer nation that too many times. I think he carried that over into New Orleans too for the Viking fans to get a taste of it.

McCoy has been bred to be a QB.
His arm strength is underrated too then if Stoner can say that about all those other exceptions. And there are a lot more exceptions than you listed.

On the other side, Rex Grossman and JP Losman and Kyle Boller and Tarvaris Jackson have/had very strong arms, so did Couch and Klingler and Ware and McGwire. Only once Montana started to win Super Bowls did pundits start to say his arm strength was 'underrated'. Same with Brees. Every NFL team passed on him in the draft, and every team could have had him as a free agent, but his heighth was a stereotype deterrant and he didn't have a Randy Johnson-fastball. Brees & McCoy were born and bred in Texas to be quarterbacks.

Trent Dilfer gets it.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/376014-nfl-draft-sam-bradford-vs-colt-mccoy

J-Mike88
04-10-2010, 07:50 AM
Reply to my post J-mike
just did, prock.

prock
04-10-2010, 09:50 AM
I don't put as much stock in what McShay says, but gunslingers are good sometimes, until the playoffs hit and their carelessness eventually bites them in the ass.
Farve taught Packer nation that too many times. I think he carried that over into New Orleans too for the Viking fans to get a taste of it.

McCoy has been bred to be a QB.
His arm strength is underrated too then if Stoner can say that about all those other exceptions. And there are a lot more exceptions than you listed.

On the other side, Rex Grossman and JP Losman and Kyle Boller and Tarvaris Jackson have/had very strong arms, so did Couch and Klingler and Ware and McGwire. Only once Montana started to win Super Bowls did pundits start to say his arm strength was 'underrated'. Same with Brees. Every NFL team passed on him in the draft, and every team could have had him as a free agent, but his heighth was a stereotype deterrant and he didn't have a Randy Johnson-fastball. Brees & McCoy were born and bred in Texas to be quarterbacks.

Trent Dilfer gets it.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/376014-nfl-draft-sam-bradford-vs-colt-mccoy

I was joking. Todd McShay is an idiot. Colt McCoy is no where near a gunslinger.

just did, prock.

My first one.

MiWolves
04-10-2010, 10:02 AM
I don't put as much stock in what McShay says, but gunslingers are good sometimes, until the playoffs hit and their carelessness eventually bites them in the ass.
Farve taught Packer nation that too many times. I think he carried that over into New Orleans too for the Viking fans to get a taste of it.

McCoy has been bred to be a QB.
His arm strength is underrated too then if Stoner can say that about all those other exceptions. And there are a lot more exceptions than you listed.

On the other side, Rex Grossman and JP Losman and Kyle Boller and Tarvaris Jackson have/had very strong arms, so did Couch and Klingler and Ware and McGwire. Only once Montana started to win Super Bowls did pundits start to say his arm strength was 'underrated'. Same with Brees. Every NFL team passed on him in the draft, and every team could have had him as a free agent, but his heighth was a stereotype deterrant and he didn't have a Randy Johnson-fastball. Brees & McCoy were born and bred in Texas to be quarterbacks.

Trent Dilfer gets it.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/376014-nfl-draft-sam-bradford-vs-colt-mccoy

He plays in a spread offense like Bradford what makes it more different?

J-Mike88
04-10-2010, 11:42 AM
He plays in a spread offense like Bradford what makes it more different?
Right.
I'm saying there's not much separating the two in termos of college production, in the same conference at the same time, and they did both run spread offenses, although not identical.
McCoy is a better athlete obviously with his running ability.

Bradford-lovers and Longhorn-haters want to say that McCoy has a rubberband arm. The fact is, he does not.

If he did, he'd have gone to Rice or Texas A&M, not UT. And he wouldn't have been an All-American and set the NCAA All-Time Passing Completion record. Noodle-arms can't do that. Nice try though from the haters.

And he wouldn't have gotten 3 wins versus Oklahoma in his career.
Advantage: Trent Dilfer & Mel Kiper.

bored of education
04-10-2010, 12:19 PM
Colt McCoy was the bottom to Jordan Shipley. So I dont trust colt at all.

WCH
04-10-2010, 12:45 PM
If I'm a Rams fan, then I'm not really interested in the whole Bradford vs. McCoy debate, so much as I'm interested in the Bradford/2nd-rounder vs. Suh/McCoy issue.

I suspect that Suh/McCoy would ultimately bring more value than almost any Bradford/2nd-pick combination.

Unless Bradford is the next Peyton Manning, or Colt McCoy is a complete bust, I'm not even remotely convinced that the difference between the two would be significant enough to offset not having Suh.

yourfavestoner
04-10-2010, 01:27 PM
Right.
I'm saying there's not much separating the two in termos of college production, in the same conference at the same time, and they did both run spread offenses, although not identical.
McCoy is a better athlete obviously with his running ability.

Bradford-lovers and Longhorn-haters want to say that McCoy has a rubberband arm. The fact is, he does not.

If he did, he'd have gone to Rice or Texas A&M, not UT. And he wouldn't have been an All-American and set the NCAA All-Time Passing Completion record. Noodle-arms can't do that. Nice try though from the haters.

And he wouldn't have gotten 3 wins versus Oklahoma in his career.
Advantage: Trent Dilfer & Mel Kiper.

Danny Wuerffel, Ken Dorsey, Tim Couch, and Matt Leinart take a **** all over this theory.

UT is not a place where stronger arms magically gravitate to. I really don't see where you're going with this. When McCoy's career resembles Doug Flutie's instead of Drew Bress' or Joe Montana's the apologists will just say the big bad NFL didn't give the little guy the proper chance.

J-Mike88
04-10-2010, 09:26 PM
If I'm a Rams fan, then I'm not really interested in the whole Bradford vs. McCoy debate, so much as I'm interested in the Bradford/2nd-rounder vs. Suh/McCoy issue.

I suspect that Suh/McCoy would ultimately bring more value than almost any Bradford/2nd-pick combination.

Unless Bradford is the next Peyton Manning, or Colt McCoy is a complete bust, I'm not even remotely convinced that the difference between the two would be significant enough to offset not having Suh.
Well-said. I think simple enough to make everyone understand.
Go Rams.