PDA

View Full Version : Statistically are First Round OT's Safer than First Round QB's?



BuffaloBlitz83
04-08-2010, 11:58 AM
Over the last 10 years. Of all QB's, OT's drafted 1st to 32nd. Which position had a higher percentage of busts?

DraftBoy
04-08-2010, 12:07 PM
Over the last 10 years. Of all QB's, OT's drafted 1st to 32nd. Which position had a higher percentage of busts?

I did a really quick little tick sheet, and these are the numbers I got from 2000-2008.

QB's Take: 15
QB Busts: 8
QB Bust Pct: 53%

OT's Taken: 27
OT Busts: 9
OT Bust Pct: 33%

YardRat
04-08-2010, 12:09 PM
Well, this is going to be a short thread.

ddaryl
04-08-2010, 12:40 PM
QB is a much harder position, and IMO it's more important to not draft a QB if your are not 150% sure he has what it takes to be a franchise player in the 1st rd...

You take late RD QB's and develope them over time if no 1st rd QB's fail to be a sure thing on your big board.

I'm still hoping we find a way to make a play for a top QB in 2011 not this year

Jaybird
04-08-2010, 01:17 PM
Qb is more difficult to evaluate. If i remember correctly it is number 2 overall as far as busts behind WR

McBFLO
04-08-2010, 01:27 PM
Also, QBs are more visible, meaning their missteps/failures are easier to spot than an OT. How exactly do you define a 'bust' for each position? QB busts are fairly easy to spot, but what factors are considered when determining an OT is a bust?

ajsdx
04-08-2010, 03:56 PM
So basically we hear that QBs and WRs have a very high bust percentage. We hear RBs aren't worth the high picks cause they seem to be easily replaceable and interchangeable with a few exceptions. TEs, FBs, and kickers of any kind are only rarely going to go in the first round. That leaves OL on offense, and then defense (for high first rounders). That actually doesn't sound too bad for us right now.

PECKERWOOD
04-08-2010, 04:03 PM
This is the difference, OT's are generally considered to be "safer" picks because even if they fail at LT or RT, you can always bump them inside, see Robert Gallery.

T-Long
04-08-2010, 04:06 PM
This is the difference, OT's are generally considered to be "safer" picks because even if they fail at LT or RT, you can always bump them inside, see Robert Gallery.
dude your avatar is just wrong

JCBills
04-08-2010, 04:08 PM
Also, QBs are more visible, meaning their missteps/failures are easier to spot than an OT. How exactly do you define a 'bust' for each position? QB busts are fairly easy to spot, but what factors are considered when determining an OT is a bust?

It's easy to see someone underperforming at OT on tape, especially when you're the coach and know every player's assignment.

PECKERWOOD
04-08-2010, 04:09 PM
dude your avatar is just wrong

:evil:

I'm sorry, I'll change it when I get out of work.

X-Era
04-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Over the last 10 years. Of all QB's, OT's drafted 1st to 32nd. Which position had a higher percentage of busts?

I used to play these games but I kind of don't anymore.

As much as any of us would like to throw science and statistics into the mix and make the choice make sense, or be stupid... we really cant. Its a crap shoot. It just is, its a nature of the beast. Teams do everything in their power to lessen the risk, but it only helps to a limited degree.

In the end, a guy can have every reason to succeed, measurables, Wonderlic, college production, the whole works, and bomb out in the NFL.

And then you can have a guy who was so-so in college, looked terrible at the Combine, and gets drafted late become a perennial pro-bowler... See Tom Brady.

These type of arguments seem to me to be more of a discussion looking to convince others of a desire to go a certain route at a certain pick more than they are real, information that can be used to mitigate the risk.

JCBills
04-08-2010, 04:42 PM
:evil:

I'm sorry, I'll change it when I get out of work.

Lol seriously Peck, who sees that pic and thinks "avatar" lol.

trapezeus
04-08-2010, 04:52 PM
i'm so happy i turned off all pictures on avatars and signatures. from what everyone has said about pecks avatar, it would be highly inapproprite for the office, i believe.

JCBills
04-08-2010, 05:08 PM
i'm so happy i turned off all pictures on avatars and signatures. from what everyone has said about pecks avatar, it would be highly inapproprite for the office, i believe.

Haha, people would walking by would ask "what kind of website did you say this was last week?"

Crisis
04-08-2010, 05:57 PM
I did a really quick little tick sheet, and these are the numbers I got from 2000-2008.

QB's Take: 15
QB Busts: 8
QB Bust Pct: 53%

OT's Taken: 27
OT Busts: 9
OT Bust Pct: 33%

What are you considering a bust?

DraftBoy
04-08-2010, 08:29 PM
What are you considering a bust?

Players who were unable to play either tackle position at a consistently high level in the NFL. For instance Levi Brown is not a bust even though he is a RT in the NFL.

Robert Gallery though is a bust.

Kenny
04-08-2010, 10:00 PM
This was on walterfootball a few days ago:

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php

Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Defensive Tackle Hit Rate: 46.9%
Offensive Tackle Hit Rate: 69.2%

Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%
Defensive Tackle Bust Rate: 46.9%
Offensive Tackle Bust Rate: 19.2%


But let's face it... if you 'hit' on a QB, -it'll make a significantly bigger difference then 'hitting' on an OT.

TacklingDummy
04-09-2010, 06:05 AM
Over the last 10 years. Of all QB's, OT's drafted 1st to 32nd. Which position had a higher percentage of busts?
1st round Quarterbacks have started in the Super Bowl around 50% of the time.

TacklingDummy
04-09-2010, 06:07 AM
Just goes to show you that QB are harder to find than linemen and QB's are more important.

DraftBoy
04-09-2010, 07:39 AM
Just goes to show you that QB are harder to find than linemen and QB's are more important.

It shows they are harder to find but how does a bust rate show they are more important?

djjimkelly
04-09-2010, 08:41 AM
sadly for the bills we hvae missed on both the last time trying.

how much different would this team have been had we drafted mckinnie and hit on losman

ddaryl
04-09-2010, 08:43 AM
1st round Quarterbacks have started in the Super Bowl around 50% of the time.


OK I'll bite

how many 1st rd QB's never started in a Superbowl :coffee:, what's the percentage of 1st rd QB's drafted to superbowl appearances /wins

TacklingDummy
04-09-2010, 11:09 AM
It shows they are harder to find but how does a bust rate show they are more important?
Common Sense.

TacklingDummy
04-09-2010, 11:12 AM
OK I'll bite

how many 1st rd QB's never started in a Superbowl :coffee:, what's the percentage of 1st rd QB's drafted to superbowl appearances /wins

Beats me, what's the answers for the same questions using other round QBs?

Ingtar33
04-09-2010, 11:49 AM
sadly for the bills we hvae missed on both the last time trying.

how much different would this team have been had we drafted mckinnie and hit on losman


Well McKinnie is probably one of the most overrated OTs in the game... he was getting Favre killed in that NFC championship game.. he's been so iffy for the Vikes i wouldn't be surprised if they went OT...

That said he has been much better then Mike Williams.

What we really should be asking is how much better would this team be if they traded up for Ben Roethlisberger. That non-move still pisses me off... I was stunned he fell as far as he did. No one who watched him play with a head on their shoulders thought he was the 3rd best QB in that draft. When he started to drop and the Bills made no move to trade up, even though it was obvious he'd never get past the Steelers, i was ticked off.

I think that one non-move is still the angriest i ever got watching what the Bills did on draft day.

jamze132
04-09-2010, 12:39 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Losman.JPG/200px-Losman.JPG

You know you are a bust when you are in a Raiders uniform sitting on the bench.

BUT, and I stress BUT... could a bust win a UFL championship? :lmao:

jamze132
04-09-2010, 12:42 PM
And for the record, only two of the Buffalo Bills 1st round picks have not been total busts since 2000.

Nate Clements and Lee Evans.

The rest were either busts or are too new to label them as such just yet.

Bill Cody
04-09-2010, 03:18 PM
What we really should be asking is how much better would this team be if they traded up for Ben Roethlisberger. That non-move still pisses me off...

Big Ben may be indicted on Monday for rape.

JCBills
04-09-2010, 03:20 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Losman.JPG/200px-Losman.JPG

You know you are a bust when you are in a Raiders uniform sitting on the bench.

BUT, and I stress BUT... could a bust win a UFL championship? :lmao:

Scary part is he's 100x better than J. Russell lol.

BuffaloBlitz83
04-10-2010, 01:34 AM
Scary part is he's 100x better than J. Russell lol.

Is he really? Maybe 5x. They both stink and excell at same element long bomb.