Quarterbacks and the NFL Draft - Part 3

OK, so we have taken a look at those QBs that were taken first overall over the past 30 years. There have been 13 of them. And we've discussed how they've done, compared to each other. Of course, there have been many quarterbacks taken since 1979 - a total of 340 quarterbacks drafted by NFL teams, not including the 8 quarterbacks that have been taken in supplemental drafts. In this and subsequent posts that follow, we'll take a look at these quarterbacks, and we'll try to answer some questions. Questions such as:

> Do quarterbacks drafted earlier do better than quarterbacks drafted later in a draft?
> Who have been the biggest surprises (performance relative to draft position)?
> Who have been the biggest busts?
> Does it pay to draft a quarterback #1?

Some of these questions are easier to answer than others. In the course of trying to answer these questions, we will encounter some themes we will have to address along the way. Themes such as:

> The economics of the draft
> The goal(s) of a team owner
> The importance of winning

Let's start with a picture of where quarterbacks have been generally drafted over the years.

Selection QBs Taken % of Total 1 13 4% 2-5 15 4% 6-15 18 5% 16-25 13 4% 26-50 25 7% 51-75 22 6% 76-100 40 12% 101-125 26 8% 126-150 25 7% 151-175 31 9% 176-200 27 8% 201-225 31 9% 226-250 24 7% 251-300 19 6% 301-350 11 3% Total 340 100%

Determining whether quarterbacks drafted earlier perform better than quarterbacks drafted later is a little tricky. Here's how I will go about trying to answer this question. First, I will look at how many of these quarterbacks that got drafted "played" in the NFL. I define "played", as the number of seasons a quarterback threw a sufficient amount of passers to have qualified statistically. The statistic that I use (and have used in the past) is the standard deviation relative to the mean as measured by CMI. Next, I will look at how many years, did these quarterbacks play? Certainly, length of playing career could be construed as a measure of success. Third, I will look at the average standard deviation of CMI for these quarterbacks. The higher the average standard deviation, the better the performance.

Let's take a look at the first measure - the likelihood of "playing". Some definitions: "Play" = # of years qualifying as a quarterback. Likelihood of playing is defined as # of players qualifying in at least 1 year relative to # of players drafted.

Here's the data:

Selection QBs Taken QBs "Played" %  "Playing" 1 13 13 100% 2-5 15 14 93% 6-15 18 15 83% 16-25 13 10 77% 26-50 25 15 60% 51-75 22 12 55% 76-100 40 16 40% 101-125 26 8 31% 126-150 25 10 40% 151-175 31 5 16% 176-200 27 8 30% 201-225 31 9 29% 226-250 24 5 21% 251-300 19 2 11% 301-350 11   0% Total 340 142 42%

At least according to just this measure, the evidence is fairly compelling. The results in this table show that players drafted in the earlier rounds are more likely to see significant playing time. It could suggest that the players drafted earlier are in fact more talented, or, if you are skeptical, it might suggest that team management influences coaches to give more playing time to the players drafted earlier to justify their investment (I find this latter suggestion a little hard to believe).

OK, so they are more likely to see more playing time. But what happens when they do play? How do these players perform on the field? I will look at two measures. The first, is the number of years that they play in the NFL. Presumably, the better you are, the longer you get to play (all else being equal). I have actually shown this to be true in previous posts (see here and here). So, if the players drafted earlier are in fact better players, we should see the length of their careers exceeding those of players drafted later. Let's see what the data shows:

Selection QBs Taken QBs "Played" Yrs "Played" 1 13 13 7.2 2-5 15 14 4.7 6-15 18 15 4.2 16-25 13 10 2.6 26-50 25 15 6.9 51-75 22 12 2.8 76-100 40 16 4.0 101-125 26 8 3.1 126-150 25 10 2.5 151-175 31 5 4.6 176-200 27 8 3.3 201-225 31 9 2.7 226-250 24 5 2.6 251-300 19 2 3.0 301-350 11     Total 340 142 4.2

Other than the quarterbacks taken first overall, there does not appear to be a appreciable difference in the # of years played by draft position. I am not suggesting that there isn't. There is. It's just not as much as I would have thought prior to looking at the data.

There are two possible explanations. The first is that, by the time the coaches and scouts have determined those worthy of getting playing time, there should only be minor differences in talent levels as it relates to the draft position. The previous table showed that there is a weeding out process that is more severe at the lower end of the draft, so the ones that do end up getting playing time, are probably on par with quarterbacks taken higher (i.e. pre-season training camp could be used as an additional, more rigorous screening process than merely watching college football games, and the NFL combine). The second reason is that again, there maybe a slight inherent bias to play the early draftees more, simply to give them more opportunities to continue to "prove" themselves.

We're still not done. I said earlier that we'll look at two measures. The first was the length of their careers. The second is their actual statistical performance, as measured by the standard deviation from the mean, using CMI as the measuring statistic. A number greater than zero indicating better than average performance, and a number less than zero indicating worse than average. Let's take a look.

Selection QBs Taken QBs "Played" Yrs "Played" Avg Dev 1 13 13 7.2 -0.06 2-5 15 14 4.7 -0.34 6-15 18 15 4.2 -0.15 16-25 13 10 2.6 0.36 26-50 25 15 6.9 -0.01 51-75 22 12 2.8 -0.32 76-100 40 16 4.0 0.16 101-125 26 8 3.1 -0.01 126-150 25 10 2.5 -0.70 151-175 31 5 4.6 -0.35 176-200 27 8 3.3 -0.16 201-225 31 9 2.7 -0.33 226-250 24 5 2.6 0.42 251-300 19 2 3.0 -0.32 301-350 11       Total 340 142 4.2 -0.11

Looking at this table, it's really difficult to see that the players drafted earlier, who actually ended up playing, have done better than those players drafted later. This suggests to me that once it is determined who actually plays, then the only difference that can be associated with draft order, if anything, is the number of years the player plays, and that probably is somewhat influenced by the team's investment in the players drafted earlier.

So what does this all mean for Matthew Stafford and the Detroit Lions, or, Mark Sanchez and the New York Jets. About the only thing we can be certain of at this point, is that they will play. They may end up playing 5 years, maybe more. As for their actual performance on the field, our best guess is that they'll be about average. Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe Matthew Stafford is the next Peyton Manning. Or, he could be the next Tim Couch. Or, he could be the next Eli Manning. Only time will tell.