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.

Jets-Dolphins - You Could See it Coming

I wanted to post this the day before the Jets-Dolphins season ending game.  However, I was not able to, but, the analysis still has merit.  Going into the game, looking at the way the 2008 NFL season had progressed for both the New York Jets and Miami Dolphins, you could see this coming.  The actual result was not much of a shocker as you might otherwise had been led to believe.  Take a look at the table below - in particular, look at both Brett Favre's and Chad Pennington's last 4 games, and then look at the projected performance.  I really wasn't too far off.  There's no projection that would have suggested that Favre was going to throw 3 picks.  However, you could see at least 2 picks fairly easily, given that in 80% of the games this season he had thrown at least 1 pick, and in those games, he was about 50-50 to throw more than 1 pick.

Happy New Year!

Happy 2009 Everyone!

It's been awhile since I last posted.  I was on vacation.  It made me realize how much I missed my computer, and my EXCEL database.  Anyways, I'm back, and I'll have a post tonight.  I was going to post something before the Jets-Dolphins game the last week of the season, showing how I had 'projected' a bad game for Brett Favre and a good game for Chad Pennington.  Well, my 'prediction' did come true, although my posting tonight on the subject will seem a bit hollow.  That's ok, it's the analysis that matters anyway.

Cheers.

Crazy, Debatable and Lucky

Today, the Green Bay Packers lost at home to the Houston Texans, 24-21 on a last-second field goal.  This dropped the Packers to 5-8 for the season, and, for all practical purposes, knocked them out of the playoffs.  I'm sure the Packer faithful will start to think what might have been....

The Packers were coming off a 13-3 season, having won their division handily, and were one win away from the Super Bowl, a loss to the eventual winner, the New York Giants at home.  

Then the soap opera started.  First, Brett Favre, the Packers QB for the past 16 seasons, decided it was time to retire.  The Packers, who had drafted Aaron Rodgers in 2005, were prepared.  During the offseason, the Packers named Aaron Rodgers the starting QB for the 2008 season.  Second, Brett Favre decided he wanted to play in 2008.  Nothing wrong with that.  Only that he had "lost" his starting job to Aaron Rodgers.  No way a future hall of famer is going to be carrying a clipboard for an untested, essentially rookie QB.  Not after the season Favre just had had.  After much ballyhoo, the Packers traded Favre to the New York Jets.  In return, the Packers received a conditional draft pick.  For now, it's a fairly safe bet that it will be at least a second rounder.  The Jets, who finished a lousy 4-12 season, now having found their "saviour", then released Chad Pennington.  Of course, the woeful Miami Dolphins, having just completed a miserable 1-15 season, and desperately needing some talent, promptly picked him up.

So there we have it.  The Packers make a "crazy" move, going with untested Aaron Rodgers, over Hall of Famer Favre.  The Jets, in need of a new direction, trade for Favre and release Pennington in a debatable move.  And the Dolphins, well, got lucky.  Pennington is a dramatic improvement over any Dolphin QB.

Ok, so that's how we all thought about it back in the beginning of the season.  So, let's take a look at how the decisions panned out, in terms of their actual performances.

The table at the top of this article shows each player's stats for the 2008 season, the 2007 season, and their career #s.

First, let's start with Rodgers.

He is having a very good year, despite the team's troubles.  His QB Rating is a robust 92.1 (league average is 85.3), and his CMI is 0.560, about 0.4 standard deviations above the mean of 0.538.  Not bad for being a first-year starter.  Compare him to three other first-year starters here.

Now, let's take a look at Favre.

He had a career year in 2007.  His QB Rating of 95.7 was only exceeded in his MVP years of 1995 (99.5) and 1996 (95.8).  His third MVP year, 1997, his QB rating was 92.6.  Favre's career QB Rating (leading up to the 2007 season) was 85.0.  It has since improved to 85.9 through 13 games of the 2008 season.  In terms of his CMI, 2007 was by far and away, his best year (0.581), eclipsing his previous best of 0.561 in 1995.  Given that it had been a long time since he had put up that kind of #s, it would be reasonable to assume that it wouldn't necessarily continue into 2008.  Well, he's having a (surprisingly) outstanding year in 2008.  His QB Rating is a healthy 88.2, and his CMI is 0.577 (almost as good as last year).  Is he why the Jets have improved?  Hard to say.  Especially, when you take a look at what Pennington has done this year.

Pennington's #s:

Chad is easily having his best year since his first full year in the league, in 1992.  Back then, he produced a QB Rating of 104.2 and a CMI of 0.644.  Only Tom Brady in 2007 (0.647), and Hall of Famer Troy Aikman, back in 2003 (0.645), have had better seasons.  This year, Chad's #s are a QB Rating of 93.7, and a CMI of 0.618.  Compare these to his career #s of 89.7 and 0.578.  By the way, Pennington's career CMI of 0.578 is the all-time career NFL mark.  Next is Steve Young at 0.565.  Pennington's #s are also, needless to say, a dramatic improvement compared to those of the 2007 Dolphins (QB Rating of 67.4, and CMI of 0.484).

So, what does this all mean?  It means that the Packers weren't crazy when they decided to put their faith in Rodgers, the Jets decision is debatable in giving up a 2nd round pick in 2009, and exchanging a QB who, while having an outstanding year, is not doing as well as the QB they gave up on, and the Dolphins got awfully lucky to end up with Pennington.