The Relationship Between Drafting Quarterbacks and Successful Seasons

[PhataLerror 370]

I've been working on a project for a while that is finally about to come to completion. I'm just trying to manage the complex SQL queries to properly generate the charts that would show whether draft pedigree really has any connection to post-season wins, and especially Super Bowl wins.

 

One of the more contentious topics to come up over the years for Chiefs fans in particular revolves around the comparison of draft picks to bullets, and that the Chiefs just don't fire many bullets in that regard. The arguments are either that the Chiefs don't waste bullets on misses like so many franchises do ('drafting JaMarcus Russell'), or that the Chiefs don't hit their target ('drafting Tom Brady') because they don't shoot. The hyperbole follows thereafter, as indicated by the two examples given above.

 

If the numbers suggested that the teams that build around the quarterback they have have a better chance of winning a Super Bowl than the teams that constantly draft quarterbacks to plug into their team, would that make any difference in your view of where or if the Chiefs should draft a quarterback in April?

[PhataLerror 370]

This chart is not an answer to the question I posed, but it's related information:

These calculations are based on the "Jimmy Johnson" Draft Pick Trade Value Chart. When I've finished updating my records, the chart will be rebuilt to show Quarterback Draft Pick Value (QB DPV) as a percentage of all earned draft pick value (not just the value earned for the first round). It includes only draft pick value used directly in the draft, not draft pick value traded away for personnel. It doesn't adjust for forfeited or passed picks. It includes all data since 1966.

 

It's fascinating to me first of all that whereas the Pittsburgh Steelers have been in the league for the 51 years since the Super Bowl started being played, they have accumulated less than twice the amount of draft pick value that the Cleveland Browns have acquired in their 18 years of existence. The Browns have spent a percentage of their draft pick value on quarterbacks that is proportional to that of what the Steelers spent. The Colts have spent approximately twice as much draft capital on quarterbacks as the Steelers have. Neither of those teams have a legacy comparable to that of the Steelers.

 

There's more data coming, but I thought I'd throw this out there because it provides a reference for comparison that suggests that in the long term there is no direct link between winning a Super Bowl and drafting quarterbacks in the early rounds.

[WichitaZRide 321]

I think he biggest problem is most of the QBs in the league got their start with the team that drafted them. Chiefs fans are ruined by the fact that the team doesn't go home grown. We don't make QB a priority in the draft, and end with mid to late round projects that never get a chance. Meanwhile it seems like all these other teams are getting their QBOTF while we hang on to retreads. Look at the Last 5-10 years of playoff teams. The chiefs are just about the only team that made it without a QB that was homegrown. The exception seems to be when you trade for a person who already had a HOF career like P Manning. What hurts about all this is that no matter what...the chiefs don't appear willing to invest in a QBOTF from day one. As much as we want to talk about guys like Bray and Murray...they were products of the players around them and were never going to be in the conversation to be a starting QB unless the main man got hurt...and even then they got skipped over by a retread. Dorsey has always said that he's always looking to upgrade the team at any position...but I've never seen him take a serious shot at trying to upgrade QB. Meanwhile teams like Oakland, Dallas, Washington, Minnesota, Denver, and even New England are making moves for their future. It won't be long before San Diego drafts their next great QB...and Denvers young QBs begin to show out....and once again we will have the worst QB in the division. This is about the best overall talent pool that the Chiefs have ever had, especially when you look at the balance between offensive and defensive talent. It's the best time to take a shot on a QB in the draft to develop without worrying about making the team better today. Look at the patriots. They have Tom freaking Brady and still used up a 2nd rounder on Jimmy G. They developed him...and he's either the heir to Tom, or he's gonna get them a hell of a haul if traded. Even the all mighty patriots have drafted a QB earlier than we have in the last 30 years. Our refusal to take a SERIOUS look into the future is why we are always stuck with quarterbacks from some other teams' past...

[West 6,714]

really good analysis so far Phatal....

 

I am enjoying it.

 

w

[azchief21 5,278]

Cute chart from the obsessed AA fan boy. Means nothing. Here's one from a diehard, lifetime Chiefs fan. 0 SB wins in the last 47 years using a castoff at QB who wasn't good enough to start for the team that drafted him.  1-3 playoff record under the current QB position placeholder.

[PhataLerror 370]

Cute chart from the obsessed AA fan boy. Means nothing. Here's one from a diehard, lifetime Chiefs fan. 0 SB wins in the last 47 years using a castoff at QB who wasn't good enough to start for the team that drafted him.  1-3 playoff record under the current QB position placeholder.

I'm sorry, but when did I mention Alex Smith?

 

And why the disingenuous split of zero Super Bowl wins in 47 years when you could say one Super Bowl win in 48 years?

 

You're not really interested in facts. We get it.

[West 6,714]

haters gonna hate...

 

Seriously, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.  It seems to me that franchise's are either lucky getting a QB in the draft in one of two ways.
 

 

1.  They suck at exactly the right time and get a Manning, Luck or an Elway.  Of course, The Chiefs have "sucked" very badly more that once and still managed to draft Blackledge over Jim Kelly, Dan Marino and 2-3 other really good QB's.

 

2. They fall into the pick line Montana, Brady.....

 

 

There is the "Skill and Foresight" group of teams that are VERY rare.

 

-Green Bay drafting Rogers with Favre going well.

 

-Raiders taking carr

 

 

 

After all these decades, the Chiefs have shown they are neither lucky or skillful.

 

Remember, Lenny Dawson, Joe Montana, Rich Gannon, Trent Green....all were cast offs.

 

w

[azchief21 5,278]

haters gonna hate...

 

Seriously, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.  It seems to me that franchise's are either lucky getting a QB in the draft in one of two ways.

 

 

1.  They suck at exactly the right time and get a Manning, Luck or an Elway.  Of course, The Chiefs have "sucked" very badly more that once and still managed to draft Blackledge over Jim Kelly, Dan Marino and 2-3 other really good QB's.

 

2. They fall into the pick line Montana, Brady.....

 

 

There is the "Skill and Foresight" group of teams that are VERY rare.

 

-Green Bay drafting Rogers with Favre going well.

 

-Raiders taking carr

 

 

 

After all these decades, the Chiefs have shown they are neither lucky or skillful.

 

Remember, Lenny Dawson, Joe Montana, Rich Gannon, Trent Green....all were cast offs.

 

w

[Calichief 3,016]

haters gonna hate...

 

Seriously, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with. It seems to me that franchise's are either lucky getting a QB in the draft in one of two ways.

 

 

1. They suck at exactly the right time and get a Manning, Luck or an Elway. Of course, The Chiefs have "sucked" very badly more that once and still managed to draft Blackledge over Jim Kelly, Dan Marino and 2-3 other really good QB's.

 

2. They fall into the pick line Montana, Brady.....

 

 

There is the "Skill and Foresight" group of teams that are VERY rare.

 

-Green Bay drafting Rogers with Favre going well.

 

-Raiders taking carr

 

 

 

After all these decades, the Chiefs have shown they are neither lucky or skillful.

 

Remember, Lenny Dawson, Joe Montana, Rich Gannon, Trent Green....all were cast offs.

 

w

What has always bothered me, is the Chiefs lack of aggression when a big name is available. The only time we ever saw them really try, was with manning. It's the ho hum attitude that bugs me. Especially when you are knocking on the door. Maybe it's just me and my perception.

[DieHard 2,061]

They have signed top top QB on the market several times, so they try. Unfortunately it was Bono and Grbac instead of Brees and Palmer.

 

I think that Romo would get hurt. Maybe a draft pick this year or a Cousins next year would be about the best I would be expecting. There just isn't much available.

[Calichief 3,016]

They have signed top top QB on the market several times, so they try. Unfortunately it was Bono and Grbac instead of Brees and Palmer.

 

I think that Romo would get hurt. Maybe a draft pick this year or a Cousins next year would be about the best I would be expecting. There just isn't much available.

Yes, I'm not referring to the present but there have definitely been plenty of opportunities to upgrade

[DieHard 2,061]

Yes. I am hoping they nail a QB in the first 3 rounds. We shouldn't hold our breath for a Brady or a Peyton even if we had the first overall pick for the next three years. But a Prescott or a Cousins is probably the high end.

 

Luck or Mariota may have a chance at being special. But for the most part a team is happy to hit on a top 15 QB.

[West 6,714]

It takes two to tango...

 

They may have tried and failed.

 

You do not market failure.

 

w

[PhataLerror 370]

After a few hours of data entry, a few more hours of research, and a few hours of working out the kinks in the queries, I've got a solid set of numbers for total draft pick value earned by franchise (including supplemental picks granted by the league), and total draft pick value spent on quarterbacks by franchise (including the value spent on quarterbacks acquired in the Supplemental Draft, excluding expansion drafts or drafts involving professional players from other leagues).

 

The final data will include a factor to show what teams are earning in annual draft pick value. Later I will also link draft pick value earned by year to a table that shows the number of games started and number of wins in starts by quarterbacks from a given draft class. Good stuff.

[West 6,714]

looking forward  to seeing it.

 

w

[PhataLerror 370]

A little something to think about prior to the draft:

 

 

This chart shows the average Draft Pick Value assigned by team since the beginning of the Super Bowl era. The red bit is the portion spent on quarterbacks. The ordering of the chart is by percentage of Draft Pick Value spent on quarterbacks relative to the amount assigned to that team, organized into two tiers: The 19 teams that have won a Super Bowl, and the 13 teams that have not.

 

Some numbers that were interesting: Six teams have spent 10% or more of their Draft Pick Capital on quarterbacks, but five of them have never won a Super Bowl (Indianapolis vs. Tennessee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Carolina, and Jacksonville). Five teams have spent 5% or less of their Draft Pick Capital on quarterbacks, and three out of the five have won a Super Bowl (Denver, New Orleans, and Kansas City vs. Minnesota and Buffalo).

[West 6,714]

I like the term "Draft Pick Value".....I see what you are doing and it is interesting.

 

w

[Calichief 3,016]

I like it! Thanks

[PhataLerror 370]

I like the term "Draft Pick Value".....I see what you are doing and it is interesting.

 

w

There are two issues that I have with the process and for which I haven't found a satisfactory answer.

 

1) The Draft Pick Value Chart this is based on dates to the 1993 NFL Draft, an 8-round draft for 28 teams (224 picks, not counting compensatory picks), over 100 picks fewer than every previous draft dating to 1967, and less than half of the picks exercised in the 1976 NFL Draft (the final draft to involve 17 rounds). It's hard to imagine that a draft involving fewer teams would value picks the same as they were valued by the creator of the chart during the 28-team era, that free agency would not have had a significant effect on the value of picks, or that the 225th pick would have a value of 0 (in regard to this final concern, I used the draftek.com revision of the chart, and the chart values 256 picks, with most of the latest picks being valued at 1).

 

2) The Draft Pick Value Chart values picks independently of the talent available in a given draft. Some drafts are more or less talented than others. A low Total Draft Pick Value in a weak year isn't as damaging to a team as a low Total Draft Pick Value in a strong draft class, and a high Total Draft Pick Value in a weak year can be relatively worthless.

 

If anyone wants to help me explore the answers to these questions, that would be fine.

[kccrow 529]

I'm trying to figure out why you're comparing QB draft value against all other positions. There is going to be obvious better value in other positions because teams don't spend that much draft capital on the QB position. Once a team finds a QB, they will become even less likely to spend draft capital on a QB because they don't need one. If you're trying to decipher which teams have spent the most draft capital on the position, I think you have your answers. I really don't think you're going to get any more useful information from your endeavor. Hit rates on 1st round QB's, or by any round, are already known. Unless you have Tom Brady, most teams win a SB with a 1st round QB. The list goes on. Not much sense in reinventing a wheel. 

 

In the NFL today, you either have a very good QB or you don't. If you don't, then you need to find a way to get one. That might be taking a guy in round 1, 2, or wherever and developing him for a year or two. That might be getting lucky as fuck to get the #1 pick in the one year in a decade there is a sure-fire QB. Whatever it might be, you gotta get a good QB or you're not competing with the teams that have one. 

[PhataLerror 370]

Unless you have Tom Brady, most teams win a SB with a 1st round QB.

Except that this is really only technically correct: 27 Super Bowls were won by a quarterback selected in the first round of the draft, and 24 more weren't. Even without Brady's five Super Bowl wins, 19 out of 51 is not such a small sample so as to be irrelevant. Perhaps as significant: Sixteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were drafted in the first round, while fifteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were not.

 

My problem therefore with arguments for selecting a quarterback early is this: People argue on the basis of a stat that points in the direction of 51%, and then refuse to acknowledge every other pertinent piece of data.

 

Certainly you believe that all Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were surrounded by one of the best teams in the league in any given year, don't you? Therefore you have to conclude that there's a whole lot a franchise needs to do right so that they can eventually win a Super Bowl, whether their quarterback is the most important player on the team or not.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

I don't think I would care about QB statistics, in this setting, pre 2004.

 

Passing game has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.

 

I think I would stack up playoff QB's and wins starting at that point to today.

[PhataLerror 370]

I don't think I would care about QB statistics, in this setting, pre 2004.

 

Passing game has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.

 

I think I would stack up playoff QB's and wins starting at that point to today.

Quarterbacking statistics have nothing to do with this.

 

You're not trying to argue that guys like Joe Montana or Brett Favre were insignificant parts on their respective teams during their Super Bowl-winning seasons, are you?

 

There was a time when quarterbacking was de-emphasized by the league in general, but for as long as there has been a forward pass, there has been a huge advantage in having an effective quarterback. Even so, having a quarterback has never been the only thing.

[liquidfriend 1,151]

Quarterbacking statistics have nothing to do with this.

 

You're not trying to argue that guys like Joe Montana or Brett Favre were insignificant parts on their respective teams during their Super Bowl-winning seasons, are you?

 

There was a time when quarterbacking was de-emphasized by the league in general, but for as long as there has been a forward pass, there has been a huge advantage in having an effective quarterback. Even so, having a quarterback has never been the only thing.

No, I am saying that significant rule changes involving the passing game severely changed the dynamics of Offenses in the NFL and positional value has sharply ticked upward in result.

 

I don't think I really care too much about QB value in 1994 when things were much different in 1994.

[PhataLerror 370]

No, I am saying that significant rule changes involving the passing game severely changed the dynamics of Offenses in the NFL and positional value has sharply ticked upward in result.

 

I don't think I really care too much about QB value in 1994 when things were much different in 1994.

It seems like those rule changes made legacy quarterbacks arguably more valuable, seeing as they had to throw into tighter windows and had less protection in the pocket. The argument you just tried to make against those older statistics is the same argument people use in favor of Joe Montana when arguing that he is the Greatest Quarterback of All Time over Tom Brady.