Thread: 2021 Broncos Draft Thread: 04/29/21-05/01/21

Just curious if anyone knows, because I'm curious. What's the miss rate on Corners in the first round compared to QBs?

Originally Posted by kenoy28

Just curious if anyone knows, because I'm curious. What's the miss rate on Corners in the first round compared to QBs?

This is from 2015 but gives a percentage of success rates for position. Corner 8th is on the list with QB being last.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-the-nfl-draft

I just did a little search, but could only find from 2004-2014, and I only looked in the top 14 picks...because later in the first round isn't as comparable. But from 2004-2014 being picked in the top 14 there was 9 CB's who turned out good and 8 CB's who were busts. I don't have time right now, but I'm curious if the past 6 years have followed the same trend. If so, isn't it just as risky to take a CB as it would be to take a QB?

Originally Posted by Northman

This is from 2015 but gives a percentage of success rates for position. Corner 8th is on the list with QB being last.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-the-nfl-draft

That's helpful. I was thinking not so much all-pro level, but just not considered a "bust". Granted, that's pretty subjective

Originally Posted by Jaded

Yes

#DeadToMe

Jaded's list of most important variables for a football player:

1. Talent
2. Criminal history
3. Mental illness
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
997. Jorts
998. High School Valedictorian
999. Team Captain
1000. It.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Jaded's list of most important variables for a football player:

1. Talent
2. Criminal history
3. Mental illness
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
997. Jorts
998. High School Valedictorian
999. Team Captain
1000. It.

Bad tape in college but received the Presidential Fitness Award in middle school? Sign jaded up.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Jaded's list of most important variables for a football player:

1. Talent
2. Criminal history
3. Mental illness
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
997. Jorts
998. High School Valedictorian
999. Team Captain
1000. It.

4. Attitude
5. Arm length

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

4. Attitude
5. Arm length

6. 3rd arm length

7. Dancing Skillz

Originally Posted by Northman

7. Dancing Skillz

Originally Posted by Buff

My slightly different spin on this is that he doesn't have much incentive to take the 4th QB off the board with a Top 10 pick in the first year of a six year contract. It is always going to be a gamble, and there's way more downside than upside in that scenario.

Paton's decision probably had as much to do with the structural variables at play as it did with his evaluation of Lock. Plus conventional wisdom says give your QB a third year, so even if Lock falls flat, there's not much penalty to Paton for that.

This needs more attention.

One thesis that needs to be tested is whether or not the optimal strategy for the longest tenure as GM is to avoid risk. Another is whether or not Paton's goal is to have the longest tenure possible as GM.

Could his goal be to win the most games/SB trophies?

I think there's a presumption about risk-aversion that needs more examination, but I'm not sure what it would say once it's fully understood.

**

shifting gears, I had another thought worth sharing about Paton drafting QBs.

In his time as Spielman's #2 in Minn, they drafted Bridgewater (good job) and Ponder (swing and miss with #12 overall in 2011 draft).

What stands out to me is 2012, after Ponder's rookie year. They passed on Tannehill--ok fine, it was year 2 of the Christian Ponder experiment. But they also passed on Foles, Wilson, and Cousins. So did everyone else, of course...but you have to wonder in hindsight why they didn't hedge the Ponder bet a bit more. The QB position was still a weakness on the roster.

I don't know how much I want to extrapolate about Paton based on what Speilman did. For all we know, he spent all his time cursing Speilman under his breath waiting for his own job where he could do it differently.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I don't know how much I want to extrapolate about Paton based on what Speilman did. For all we know, he spent all his time cursing Speilman under his breath waiting for his own job where he could do it differently.

Maybe. He said Spielman was his best friend though and he didn't want to leave. fwiw

When I've been in those situations, I might not agree with everything the other person thinks or does, of course not, but there's going to be a lot of eye-to-eye.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

This needs more attention.

One thesis that needs to be tested is whether or not the optimal strategy for the longest tenure as GM is to avoid risk. Another is whether or not Paton's goal is to have the longest tenure possible as GM.

Could his goal be to win the most games/SB trophies?

I think there's a presumption about risk-aversion that needs more examination, but I'm not sure what it would say once it's fully understood.

**

shifting gears, I had another thought worth sharing about Paton drafting QBs.

In his time as Spielman's #2 in Minn, they drafted Bridgewater (good job) and Ponder (swing and miss with #12 overall in 2011 draft).

What stands out to me is 2012, after Ponder's rookie year. They passed on Tannehill--ok fine, it was year 2 of the Christian Ponder experiment. But they also passed on Foles, Wilson, and Cousins. So did everyone else, of course...but you have to wonder in hindsight why they didn't hedge the Ponder bet a bit more. The QB position was still a weakness on the roster.

Could you even quantify the risk factors? A guy like Ozzie Newsome, arguably the GOAT at GM could have had multiple years of flaming out with high risk picks and still kept his job. If for no other reason than the strong base he build, the legend that he had in the franchise, the good contracts, etc.

I guess my issue with Paton's approach is this: you have a six year deal with a great roster. Your job is still attractive no matter what to coaches. If Fangio doesn't want a new QB, so what? Bottom line it, so what? If a new head coach doesn't want Fields or feels like he's not married to him, that makes some sense. But...those jobs are hard to find, the roster is great, etc. If Fangio returns, and you have to take a new QB anyway, you wasted another year. Even if Teddy B works out, that's not the answer. If Lock bombs he's not the answer. It just feels like stasis. And in years past it wasn't nearly as big of a deal because you could find an Alex Smith or a Dilfer and go ham in the playoffs.

Those days are dead. Even guys like Tannehill, the high end game managers have to be able to throw some bombs down the field. It's just hard to believe that anyone would/could look at Lock and think "yeah that guys more likely to be better than Fields long term," or even "he's better than Fields now," because history, recent history tells us mobile QB's who are learning can do great things early on. Teams adjust to their style of play in the second year, not the first.

tl;dr Paton has all the job security in the world with a great roster. Nothing is holding him back and it's hard to justify the first round selection outside of a vacuum. In a vacuum, Surtain was a strong pick at 10.

Also Hawg, I hated the Ponder pick, but I think one of the reasons why Minny kept going with him was they valued continuity.

But the kicker was 2011 marked the first season of the salary changes for rookie. No more Bradford getting paid more than Brady as a rookie....so if there was ever a ******* time to move off of your awful game manager with a second round grad...

I also recall (flawed device of course) that they believed their elite defense was the solution to Rodgers.

Oof.