A Historical Perspective on the Unsuccessful History of Drafting Junior QBs in the First Round
For the next week or so, the counsel of purportedly wise and learned men will be sought by NFL fans far and wide as we all search for ways to understand and predict what might happen this Saturday in the 2009 NFL Draft.
Mel Kiper Jr. Todd McShay. Mike Mayock. Don Banks. Peter King. Matt Mil– wait, never mind on that one.
(The hilarious McShay-Kiper hair swap picture to the left is courtesy of The Sports Hernia, by the way.)
Everywhere you turn there is another draft junkie who has the 40 times memorized for the top 150 players, is constantly shuffling his own personal draft board, and who is creating endless amounts of mock drafts that are, for all intents and purposes, meaningless (not all that unlike pre-draft blog posts…).
So in this uncertain time of guesswork and projection, as we are forced to sift through consistent streams of disinformation, perhaps we should look outside the typical network of draft “experts” to gain some perspective on what will — or, to be more apt, what should — happen this Saturday and Sunday at the 2009 NFL Draft.
Ladies and gentleman of the sports world, I present to you the official NFL draft guru of Midwest Sports Fans: George Santayana.
Who is George Santayana? No, he is not the new late night anchor on ESPNNews. Nor is he one of the endless stream of columnists that seem to pop up out of nowhere on SI.com or ESPN.com.
George Santayana is actually not even alive. In fact, the Spanish-born philospher, essayist, poet, and novelist died in 1952. Coincidentally, the 1952 season brought one of the four NFL championships ever won by the Detroit Lions, all of which came in 1957 or earlier, the team that holds the #1 draft pick in this weekend’s draft. And if the Lions are wise (perhaps the biggest if in all of sports) they will listen to the sage words of George Santayana, a man whose many aphorisms provide a road map to NFL draft success.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~ George Santayana
Apparently, according to Tom Kowalski at MLive.com, the Detroit Lions have settled on Georgia QB Matthew Stafford, who declared for the draft after his junior season, as their choice at #1 overall in the 2009 NFL draft. Kowalski believes this based on comments made by Lions team president Tom Lewand, while also offering the unconvincing caveat that Lewand’s comments could possibly be some kind of smoke screen. For a while now the conventional wisdom has been that the Lions will take Stafford at #1, and nothing has really led anyone “in the know” to believe that a name other than Stafford’s will be called first on Saturday afternoon.
But the Detroit Lions, and all of the other NFL teams thinking about drafting one of the underclassmen QBs projected to go in the first round (Stafford, plus USC junior Mark Sanchez and Kansas State junior Josh Freeman) would be wise to heed the advice of George Santayana. Past drafts offer a wealth of wisdom that could mitigate the chances of NFL teams wasting their first round pick on a QB that history says will not turn into a franchise — or even solid — player.
And is there any reason to draft a QB in the first round other than if you think he will become your franchise QB?
A recent article by Vic Carucci, a senior columnist at NFL.com who is not a wise as George Santayana but is adept at offering useful wisdom specific to matters of professional football, lays out the historical perspective that should be required reading for any NFL team considering the underclassmen QBs as potential first round picks. (And Browns’ brass, if you really are considering Mark Sanchez at #5, then I’m talking to you here.)
Carucci’s article highlights the importance of maturity in the development of young NFL quarterbacks. And while he does not specifically state that NFL teams would be foolish to draft Stafford, Sanchez, or Freeman in the first round this year, the table accompanying his post (screen grabbed and included below to the right) speaks volumes about the underlying point.
Let’s break the table down into three general categories: successes, failures, and incompletes.
Successes
- Ben Roethlisberger
- Drew Bledsoe
Failures
- Alex Smith
- Rex Grossman (yes, he made a Super Bowl, but does anyone really consider him anything other than a failure in Chicago?)
- Michael Vick (if maturity is what keeps underclassmen QBs from succeeding, then I think Vick has to be considered a failure despite his flashes of success.)
- Tim Couch
- Ryan Leaf
- Heath Shuler
- Tommy Maddox
- Todd Marinovich
- Jeff George
- Andre Ware
Incompletes
- JaMarcus Russell
- Vince Young
- Trent Dilfer (gets bonus points for winning a Super Bowl, but didn’t win it for the team that drafted him.)
I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that the breakdown is heavily weighted towards the middle of the table, almost like there is a failure vacuum sucking the potential out of underclassmen QBs, each of whom set back the franchises that drafted them in the first round. Obviously, the successes of Ben Roethlisberger and, to a lesser degree, Drew Bledsoe give teams hope that they can unearth the unlikely junior QB who succeeds. But if I’m studying this piece of history from a war room, I’m looking at the negatives and having a hard time believing that playing 2/15 odds is in the best interests of my organization.
Thus, thee words of George Santayana ring exceedingly true. Whether any NFL teams are listening is another question.
But there are other words by George Santayana that ring true here as well:
Before you contradict an old man, my fair friend, you should endeavor to understand him.
~ George Santayana
With history so blatantly on the side of not drafting underclassmen QBs in the first round, then why do many NFL teams, who invest so much money and so many resources into the scouting and drafting process, continue to make such choices?
The answer is simple: you have to have a good quarterback to win a Super Bowl. (And, ironically, former junior draft pick Trent Dilfer is often held up as the anomalous exception that proves the rule, after he “led” Baltimore to a Super Bowl title by simply not losing games so their defense could win them.)
The importance of having a good QB should not be understated. And when good QBs are so hard to find, it is understandable that teams become intoxicated with players whose skill sets and college production suggest that they might someday possibly become a franchise QB.
A team like the Lions cannot plan ahead until next year and wait to take Sam Bradford. What if they actually stumble into a few wins this season and do not pick first next year? If they squander this year’s pick on a non-QB, and do not have the opportunity to have their pick of next year’s litter, they could enter 2011 with Daunte Culpepper still at QB and no succession line to the future. When considered in this context, a 2/15 roll of the dice almost, maybe, kind of, sort of makes sense.
What to do with this paradox? Well, let’s go back to our good friend George Santayana.
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
~ George Santayana
We often hear the NFL draft discussed as a science, though an imperfect science at best. There are endless measurables used to gauge a players’ ability to compete athletically at the professional level. Tests like the Wonderlic purportedly assess a player’s aptitude. Game tape is dissected and graded, players are poked and prodded, values are assigned to each position on the draft board, and teams devise rating systems based on numbers and colors to group players on their draft boards.
And from this maelstrom of data and analysis comes what teams hope is a minutely articulated and developed perception from which they can interpret a strategic draft day intent that leads to successful common sense decision-making and, thus, draft picks who ultimately contribute to the greater cause of winning championships.
Yet, as we all know, it rarely if ever works out so cleanly. So perhaps that quote by George Santayana really does not clear up anything.
Got another one George?
The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it.
~ George Santayana
Ah, the truth. It certainly can be a cruel and tricky little devil.
And with respect to the “science” of the NFL draft, the truth can be especially cruel when it contradicts the “developed perception, interpreted intent, and common sense rounded out and minutely articulated” that NFL teams invest so much time and so many resources in developing, but that can ultimately be flawed and misleading.
NFL teams want to find franchise QBs, they need to find franchise QBs, and I am convinced that they look for “franchise” inside of draft-eligible underclassmen quarterbacks where no franchise probably exists. In a year such as this one, in which no senior quarterbacks possess the talent to suggest “franchise” to NFL teams, those teams desperate for QBs are forced to consider underclassmen and compelled to weigh the cruelty of truth (underclassmen QBs drafted in the first round usually fail) with the reality of the NFL (teams without franchise QBs rarely win Super Bowls).
In business, important but uncertain decisions and investments are assessed along a risk/return continuum in which the assessed risk of failure is weighed against the potential for return and then analyzed within the context of the organization’s overall goals. And the NFL is wholeheartedly a business, perhaps even more than it is a sport (though that is a debate for another day).
As the NFL draft looms closer, teams are weighing the risk/return of drafting underclassmen QBs Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, and Josh Freeman with more urgency. For example:
- The Detroit Lions are asking themselves if they should go safe and choose player more likely to be a solid, consistent NFL contributor (Aaron Curry) or take the guy with the higher upside but far greater risk (Matthew Stafford).
- The Jacksonville Jaguars are asking themselves if they should fill a need by targeting a WR in a WR-rich draft or hedge their risky bet on David Garrard with an even more risky bet on a junior QB.
- The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are asking themselves if they should stay at their current pick to take the risky Freeman, or if they should trade away picks to move up and select the only slightly less risky (according to conventional wisdom, at least) Sanchez; or do they forget about QBs altogether and draft a WR or infuse their aging defense with youth.
Here’s a novel idea for all of the teams targeting underclassmen QBs with first round picks: study history, remember it, and vow not to repeat it. And not just the history that says underclassmen QBs drafted in the first round have an absurdly high rate of not being successful, but also the history that proves franchise QBs do not have to be taken in the first round. Sure, many are. But Tom Brady wasn’t. Drew Brees wasn’t. Kurt Warner wasn’t. Joe Montana wasn’t. Brett Favre wasn’t.
Yet, all of these quarterbacks and many other non-1st round QBs have experienced success and become bona fide franchise QBs. Why? Because they came to organizations that were built on a solid foundation and had the pieces in place to allow them to grow into their positions and develop as football players and as leaders.
Peyton Mannings, John Elways, even Matt Ryans, are exceedingly rare. And these guys, plus the many other senior first round QBs who have turned into franchise QBs, have two things that Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, and Josh Freeman do not have:
- Far fewer questions about their abilities and mentalities. More game tape + more experience in college allows NFL scouts to understand a players’ strengths and weaknesses better. Compared to drafting a senior QB, NFL teams almost “draft blind” when taking an underclassmen.
- By staying in college through their senior year, these players had the maturity to handle the pressure of being the #1 pick, as well as the advanced skill set and understanding that an extra year in college helps to develop.
The truth is that drafting any QB in the first round is essentially a crap shoot. Seniors drafted #1 overall have failed (Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Dan McGwire…thank you Peter) and juniors drafted later in the first round have succeeded (Ben Roethlisberger). But if, as an organization, you commit yourself to fundamentally sound principles and choose your risks wisely — and fighting 2/15 odds is not what I consider wise — you will be better off in the long run and increase your chances of building a consistent winner.
My humble opinion, if you cannot already figure it out, is that drafting Matthew Stafford (pictured, left) at #1 would not be a bold move by the Detroit Lions; nor would it be, according to history, a wise move. The same goes for the other teams thinking about one of these QBs in the first round. For teams with so many holes, why would you want to select a quarterback that still needs development and that has a 13% chance of succeeding, and then place him on a team that is not currently built to win?
Over the next week, NFL war rooms will be dominated by the voices and egos of GMs, coaches, and scouts, all of whom want to set their respective organizations up for the best chance at future success with their decisions this weekend. And TVs and radios will be dominated by draft gurus and “experts” who think they know what each team should do this weekend to achieve that best chance at future success. Yet with all of the talking, projecting, analyzing, melkipering, posturing, and picking, it would be wise for one particular voice to not be drowned out.
Listen to George Santayana.
The best path to understanding this year’s NFL draft is with a solid understanding of each player available, each team’s needs, plus a healthy dose of historical perspective. The last one, understanding history, is the component that usually gets forgotten. And it is probably the reason why teams end up making many of the same mistakes year after year.
It is also the reason why this final quote from George Santayana perhaps sums up the totality of the NFL draft experience, for both the teams and fans, as well as any:
Why shouldn’t things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.
~ George Santayana
**********
What do you think?
Should the Detroit Lions take Matthew Stafford #1 overall?
- Yes (15%, 4 Votes)
- No (85%, 22 Votes)
Total Voters: 26
Loading ...
Whether it does or not, assuming that your team needs a QB. Would you want them to select one of this year's junior QB prospects in the first round?
- Yes (10%, 2 Votes)
- Yes - but only if its in the second half of the first round (30%, 6 Votes)
- Not anywhere in the first round (60%, 12 Votes)
Total Voters: 20
