,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Just caught the bizarro world of logic by Mike evans re first round qbs. Smh. He’s leaving out a SIGNIFICANT part of my argument - shocker - it’s not just taking a QB in the first round that matters is WHERE in the first round. I have said a MILLION times I would NEVER draft a
A QB in the 20’s - EVER. When mike wanted to point out the failures of first round qbs since 2010 he mentioned Tebow Weeden manziel and Lynch. It’s no surprise at all that qbs taken in the 20’s fail. Mike also wants to only use playoff appearances as the standard for success. Why
Does only playoff success determine if a QB is high quality? Matt Ryan didn’t make the playoffs this year. Is he a bad QB? Phillip rivers has gone years without making the playoffs. He will be going to canton. Eli Manning has missed the playoffs. Is he a bad QB? No the measure
Of a high quality QB is determined by years as a starter and level of success during those years. Not if he made the super bowl in the last 8 years a stat that is bizarrely skewed because Tom Brady has achieved absurd success WAY out of the norm. How many other 6 round qbs have
Been regular starters never mind super bowl qbs. Ahhh but mike says his theory only applies to rounds 2, 3 and 4!!!! So Brady doesn’t fit his argument. Uh. Ok. So now you want to examine the impact qbs since 2010 after the first round. Uh. Ok. Well which round? 2, 3 or 4? You
Can’t lump them all together. That’s not how it works. You have to pick a round because you get into needle in the haystack territory if you want to figure out who is gonna be successful out of 98 picks. My argument is your odds increase mightily if you take The BEST qbs every
Year as high as possible. Even if your QB doesn’t win a super bowl does he give you a better chance to win. So who gave you a better chance to win last year Josh Allen or Kyle Laulletta. Now the obvious argument is laulletta would’ve had he been given a chance! Maybe but then
You run into another inconvenient truth for evans. The fact that time energy resources and salary favor first round guys. They are going to be given more chances because there is more invested into them. Hey. Life isn’t fair. This isn’t high school or college. Money matters
Especially when first rounders have a fifth year option and rounds 2,3and 4 don’t. SO first round qbs are gonna get more reps and attention greatly increasing their chances of success. So highly selected first round qbs have everything in their favor thus a much better chance of
Success. How is mason Rudolph doing these days? Is he as good as josh allen? Allen didn’t win very much but he played and has far more experience in the NFL. If you had to play a game tomorrow would you want Lamar jackson or Luke falk? The problem for mike is he can’t figure
Out WHERE in rounds 2-4 is best to find a future successful QB where I can tell you with no doubts a QB drafted 1-19 has a FAR better chance of giving your team a chance to win. There is ZERO evidence that a QB chosen ANYWHERE in the third round gives you a better chance to win
Than a QB taken in the first round picks 1-19. I have ZERO doubts even in a QB weak class that the top qbs of this year Haskins, lock Murray and Jones will have a FAR better chance of success than those taken later like Minshew and Grier and Jackson. It’s not that they are future
Hall if famers it’s that they are the best options THIS year. Selecting a QB 1-19 or better 1-10 dramatically increases the odds he will succeed. Dramatically. In a QB quality draft like last year of 1983 the odds are even greater. To simply dismiss football evaluators as nerds
Is just plain lazy and discounts absurd hours of work that these analytic evaluators put into their jobs. It’s insulting and flip just to say “it’s a coin toss”. It certainly isn’t and there are reams of data to prove it.
