When Quarterbacks Go 1-2 Overall in the Draft

[RJ_MacReady]

Well, teams that sucked bad enough to draft at #1 and #2 could be part of the equation worth looking at. If Luck went to a bad team like the Browns in 2012, where would he be ranked right now? He may be labeled bustville at this present time if that had happened.

 

[plasticman]

There have been times when the QB at #1 was a legitimate bluechip and when the team built around him, they were hugely sucessful after being poor for many seasons.

Troy Aikman

john Elway

Terry Bradshaw

Peyton Manning

All multiple SB winners that went to bad teams and stayed. Didnt see that with any QB drafted #2 overall.

 

[KB1122]

Not enough data, but I think the point would be that if we have only seen roughly a 8-10 "elite" quarterbacks in the last fifteen years or so, then it is highly unlikely that there are two in one draft and most likely the second (or both) team is reaching.

Similar to my six quarterback theory. For any decade or so, how many quarterbacks are really worth having? The answer is, about six. Maybe 5, maybe 7, but basically about six. So yes, there is likely only one, maybe two, maybe zero in any single draft. You can see what an outlier 1983 was, with 3 of them.

Still, you have to take the shot when you get it, IMO. And it's why when you don't have one, you should be trying to get one, because otherwise you get stuck in the Tony Romo situation, where you think you have a shot at a championship when you really don't.

 

[KB1122]

I counted five times where a quarterback was taken #1 overall in favor of an eventual Hall of Famer or possible future Hall of Famer.

JeMarcus Russell over Calvin Johnson

David Carr over Julius Peppers

Jeff George over Cortez Kennedy

Steve Bartkowski over Randy White

Sam Bradford over Ndamukong Suh (okay, maybe a reach, but you get my point)

Yeah, but how many of those Hall of Famers led their oriignal team to a Super Bowl? One. And he had an elite quarterback.

 

[CATCH17]

I'm a believer that the 2nd quarterback, drafted #2 overall is almost always a reach and does not have even close to the overall performance results of the #1 overall.

It has happened 6 times since 1970:

1971 Jim Plunkett, Archie Manning

1993 Drew Bledsoe, Rick Mirer

1998 Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf

1999 Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb

2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin

2014 Jamies Winston, Marcus Mariota

Super Bowl Championships:

#1 4
#2 0

Pro Bowls:

#1 22
#2 9

Combined starting years:

#1 46
#2 31

I think that moving up to take the #2 overall pick to get the "other" quarterback is a sign of desperation.

Your opinion?

Depends on the players. What you said is a generalization.


With this draft I think Carson Wentz is easily the best prospect the Rams supposedly like Goff better. So imo it doesn't apply to this draft.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm a believer that the 2nd quarterback, drafted #2 overall is almost always a reach and does not have even close to the overall performance results of the #1 overall.

It has happened 6 times since 1970:

1971 Jim Plunkett, Archie Manning

1993 Drew Bledsoe, Rick Mirer

1998 Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf

1999 Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb

2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin

2014 Jamies Winston, Marcus Mariota

Super Bowl Championships:

#1 4
#2 0

Pro Bowls:

#1 22
#2 9

Combined starting years:

#1 46
#2 31

I think that moving up to take the #2 overall pick to get the "other" quarterback is a sign of desperation.

Your opinion?

Well, JMO but here is what I would say:

Archie was better then Plunkett but Plunkett was fortunate enough to go from a very bad team in New England and get picked up by a very good team in Oakland, while Archie played for maybe the worst team in NFL history.

Bledsoe was better then Mirer but he was also fortunate enough to play for Parcells. Still, he was better.

Peyton was better then Leaf but it's hard to know how good Leaf might have been. He was a bone head early on but he also suffered career ending injuries that impacted what he could have been greatly. He was certainly more physically gifted then Peyton was but Peyton was better.

McNappie was better then Couch but he was also more fortunate in that he went to Philly with Andy Reid while Couch went to Cleveland. I don't even think you need more reason then just that.

Luck has had a better career to this point, no doubt, then Griffin but honestly, Luck hasn't really had overwhelming success as yet. Still, he has had a much better career to this point.

I liked Mariota better then Winston and I still do. Winston put up more yards and TDs but he also threw more INTs and for a lower completion percentage.

 

[Kaiser]

Peyton was better then Leaf but it's hard to know how good Leaf might have been. He was a bone head early on but he also suffered career ending injuries that impacted what he could have been greatly. He was certainly more physically gifted then Peyton was but Peyton was better.

Another issue with Ryan Leaf was that he was thrown into the fire in a very high pressure situation, which made all the other problems much worse. He was a major knucklehead but so was Randy Moss. When Moss came into the league he went to a low pressure situation where he could acclimate to the pro game for a year before a huge media microscope was inserted up his behind. With Ryan Leaf it started Day One and he never got any kind of acclimation period.

The end result may have been the same and Leaf had a bit of Manziel before there was a Manziel - but it was a situation where Leaf was set up for failure.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Another issue with Ryan Leaf was that he was thrown into the fire in a very high pressure situation, which made all the other problems much worse. He was a major knucklehead but so was Randy Moss. When Moss came into the league he went to a low pressure situation where he could acclimate to the pro game for a year before a huge media microscope was inserted up his behind. With Ryan Leaf it started Day One and he never got any kind of acclimation period.

The end result may have been the same and Leaf had a bit of Manziel before there was a Manziel - but it was a situation where Leaf was set up for failure.

I agree with that. Indy had a much, much better situation going on at that time and I'm sure that probably played a role as well. In fact, I really wonder just how big of a role that situation, with Leaf, played in Eli's (Archie's) decision to force a trade to NY?

 

[TwoDeep3]

Throughout the entire time I have been a fan of this league, there is always someone who tries to make the leap that this guy is like that guy, or this situation is like that situation. Or the one that really makes my head feel like exploding....if this guy went to that team, why did he not excel?

Brady has something special.

So does Romo.

But trading places doesn't mean either team would win a Super Bowl.

 

[Kaiser]

I agree with that. Indy had a much, much better situation going on at that time and I'm sure that probably played a role as well. In fact, I really wonder just how big of a role that situation, with Leaf, played in Eli's (Archie's) decision to force a trade to NY?

My memory (which isn't great) is that Eli and the Manning family considered San Diego a backwater and they wanted to be on the big stage in a place like NYC. I'm sure a lot went into it though. I was just talking about this in another thread, Eli got his rings because he was surrounded by dominant talent but the Giants gave up a better QB in Rivers plus the 12th pick of the following (which could have been Aaron Rodgers or Derrick Johnson).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My memory (which isn't great) is that Eli and the Manning family considered San Diego a backwater and they wanted to be on the big stage in a place like NYC. I'm sure a lot went into it though. I was just talking about this in another thread, Eli got his rings because he was surrounded by dominant talent but the Giants gave up a better QB in Rivers plus the 12th pick of the following (which could have been Aaron Rodgers or Derrick Johnson).

Yep. That was a trade that worked out well for them. They gave up a lot but they got some championships out of it. I don't love Eli. I actually thought he would be better then he has proven to be in the NFL, when he was coming out but I doubt the Giants would change anything. They got two Championships out of it. Good points.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Pretty sure Rivers was top 5 (4?)

You are correct, my bad....was going on memory. For some reason I had him around #12.

 

[KJJ]

I'm a believer that the 2nd quarterback, drafted #2 overall is almost always a reach and does not have even close to the overall performance results of the #1 overall.

It has happened 6 times since 1970:

1971 Jim Plunkett, Archie Manning

1993 Drew Bledsoe, Rick Mirer

1998 Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf

1999 Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb

2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin

2014 Jamies Winston, Marcus Mariota

Super Bowl Championships:

#1 4
#2 0

Pro Bowls:

#1 22
#2 9

Combined starting years:

#1 46
#2 31

I think that moving up to take the #2 overall pick to get the "other" quarterback is a sign of desperation.

Your opinion?

It's been a mixed bag with a slight edge going to the first QB taken but some of the greatest QBs taken were taken later in the first round. Plunkett didn't pan out until years later when he ended up with the Raiders. Many felt Archie Manning would have won SB's and ended up in the HOF had he not been stuck on some horrible Saints teams. McNabb was the second QB taken in 99 and ended up a lot better than Tim Couch who was taken #1 overall. Aaron Rodgers was the second QB taken in 2005 and ended up a lot better than Alex Smith who was taken #1 overall.

The problem I've seen and we're seeing it this year is where one QB starts off as the highest rated QB for most of the college season and gets over taken by another QB due to workouts. Many had Aaron Rodgers rated ahead of Alex Smith until leading right up to the draft when Smith overtook him due to workouts. If there's not a consensus #1 QB you're really going to be rolling the dice. If one week it's one QB on top and and the next week it's another QB on top you're going to be throwing darts. There was no talk about Carson Wentz until the Senior Bowl now all of a sudden he's being compared to Andrew Luck.

If you go by history Goff may end up being the better QB because he's the QB that during the college season everyone was talking about. It's when teams get too enamored by workouts that they get screwed at QB. I was listening to Mike Manock say that Wentz had one of the best workouts he's ever seen and he also said several years ago that Jamarcus Russell had the greatest workout he had ever seen. Screw the workouts I'm looking at what these QBs did on the field during a game in pads not on a field in shorts and a T-shirt going through a workout playing pitch and catch with a receiver.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I'm a believer that the 2nd quarterback, drafted #2 overall is almost always a reach and does not have even close to the overall performance results of the #1 overall.

It has happened 6 times since 1970:

1971 Jim Plunkett, Archie Manning

1993 Drew Bledsoe, Rick Mirer

1998 Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf

1999 Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb

2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin

2014 Jamies Winston, Marcus Mariota

Super Bowl Championships:

#1 4
#2 0

Pro Bowls:

#1 22
#2 9

Combined starting years:

#1 46
#2 31

I think that moving up to take the #2 overall pick to get the "other" quarterback is a sign of desperation.

Your opinion?

I really don't see how this proves any point at all...........I can make a case that in at least 3 of the 6 example, the better QB was the second guy (Archie Manning, Donavan McNabb, Marcus Marriotta).

So if the point was to somehow draw a correlation that we should not trade with Cleveland and take a QB #2 because they all suck.........EPIC FAIL.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Archie Manning and Jim Plunkett were both good quarterbacks. Manning never got a championship because he always played on crappy teams, and I mean really, really crappy. Those of you old enough to remember the New Orleans Saints of his era know what I'm talking about. If those same Saints had had Roger Staubach, the results would have been the same. No QB, no matter how good, can make a champ out of a team that bad. Conversely, I believe the Cowboys could have won the Super Bowl with Manning. Jim Plunkett also struggled on teams that weren't suited for his abilities until he was with the Raiders, an excellent team that was able to give him what he needed to win.

 

[AbeBeta]

I'm a believer that the 2nd quarterback, drafted #2 overall is almost always a reach and does not have even close to the overall performance results of the #1 overall.

It has happened 6 times since 1970:

1971 Jim Plunkett, Archie Manning

1993 Drew Bledsoe, Rick Mirer

1998 Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf

1999 Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb

2012 Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin

2014 Jamies Winston, Marcus Mariota

Super Bowl Championships:

#1 4
#2 0

Pro Bowls:

#1 22
#2 9

Combined starting years:

#1 46
#2 31

I think that moving up to take the #2 overall pick to get the "other" quarterback is a sign of desperation.

Your opinion?

Really small sample. Dumb to draw conclusions when data is extremely limited

 

[Q_the_man]

Question? Is their any data about the #4 pick after QB's go 1 & 2

What is the success rate?

 

[fortdick]

All I know is this...we can't predict anything about QB's:

Three of top ten/twelve qb's drafted third round or later:

Brady, Wilson, Romo

Four top five:

Luck, Ryan, Palmer, Newton

The Rest

Rodgers, Raplessberger, Brees, Dalton, Rivers

You forgot Eli.

 

[TheHerd]

Screw the workouts I'm looking at what these QBs did on the field during a game in pads not on a field in shorts and a T-shirt going through a workout playing pitch and catch with a receiver.

I generally agree with what you're saying, but Wentz was mighty impressive on the field. He was just impressive against inferior competition, so it was important to see him in the senior bowl and the workouts to make sure his accomplishments weren't solely due to the competition level.

That said, QBs are almost always a crap shoot, and these two are no different. But there is no way I'd trade up to grab one of them.

 

[KJJ]

I generally agree with what you're saying, but Wentz was mighty impressive on the field. He was just impressive against inferior competition, so it was important to see him in the senior bowl and the workouts to make sure his accomplishments weren't solely due to the competition level.

That said, QBs are almost always a crap shoot, and these two are no different. But there is no way I'd trade up to grab one of them.

Wentz wasn't impressive enough on the field to have him rated ahead of Goff at the end of the college football season. It was his Senior Bowl workouts and the Senior Bowl that got everyones attention and pushed him ahead of Goff. It was a few workouts and one game that caught everyones attention and that's where teams make mistakes at QB. It was Vince Young's National championship performance vs USC in 2006 that got everyone drooling over him. I'm not saying Wentz isn't going to be any good he may end up terrific but there could also be one or two other QBs in this draft that could end up being even better because there's no crapshoot in football like gaging how a college QBs game will transition to the NFL. How many college QBs can you name whose stock rose dramatically due to workouts that became great NFL QBs?

Years ago Akili Smith's stock rose dramatically due to some workouts which made Cinn pull the trigger on him at #3 overall and he became a mega bust. Again, I'm not saying Wentz will end up a flop but he didn't face great completion in college and his stock has really risen since the college season ended. If SF and other teams would have stayed with their first impression of Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith and not been so influenced by some workouts SF and other teams wouldn't still be kicking themselves for passing up Rodgers. Cam Newton didn't have great workouts especially at the combine but Carolina chose to go with what they saw in games with him. Teddy Bridgewater had a bad pro day and it dropped his stock but he's been a pretty solid QB for Minn. Manziel had a very good workout and he's currently looking for a job.

Some of the greatest QBs to play this game like Joe Montana were downgraded because of measurables and some subpar workouts. It's what a QB does in GAMES that matters. Do they show poise facing a pass rush and can they hit a receiver while under pressure these are things that can't be simulated in workouts. I don't know how anyone can tell much about a QB watching them in a T-shirt and shorts throwing to uncovered receivers during a scripted workout. It really boggles my mind that teams put so much stock in that.