sam bradford

MTK · 12-15-2010, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinster

true, but odds are that those guys don't hit as often. Since 2004 the only two franchise qbs I see not drafted in the top 11 are schaub, cassel, and rogers (no I dont count flacco or freeman...franchise qbs win games, not manage them)
The franchise qbs I see taken in the top 11 are roethesberger, manning, rivers, bradford, ryan, cutler (the guy gets hate, but had one bad year...he belongs), and possibly stafford (sanchez does not belong...he does not have what it takes).

I'd say having a top 10 pick is pretty important to getting a franchise qb...especially because Id say schaub and cassel are the two qbs on this list that I'd want least to be my franchise qb.

Well, you're dishing out a lot of subjective opinion here, and why is top 11 the cutoff, I thought we were talking top 10? Any why the small sample size of only going back to 2004?

skinster · 12-15-2010, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Well, you're dishing out a lot of subjective opinion here, and why is top 11 the cutoff, I thought we were talking top 10? Any why the small sample size of only going back to 2004?

I made it 11 because 11 is close enough to 10 and roethlessberger and cutler were 11 while all the rest were top 5.
The small sample size is because the league is constantly evolving. I can't quantify how much the talent evaluation process of quarterbacks and the types that fit into what systems has evolved in the last 10 years, but I assume it is too much to accurately use a sample size any larger than 6-7 years.

MTK · 12-15-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinster

I made it 11 because 11 is close enough to 10 and roethlessberger and cutler were 11 while all the rest were top 5.
The small sample size is because the league is constantly evolving. I can't quantify how much the talent evaluation process of quarterbacks and the types that fit into what systems has evolved in the last 10 years, but I assume it is too much to accurately use a sample size any larger than 6-7 years.

lol how convenient for your argument

skinster · 12-15-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

lol how convenient for your argument

"Top 10" is an estimated term. Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point.

But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.

MTK · 12-15-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinster

"Top 10" is an estimated term. Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point.

But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.

lol some of you guys should be attorneys, I swear

skinster · 12-15-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

lol some of you guys should be attorneys, I swear

all i was trying to say is that we use the number 10 because it is a nice round number, not because it is accurate. That is around where the top of the draft class is. Where the cutoff line of the top of the draft has a small amount of variance from draft to draft and person to person, and there is no true cutoff...which is why i gave the estimated range of top vs middle vs bottom that is subject to opinion.

P.s I'm still in college, but my family is made of lawyers.

MTK · 12-15-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinster

all i was trying to say is that we use the number 10 because it is a nice round number, not because it is accurate. That is around where the top of the draft class is. Where the cutoff line of the top of the draft has a small amount of variance from draft to draft and person to person, and there is no true cutoff...which is why i gave the estimated range of top vs middle vs bottom that is subject to opinion.

P.s I'm still in college, but my family is made of lawyers.

Shocker... do you tap dance too?

SBXVII · 12-15-2010, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinster

all i was trying to say is that we use the number 10 because it is a nice round number, not because it is accurate. That is around where the top of the draft class is. Where the cutoff line of the top of the draft has a small amount of variance from draft to draft and person to person, and there is no true cutoff...which is why i gave the estimated range of top vs middle vs bottom that is subject to opinion.

P.s I'm still in college, but my family is made of lawyers.

I was just having fun with you, but I'd pretty much think top talent extends through the 2nd round and maybe into the 3rd round depending on positions.

SBXVII · 12-15-2010, 01:58 PM

[QUOTE=skinster;769174]"Top 10" is an estimated term. Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point.

But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.[/QUOTE]

Great arguement, but I thougth there were 32 picks in the first round? you broke your thirds down leaving out the last 10 picks. Secondly what if I broke it down into fourth's instead of thirds? Clearly that would narrow down the area in which a good QB could be drafted right? But if you really didn't want to narrow it down and wanted to be more broad you could simply break it down in half. Lastly is there any way the middle third might be in the last third considering you left out almost another third? Which might be why breaking it down into fourths is better.

Also what if there is no need for a Franchise QB in the top third and the best QB is picked in the middle third? Does that mean he is not a franchise QB? What about Tom Brady?

12-15-2010, 01:58 PM	#9
SBXVII Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,766	Re: sam bradford [QUOTE=skinster;769174]"Top 10" is an estimated term. Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point. But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.[/QUOTE] Great arguement, but I thougth there were 32 picks in the first round? you broke your thirds down leaving out the last 10 picks. Secondly what if I broke it down into fourth's instead of thirds? Clearly that would narrow down the area in which a good QB could be drafted right? But if you really didn't want to narrow it down and wanted to be more broad you could simply break it down in half. Lastly is there any way the middle third might be in the last third considering you left out almost another third? Which might be why breaking it down into fourths is better. Also what if there is no need for a Franchise QB in the top third and the best QB is picked in the middle third? Does that mean he is not a franchise QB? What about Tom Brady?

sam bradford

Locker Room Main Forum