RollTide said:
The numbers are not absolute and are not meant to be taken that way but they do prove that you have as good a chance at getting a quality QB in rd 2 as you do in pick 3.
Hey if you got a better formula then tell us about it; show us the data and then your conclusions from that data. You would be the first poster other than me with real ideas instead of lame arguements against someone with real ideas.
First off you didn't PROVE anything. It is impossible to prove any theory. All you can do is disprove theories. A theory holds true as long as it has not be disproven. Simple fact of science. It holds true with laws of gravity, behavior, and now the nfl draft.
)
Seriously, there a lot of flaws in your theory. You're not taking into account the individual abilities of the personnel staff that selected them, the teams the 'successful' players were drafted to, etc etc. You are simply identifing one pattern that exists and putting your own meaning to it. For example, years ago we could have found a relationship between race and qb success rate. Would it have been because race was a factor in their success? Well there was a relationship, but the relationship was created by racism in the system- not by actual talent and value of the players. Your analyses have the same flaw (though not the politically heated reprecussions). They are usuing a correlation or a pattern that they see and tying to use it without out knowing what creates the pattern.
One could probably derive a formula to accurately predict the success of each player- if you had all the necessary variables. The problem is no one has those variables. Thats the why the draft is as much art as science.
What bugs me though is your misuse of stats. People say you can make a stat say anything you want. Thats not really true. But any person can use stats to support their arguements and state them as law. When actually every stat has a lof of qualifiers in it.
For example, you challenged the comparison of Pennington to Lienart and then tried to use stats back up your arguement. You cant do that. They played for and against very different teams. Not to mention that almost all of football stats are team stats. Yes even yards, completions, tds, and qb ratings. Which means comparing one athlete to another just using stats is erroneouus. Thats why no one will ever know if Larry Bird was/is better than Michael Jordan in their prime. Though we all have our own opinions. Maybe it would be better to use Kobe and Wilt these days- but you get the point.
The only real way to compare players is by their ability. Its a subjective judgment, which means everyone's point is valid and no one can "win" an arguement.
In this messageboard a poster tried to compare the abilities of Pennington and Leinart (arm strength, accuracy) but then you brought stats back into it. Again those stats are a meausure of a team's success. The only stat that I can think of that is not heavily based on team peformance is attempts or carries, but I dont really see the usefulness of those stats.
Personally, I think Cutler is the best Qb coming out in this draft. I can talk abilities all I want, but the first minute someone brings stats in I have to flinch. Not because they hurt my argument (though I have to admit they usually do) but because its not a good way to compare them.
Its all subjective- which is why we are able to debate the same topic for the next several months.
)