Around The League V.2

[Darbsk]

7 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Is it really wishful thinking though? 

There have only been 58 Superbowls. 

Of those, 5 non-first rounders have won one. 

Brady won 7. His opponents included: Undrafted QBs Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme, 1st rounder Donovan McNabb, 3rd rounder Russell Wilson, 1st rounder Matt Ryan, 1st rounder Jared Goff, 1st rounder Patrick Mahomes. 

That leaves 51 other Superbowls. 

Brady lost to 1st rounder Eli twice. 49 left. 

Brady lost to 4th rounder Nick Foles. 48. 

So in Brady's 10 appearances, roughly 1/6 of all Superbowls, the opposing starting QB was likewise a non-first rounder in 40% of them. A non 1st rounder was guaranteed to win there no matter the outcome. 

Anyway, 47 Superbowls left to go. 

Superbowl 48 was won by Wilson. 46 left. 

Superbowl 44 was won by 2nd rounder Drew Brees. Down to 45. 

Superbowl 37 saw 9th rounder Brad Johnson beat 4th rounder Rich Gannon. Down to 44. 

Superbowl 34 saw Undrafted Kurt Warner win. Down to 43. 

There's no point going all the way back to Superbowl 1 anymore. Since the year 2000, we have seen 24 Superbowl games played, and half were won by a non-1st eound QB. Even adjusting for Brady, nearly half of the QBs he played against were non 1st rounders. You'd be ever so slightly under a 50/50 toss up at absolute best at that rate. 

Then you have some other nuggets:

Last year, 2nd rounder Hurts was a mere 3 points away from winning one- and nobody would've been shocked had the Eagles won. 

In Superbowl 47, 3rd rounder Colin Kaepernick was 3 points and some questionable antics away from a win. 

In Superbowl 43, Warner was literally mere inches from a 2nd ring. 

Sueprbowl 40 was a travesty and crime committed by Bill Leavy's crew that stole a ring from 6th rounder Matt Hasselbeck. 

In 4 more games, a non-1st rounder very easily could have hoisted the Lombardi, making a theoretical 16/24 rings since 2000 going to non-1st rounders. 

Oh, and one game was won by Trent Dilfer and shouldn't even count as a QB win. 

There's simply no proof that non-1st round QBs have a harder time than 1st round QBs at winning a Superbowl. Considering that Peyton, Eli, and Patrick account for 6 of the 12 1st round winners (with Brady Jimmy G, and Jalen making up 3 of the opponents)...it's actually the opposite, and had Jimmy and Brady not lost 3 of those 4 games, and the wonky ones above been won by Hurts, Kaepernick, Warner, amd Hasselbeck, then non-1st round QBs would have been absolutely dominating the field over the last 24 Superbowls.

Really it doesn't even matter by how much because the fact remains that at bare minimum it's a 50/50 based on what in fact occurred. We can add or subtract any variable hypothetical all day, it would only benefit non-1st round QBs if equally applied. 

The idea a 1st round QB is needed for a ring is baseless. It's nonsense. It's a narrative that gets pushed when someone just wants a 1st round QB because that's the flavor of the week. Statistically, since the millennium clock rolled over, it's more likely to be in a spot to win a Superbowl without a 1st round QB at the helm- 12 wins and several more opportunities. 

I'm not even opposed to grabbing a 1st rounder because why not. Plus, I like McCarthy and Penix and doubt they fall to the 2nd. But this notion of needing a 1st round QB....nah, that talks gotta stop. 

So, would it be a fair and reasonable statement to say that generally, the better overall teams won Regardless of where the QB were drafted?

 

Nice analysis by the way 👍🏼

Edited October 20, 2023 by Darbsk

[ronjon1990]

4 hours ago, Darbsk said:

So, would it be a fair and reasonable statement to say that generally, the better overall teams won Regardless of where the QB were drafted?

 

Nice analysis by the way 👍🏼

Oh apparently not according to Einstein lol. A non-first round QB lost a Superbowl once so it's obvious you have to have a first rounder. 

 

[NickButera]

48 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Oh apparently not according to Einstein lol. A non-first round QB lost a Superbowl once so it's obvious you have to have a first rounder. 

 

Love the passive aggressive. 

Look I'm just saying, you posted a WHOLE bunch of "what ifs" and said "see! They almost did it!" Like that was proof they could. It's not. 

The fact is only 5 non first round QBs have ever won a Superbowl. You said it yourself. Im saying that's not a coincidence. I'm saying an "exception" doesn't happen every year. Occams Razor. When push come to shove those non first round QBs lost.  Almost 90% of the time a first round QB wins the superbowl (I'm excluding Brady, he's kind of in his own category). That's a stat that is so overwhelming that if you argue it you're reaching for exceptions. You could be right, however, Occams Razor. 

You want me to believe the QB has nothing to do with it? Then the only possible explanation is "teams who draft QBs in the first round are doing so because they know know how to construct better teams to win a Superbowl". Either way, give me a first round qb

[BackinBlack]

9 hours ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

You’d be arguing about us giving up 30 and I’d be arguing we only gave up 24 lol

lol, i never disagreed that a pick 6 is the Ds fault. We didnt throw pick 6s every game though, and every team has probably one or two against htem on a season. 
I still dont think our D was good last year, so we still disagree there though. 

 

[NickButera]

7 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

 Providing a list of non 1st round QBs who get over the line and win a Superbowl....

No, you didn't. You listed 5. In the history of the NFL. That's like, almost one a decade. And one of them is Brady who is the ultimate exception to everything. 

If I listed something that had only been done once a decade and said look these guys did it we could probably rely on this strategy to win a championship, that would be absurd.

And, other than Joe Montana, Tom Brady and Roger Staubach (ooold school) arguably the best two QBs in history, no other non first round selections have won more than one. That's an obscure stat though, winning a Superbowl is hard. But building a dynasty around a non first rounder has really only happened twice in league history. 

Of course there are many ways to get a ring, but you can't change the odds. And the odds say overwhelmingly a first round QB is the best way to go. Unless you want to rely on winning the lotto. 

[NCOUGHMAN]

17 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

lol, i never disagreed that a pick 6 is the Ds fault. We didnt throw pick 6s every game though, and every team has probably one or two against htem on a season. 
I still dont think our D was good last year, so we still disagree there though. 

 

Cool thing is we don’t have to argue cause he’s not our problem anymore Lololol 

[big_palooka]

 

Of all the Carr traits, the fake tough guy routine and it always being someone else fault is a favorite.

 

[NYRaider]

9 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

 

If Carr played better they wouldn't have been in that position to begin with, lmfao. ABC = Anybody But Carr

 

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by NYRaider

[NYRaider]

19 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

 

Of all the Carr traits, the fake tough guy routine and it always being someone else fault is a favorite.

 

 

[NYRaider]

 

[NCOUGHMAN]

31 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

If Carr played better they wouldn't have been in that position to begin with, lmfao. ABC = Anybody But Carr

 

 

That 1st qtr was insane saints gave carr the ball back about a million times and I think they got a fg out of it. Lolol 

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, NickButera said:

No, you didn't. You listed 5. In the history of the NFL. That's like, almost one a decade. And one of them is Brady who is the ultimate exception to everything. 

If I listed something that had only been done once a decade and said look these guys did it we could probably rely on this strategy to win a championship, that would be absurd.

And, other than Joe Montana, Tom Brady and Roger Staubach (ooold school) arguably the best two QBs in history, no other non first round selections have won more than one. That's an obscure stat though, winning a Superbowl is hard. But building a dynasty around a non first rounder has really only happened twice in league history. 

Of course there are many ways to get a ring, but you can't change the odds. And the odds say overwhelmingly a first round QB is the best way to go. Unless you want to rely on winning the lotto. 

You are aware that not 58 different QBs have even won a Superbowl right? 

You keep saying 5 in the history of ever have won one that weren't drafted in round 1 like that's supposed to be this super small sample of QBs, when it's not. This last decade has seen how many different non first round QBs win it? 

You say the lotto, but conveniently ignore that 1/2 of the last 24 Superbowls were won by someone not drafted in the first round, and often in games where both QBs weren't. 

You openly ignore the whole list of SBs dating back to 2000 that were won by non 1st round QBs and say that I'm only contradicting. But isn't it you? Because if the results since 2000 are split 50/50, as they are, it is a contradiction to say a first round QB is needed and not taking one is playing the lotto. 

You day Tom Brady and say it's the ultimate exception- we just going to ignore several Bradys wins came against other non 1st round QBs? Games that would have been won by a non-first round QB regardless of the outcome because it's easier to just say "But it was Tom Brady and you can't use that!"? 

As for the non first rounders winning more than one- make up your mind. Can a non first rounder get a ring or not? Or is the goalposts being moved? 

How many QBs even have multiple rings compared to how many only have 1 to start with? 

Bet you also include Steve Young snd his 3 as proof of a first round QB, which would be disingenuous given he already had 2 years of Pro football- but screw context right? 

Except facts don't work that way. You can use the word data, statistically, and any other term all day long, but that doesn’t make an assertion correct by default. 

So answer this, since 2000, 1/2 of the Superbowls have been won by a non-first round QB, so how is it that first round QBs can't win the big one? Can they, or can't they? Easy question. 

Better yet, if your assertion is correct, we should have an overwhelming number of games where both QBs are both first rounders in a clash of the tip top best, no? Name each of them since 2000 that were battles between first round QBs. Because, I mean, there's been quite a few played between 2 non-first rounders but that doesn’t make sense because it doesn't fit your narrative though. 

Here, actually, I'll make it easy for you:

Since 2000, the number of Superbowls played is 24. 

Out of 24 Superbowls, 

5 games have pitted 1st round QBs against each other. 

5 games have pitted non-first round QBs against each other. 

Wow, that's pretty crazy no? The number of guaranteed 1st round QB wins is exactly equal with the number guaranteed non-first round wins. 

But what about the other 14? Where a 1st rounder took on a later pick. 

The record is....7 to 7. 

Oh! But Brady, you say. 

He was 1 of different 4 non first rounders to win against a 1st round QB since 2000 (Warner, Brees, and Wilson being the others). 

And, oof, wanna talk about the quality? Those 4 were a pretty good list for their primes. The 1st rounders? 

Well, Eli and Flacco account for 3 of their 7 wins.....

But, whatever. As you can (at least I'd hope) see, it's 50/50 no matter what. 

Over the last 2 1/2 decades:

5 times we've seen 2 first rounders duke it out. 

5 times we've seen non-first rounders duke it out. 

14 times we've seen a first and a non-first duke it out to a 50/50 draw. 

Considering the difference in draft capital to land a 1st round QB these days, those numbers being at 50/50 should be insightful. The fact it's not overwhelmingly in favor of first round picks defeats your premise. The fact it's almost the polar opposite makes it a horrendous take. One would be forgiven for thinking it would be more like 70/30 or 80/20. But 50/50, given all the hoopla about a first rounder? Oof. Bad, bad, shortsighted take. 

 

[SimonGruber]

Checking in on Raider Twitter/X you see a lot of “ Why do you guys still talk about Carr “. It’s like his biggest fans forget calling the skeptics “ haters” “fake fans “ “ don’t know bleep “ . It is kinda of funny to see being. You also have the Saints dynamic seems fans are catching on quick. 

[NickButera]

33 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

You are aware that not 58 different QBs have even won a Superbowl right? 

You keep saying 5 in the history of ever have won one that weren't drafted in round 1 like that's supposed to be this super small sample of QBs, when it's not. This last decade has seen how many different non first round QBs win it? 

You say the lotto, but conveniently ignore that 1/2 of the last 24 Superbowls were won by someone not drafted in the first round, and often in games where both QBs weren't. 

You openly ignore the whole list of SBs dating back to 2000 that were won by non 1st round QBs and say that I'm only contradicting. But isn't it you? Because if the results since 2000 are split 50/50, as they are, it is a contradiction to say a first round QB is needed and not taking one is playing the lotto. 

You day Tom Brady and say it's the ultimate exception- we just going to ignore several Bradys wins came against other non 1st round QBs? Games that would have been won by a non-first round QB regardless of the outcome because it's easier to just say "But it was Tom Brady and you can't use that!"? 

As for the non first rounders winning more than one- make up your mind. Can a non first rounder get a ring or not? Or is the goalposts being moved? 

How many QBs even have multiple rings compared to how many only have 1 to start with? 

Bet you also include Steve Young snd his 3 as proof of a first round QB, which would be disingenuous given he already had 2 years of Pro football- but screw context right? 

Except facts don't work that way. You can use the word data, statistically, and any other term all day long, but that doesn’t make an assertion correct by default. 

So answer this, since 2000, 1/2 of the Superbowls have been won by a non-first round QB, so how is it that first round QBs can't win the big one? Can they, or can't they? Easy question. 

Better yet, if your assertion is correct, we should have an overwhelming number of games where both QBs are both first rounders in a clash of the tip top best, no? Name each of them since 2000 that were battles between first round QBs. Because, I mean, there's been quite a few played between 2 non-first rounders but that doesn’t make sense because it doesn't fit your narrative though. 

Here, actually, I'll make it easy for you:

Since 2000, the number of Superbowls played is 24. 

Out of 24 Superbowls, 

5 games have pitted 1st round QBs against each other. 

5 games have pitted non-first round QBs against each other. 

Wow, that's pretty crazy no? The number of guaranteed 1st round QB wins is exactly equal with the number guaranteed non-first round wins. 

But what about the other 14? Where a 1st rounder took on a later pick. 

The record is....7 to 7. 

Oh! But Brady, you say. 

He was 1 of different 4 non first rounders to win against a 1st round QB since 2000 (Warner, Brees, and Wilson being the others). 

And, oof, wanna talk about the quality? Those 4 were a pretty good list for their primes. The 1st rounders? 

Well, Eli and Flacco account for 3 of their 7 wins.....

But, whatever. As you can (at least I'd hope) see, it's 50/50 no matter what. 

Over the last 2 1/2 decades:

5 times we've seen 2 first rounders duke it out. 

5 times we've seen non-first rounders duke it out. 

14 times we've seen a first and a non-first duke it out to a 50/50 draw. 

Considering the difference in draft capital to land a 1st round QB these days, those numbers being at 50/50 should be insightful. The fact it's not overwhelmingly in favor of first round picks defeats your premise. The fact it's almost the polar opposite makes it a horrendous take. One would be forgiven for thinking it would be more like 70/30 or 80/20. But 50/50, given all the hoopla about a first rounder? Oof. Bad, bad, shortsighted take. 

 

Good idea. Let's just draft 6th round QBs then and hope we get a Brady. If he can do it, anyone can. Because, if you include him, non first round QBs are the most successful of all time. After all, no other first round QB has won 7 Superbowls. 

I'm on board. Between Superbowl 36 and 55, a non first round QB won 7 of those and got there 12 times. So, any non first round QB can do it I suppose. Forget those are all the single most accomplished athlete in sports history. 

[ronjon1990]

28 minutes ago, NickButera said:

Good idea. Let's just draft 6th round QBs then and hope we get a Brady. If he can do it, anyone can. Because, if you include him, non first round QBs are the most successful of all time. After all, no other first round QB has won 7 Superbowls. 

I'm on board. Between Superbowl 36 and 55, a non first round QB won 7 of those and got there 12 times. So, any non first round QB can do it I suppose. Forget those are all the single most accomplished athlete in sports history. 

I never said don't draft a QB early.

You made the assertion non-first round QBs weren't successful. That's false. 

I also pointed out that even had Brady lostore of his Superbowls, a non-first rounder still would have won. 

Sorry you can't reconcile that.