Mariota is a bust

[T0mShane]

I think the Heisman only factors in from the perspective that it makes the player more marketable, which causes sh*tty teams and their owners to equate marketability with ability, leading that sh*tty team to circumvent whatever scouting apparatus they would otherwise use to assess players and take him, because they're stupid. 

[Larz]

I have broadened the consideration to all QB's who are, or were, true franchise QB's. How many Heisman winners can you name who fall into that category? Staubach is the only one I can think of.

 

in this 32 team league there are 6 franchise QB's.

 

small sample

[Jet Fan RI]

you are simply looking at a very small sample.  there can only be one heisman winner in any given year, and they aren't always QB's, but they almost always go to crap teams

 

you might as well argue never take a QB with a last name that starts with a vowel from a team with a mascot that is a predator of small mammals

 

until you provide a cause and effect its just silly superstition

 

I don't think the list is all that small when you consider all franchise QB's in the history of the NFL, at least during the time since the Heisman was created. I'll leave the cause and effect explanation to the theorists.

[Jet Fan RI]

in this 32 team league there are 6 franchise QB's.

 

small sample

 

 How about throughout the history of the NFL? And I would argue there are more franchise QB's today than just 6. In my mind, it's enough if the guy falls into the very good category. Can't think of any even at that standard who won the  Heisman, other than Staubach.

[Larz]

 How about throughout the history of the NFL? And I would argue there are more franchise QB's today than just 6. In my mind, it's enough if the guy falls into the very good category. Can't think of any even at that standard who won the  Heisman, other than Staubach.

 

and staubach had to fulfill his military commitment and was a grown man when he got to the NFL.  if he had to start when he was 21 for the worst team in the NFL he could have easily been ruined as well

 

heisman's go to guys who put up the raw numbers.  the gaudy stats.  that is typically a guy on a loaded team with weapons.  then they go to a crap team with no weapons and get ruined

 

if it was really an award for the best player in college football you would see other types of players win.  guys like bruce smith or orlando pace.  its an award for the guy who was blessed to have everything in place aorund him and puts up detmer numbers.  protection, coaching, game plans, weapons

 

and the universties spend money on campaigns to get guys voted in.  there are many variables.  

 

the one constant is being over drafted to a crap team

 

there is no mystery here

[flgreen]

in this 32 team league there are 6 franchise QB's.

 

small sample

 

I've debated this small sample issue with RI in the past.  No go.  LOL

 

When you draw conclusions from small samples, you can get some strange results.  Here's an article from some guy who did a study on the best place to draft a QB.

 

Seems like the mid second round.  Or perhaps due to Brady's 4 rings, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson, and Kurt Warner you should never draft a QB before the 6th.  

 

 

• 
• 
• 

http://jerrybarca.com/blogs/drafting-a-super-bowl-winning-quarterback' title="Permanent Link to Drafting A Super Bowl-Winning Quarterback">

Whenever the names of Johnny Manziel or Blake Bortles are called out at the NFL Draft know, by history’s standards, they have at least — or as little as — a 3.6 percent chance of leading a team to a Super Bowl victory.

Since 1980, 470 quarterbacks have been selected in the NFL Draft. This includes the 15 quarterbacks taken in the supplemental draft during that period. Of all those quarterbacks 17 have won Super Bowls. That gives your favorite team a 3.6 percent chance of picking the right signal caller at any point in the draft.

The following is in no way intended to be a formula for where and how to select a Super Bowl-winning quarterback. Instead it is food for thought based on the history of quarterback selections made between 1980 and 2013. The best takeaway is probably some argument-starting, knowledge-dropping trivia when you talk sports. Quite simply, a multitude of dynamics lead to a quarterback becoming a champion, too far to drill down into the simplicity of looking at draft slots . . . or, maybe just that simple if your team is doomed by picking the fourth or fifth quarterback in the draft.

With the First Pick in the NFL Draft . . .

Since 1980, a quarterback has been taken with the first overall pick on 17 occasions. Four of those top picks have won a Super Bowl (John Elway, Troy Aikman, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning). So for every Elway, there are 4.25 No. 1 overall picks of players like Tim Couch, Carson Palmer, Matthew Stafford and JaMarcus Russell.

When you include the supplemental draft, the selections of Steve Young by Tampa Bay in 1984 and Bernie Kosar by Cleveland 1985 equate to No. 1 overall picks, too. Young won a Super Bowl with the 49ers 10 years later. As any Browns fan with Elway nightmares will tell you, Kosar never won a championship.

First Round Advantage

During this period of 1980-2013, 82 quarterbacks have been taken in the first round. Ten have won Super Bowls, giving a first-round quarterback a 12.2 percent chance of winning a Super Bowl. Seems far too high a percentage for Bears fans donning a Cade McNown jersey.

The Lineup

Since 1980, there have been 11 instances in which no quarterbacks or only one has been picked in the first round. But the pecking order of where a quarterback is taken among his peers may matter a bit. Just a bit.

Of the 17 quarterbacks who were drafted and went on to win a Super Bowl, 13 were taken as one of the first three signal callers in their draft. Then there is a big drop. No fourth or fifth quarterback taken in the draft between 1980 and now has ever won a Super Bowl. Doesn’t matter which round or pick, no Super Bowl win. Duante Culpepper, Rex Grossman, Jay Schroeder, Ken O’Brien and plenty of others fall into this category.

The Anomalies

Tom Brady, you’ve heard of him. He was taken by the Patriots in the sixth round with the 199th pick of the 2000 draft. He has won three Super Bowls. Six other quarterbacks were picked before him.

Russell Wilson went to Seattle with the 75th overall pick in the third round of the 2012 draft, but he was the sixth quarterback selected that year.

Washington drafted Mark Rypien in the 6th round with the 146th pick of the 1986 draft. Rypien, the eighth quarterback selected in 1986, led Washington to a Super Bowl win after the 1991 season.

Brad Johnson was under center for Tampa Bay in that franchise’s lone Super Bowl victory. Johnson was the 13th quarterback taken in the 1992 draft. He went to Minnesota in the ninth round. He was the 227th player selected.

Then there is Kurt Warner. He wasn’t drafted at all. Remember, he was loading groceries at a supermarket before leading the St. Louis Rams to a Super Bowl win. He is not even factored into the percentages listed above about 17 quarterbacks who were drafted.

The Average Spot to Draft A Super Bowl Winning QB

This could be your year Arizona Cardinals – the average is the 52nd pick in the draft.

College Pedigree

The 17 quarterbacks drafted between 1980 and 2013 who have won Super Bowls account for a total of 24 trips to Disney World. The college roots might be a surprise. The Pac-10 leads the way with seven, followed by the Big Ten with five. The SEC, college football’s most dominant conference, can claim three of these Super Bowls, all of them won by a Manning.

- Jerry Barca

[Larz]

I think the take away flgreen is the franchise doing the drafting is as significant as the QB being drafted.  the better run franchises pick a QB for the right reasons (arm talent not marketability) and surround him with key players like a LT, WR, TE etc etc

 

and there is nothing to the heisman curse

[Jet Fan RI]

and staubach had to fulfill his military commitment and was a grown man when he got to the NFL.  if he had to start when he was 21 for the worst team in the NFL he could have easily been ruined as well

 

heisman's go to guys who put up the raw numbers.  the gaudy stats.  that is typically a guy on a loaded team with weapons.  then they go to a crap team with no weapons and get ruined

 

if it was really an award for the best player in college football you would see other types of players win.  guys like bruce smith or orlando pace.  its an award for the guy who was blessed to have everything in place aorund him and puts up detmer numbers.  protection, coaching, game plans, weapons

 

and the universties spend money on campaigns to get guys voted in.  there are many variables.  

 

the one constant is being over drafted to a crap team

 

there is no mystery here

 

Really? No mystery that no Heisman winners are true franchise QB's? Like Brady, who found himself on a crap  team? It doesn't strike you as strange there really are no franchise QB's who won the Heisman (other than Staubach)? I think you're fooling yourself.

[Jet Fan RI]

 

I've debated this small sample issue with RI in the past.  No go.  LOL

 

When you draw conclusions from small samples, you can get some strange results.  Here's an article from some guy who did a study on the best place to draft a QB.

 

Seems like the mid second round.  Or perhaps due to Brady's 4 rings, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson, and Kurt Warner you should never draft a QB before the 6th.  

 

 

•  
• 
•  
• 
•  
• 
•  

Whenever the names of Johnny Manziel or Blake Bortles are called out at the NFL Draft know, by history’s standards, they have at least — or as little as — a 3.6 percent chance of leading a team to a Super Bowl victory.

Since 1980, 470 quarterbacks have been selected in the NFL Draft. This includes the 15 quarterbacks taken in the supplemental draft during that period. Of all those quarterbacks 17 have won Super Bowls. That gives your favorite team a 3.6 percent chance of picking the right signal caller at any point in the draft.

The following is in no way intended to be a formula for where and how to select a Super Bowl-winning quarterback. Instead it is food for thought based on the history of quarterback selections made between 1980 and 2013. The best takeaway is probably some argument-starting, knowledge-dropping trivia when you talk sports. Quite simply, a multitude of dynamics lead to a quarterback becoming a champion, too far to drill down into the simplicity of looking at draft slots . . . or, maybe just that simple if your team is doomed by picking the fourth or fifth quarterback in the draft.

With the First Pick in the NFL Draft . . .

Since 1980, a quarterback has been taken with the first overall pick on 17 occasions. Four of those top picks have won a Super Bowl (John Elway, Troy Aikman, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning). So for every Elway, there are 4.25 No. 1 overall picks of players like Tim Couch, Carson Palmer, Matthew Stafford and JaMarcus Russell.

When you include the supplemental draft, the selections of Steve Young by Tampa Bay in 1984 and Bernie Kosar by Cleveland 1985 equate to No. 1 overall picks, too. Young won a Super Bowl with the 49ers 10 years later. As any Browns fan with Elway nightmares will tell you, Kosar never won a championship.

First Round Advantage

During this period of 1980-2013, 82 quarterbacks have been taken in the first round. Ten have won Super Bowls, giving a first-round quarterback a 12.2 percent chance of winning a Super Bowl. Seems far too high a percentage for Bears fans donning a Cade McNown jersey.

The Lineup

Since 1980, there have been 11 instances in which no quarterbacks or only one has been picked in the first round. But the pecking order of where a quarterback is taken among his peers may matter a bit. Just a bit.

Of the 17 quarterbacks who were drafted and went on to win a Super Bowl, 13 were taken as one of the first three signal callers in their draft. Then there is a big drop. No fourth or fifth quarterback taken in the draft between 1980 and now has ever won a Super Bowl. Doesn’t matter which round or pick, no Super Bowl win. Duante Culpepper, Rex Grossman, Jay Schroeder, Ken O’Brien and plenty of others fall into this category.

The Anomalies

Tom Brady, you’ve heard of him. He was taken by the Patriots in the sixth round with the 199th pick of the 2000 draft. He has won three Super Bowls. Six other quarterbacks were picked before him.

Russell Wilson went to Seattle with the 75th overall pick in the third round of the 2012 draft, but he was the sixth quarterback selected that year.

Washington drafted Mark Rypien in the 6th round with the 146th pick of the 1986 draft. Rypien, the eighth quarterback selected in 1986, led Washington to a Super Bowl win after the 1991 season.

Brad Johnson was under center for Tampa Bay in that franchise’s lone Super Bowl victory. Johnson was the 13th quarterback taken in the 1992 draft. He went to Minnesota in the ninth round. He was the 227th player selected.

Then there is Kurt Warner. He wasn’t drafted at all. Remember, he was loading groceries at a supermarket before leading the St. Louis Rams to a Super Bowl win. He is not even factored into the percentages listed above about 17 quarterbacks who were drafted.

The Average Spot to Draft A Super Bowl Winning QB

This could be your year Arizona Cardinals – the average is the 52nd pick in the draft.

College Pedigree

The 17 quarterbacks drafted between 1980 and 2013 who have won Super Bowls account for a total of 24 trips to Disney World. The college roots might be a surprise. The Pac-10 leads the way with seven, followed by the Big Ten with five. The SEC, college football’s most dominant conference, can claim three of these Super Bowls, all of them won by a Manning.

- Jerry Barca

 

 

Small samples? All franchise QB's in the history of the NFL? Please provide your list of Heisman QB's who are or were franchise QB's.

[Jet Fan RI]

I think the take away flgreen is the franchise doing the drafting is as significant as the QB being drafted.  the better run franchises pick a QB for the right reasons (arm talent not marketability) and surround him with key players like a LT, WR, TE etc etc

 

and there is nothing to the heisman curse

 

I never used the word "curse." That's your terminology, not mine. I say the historical record proves the case, and it only remains for some sufficiently bright theorist to provide the explanation.

[Jet9]

I find it hard to argue that history is on the side of taking a Heisman winner. The list I posted earlier is atrocious.

[flgreen]

Small samples? All franchise QB's in the history of the NFL? Please provide your list of Heisman QB's who are or were franchise QB's.

Please give me a reason this phenomenon is happening.    In a 31 year sample, with one player being selected each year, not all QB's, this actually isn't even an unusual run 

 

 

Edit:  Never mind, We've been over all this LOL

[Jet Fan RI]

Please give me a reason this phenomenon is happening.    In a 31 year sample, with one player being selected each year, not all QB's, this actually isn't even an unusual run 

 

 

Edit:  Never mind, We've been over all this LOL

 

Sorry. I have to mind. There have been examples from science that apply here. Continental Drift comes to mind. The evidence it was happening was overwhelming before the theory of plate tectonics, with upwelling of lava between the plates to provide the  driving force, was put forth. Now, continental drift is accepted as fact. And the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which required General Relativity to explain, was known for decades before an explanation appeared. The point is that methods of analysis can be applied to reveal a phenomenon long before it is explained. To me, the utter lack of any good NFL QB's who won the Heisman shows there is something going on here. And the evidence is so strong that it is clear to me that, at the very least, that any NFL team that spends a top 10 pick on a Heisman QB is making a huge mistake. 

[Jet Fan RI]

I find it hard to argue that history is on the side of taking a Heisman winner. The list I posted earlier is atrocious.

 

Yep. The history of Heisman QB failures in the NFL is overwhelming. Never spend a top 10 pick on a Heisman QB. If he falls to you in the 2nd round, maybe. But even that is probably too risky. If he falls to you in the 3rd or 4th round, ok, worth the risk. If you really need a QB. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Sorry. I have to mind. There have been examples from science that apply here. Continental Drift comes to mind. The evidence it was happening was overwhelming before the theory of plate tectonics, with upwelling of lava between the plates to provide the driving force, was put forth. Now, continental drift is accepted as fact. And the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which required General Relativity to explain, was known for decades before an explanation appeared. The point is that methods of analysis can be applied to reveal a phenomenon long before it is explained. To me, the utter lack of any good NFL QB's who won the Heisman shows there is something going on here. And the evidence is so strong that it is clear to me that, at the very least, that any NFL team that spends a top 10 pick on a Heisman QB is making a huge mistake.

The evidence isn't strong. The sample size is insignificant. Just because you're using all of the data that exists doesn't mean that the data set is the same as the population as a whole, which isn't fifty Super Bowls and half that many Heisman quarterbacks but rather the infinite number of possible actual and hypothetical permutations thereof. Using superstition to explain coincidence is not science.

[RutgersJetFan]

Sorry. I have to mind. There have been examples from science that apply here. Continental Drift comes to mind. The evidence it was happening was overwhelming before the theory of plate tectonics, with upwelling of lava between the plates to provide the  driving force, was put forth. Now, continental drift is accepted as fact. And the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which required General Relativity to explain, was known for decades before an explanation appeared. The point is that methods of analysis can be applied to reveal a phenomenon long before it is explained. To me, the utter lack of any good NFL QB's who won the Heisman shows there is something going on here. And the evidence is so strong that it is clear to me that, at the very least, that any NFL team that spends a top 10 pick on a Heisman QB is making a huge mistake. 

 

[Jet Fan RI]

The evidence isn't strong. The sample size is insignificant. Just because you're using all of the data that exists doesn't mean that the data set is the same as the population as a whole, which isn't fifty Super Bowls and half that many Heisman quarterbacks but rather the infinite number of possible actual and hypothetical permutations thereof. Using superstition to explain coincidence is not science.

 

So you are saying that the fact that the only franchise-quality QB who was a Heisman winner in history was Staubach is due to a too-small sample size???? So do you expect in the next 100 years or so (if that's long enough for you) a spate of Bradshaw's, Montana's, Namath's, Marino's, Simms's, Mannings's, Elway's, Brady's, Rodgers's, Flacco's, etc,, etc  who won a Heisman will suddenly materialize and thus balance out the statistics? Get real.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

So you are saying that the fact that the only franchise-quality QB who was a Heisman winner in history was Staubach is due to a too-small sample size???? So do you expect in the next 100 years or so (if that's long enough for you) a spate of Bradshaw's, Montana's, Namath's, Marino's, Simms's, Mannings's, Elway's, Brady's, Rodgers's, Flacco's, etc,, etc who won a Heisman will suddenly materialize and thus balance out the statistics? Get real.

I don't need to wait for the numbers to change. They already say the opposite of what you think they do to the extent that they say anything at all. Two Super Bowls won by 27 Heisman quarterbacks against 40something won by like a thousand non-Heisman quarterbacks means that the Heisman winners are already winning Super Bowls at a similar or higher rate than the others.

[Jet Fan RI]

I don't need to wait for the numbers to change. They already say the opposite of what you think they do to the extent that they say anything at all. Two Super Bowls won by 27 Heisman quarterbacks against 40something won by like a thousand non-Heisman quarterbacks means that the Heisman winners are already winning Super Bowls at a similar or higher rate than the others.

 

How about addressing the issue of the lack of franchise-quality QB's who won the Heisman? 

[Sperm Edwards]

yes

 

are you suggesting there is a cause and effect between the trophy and performance ?  some sort of curse or something ?

 

It seems so.

 

It's as valid as saying QBs born in the bottom half of the hour tend to perform better (or worse) than others, and I've got a sample size of 2 dozen to justify it.

 

Makes no sense as to the cause and effect, compared to what the QB's career would have been if a different player had a slightly better college career at any position and therefore got the trophy. The insinuation is that if, in the face of Mariota having the identical career he had, someone else was voted the Heismann winner, then that would make Mariota a better prospect. The logic is nonsensical unless one can point to a distinctive, common trait that causes non-NFL caliber college QBs to win Heismann trophies.

 

If Mariota succeeds or fails it'll be because he is good or he sucks, just like every other QB. Not because he once won a trophy over someone else instead of coming in 2nd or 3rd or lower in the voting.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

How about addressing the issue of the lack of franchise-quality QB's who won the Heisman?

No.

[ChuckkieB]

Sorry. I have to mind. There have been examples from science that apply here. Continental Drift comes to mind. The evidence it was happening was overwhelming before the theory of plate tectonics, with upwelling of lava between the plates to provide the  driving force, was put forth. Now, continental drift is accepted as fact. And the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which required General Relativity to explain, was known for decades before an explanation appeared. The point is that methods of analysis can be applied to reveal a phenomenon long before it is explained. To me, the utter lack of any good NFL QB's who won the Heisman shows there is something going on here. And the evidence is so strong that it is clear to me that, at the very least, that any NFL team that spends a top 10 pick on a Heisman QB is making a huge mistake. 

 

You had me at hello.

[Jet Fan RI]

No.

 

Fine. So I will address your "thousands of QB's" comment. It is quite wide of the mark of what is being discussed here, which is whether it makes sense to spend a top-10 pick, or even a 1st-round pick, on a Heisman QB. And the answer, in almost every case, is no. First of all, the QB  dregs you imply would not have had such picks used on them. And since only 1 Heisman QB in the history of the NFL has become a franchise-quality QB, it is clear, and the case is indeed overwhelming, that it is almost always a mistake to burn a high draft pick on a Heisman QB. If you don't have reason to believe you're drafting the next Staubach, stay away from Heisman QB's, at least with high draft picks.

[Jet Fan RI]

It seems so.

 

It's as valid as saying QBs born in the bottom half of the hour tend to perform better (or worse) than others, and I've got a sample size of 2 dozen to justify it.

 

Makes no sense as to the cause and effect, compared to what the QB's career would have been if a different player had a slightly better college career at any position and therefore got the trophy. The insinuation is that if, in the face of Mariota having the identical career he had, someone else was voted the Heismann winner, then that would make Mariota a better prospect. The logic is nonsensical unless one can point to a distinctive, common trait that causes non-NFL caliber college QBs to win Heismann trophies.

 

If Mariota succeeds or fails it'll be because he is good or he sucks, just like every other QB. Not because he once won a trophy over someone else instead of coming in 2nd or 3rd or lower in the voting.

 

You don't seem to be following the argument. Read a bit more carefully.

[T0mShane]

Chris Simms breaking down Mariota. Pretty consistent with most other scouting reports on him: great athlete! Great kid! Throwing passes? Ehhhhhhhh....

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2425573-too-many-questions-about-phenomenal-athlete-marcus-mariota-to-pick-him-no-1

[SouthernJet]

Chris Simms breaking down Mariota. Pretty consistent with most other scouting reports on him: great athlete! Great kid! Throwing passes? Ehhhhhhhh....

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2425573-too-many-questions-about-phenomenal-athlete-marcus-mariota-to-pick-him-no-1

Speaking of QBs, will Jets be wearing Dick Wood patches on uniforms this year?

[RutgersJetFan]

Chris Simms breaking down Mariota.

 

Tweeters reporting.

[T0mShane]

Tweeters reporting.

 

 

ONE TIME.

[T0mShane]

Speaking of QBs, will Jets be wearing Dick Wood patches on uniforms this year?

 

 

Over the heart, obviously.

[Larz]

It seems so.

 

It's as valid as saying QBs born in the bottom half of the hour tend to perform better (or worse) than others, and I've got a sample size of 2 dozen to justify it.

 

Makes no sense as to the cause and effect, compared to what the QB's career would have been if a different player had a slightly better college career at any position and therefore got the trophy. The insinuation is that if, in the face of Mariota having the identical career he had, someone else was voted the Heismann winner, then that would make Mariota a better prospect. The logic is nonsensical unless one can point to a distinctive, common trait that causes non-NFL caliber college QBs to win Heismann trophies.

 

If Mariota succeeds or fails it'll be because he is good or he sucks, just like every other QB. Not because he once won a trophy over someone else instead of coming in 2nd or 3rd or lower in the voting.

 

I think the take away is if you take one of these guys you can't throw him to the wolves week 1, and you better also draft a LT,WR, C,  and TE

 

the guys who drop to better teams and get to sit seem to have better careers

[Larz]

How about addressing the issue of the lack of franchise-quality QB's who won the Heisman? 

 

you say that one more time and I'm sending vinny's boys to come find you

[Larz]

is there a walter camp award curse ?

[RutgersJetFan]

ONE TIME.

 

Chris Simms reporting.

[T0mShane]

Chris Simms reporting.

 

A guy can build a million ships and never be called a shipbuilder.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Fine. So I will address your "thousands of QB's" comment. It is quite wide of the mark of what is being discussed here, which is whether it makes sense to spend a top-10 pick, or even a 1st-round pick, on a Heisman QB. And the answer, in almost every case, is no. First of all, the QB dregs you imply would not have had such picks used on them. And since only 1 Heisman QB in the history of the NFL has become a franchise-quality QB, it is clear, and the case is indeed overwhelming, that it is almost always a mistake to burn a high draft pick on a Heisman QB. If you don't have reason to believe you're drafting the next Staubach, stay away from Heisman QB's, at least with high draft picks.

Why is this different? It's still 1/27 against a few dozen out of a thousand. Better, since not all of the Heisman winners were actually drafted highly. So basically everything you've said here is completely wrong and stupid.