Mariota is a bust

[Jet Fan RI]

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.

 

Solid argument. You ignore the fact that I explained that the "thousand" does not apply, Then ignore the fact that only 1 Heisman QB in the history of the league was a franchise QB.

 

Nice job!

[Larz]

Solid argument. You ignore the fact that I explained that the "thousand" does not apply, Then ignore the fact that only 1 Heisman QB in the history of the league was a franchise QB.

 

Nice job!

 

is there a walter camp award curse ?

[Jet Fan RI]

is there a walter camp award curse ?

 

I'm not aware of a curse on any award. Are you? All I am aware of are solid historical facts.

[Sperm Edwards]

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

I'm pretty sure I understand. Sadly, you might not even realize your own argument; what you are ultimately presenting. You're effectively arguing that if a QB came in 2nd or lower in the Heismann voting it would make him less likely to bust. Like if RGIII had a couple of passes tipped that resulted in picks, while at Baylor, and Luck therefore got a couple more votes that otherwise went RGIII's way, it would have therefore made Luck a worse NFL prospect in your eyes (and by contrast, would have elevated RGIII to being a better one). So whether you realize it or not, this is what you are saying.

It's as valid as blaming any outlier you choose to elevate to significance. Like hair color or being born in Virginia on a weekday evening in the winter. Not to mention your measurement of success also places the blame on others he has little or no control over (fellow teammates, coaches, GM and team scouts, or even the NFL era one played in). There was nothing wrong with drafting Carson Palmer. There was plenty wrong with the Bengals coaching, front office, and others (not to mention having his leg split in half), and plenty wrong with the Raiders after he was traded there as well.

If you could illustrate some QB trait that favors one in Heismann voting, but which translates poorly to NFL success, then that would be different. Like throughout history, all Heismann QBs are runners who are generally inaccurate throwers or something, but you've brought no on field analysis of any Heismann winners. Just a statistical outlier of a couple dozen players and ignore the team makeups, coaching, or ther team drafting in a pre-free agent era. That the one thing that's consistent in QB suckville is not coming in 2nd or lower in an individual achievement award in college.

 

You're also ignoring that every Heismann QB isn't necessarily drafted at the top of round 1 in the first place. The ones thought to be top NFL prospects are; the ones who aren't thought to be so aren't drafted so highly (if they're drafted at all). Of the ones that are, some were NFL-worthy and some were not. Just like non-Heismann winners.

You should do he Davey O'Brien award next. 

[32EBoozer]

I'm not aware of a curse on any award. Are you? All I am aware of are solid historical facts.

The only curses I am aware of are the Madden Cover and the NY Jets curse(otherwise known as the Doug Brien award)

[drdetroit]

so mayock just changed his rankings to put mariota #1 QB according to NFL network's bottom line scroll

this is probably just to generate interest, clicks and ratings, but if it's from film study, it's a thing that makes you go hmmmmmmm

#clickbait

[Jet Fan RI]

I'm pretty sure I understand. Sadly, you might not even realize your own argument; what you are ultimately presenting. You're effectively arguing that if a QB came in 2nd or lower in the Heismann voting it would make him less likely to bust. Like if RGIII had a couple of passes tipped that resulted in picks, while at Baylor, and Luck therefore got a couple more votes that otherwise went RGIII's way, it would have therefore made Luck a worse NFL prospect in your eyes (and by contrast, would have elevated RGIII to being a better one). So whether you realize it or not, this is what you are saying.

It's as valid as blaming any outlier you choose to elevate to significance. Like hair color or being born in Virginia on a weekday evening in the winter. Not to mention your measurement of success also places the blame on others he has little or no control over (fellow teammates, coaches, GM and team scouts, or even the NFL era one played in). There was nothing wrong with drafting Carson Palmer. There was plenty wrong with the Bengals coaching, front office, and others (not to mention having his leg split in half), and plenty wrong with the Raiders after he was traded there as well.

If you could illustrate some QB trait that favors one in Heismann voting, but which translates poorly to NFL success, then that would be different. Like throughout history, all Heismann QBs are runners who are generally inaccurate throwers or something, but you've brought no on field analysis of any Heismann winners. Just a statistical outlier of a couple dozen players and ignore the team makeups, coaching, or ther team drafting in a pre-free agent era. That the one thing that's consistent in QB suckville is not coming in 2nd or lower in an individual achievement award in college.

 

You're also ignoring that every Heismann QB isn't necessarily drafted at the top of round 1 in the first place. The ones thought to be top NFL prospects are; the ones who aren't thought to be so aren't drafted so highly (if they're drafted at all). Of the ones that are, some were NFL-worthy and some were not. Just like non-Heismann winners.

You should do he Davey O'Brien award next. 

 

Your overall point that looking only at history has its weaknesses is valid. But you completely undermine your argument with an obviously ludicrous statement like the one I have bolded. If I were using irrelevant history, like the weather on a particular day or election results, your analogy would be apt. But if you really believe what you wrote there, you may have an intelligence problem More likely you are merely engaging in hyperbole, and may not realize how stupid such a statement makes you appear,

 

Now, regarding the relevance of the historical performance of QB draft picks, lately I have been studying the draft results from 1970-present. Of all QB's drafted in the first round, I find about 20% of them turn into franchise-quality QB's. Of those QB's who were Heisman winners drafted during the first round during the same period, exactly zero became franchise-quality QB's.

 

At the very least, one has to wonder why so Heisman QB's are chosen as often as they are in the first round. And why the trend to do so has been increasing lately.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Your overall point that looking only at history has its weaknesses is valid. But you completely undermine your argument with an obviously ludicrous statement like the one I have bolded. If I were using irrelevant history, like the weather on a particular day or election results, your analogy would be apt. But if you really believe what you wrote there, you may have an intelligence problem More likely you are merely engaging in hyperbole, and may not realize how stupid such a statement makes you appear,

Now, regarding the relevance of the historical performance of QB draft picks, lately I have been studying the draft results from 1970-present. Of all QB's drafted in the first round, I find about 20% of them turn into franchise-quality QB's. Of those QB's who were Heisman winners drafted during the first round during the same period, exactly zero became franchise-quality QB's.

At the very least, one has to wonder why so Heisman QB's are chosen as often as they are in the first round. And why the trend to do so has been increasing lately.

Yes. He's the one who looks stupid here. As to what's left of your point, how many of the Heisman first rounders played option or spread in college? Against how many of the non-Heisman first rounders? What do you suppose this means?

[Jetsmanjb]

Let San Diego get him for Rivers that would be hilarious 

[artemusclyde]

Let San Diego get him for Rivers that would be hilarious 

 

Will never happen. Rivers is staying a charger.

[Sperm Edwards]

Your overall point that looking only at history has its weaknesses is valid. But you completely undermine your argument with an obviously ludicrous statement like the one I have bolded. If I were using irrelevant history, like the weather on a particular day or election results, your analogy would be apt. But if you really believe what you wrote there, you may have an intelligence problem More likely you are merely engaging in hyperbole, and may not realize how stupid such a statement makes you appear,

 

Now, regarding the relevance of the historical performance of QB draft picks, lately I have been studying the draft results from 1970-present. Of all QB's drafted in the first round, I find about 20% of them turn into franchise-quality QB's. Of those QB's who were Heisman winners drafted during the first round during the same period, exactly zero became franchise-quality QB's.

 

At the very least, one has to wonder why so Heisman QB's are chosen as often as they are in the first round. And why the trend to do so has been increasing lately.

 

No, it isn't. You are pointing to something irrelevant. If you said, for example, 90% of Heismann winning QBs were running QBs or only threw dumpoff passes or were always this or that type of passer/player or most of them were lefties or under 6 feet tall or something like that -- if these poor NFL traits were assets in winning the Heismann, THEN it would be relevant.  But you didn't.

 

Winning the award, as opposed to coming in 2nd, 3rd, etc, isn't in and of itself a relevant point. Getting the most votes does in a poll does not cause someone to become a worse prospect than garnering the 2nd-most votes.

 

Also most Heismann QBs weren't high first round picks anyway, so those players were weeded out by the end of draft weekend. A few didn't get drafted outright. But they didn't fail to get drafted, or fail to become great NFL QBs, because they were Heismann winners.

 

It is utter silliness. And yes, it's as silly as hair color or what day someone was born, because none of these things cause someone to be a bad NFL QB.

[Jet Fan RI]

Yes. He's the one who looks stupid here. As to what's left of your point, how many of the Heisman first rounders played option or spread in college? Against how many of the non-Heisman first rounders? What do you suppose this means?

 

Looks like you may be starting to formulate a theory to explain why Heisman QB's as a group do so poorly in the NFL. I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with when you can flesh it out. 

[Jet Fan RI]

No, it isn't. You are pointing to something irrelevant. If you said, for example, 90% of Heismann winning QBs were running QBs or only threw dumpoff passes or were always this or that type of passer/player or most of them were lefties or under 6 feet tall or something like that -- if these poor NFL traits were assets in winning the Heismann, THEN it would be relevant.  But you didn't.

 

Winning the award, as opposed to coming in 2nd, 3rd, etc, isn't in and of itself a relevant point. Getting the most votes does in a poll does not cause someone to become a worse prospect than garnering the 2nd-most votes.

 

Also most Heismann QBs weren't high first round picks anyway, so those players were weeded out by the end of draft weekend. A few didn't get drafted outright. But they didn't fail to get drafted, or fail to become great NFL QBs, because they were Heismann winners.

 

It is utter silliness. And yes, it's as silly as hair color or what day someone was born, because none of these things cause someone to be a bad NFL QB.

What you do not understand, you condemn as silly. You simply cannot accept that something can be determined by studying what happens historically,as in Continental Drift, but demand a theoretical explanation of what you are seeing. But nonetheless, studying historical trends is a valid way of determining that something is happening before there is a theoretical explanation.

 

Let's consider that comparison of 1st round QB draft picks between 1970 and today again. If I look only at first rounders who did not win a Heisman, I find 18 non-Heisman first rounders out of 84 non-Heisman first rounders total. Or, about 21.4% of non-Heisman first rounders became franchise QB's. 

 

There were 10 Heisman QB's selected during the first round during the same period. As I said, none of these became franchise QB's. It has been suggested that due to the small sample size, this could be simply due to chance. But could it?

 

To answer that, assume that each of the Heisman QB's also has a 21.4% chance of becoming a franchise QB. What is the probability that 10 of these guys in a row would fail to become a franchise QB? Rounding a bit, the probability that at least one of them would be a franchise QB, assuming the probability of each, one at a time, is 0.214, is 0.99999979856. (This result is the 0.214 probability raised to the 10th power to account for ten failing in a row, then that result is subtracted from 1.)

 

This means the Heisman guys must have a considerably lower probability of becoming a franchise QB than non-Heisman guys, which squares very well with the almost complete lack of them in the history of the league.

 

BTW, if you are interested in a theoretical explanation of the effect, I would suspect it lies in a set of qualities that make a college QB great that are different from a set of qualities that make an NFL QB great. Having the college qualities does not also give you the NFL qualities, so the only guys who can do both well are those that can develop two different sets of qualities independently. Perhaps what made Staubach different was the fact that he had to go into the Navy for 4 years before starting his NFL career. Being a special leader of men may have something to do with it. Having the extra 4 years of age may have something to do with it too. 

[Larz]

I'm not aware of a curse on any award. Are you? All I am aware of are solid historical facts.

 

should we avoid walter camp winners ?

 

I need to know !!!!!!!

[Jet Fan RI]

should we avoid walter camp winners ?

 

I need to know !!!!!!!

 

The only award of interest to me is the Heisman, because so many folks doing the drafting seem to be entranced by it, especially lately. Of the 10 Heisman QB winners drafted in the first round since 1970, 4 have been drafted in the last 5 years. If both Heisman QB's go in the first round this year, that will be 6 out of 12 since 1970 will have been drafted in the last 6 years. Seems to be virtual hysteria, especially considering how bad these guys have done in the league. I wonder why the sudden explosion of 1st-round Heisman picks lately?

[Sperm Edwards]

What you do not understand, you condemn as silly. You simply cannot accept that something can be determined by studying what happens historically,as in Continental Drift, but demand a theoretical explanation of what you are seeing. But nonetheless, studying historical trends is a valid way of determining that something is happening before there is a theoretical explanation.

 

Let's consider that comparison of 1st round QB draft picks between 1970 and today again. If I look only at first rounders who did not win a Heisman, I find 18 non-Heisman first rounders out of 84 non-Heisman first rounders total. Or, about 21.4% of non-Heisman first rounders became franchise QB's. 

 

There were 10 Heisman QB's selected during the first round during the same period. As I said, none of these became franchise QB's. It has been suggested that due to the small sample size, this could be simply due to chance. But could it?

 

To answer that, assume that each of the Heisman QB's also has a 21.4% chance of becoming a franchise QB. What is the probability that 10 of these guys in a row would fail to become a franchise QB? Rounding a bit, the probability that at least one of them would be a franchise QB, assuming the probability of each, one at a time, is 0.214, is 0.99999979856. (This result is the 0.214 probability raised to the 10th power to account for ten failing in a row, then that result is subtracted from 1.)

 

This means the Heisman guys must have a considerably lower probability of becoming a franchise QB than non-Heisman guys, which squares very well with the almost complete lack of them in the history of the league.

 

BTW, if you are interested in a theoretical explanation of the effect, I would suspect it lies in a set of qualities that make a college QB great that are different from a set of qualities that make an NFL QB great. Having the college qualities does not also give you the NFL qualities, so the only guys who can do both well are those that can develop two different sets of qualities independently. Perhaps what made Staubach different was the fact that he had to go into the Navy for 4 years before starting his NFL career. Being a special leader of men may have something to do with it. Having the extra 4 years of age may have something to do with it too. 

 

You're funny.

[Jet Fan RI]

You're funny.

 

Profound.

[Sperm Edwards]

Profound.

 

 

Sample size of 10, lol. What are the odds?!?!?!?.

You should take that logic to Vegas. Bet everything you have and ever will have that you won't lose 10 roulette spins in a row. There's got to be more than your 99.999979856% chance from above you won't lose 10 hands in a row the way you do math. And that's if you only assume you'd ordinarily win 21.4% of your hands instead of the 47% chance you actually have.

Again, you're funny.

Come back here and tell us how you did. According to your figures, you should break the house no problem. Certainly you'd never lose 10 rolls in a row (or 10 hands of blackjack in a row, or whatever). Couldn't happen. Must be a 0.00001% chance, right?

Then when your broke ass figures out that you calculated wrong, come back here and one of us will explain why your 50/50 chance of winning one hand - better than twice your 21% chance of landing a 1st round franchise QB - can still result in losing 10 in a row with far greater than the lightning-strike chances you're miscalculating.

If Mariota, Winston, or both suck it's not because either won the Heismann.

[Larz]

what about lou groza award winners ?

 

good god is anything safe ?

[Sperm Edwards]

So now I'm supposed to accept that an alleged 1/5 chance of a desired outcome, x 10 chances, results in a 0.99999979856% probability of coming true.

Don't they teach math in school anymore?

[Sperm Edwards]

what about lou groza award winners ?

 

good god is anything safe ?

No cross-checking Wonderlic scores with Lou Groza Award winners? What kind of scientist are you, Larz? WHAT KIND?!?

[Jet9]

If Mariota, Winston, or both suck it's not because either won the Heismann.

It could be part of the reason they are rated so high though. Personally I think both are going to suck.

[Jet Fan RI]

 

 

Sample size of 10, lol. What are the odds?!?!?!?.

You should take that logic to Vegas. Bet everything you have and ever will have that you won't lose 10 roulette spins in a row. There's got to be more than your 99.999979856% chance from above you won't lose 10 hands in a row the way you do math. And that's if you only assume you'd ordinarily win 21.4% of your hands instead of the 47% chance you actually have.

Again, you're funny.

Come back here and tell us how you did. According to your figures, you should break the house no problem. Certainly you'd never lose 10 rolls in a row (or 10 hands of blackjack in a row, or whatever). Couldn't happen. Must be a 0.00001% chance, right?

Then when your broke ass figures out that you calculated wrong, come back here and one of us will explain why your 50/50 chance of winning one hand - better than twice your 21% chance of landing a 1st round franchise QB - can still result in losing 10 in a row with far greater than the lightning-strike chances you're miscalculating.

If Mariota, Winston, or both suck it's not because either won the Heismann.

 

Alas, you're right. I should have subtracted the 0.214 from 1 before raising to the number of guys. The correct answer should be closer to 91%. Not as dramatic as before, but still quite unlikely to be due to pure chance.

 

And let me say, your replies are funny.

[Sperm Edwards]

It could be part of the reason they are rated so high though. Personally I think both are going to suck.

I don't buy it. There are Heismann winners who were drafted low, and Heismann winners who weren't drafted at all. If they suck they suck. But coming in 2nd in the Heismann voting wouldn't have made either a better pro prospect.

They might get a little bump because of the publicity, but if either one should have been like a 3rd round prospect or worse, with the way they go over every snap these guys took in their entire college careers, neither is riding a Heismann lift to vault from way down there into the top 5 (or #1) overall.

[Jet9]

I don't buy it. There are Heismann winners who were drafted low, and Heismann winners who weren't drafted at all. If they suck they suck. But coming in 2nd in the Heismann voting wouldn't have made either a better pro prospect.

OK, that's fair.

All I'm saying is what I posted a million pages ago about Heisman QBs since 1990 is an abysmal list. Best one is probably Cam and then it's really bad after that.

[Jet Fan RI]

OK, that's fair.

All I'm saying is what I posted a million pages ago about Heisman QBs since 1990 is an abysmal list. Best one is probably Cam and then it's really bad after that.

 

All the more reason it is a curiosity why so many drafters as so entranced by Heisman QB's. Again, 4 of the 10 Heisman QB's drafted in the first round since 1970 were drafted in the last 5 years. And the slugs you noted are among those 4. If the 2 Heisman QB's this year go in the first round, that will be 6 out of 12 drafted in the first round since 1970 will have gone in the last 6 years. Considering the performances you note, these selections seem to be based on very poor judgment of QB ability. Or, it's enchantment with the Heisman.  

[Sperm Edwards]

OK, that's fair.

All I'm saying is what I posted a million pages ago about Heisman QBs since 1990 is an abysmal list. Best one is probably Cam and then it's really bad after that.

No doubt, but the list is not a full list of QBs drafted highly. That is a much smaller list. Particularly if you want to start at 1990. There were only so many QB winners, and only so many of them were considered NFL-level talents whether they had a great senior year or not.

I don't think Palmer was abysmal. Imperfect, yes. I think he got hurt badly a couple of times and also played for Cincy, where he grew personally miserable, and then Oakland. His career started off well enough, and had his downs to go along with his ups.

RGIII is physically skilled enough to play (if uninjured) as he showed as a rookie, but he may have been a victim of his early NFL success and stardom as well as winning the Heisman over Luck. His team did give up 3 #1 picks or whatever for him. Basically told him he's their man no matter what, and it seems (from leaks and complaints from teammates) it went to his head.

Bradford is another one that's hard to figure. If he didn't get injured so often, and if he wasn't in that cesspool of garbage in St. Louis, would his career have not only been different, but VASTLY different? Can't know for sure, but I think yes. Some guys just get a long run of bad luck. I don't think winning the Heisman was indicative of him being likely to be so brittle. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Manziel is just a knucklehead, award or no award. There may also be a Darwin Award in his future, frankly. I honestly don't know if he could play in the league or not because he hasn't given himself any chance at all. IMO he'd have displayed these characteristics even if he didn't win the Heisman.

Point is, it's not just winning the award. Every winner doesn't necessarily go into exactly ideal situations, and injuries can hit anyone. Sure there are Matt Leinarts and Tim Tebows, but the latter was a shocker to get drafted that highly in the first place.

The only SUPER bust - the one that seemed to have no question marks and who was projected to be an average starter at worst, for a long time - was Leinart. Most of the winners were just college level talents, though. No one gave serious looks to Weinke or Torretta, or any look at all to Ward or Crouch.

But the sample size is wayyyyy too small to draw any inference from it. The next winners to hit the league will succeed or fail on their own merits, not by the merits of having won or lost an award in college. Again, had Luck won over RGIII, that would not have made Luck a worse prospect and RGIII a better one.

[RutgersJetFan]

No Super Bowl winning quarterback has ever been caught stealing crab legs. Your move, Buccaneers.

[Jet9]

No doubt, but the list is not a full list of QBs drafted highly. That is a much smaller list. Particularly if you want to start at 1990. There were only so many QB winners, and only so many of them were considered NFL-level talents whether they had a great senior year or not.

I don't think Palmer was abysmal. Imperfect, yes. I think he got hurt badly a couple of times and also played for Cincy, where he grew personally miserable, and then Oakland. His career started off well enough, and had his downs to go along with his ups.

RGIII is physically skilled enough to play (if uninjured) as he showed as a rookie, but he may have been a victim of his early NFL success and stardom as well as winning the Heisman over Luck. His team did give up 3 #1 picks or whatever for him. Basically told him he's their man no matter what, and it seems (from leaks and complaints from teammates) it went to his head.

Bradford is another one that's hard to figure. If he didn't get injured so often, and if he wasn't in that cesspool of garbage in St. Louis, would his career have not only been different, but VASTLY different? Can't know for sure, but I think yes. Some guys just get a long run of bad luck. I don't think winning the Heisman was indicative of him being likely to be so brittle. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Manziel is just a knucklehead, award or no award. There may also be a Darwin Award in his future, frankly. I honestly don't know if he could play in the league or not because he hasn't given himself any chance at all. IMO he'd have displayed these characteristics even if he didn't win the Heisman.

Point is, it's not just winning the award. Every winner doesn't necessarily go into exactly ideal situations, and injuries can hit anyone. Sure there are Matt Leinarts and Tim Tebows, but the latter was a shocker to get drafted that highly in the first place.

The only SUPER bust - the one that seemed to have no question marks and who was projected to be an average starter at worst, for a long time - was Leinart. Most of the winners were just college level talents, though. No one gave serious looks to Weinke or Torretta, or any look at all to Ward or Crouch.

But the sample size is wayyyyy too small to draw any inference from it. The next winners to hit the league will succeed or fail on their own merits, not by the merits of having won or lost an award in college. Again, had Luck won over RGIII, that would not have made Luck a worse prospect and RGIII a better one.

You're right, Palmer has had a pretty decent career. Bradford being made of dust is his genes I guess.

But Manzeil is perfect example actually. I 100% knew for a fact that he was going to suck. How? Because I watch football and know the differences between the NCAA and NFL. I don't know that reason he was ranked or drafted that high. Jaworski, I believe, said he was worth a 4th rounder. That sounds a little more realistic. I guess what I'm saying is hype is the reason JM was drafted that high. Was the Heisman part of that? I dont know. Because if you stepped back and really looked there was no reason to think he was going to be any good from a football perspective. Mike Evans bailed that dude out all the time.

RGIII is another, maybe less obvious, example. Guy built like a track star with gaudy college numbers is a year away from being declared a bust if he isn't already. Color me shocked.

[Sperm Edwards]

You're right, Palmer has had a pretty decent career. Bradford being made of dust is his genes I guess.

But Manzeil is perfect example actually. I 100% knew for a fact that he was going to suck. How? Because I watch football and know the differences between the NCAA and NFL. I don't know that reason he was ranked or drafted that high. Jaworski, I believe, said he was worth a 4th rounder. That sounds a little more realistic. I guess what I'm saying is hype is the reason JM was drafted that high. Was the Heisman part of that? I dont know. Because if you stepped back and really looked there was no reason to think he was going to be any good from a football perspective. Mike Evans bailed that dude out all the time.

RGIII is another, maybe less obvious, example. Guy built like a track star with gaudy college numbers is a year away from being declared a bust if he isn't already. Color me shocked.

He was Johnny Football before he won that award.

[Jet9]

He was Johnny Football before he won that award.

He was overrated then, at least as an NFL prospect, as well.

[Jet Fan RI]

He was Johnny Football before he won that award.

 

But the real question is, why was he drafted so high? What we need to explain is why have Heisman winners been getting dratfed in the first round with alarmingly increasing frequency in recent years? And why are this year's two Heisman QB's expected to go with very high picks? It would seem a reasonable conclusion is that drafters, and draft evaluators, are smitten with the Heisman and thus induced into spending a much higher draft pick than is justified by the player’s real potential.

[Sperm Edwards]

But the real question is, why was he drafted so high? What we need to explain is why have Heisman winners been getting dratfed in the first round with alarmingly increasing frequency is recent years? And why are this year's two Heisman QB's expected to go with very high picks? It would seem a reasonable conclusion is that drafters, and draft evaluators, are smitten with the Heisman and thus induced into spending a much higher draft pick than is justified by the player’s real potential.

He would have been drafted high with or without the trophy. Please. He averaged 400 yards and 4 TDs per game. That's why he was taken in round 1. Plus a midget QB (by scouts' standards) just won the superbowl 3 months earlier.

You think if Manziel placed 3rd in the voting he'd have dropped down a round or two? If you do you're in a minuscule minority who thinks so. As it is he already dropped half a round lower than expected. And no one who was rating him in the top 5 was citing/weighing his Heisman Trophy as any sort of reason why.

The very idea is silly. There is no cause and effect to placing 1st the Heisman voting as opposed to coming in 2nd and having that predestine a player's NFL success. If you can draw an on-field correlation - some on-field playing traits and weaknesses at the NFL level, that Heisman winners all have in common and which aided in winning the award - that would be something. But to just say winning a college achievement award means this group was predestined, to be more likely to do poorly at the next level like it's a disadvantage, is utter silliness.

Further, it excludes the eye of the beholder for some of these teams. Because a QB was overdrafted doesn't mean there was any consensus that he should have been drafted that highly. Tebow is a great example of this. Probably Manziel another. If there were far fewer prospects coming out last year, who were expected to go in rounds 2-4, then there's a good chance Manziel would have been drafted higher. Russell Wilson almost certainly aided in Manziel getting drafted as highly he did more than winning the Heisman Trophy.

[Jet Fan RI]

You're right, Palmer has had a pretty decent career. Bradford being made of dust is his genes I guess.

But Manzeil is perfect example actually. I 100% knew for a fact that he was going to suck. How? Because I watch football and know the differences between the NCAA and NFL. I don't know that reason he was ranked or drafted that high. Jaworski, I believe, said he was worth a 4th rounder. That sounds a little more realistic. I guess what I'm saying is hype is the reason JM was drafted that high. Was the Heisman part of that? I dont know. Because if you stepped back and really looked there was no reason to think he was going to be any good from a football perspective. Mike Evans bailed that dude out all the time.

RGIII is another, maybe less obvious, example. Guy built like a track star with gaudy college numbers is a year away from being declared a bust if he isn't already. Color me shocked.

 

Right. But he was drafted with the #1 overall pick. Has his career justified that pick? Did the pick return to the Bengals the value of investing that pick? Did Plunkett return the value to the Pats of investing the #1 overall pick that year? Did Testaverde return the value to the Bucs of investing the #1 overall pick that year? If the Bucs spend this year's #1 overall pick on WInston, is that a wise investment?  

[Jet Fan RI]

He would have been drafted high with or without the trophy. Please. He averaged 400 yards and 4 TDs per game. That's why he was taken in round 1. Plus a midget QB (by scouts' standards) just won the superbowl 3 months earlier.

You think if Manziel placed 3rd in the voting he'd have dropped down a round or two? If you do you're in a minuscule minority who thinks so. As it is he already dropped half a round lower than expected. And no one who was rating him in the top 5 was citing/weighing his Heisman Trophy as any sort of reason why.

The very idea is silly. There is no cause and effect to placing 1st the Heisman voting as opposed to coming in 2nd and having that predestine a player's NFL success. If you can draw an on-field correlation - some on-field playing traits and weaknesses at the NFL level, that Heisman winners all have in common and which aided in winning the award - that would be something. But to just say winning a college achievement award means this group was predestined, to be more likely to do poorly at the next level like it's a disadvantage, is utter silliness.

Further, it excludes the eye of the beholder for some of these teams. Because a QB was overdrafted doesn't mean there was any consensus that he should have been drafted that highly. Tebow is a great example of this. Probably Manziel another. If there were far fewer prospects coming out last year, who were expected to go in rounds 2-4, then there's a good chance Manziel would have been drafted higher. Russell Wilson almost certainly aided in Manziel getting drafted as highly he did more than winning the Heisman Trophy.

 

You're missing my point. My point is that the methods used to evaluate these guys' potential value in the league is grossly out of proportion to their actual value. It happens over and over and over.