Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You are cherrypicking even worse. Just because the highest rated QB was not the top QB does not mean the top pick is not the best. You should at least consider all the terrible quarterbacks picked in the later rounds.

Plus, the top pick always goes to the worst team in the league the previous year. I am more impressed that Carson Palmer has managed an 88.9 rating with the Bengals than I am than that Big Ben has managed an 89.9 with the Steelers.




There are 10-15 QBs taken every year out of 250 picks. The question is whether where they were picked correlates with future success. I see no evidence to support that correlation.

Otherwise, we're taking about a very limited skill set (i.e. it translates to nowhere else on the field). The reason so many QBs are picked high isn't because their talent deserves it. It's because teams overvalue the position AND there are few QBs deemed worthy enough to even be considered.

New England is actually an interesting case study of what it means to take a QB who may not have the typical skillset, but if you place them in the right environment, they can be a true star. The point is: Their success argues strongly against the role of a high pick for the position.


Plus, the top pick always goes to the worst team in the league the previous year.

This is key. Growing up in Tampa, I watched a lot of high draft picks have great careers after they left the hell-hole they got drafted into. I've always felt that getting picked as a QB in the late first round would be best, because you could be on a good team, rather than start right away and get pummeled in the 0.003 seconds you have in the pocket.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: