I prefer to live in the real world of analyzing which QB's actually had good careers, or in the case of younger guy...looked like they would. Rather than attempt to project those that failed because they played without a hall of fame WR, in bad weather for a bad franchise, or their daddy didn't love them enough.

I freely admitted the my definition of franchise QB in that post was subjective and that reasonable people could disagree on some of the guys I labled as successful picks.

Even so, I stand by my analysis. All you have to do is look at the players picked over the last 25 years to see that the 1st round is by far best place to find such a QB...and it isn't even close.

But that shouldn't stop people from drawing their own conclusions. Nor does it disprove the old quote from Sam Clemens:

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

I hear ya, but lets take the variable of coaching... Maybe the teams with the better coaches, coached the QB better and also coached the team better, so the quality of the coaching, had the greatest impact on whether the QB was successful or not or went to the playoffs.... Alex Smith was a bust under 2 or 3 headcoaches, and in one year under Harbaugh lead his team deep in the playoffs.. Was it the fact he was a 1st rd pick, that he won a play off game... If he never found a great QB coach would he have ever been a play off QB? Also in the past if you spent 1 st rd money on a QB, yo uhad real salary cap money invested, so more snaps, nurturing, chances, patience in development,etc... The factors and variables are huge...The variable should matter in the analysis, otherwise it could be mis informations, or a false truth... THe comment was thought provoking to me...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hear ya, but lets take the variable of
> coaching... Maybe the teams with the better
> coaches, coached the QB better and also coached
> the team better, so the quality of the coaching,
> had the greatest impact on whether the QB was
> successful or not or went to the playoffs.... Alex
> Smith was a bust under 2 or 3 headcoaches, and in
> one year under Harbaugh lead his team deep in the
> playoffs.. Was it the fact he was a 1st rd pick,
> that he won a play off game... If he never found a
> great QB coach would he have ever been a play off
> QB? Also in the past if you spent 1 st rd money
> on a QB, yo uhad real salary cap money invested,
> so more snaps, nurturing, chances, patience in
> development,etc... The factors and variables are
> huge...The variable should matter in the analysis,
> otherwise it could be mis informations, or a false
> truth... THe comment was thought provoking to
> me...

I eagerly await your analysis using whatever variables and definitions you choose...

Until then...

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> I eagerly await your analysis using whatever
> variables and definitions you choose...
>
> Until then...

But that's just the point I have been making. There are too many variables to simply say, "if you need a quarterback, regardless of your other needs, take the first one available to you regardless of what those other needs and regardless of the picks availabe for those OTHER NEEDS."

What Phinsfan2 was saying correctly, if I read it right, was that there are more variables in accessing a QBs performance than the mere record of the team.

I'll also have to admit that the position of THE Truth on this controversy has been solely that if the management has confidence in Tannehill, they should take him.

I have not yet seen THE Truth argue that it is HIS opinion that Tannehill does or does not possess what is necessary to make him a good draft pick at 8.

Of course, he can correct me if wrong if someone "quotes" this post for him.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The tendency when we cannot get the 'right' data
> is to pretend the almost right data is nearly just
> as good. It is not. It is nearly impossible to
> know if it means anything
>


ha ha.

That presumes that the data used wasn't the "right data"...what if it was?

You can change the equation any way you want. But if you want to know what % of men are 6' feet tall or more you measure them. You don't start trying to guestimate how many WOULD be 6' tall if they'd had the proper nutrition in middle school.

Besides, I'd have figured you'd have me pegged as a "left" data kind of guy at this point...

THE Truth Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ha ha.
>
> That presumes that the data used wasn't the "right
> data"...what if it was?
>
> You can change the equation any way you want.
> But if you want to know what % of men are 6' feet
> tall or more you measure them. You don't start
> trying to guestimate how many WOULD be 6' tall if
> they'd had the proper nutrition in middle school.
>
> Besides, I'd have figured you'd have me pegged as
> a "left" data kind of guy at this point...


While I might have an odd way of showing it, I love the approach, theory, you took and the data you got, I believe in it, I just want to see if there is a way to trying make 2.0 by adding more variables into the formula..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche