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.

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.

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.

Also, don't confuse best passer rating for best quarterback. All sorts of things factor into the QB's passer rating, such as the quality of his receivers and offensive line, his team's style, etc. Those numbers aren't very meaningful.

Nobody would ever suggest that scouts could get it perfectly, or near perfectly, in order, but they do a pretty fantastic job. You can cherrypick data to show a few black swans, but for the most part they're highly accurate.

Brady, Bulger, Garrard, Romo, and Cassell

And that's just the last nine years. They're as good, if not better, than "top" picks. Then you have the more historical guys like Wagner, Young, and Montana.

Picking for the QB position really does seem stochastic.

And that's the interesting bit of logical jiu-jitsu going on here. The teams picking first are the ones that are usually the worst to begin with. Selecting higher just doesn't help them to improve their lot when it comes to the QB position.

Passer rating does not measure QBs skill accurately, therefore scouts may not pick the QBs with the best passer rating. That's because their job is to pick the best quarterback, not the one who has the highest number in some goofy equation that takes many other things into account.

QB rating is bunk. Chad Pennington has a better career rating than Dan Marino. Dan Marino is an all time great, Pennington might just barely crack the top 10 current starters.

I see little evidence suggesting that where a QB was picked correlates with their skill at the position. You named the last top QBs picked in each draft year and gave the most positive assessment possible of them. I pointed out that for almost all of those years there were better QBs drafted below, and many times far below, that consensus best choice. That doesn't give me great confidence in the scouting of the position. You can't say teams do a "a solid job of picking the QBs that are the best" if every year they tend to miss the best QB available, and oftentimes by wide margins.

Now we're arguing about the role of a "system" in producing performance numbers for a QB. Again, if that's the case, then the individual QB means even less than your original assessment, where the highest weight was placed on the highest picks. If anything, there's even more reason to distrust the team's picking highest (and their scouts) because they wouldn't be in that position if their system was better. If you say a team's system, already in place, will predict a QB's future numbers (your critique of passer rating), then you're also devaluing the importance of a high pick.

The real problem is that teams weight the position too highly AND create a dearth of talent based on their selection process and the limited skills/pedigree they value. That leads to a Wal-Mart stampede in the first round, doling out big bucks, to players that won't a change a team's fortunes one way or another. The position is too dependent on many other positions.

I see you're from Browns territory. How many swings have they had at the "best" QBs in a given draft and how has that worked out for them? If anything, they've continued to make the mistake of valuing the position too highly to the detriment of the rest of the team.

Funny though that you're touting Marino's greatness. He slipped because scouts devalued his "head" and his greatness is only indicated by his raw numbers. A better example for your case, would be someone like Bradshaw or Aikman. Both were the top overall picks in their drafts and both took poor teams and eventually led them to dynasties. Then we have guys like Brady and Montana...and we're back to where we started.

That's what you would expect if they were really good at their job. If they were bad at it, you'd expect more first picked QBs sucking, and more people coming out of nowhere.

Objectively measuring is impossible. Passer rating is more an indication of the quality of a team's offensive line, receivers, etc. than QB skill. It's a nice number for commentators to throw out, but it's of little use to a statistician.

I'd say maybe Pro Bowls, but again, there are other factors in play there too.

Surely, selecting the top college QBs in the country isn't random. But selecting among that echelon appears to be, especially for the transition to the NFL game.

Matt Cassell = perfect example.

Does he even get a chance on any other team? Ever?

1990 - jeff george - fair? 1991 - dan mcguire - BAD 1992 - david klingler - BAD 1993 - bledsoe - GOOD 1994 - shuler - BAD 1995 - MCNAIR - GOOD 1996 - Tony Banks - BAD 1997 - Jim Druckenmiller - BAD 1998 - Manning - GOOD 1999 - Tim Couch - BAD

At best I would say the #1 qb pick has been 50/50 historically.

-- Delaware alumni