Rams and NFL interesting stats
- Thread starter OldSchool
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #162
And then there was Stafford and Darnold who won SBs for different teams than had drafted them.
These types of stats are always misleading. If you're drafting in the top 5, you're probably a bad team and a QB alone isn't going to take you to the SB. Doesn't mean it's not the right decision though.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #170
It's a very simple stat not sure how its misleading. It does not claim the QB is all that's needed. To me its points out when reading between the lines those teams are drafting there because they're bad at building and coaching teams up.
My biggest question is how many teams had multiple of those picks.
The obvious implication is that if you draft a QB in the top 5, you're not likely to win a Super Bowl with that QB. The underlying implication is that you shouldn't draft a QB in the top 5. That's where this twitter post is leading the you. Status as a bad organization being the reason you got there is reading between the lines but that's not where this stat is leading you. Hence if you don't add context, it's misleading.
Also the reason why this is not just a simple stat and is intentionally misleading is in all the ways it had to be perfectly cherry picked to be technically true:
1) A QB drafted in the top 5 just won the Super Bowl. In fact QBs drafted in the top 5 have won 2 out of the last 5 Super Bowls but yes not by the team they were drafted by
2) Brady and Mahomes have won 10 out of the last 26 Super Bowls leaving limited space available in this sample size
3) Peyton won a Super Bowl since 2000 but yes he was drafted before 2000
4) A QB drafted in the top 5 by their original team has been to 5 out of the last 11 Super Bowls
5) Eli not being drafted by the Giants is just a technicality since the only difference is that he was traded immediately after the pick and not before the pick was made
It's just reminiscent to me of those misleading stats that announcers say to fill time like teams that have a rusher with 20+ carries is far more likely to win the game. But they're running the ball more in the second half because they already have the lead and are trying to run the clock out, so of course they're more likely to win the game.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #172
We read that post very differently then. You're led somewhere and take it for the worst and I don't get there. I read it as job's not done you seem to read it as he's implying that's all that needs to be done.
As for the other points
1) Irrelevant because as you know both of them didn't win it with the team that drafted them. As the tweet is centered around.
2) Again irrelevant if the QB's picked in the top 5 had better teams built around them who knows what that stat would be.
3) Again irrelevant what does that have to do with QB's drafted after 2000
4) Darnold not for the team he was drafted, Maye didn't win, Hurts and Mahomes not picked in the top 5, Purdy no and again Mahomes, Staford obviously not for the team that drafted him and Burrow didn't win.
5) Great it's a technicality yet it is part of the facts of the tweet. Give him an honorary mention if you'd like but if he played for the team that he was drafted #1 overall by? Nobody knows how that changes history.
Again you're trying to apply something to this tweet that I do not see. I'm not offended by this tweet and trying to poke holes in the facts that he presented. I look at it in a light that should be obvious. Drafting a QB #1 overall isn't job done you are a good team. You picked #1 and top 5 generally because you were a bad team or had some seriously bad injury luck. Picking that QB is just the start and it seems that the teams that took a QB in the top 5 failed to understand that. They also failed to develop said QB. Darnold IMO proves this fact.
I don't really get what you're not seeing here.
That stat is technically true but with no context it implies drafting a QB in the top 5 is a mistake. You can add context but that's not what was written. The fact is technically true but it creates a false impression. That's the definition of misleading and I'm not a fan of misleading stats.
Fun discussion starter sure but it's like those clickbait headlines that intentionally bury the lead.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #174
Sorry nothing misleading at all it's just not the in depth discussion you're looking for sorry you don't like it. IMO it's a simple concept and stat. It's not an in depth discussion on the meaning of the NFL draft and roster building.