Why the Lions and Jets were Right to Draft Stafford and Sanchez

The high risk involved when drafting a first round quarterback or even a top-5 caliber pick is well documented. Just search "first round quarterbacks" on Google if you want to get an idea. However, is it really that bad?

News came out today that Mark Sanchez signed a 5 year, $50 million dollar deal (with the potential to be worth $60 million with incentives), with $28 million in guaranteed money. Of course this is after Matthew Stafford signed a six-year contract worth up to $78 million with $41.7 million guaranteed. Now I do think these guys are being paid too much. Stafford has yet to play a down and has more guaranteed money in a contract than anyone has ever had.

Still, the issue of the amount of money a top 5 pick receives should not be confused with the issue of whether or not a quarterback is drafted with the pick. Even if the Lions selected Jason Smith, Smith also would be paid probably more than any other #1 overall pick in history (though perhaps not as much as Stafford). Inflation happens, the NFL salary cap increases, and so naturally salaries of #1 picks will increase over time.

It is easy to accuse the Lions and Jets of putting tens of millions of dollars into a risky investment. The quarterback could bust and then the team would have to deal with salary cap troubles; quarterbacks taken early often fail. Again, just search “first round quarterbacks” on Google.

Another key piece of evidence that Lions and Jets could be making the wrong decision is that teams this decade have perhaps been overvaluing quarterbacks. History shows teams have been taking quarterbacks much more frequently with early picks recently. Since 1998, 9 of the 12 #1 overall picks have been quarterbacks. Before that, only 7 quarterbacks were drafted #1 since the AFL-NFL merger! Those picks came in 1993 (Bledsoe), 1989 (Aikman), 1987 (Testaverde), 1983 (Elway), 1975 (Bartkowski), 1971 (Plunkett), and 1970 (Bradshaw). Notice that the only complete bust was Testaverde for Tampa Bay in 1987, and there were several legends in that group. Maybe teams knew when to draft quarterbacks back then, and teams are just being plain stupid now.

Now I want to support the Lions and Jets.

Let’s make the argument that quarterbacks were simply undervalued before recently. The argument for taking a quarterback with an early pick centers around the fact that the quarterback is the most important position on almost every team. While drafting a player of another position may carry less risk, that player doesn't have the potential to carry a team to the Super Bowl. If you have a bad quarterback, you can forget about your Super Bowl hopes. Just look at Minnesota, which has the makings of a great team with the exception of the quarterback position. Now, Minnesota is desperately trying to recruit Brett Favre, who is coming off an atrocious season.

Let’s say you are the GM of an NFL team with the #1 overall pick. What situation would you rather have? A player that has a 75% chance to be Orlando Pace (1st overall pick in 1997) and a small chance of being a complete bust or a 25% chance of being Peyton Manning and a 20% chance of being a complete bust? I’d take the latter situation.
I know that Orlando Pace has had an incredible career, is a 5-time First-team All-Pro, and a certain Hall of Famer. The left tackle position is extremely important, as it protects the quarterback’s blind side. However, Peyton Manning is going to do a lot more for my franchise in terms of excitement and success, obviously giving me a MUCH greater chance at achieving my Super Bowl aspirations. No matter how good my left tackle is, the potential positive impact he can have on my offense will pale in comparison to that of my quarterback.

To show the importance of a quarterback, consider the Super Bowl quarterbacks of this century: Warner, McNair, Dilfer, Collins, Brady, Brad Johnson, Gannon, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Hasselbeck, Peyton, Rex Grossman, and Eli. 8 of those 13 quarterbacks were drafted in the first round. In addition, the overall picks of those 8 quarterbacks were generally very early, being 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 22 (Grossman). Good luck to teams who don’t have first round quarterbacks and need to look for 6th round gems (Brady, Hasselbeck). Also, sorry but the Arena League has folded if you are hoping for the next Kurt Warner. As for trading for a Jay Cutler, it's not often that a top quarterback gets traded in his prime.

There should be a lot of quarterback busts, and if there aren’t, something is wrong. Teams should be willing to take greater risks with a quarterback, because a successful quarterback yields greater reward than any other position, and a Super Bowl victory is a much greater high than having the worst record in the league is a low. If half of the quarterbacks taken #1 overall were legends before recently, then teams were definitely undervaluing quarterbacks.

Good job Detroit Lions and New York Jets.

The Merits of Heavy 3-Point Shooting

During the regular season, Orlando averaged 26.2 3-point shots per game, which was the 2nd most in the league behind the Knicks (27.9). 26.2 threes is a lot, as the team that shot the 3rd most threes (Nets) shot 5 less threes per game, and the league average was 18.1 threes per game.

Usually, a team that “lives or dies by the 3-pointer” is not commended for their heavy perimeter shooting mentality. However, there are two sides to the story. When a team relies on lower percentage shots, especially perimeter shooting, to account for much of its scoring, it plays with a high variance on the number of points it can score on any given night. 3-point shooting for the Magic accounts for 29.7 percent of its scoring, the highest percentage in the league (league average is 19.9 percent).

This high variance is dangerous in 2 ways, one good one bad:
1) The Magic are more vulnerable to lesser teams. If the Magic have an off night shooting, they could lose to teams that they should not lose to. For example, when Orlando shot 5 for 18 from the 3-point land in Game 1 against Philadelphia, they surprisingly lost to the 76ers. By contrast, the 76ers shot 7-12 from 3-point land that game.
2) The Magic are more dangerous to the Cavs and the Lakers. In the Cleveland series, Orlando’s sharpshooters were hot. In games 1 to 6, they shot 9/20 (45.0%), 10/23 (43.5), 6/17 (35.3), 17/38 (44.7), 8/25 (32.0), and 12/29 (41.4). The losses came in game 2 (Lebron’s shot) and game 5, an off night shooting. I don’t think that Orlando is a better team than Cleveland, but they were able to squeeze out victories despite Lebron’s amazing games (with the exception of the blowout in game 6) with great shooting nights. Their actual offensive output, due to higher variance, can be much greater than their average/expected offensive output.
When people blindly criticize teams that shoot a lot of 3’s, they fail to take into account that in the NBA, teams’ expected value on a 3-point shot (3-point percentage*3) is higher than teams’ expected value on 2-point shots (2-point percentage*2) almost all of the time. For this season, on average, the first number is 1.10, and the second number is 0.97. The only team that has a higher expected value for 2-pointers than 3-pointers are the 76ers, who only shoot 13.1 3-pointers per game (2nd to last in the league).

Here is a preview of the 3-point shooting for the finals

	Magic		Lakers		League Average
	Reg	Post	Reg	Post	Reg	Post
Made	10.0	8.6	6.7	7.1	6.7	6.4
Attempted	26.2	23.4	18.5	18.8	18.1	18.3
Percentage	38.1	36.7	36.1	37.9	36.5	34.9
% of pts by 3	29.7	26.2	18.8	20.7	19.9	20.3
3-pt EV	1.143	1.101	1.083	1.137	1.096	1.048
2-pt fg%	49.4	50.9	50.5	49.5	48.5	47.6
2-pt EV	0.988	1.017	1.009	0.990	.971	0.952

NOTE: each team weighed equally in the league average column

For the Magic to win this series over what is probably a more complete Lakers team, they have to have some hot 3-point shooting. If Jameer Nelson came back as he apparently might (45.3% from 3, 2nd best in the league), that would certainly help. However, a big worry is that Rashard Lewis, who led the league in 3-pointers made and attempted in the regular season by shooting 7.0 threes per game at a 39.7% clip (down to 1.9/4.8, 39.1% in playoffs), will now be guarded by a more athletic power forward if Lamar Odom is on the court for the Lakers. Contrast Odom to Big Baby or Anderson Varejao (gag).
Still, even if Lewis will be better covered, Orlando has more than enough shooters to pick up the slack. They’ll need to in order to beat the Lakers.