Debunking the ‘first QB taken in the NFL Draft is rarely the best QB’ myth

For those who still say it’s better to pick a QB later, this is why they’re wrong.

“Tom Brady is the GOAT and he was drafted in the 6th round.”

How many times are we going to hear this counterargument any time someone wants to pick a QB with the top spot in the NFL Draft?

The NFL saw a QB that didn’t play much at Michigan (But who absolutely should have played more) and wasn’t very athletic so they pushed him aside without much consideration.

The league made a mistake. It happens.

But that mistake doesn’t mean that the rest of QB evaluations over the years should be ignored.

We know the NFL has changed a lot over the years and we also know the scouting aspect, while still very flawed, continues to improve. There are less busts in the first round now than there was 30 or 40 years ago.

So while scouting continues to improve, we still hear the blanket statement from the anti-Caleb Williams camp (or potentially the keep Justin Fields camp, many of who are the same), that QBs taken first rarely work out and that the best QB is usually taken later.

Let’s take a look at those statements and check them for accuracy.

Now, we could go back 50 years, but I don’t think many people care that Bart Starr was a 17th round pick at this point. I don’t think it’s fair to even use numbers from the 90s. Let’s take a look at the last 15 years, that’s enough to give us a good sample size and also has us focus largely on just QBs we would consider QBs from the current era of the NFL.

Over the last 15 years, 11 times a QB was picked first overall. Before we look at those first overall QBs, let’s take a look at the four drafts when a QB wasn’t taken first overall. Interestingly enough, in all four of those years, every QB taken first, did not become the best QB from their respective class. 0 for 4 is pretty glaring. But what’s behind that 0 for 4?

These are years where there wasn’t a slam dunk QB prospect. If there is one, that QB will be taken first overall. It’s pretty clear cut. If the league has to debate the QB and the teams up top feel there are better players at non-QB positions, that’s far more debatable. 2017 is the perfect example. Most evaluators had Mitch Trubisky as the top QB, but there were several evaluators that had either Patrick Mahomes or Deshaun Watson as their QB1, heck, there were even a couple that had Deshone Kizer as the top QB. Those years, the QB evaluations are more about how individual teams see them and when there isn’t a consensus, there’s a lot more room for error.

Now, let’s take a look at those 11 QBs taken first overall, which, presumably, Caleb Williams will be added to that list, when he is selected first overall next month.

Here’s a chart showing what those selections look like over the last 15 years:

Let’s take a deeper dive into these selections. When there is a consensus number one quarterback, they turn out being the best QB in 8 of the 11 drafts. In the two drafts where they didn’t (the third being Bryce Young and it’s still too early to evaluate him), both Jared Goff and Baker Mayfield remained serviceable QBs. There were two years where the QBs selected (Jameis Winston, Sam Bradford) were the best QBs taken that year, even though their careers failed.

So that means, that over the last 15 years, when QBs are taken first overall, they become the best QB of the class over 70% of the time.

Furthermore, when we evaluate the 10 QBs taken first overall (again, too early to evaluate Young), 5 times they became consensus top 10 QBs in the league. That means that if you take a QB with the top selection, 50% of the time they become a top 10 QB in the league. Furthermore, if you say the goal is to be a legitimate starter (average to above average starting QB), 8 of the 10 became that. That’s an 80% success rate.

Those percentages certainly don’t line up with the “don’t take a QB with the first pick” crowd. Those percentages say quite the opposite.

Now if we’re fair, Jay Cutler was right on the cusp of a legitimate NFL starter. He never was a top ten QB, he was right around average. So if Cutler is the best statistical QB in Bears history and best behind center since Sid Luckman (maybe Jim McMahon too). If I said that selecting Caleb Williams would result in an 80% likelihood that he’s the best QB the Bears have had in 75 years, would you take that? If I said that Caleb Williams had a 50% chance to become the best QB in Bears history (consensus top 10 QB in the modern era), would you take that?

The answer should be a resounding, “Yes.”

Furthermore, those percentages include QBs that were not as highly touted as Caleb Williams. So, in theory, his percentages should be even better than those. However, trying to put that into statistical perspective starts becoming a problem with sample size.

The numbers don’t lie, when there is a consensus QB selected first overall, it works out at a very high percentage. If the Chicago Bears finish their evaluations and they agree with the consensus, then Caleb Williams should become the Bears next quarterback, fans should feel very comfortable that there is a very strong chance, that not only will Williams become a legitimate NFL starter, but the odds are also more likely than not that he becomes a top ten QB in the league as well.