Signings, Cuts, Trades

[rossihunter2]

I'm also confused on the whole PS elevation argument right now. Seems pretty simple to me. They're keeping the open 53 man spots for flexibility, but they're not going to be afraid to fill a spot with a veteran either. Just some examples since they were the 2 last week... Webb isn't going to get added to the 53 until he has to because if they do end up needing the spot and he's low man on the totem pole, he's exposed to waivers for no reason. Whereas for a guy like Copeland, he can be added to the 53 and dropped without being exposed to waivers (until later in the season). We just did that with Daryl Worley - we could have used a PS call up but opted not to because adding him to the 53 had 0 impact. He was already dropped and added back to the PS without being exposed at all.

There are going to be 48 guys on gameday and 2 of those are going to be PS elevations. But we'll also use an opportunity to add more than 2 PS guys in a given week if we need to, and you'll see that via veterans being added to the 53.

at least until the trade deadline - at which point everyone goes through waivers

 

[rmcjacket23]

I think there's some level of that being right though. No sense in filling the roster to 53 IF the guys on your active roster and your projected PS call ups make up the 48 on gameday. There's some level of cost association here too, which is why a guy like Worley was already dropped. No sense in paying him a 53 man active salary when you can pay him a PS salary.

Right, but that's because Worley plays a position where we now have normalized health. OLB, for example, isn't a position we're going to have normalized health for probably at least a month. Depending on how long Mekari is out, OT could be same. PS elevations may not be enough to provide depth to that group. And FA signings wouldn't have to be for a 1-2 week period in that group either.

We're also past the timeline where veteran contracts are guaranteed for the season. Not like it's unusual to sign a vested veteran and cut them 4,5,6 weeks later when personnel changes. It's simply not that costly in the long run.

 

[Simba]

Right, but that's because Worley plays a position where we now have normalized health. OLB, for example, isn't a position we're going to have normalized health for probably at least a month. Depending on how long Mekari is out, OT could be same. PS elevations may not be enough to provide depth to that group. And FA signings wouldn't have to be for a 1-2 week period in that group either.

We're also past the timeline where veteran contracts are guaranteed for the season. Not like it's unusual to sign a vested veteran and cut them 4,5,6 weeks later when personnel changes. It's simply not that costly in the long run.

And that's probably why you'll see Copeland promoted to the actual 53 on Saturday. If you need more than 2 PS call ups, you might as well promote the position of weakness where you have a vet as you alluded to.

 

[Adreme]

That would, again, depend on the positional breakdown, which I'm not sure why you're ignoring that. You seem to be stuck on total headcount, as if a lot of the back-end roster guys have Patrick Ricard-level positional flexibility, which they don't.

If it were me, and I'm elevating, say, an OLB from the Practice Squad, I'm probably not treating it as an elevation at all. I'm just signing him to the active roster and keeping him there, because it's going to be probably 3-4 weeks, minimum, until I get another OLB off PUP or IR or just injured, who would take his place. The week-to-week PS elevations don't have to be temporary. They can be permanent call-ups, i.e. call-ups that last a month or more. Bowser isn't particularly close to coming back, Ojabo is a long way off, and Houston is currently injured and hasn't practiced this week yet. JPP is fresh off the street, and he's highly likely to dress and play. And I'd still probably sign somebody directly from PS for a month or more, because there's no scenario I see where they wouldn't last at least that long, and maybe longer (assuming they play decently, of course).

Regardless, PS elevations aren't the only tool to increase your active roster size either. JPP is a great example. He got signed mid-season. He's not going to be a gameday inactive. He's going to play, and probably play a decent amount. That will happen even when Bowser and Ojabo are back. Same thing can be said for any FA signing we make. Some of these guys will play over existing players on the team who are healthy. Happens every year.

The fallacy in your argument is that you think the Ravens current roster has all the tools to provide the positional flexibility and depth they seek on a week-to-week basis. I think its pretty obvious it doesn't. Hence, headcount increases.

Yes JPP was going to be one of the 46 active on gameday from the main roster so he was signed. None of the others are good enough to make that claim. With Bowser likely coming off IR next week and playing as soon as week 5, if the reports that he has been keeping himself in shape are true, there is zero incentive to put someone on the active roster instead of use the elevation.

Right now the 46 the Ravens WANT to have on the gameday roster are on the active roster. Unless there is a free agent the 46 are already known and nothing will change that. So again given that the 46 from the active roster are known and the elevations are known there is no motivation to sign a guy to the active roster just to not play because it is not as though there is any desire from other teams to poach our PS guys.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Yes JPP was going to be one of the 46 active on gameday from the main roster so he was signed. None of the others are good enough to make that claim. With Bowser likely coming off IR next week and playing as soon as week 5, if the reports that he has been keeping himself in shape are true, there is zero incentive to put someone on the active roster instead of use the elevation.

Right now the 46 the Ravens WANT to have on the gameday roster are on the active roster. Unless there is a free agent the 46 are already known and nothing will change that. So again given that the 46 from the active roster are known and the elevations are known there is no motivation to sign a guy to the active roster just to not play because it is not as though there is any desire from other teams to poach our PS guys.

Right, but that's just for today. That could change in 3-4 days.
I don't share the optimism for Bowser. Maybe he comes off PUP, but a) I need to see that happen first and b) pretty much every player that's been activated from PUP at some point, including Dobbins and Peters, needed an extensive ramp up. Certainly a lot more than coming off PUP and playing 6 days later. Even if he's been doing individual work for weeks, I don't see that happening. I think it'll be 2-3 weeks from activation before you see him.

Regardless, they're not going to be hesitant to sign people to the active roster just because they don't know if they'll be active on gameday or even that week. That's not been something they've shied away from historically, and I don't see why that would be different now.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

You are right, why didnt any of the 32 GMs just think to draft 2 more all pro players than every other team was a decent QB? Also to do it with less picks than those teams because they did not trade for multiple 1s.

Maybe instead of having 2 all pro players more than the best teams in the NFL while at the same time having to find a few more elite players in the draft at the same time, it might be easier to instead only have to hit on 1 pick.

Considering that hitting on a QB is not particularly harder than hitting other positions, maybe it is easier to only need to hit on 1-2 things versus needing to hit on 4-5.

And as @RavensMania would say: end of discussion

You think hitting on a qb is not particularly harder than hitting other positions…

Yeah you’re right, end of discussion.

 

[RavensMania]

You think hitting on a qb is not particularly harder than hitting other positions…

Yeah you’re right, end of discussion.

best post ever

 

[Adreme]

You think hitting on a qb is not particularly harder than hitting other positions…

Yeah you’re right, end of discussion.

Tell you what, if you think it is harder show it instead of making a post that looks like it has all the football knowledge of a low effort Twitter post (or average reddit post). It is not that hard really. You can find a list of 1st round picks by position and ranking them is, while subjective, not hard and even subjective it is not so bad. The average QB is Tua, the average WR is far worse, the average G is far worse, the average C is better, etc.

If you think that is wrong then by all means show it. It does not even take long since sites have positions categorized already (hence how I found the QB list in 5 minutes and had a list of quality in 10). Put up or shut up.

 

[RavensMania]

Tell you what, if you think it is harder show it instead of making a post that looks like it has all the football knowledge of a low effort Twitter post (or average reddit post). It is not that hard really. You can find a list of 1st round picks by position and ranking them is, while subjective, not hard and even subjective it is not so bad. The average QB is Tua, the average WR is far worse, the average G is far worse, the average C is better, etc.

If you think that is wrong then by all means show it. It does not even take long since sites have positions categorized already (hence how I found the QB list in 5 minutes and had a list of quality in 10). Put up or shut up.

and where are these QBs taken. Tua was a very high pick and you still have an average QB, btw that's very subjective. That proves in and of itself it's harder to draft a top QB or even an average QB and why would you want an average QB.

Not many top QBs are found outside of the top 10 and many of those top 10 draft picks that are used on QBs are busts. Busting on a WR isn't anywhere near as costly to a franchise as busting on a QB, not even close.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Tell you what, if you think it is harder show it instead of making a post that looks like it has all the football knowledge of a low effort Twitter post (or average reddit post). It is not that hard really. You can find a list of 1st round picks by position and ranking them is, while subjective, not hard and even subjective it is not so bad. The average QB is Tua, the average WR is far worse, the average G is far worse, the average C is better, etc.

If you think that is wrong then by all means show it. It does not even take long since sites have positions categorized already (hence how I found the QB list in 5 minutes and had a list of quality in 10). Put up or shut up.

Why are you limiting to first round picks though? Why don't you evaluate over the entire draft, since most teams can get average or above average players from later rounds picks at multiple positions?

(Hint: I already know the answer to the question... its because if you evaluated QBs for the entirety of a draft, it would obliterate your argument).

I also guarantee if I did a subjective ranking of first round picks, and compare it to yours, it would look A LOT different. And then we'd have to play the back and forth game of defending the arbitrary nature of subjectivity, which I'm not really interested in.

I've already poked a ton of holes in your model already, and you know that.

 

[rossihunter2]

Tell you what, if you think it is harder show it instead of making a post that looks like it has all the football knowledge of a low effort Twitter post (or average reddit post). It is not that hard really. You can find a list of 1st round picks by position and ranking them is, while subjective, not hard and even subjective it is not so bad. The average QB is Tua, the average WR is far worse, the average G is far worse, the average C is better, etc.

If you think that is wrong then by all means show it. It does not even take long since sites have positions categorized already (hence how I found the QB list in 5 minutes and had a list of quality in 10). Put up or shut up.

the 1st round argument seems dumb to me because it deliberately ignores how much easier it is to find good players at other positions in other rounds whereas your odds of finding a good or even average QB outside of the 1st round is awful

but using your premise (which i think is flawed) let's work backwards and use WR given that's the first example you used... and we'll go back a decade...

2022: too early to say on Pickett at QB but we're looking at maybe 5/6 WRs hitting already and the only guy not hitting yet hasnt played yet due to health
2021: maybe 1/5 QBs hit, 4/5 WRs hit
2020: 3/4 QBs hit, 4/6 WRs hit
2019: 1/3 QBs hit, 1/2 WRs hit (and this is a great example of my earlier point about where you can find guys - this draft had like 7 elite WRs but all 7 were drafted outside the 1st round)
2018: 2/5 QBs hit, 2/2 WRs hit
2017: 2/3 QBs hit, 2/3 WRs hit
2016: 0/3 QBs hit, 1/4 WRs hit
2015: 0/2 QBs hit, maybe 3/6
2014: maybe 1/3 QBs hit, 4/5 WRs hit
2013: 0/1 QBs hit, 1/3 WRs hit (but tbh the 2 who didn't hit were more gadget players than WRs - Cordarelle Patterson hit later in his career as a RB)

ill exclude 2022 because it's too ambiguous after 3 weeks of football

QBs: 10/27 - so at best we're looking at 37%
WRs: 22/36 - at worst we're looking at 61%

and worth pointing out that, purely just in 1st round pick terms, we're looking at more WRs coming out of college who are deemed high quality talents, and also we're looking at almost double the hit rate

or we can look at OT (another high leverage position)...
2022: already looking at 3/5 hit but we'll exclude so as not to be unfair to QBs
2021: 3/4 hit
2020: 4/6 hit (Becton too injured to call a hit)
2019: 3/4 hit
2018: 3/3 hit
2017: 2/2 hit
2016: 4/5 hit
2015: 1/3 hit (not including 2 other guys drafted as tackles because they only played guard - both hit at guard)
2014: 3/4 hit
2013: 2/3 (not including 2 other guys drafted as tackles because they only played guard - and if im being unkind to dj fluker ill say 1 of 2 hit at guard)

OTs: 23/33 - which is 70%

even if we quibble over where you draw the line on specific players - the gap is so massive in terms of both volume and also hit-rate that it's meaningless to bother - and this is before we even engage with the idea of including non-1st rounders

i cant believe you've made me waste all this time on something that was self-evident

 

[Adreme]

and where are these QBs taken. Tua was a very high pick and you still have an average QB, btw that's very subjective. That proves in and of itself it's harder to draft a top QB or even an average QB and why would you want an average QB.

Not many top QBs are found outside of the top 10 and many of those top 10 draft picks that are used on QBs are busts. Busting on a WR isn't anywhere near as costly to a franchise as busting on a QB, not even close.

I am specifically citing first round QBs taken anywhere, if we were to limit it to 1st round QBs taken in the upper half of the first round the average QB actually goes up by a bit but the average for other positions actually does not change much just on a cursory look at my list. That could very well be wrong. Just eyeballing it the top half of the first round gets way worse for OL outside of C (it is really ugly outside of 2016). This one I cannot be as definitive on though because I am just eyeballing it.

 

[Adreme]

the 1st round argument seems dumb to me because it deliberately ignores how much easier it is to find good players at other positions in other rounds whereas your odds of finding a good or even average QB outside of the 1st round is awful

but using your premise (which i think is flawed) let's work backwards and use WR given that's the first example you used... and we'll go back a decade...

2022: too early to say on Pickett at QB but we're looking at maybe 5/6 WRs hitting already and the only guy not hitting yet hasnt played yet due to health
2021: maybe 1/5 QBs hit, 4/5 WRs hit
2020: 3/4 QBs hit, 4/6 WRs hit
2019: 1/3 QBs hit, 1/2 WRs hit (and this is a great example of my earlier point about where you can find guys - this draft had like 7 elite WRs but all 7 were drafted outside the 1st round)
2018: 2/5 QBs hit, 2/2 WRs hit
2017: 2/3 QBs hit, 2/3 WRs hit
2016: 0/3 QBs hit, 1/4 WRs hit
2015: 0/2 QBs hit, maybe 3/6
2014: maybe 1/3 QBs hit, 4/5 WRs hit
2013: 0/1 QBs hit, 1/3 WRs hit (but tbh the 2 who didn't hit were more gadget players than WRs - Cordarelle Patterson hit later in his career as a RB)

ill exclude 2022 because it's too ambiguous after 3 weeks of football

QBs: 10/27 - so at best we're looking at 37%
WRs: 22/36 - at worst we're looking at 61%

and worth pointing out that, purely just in 1st round pick terms, we're looking at more WRs coming out of college who are deemed high quality talents, and also we're looking at almost double the hit rate

or we can look at OT (another high leverage position)...
2022: already looking at 3/5 hit but we'll exclude so as not to be unfair to QBs
2021: 3/4 hit
2020: 4/6 hit (Becton too injured to call a hit)
2019: 3/4 hit
2018: 3/3 hit
2017: 2/2 hit
2016: 4/5 hit
2015: 1/3 hit (not including 2 other guys drafted as tackles because they only played guard - both hit at guard)
2014: 3/4 hit
2013: 2/3 (not including 2 other guys drafted as tackles because they only played guard - and if im being unkind to dj fluker ill say 1 of 2 hit at guard)

OTs: 23/33 - which is 70%

even if we quibble over where you draw the line on specific players - the gap is so massive in terms of both volume and also hit-rate that it's meaningless to bother - and this is before we even engage with the idea of including non-1st rounders

i cant believe you've made me waste all this time on something that was self-evident

There is a reason I am not using hit/miss and instead rated the players and ranked them because it becomes tricky to define what is a hit and what is a miss. Eric Fisher eventually became good but he was largely forgettable for most of his rookie deal until it was contract time. Is that a hit or a miss? If our hits for QB all got top dollar deals then would any OT or WR who did not get such a deal be a miss? That cuts out a lot as well. Is Hollywood going to get one of the 22-24m dollar deals that every other WR is getting? Is Baker a miss? The Browns instantly turned around under them and actually were successful so clearly you could win with him so does that make you a miss or a hit?

That is why I think it is easier if we rank them. Yes we would debate over whether the 24th ranked WR is the 21st or 27th but it gets us a good general feel for what the average is hence how I ended up with Tua as the average 1st round pick.

Fun fact though if I take both your numbers as our metric and use your methodology and accept hit/miss without question, we have near equilibrium in terms of difficulty but the team trading the QB has more first round picks so even if we use your metric both teams have an equally difficult task and one team has more first round picks to do it.

Edit: I also realized I have no idea which QB you are saying is a hit in 2021. I assumed at first Trevor but Jones had a good rookie year and I do not know if I want to count having no real offensive coordinator against him. Is Trey Lance a miss because I only saw one game in the rain and that seems weird to jump to a conclusion from that? So is it Lawrence or Jones who you are counting as a hit (if it is Lawrence it seems a tad premature to count him as a hit just as it might be to count the others as a miss).

 

[rmcjacket23]

There is a reason I am not using hit/miss and instead rated the players and ranked them because it becomes tricky to define what is a hit and what is a miss. Eric Fisher eventually became good but he was largely forgettable for most of his rookie deal until it was contract time. Is that a hit or a miss? If our hits for QB all got top dollar deals then would any OT or WR who did not get such a deal be a miss? That cuts out a lot as well. Is Hollywood going to get one of the 22-24m dollar deals that every other WR is getting? Is Baker a miss? The Browns instantly turned around under them and actually were successful so clearly you could win with him so does that make you a miss or a hit?

That is why I think it is easier if we rank them. Yes we would debate over whether the 24th ranked WR is the 21st or 27th but it gets us a good general feel for what the average is hence how I ended up with Tua as the average 1st round pick.

Fun fact though if I take both your numbers as our metric and use your methodology and accept hit/miss without question, we have near equilibrium in terms of difficulty but the team trading the QB has more first round picks so even if we use your metric both teams have an equally difficult task and one team has more first round picks to do it.

Well, your first paragraph explains the reason why your model sucks to begin with. It's the biggest flaw of analytics. You're trying to quantify qualitative variables. It doesn't work. It never has. If you spoke to a Statistical Professor, he'd punch you in the face for even trying to do so.

Ranking doesn't work because that implies that the 15th best QB is a "franchise-level" guy. At any given time, there may be 20-25 QBs in a league where a team is willing to serious long term money to them. There are also times where that number may drop to 12-15. It's not universal, and averaging it out over a long period of time doesn't work either.

Also I don't understand the whole "if they're trading them" thing. If your model is successful, there's nobody to trade with, because every team is trying to do the same thing. The only choice would be to just not sign the player and draft a replacement, in which case you don't have multiple first round picks, because there's nobody willing to give you multiple first round picks.

And that's ultimately the rabbit hole of your model. It's basically the concept of marginal utility. If your model is successful, then more teams adopt the model, which means more teams (theoretically all teams) will NEVER pay a high end franchise QB top of the market money. In that scenario, there's no team to trade with, because in order to trade, they'd have to give up assets and the big contract. What happens long term, then is, the reduction of the market value for those players, i.e. high end QBs cost significantly less. At which point, the market corrects itself, and teams DO start paying high end QBs top of market deals, because the market decreased, and the price differential between elite QB and multiple first round picks has shrunk.

You clearly haven't thought this model through all the way.

 

[RavensMania]

I am specifically citing first round QBs taken anywhere, if we were to limit it to 1st round QBs taken in the upper half of the first round the average QB actually goes up by a bit but the average for other positions actually does not change much just on a cursory look at my list. That could very well be wrong. Just eyeballing it the top half of the first round gets way worse for OL outside of C (it is really ugly outside of 2016). This one I cannot be as definitive on though because I am just eyeballing it.

Do you know the chances of hitting on a Top QB are outside of the top 10?????? It happens, we have one of them, but it doesn't happen often and why what you would like to do won't work well or it would be done a lot more often.

 

[rossihunter2]

There is a reason I am not using hit/miss and instead rated the players and ranked them because it becomes tricky to define what is a hit and what is a miss. Eric Fisher eventually became good but he was largely forgettable for most of his rookie deal until it was contract time. Is that a hit or a miss? If our hits for QB all got top dollar deals then would any OT or WR who did not get such a deal be a miss? That cuts out a lot as well. Is Hollywood going to get one of the 22-24m dollar deals that every other WR is getting? Is Baker a miss? The Browns instantly turned around under them and actually were successful so clearly you could win with him so does that make you a miss or a hit?

That is why I think it is easier if we rank them. Yes we would debate over whether the 24th ranked WR is the 21st or 27th but it gets us a good general feel for what the average is hence how I ended up with Tua as the average 1st round pick.

Fun fact though if I take both your numbers as our metric and use your methodology and accept hit/miss without question, we have near equilibrium in terms of difficulty but the team trading the QB has more first round picks so even if we use your metric both teams have an equally difficult task and one team has more first round picks to do it.

you said average - by average, i took it as an average starter at their position or better...

and the reason this doesnt work - by your own reasoning is this...

if you're thinking of Tua as the average QB then that makes it even harder to accomplish than just hit/miss - you're talking about a guy who you could argue has been a top 10-12 QB this year... which makes it even clearer that it's hard to find those sorts of players if there's only 10-12 of them at his level right now

and your last point barely makes sense as it is because teams dont frequently spend multiple 1st round picks in a row at QB because outside of the 1 time the Cardinals did it with Rosen and Murray, teams give their rookie at least 2 and normally 3 years to play to find out - at which point you dont have extra 1st rounders or all the extra players at other positions you put around your young QB are coming to the end of their contracts and you're window of success is ageing away - and your chance of finding a QB is no better the 2nd time around than it is the 1st time around - it's still ~30%

meanwhile the team with the QB that you traded away, is still in contention and now is starting to have 1st round picks again

and all of this still ignores the 6 other rounds of the draft

 

[Adreme]

Well, your first paragraph explains the reason why your model sucks to begin with. It's the biggest flaw of analytics. You're trying to quantify qualitative variables. It doesn't work. It never has. If you spoke to a Statistical Professor, he'd punch you in the face for even trying to do so.

Ranking doesn't work because that implies that the 15th best QB is a "franchise-level" guy. At any given time, there may be 20-25 QBs in a league where a team is willing to serious long term money to them. There are also times where that number may drop to 12-15. It's not universal, and averaging it out over a long period of time doesn't work either.

They would actually tell me that I am trying to do Grad Statistics despite only having an undergrad degree in Math so I might be punching outside of my weight class.

A binary classification though opens itself up to problems so ranking the players and by extension being able to go "if I draft a 1st round QB, or as @RavensMania suggests an upper first round QB, what is my expected return?" is a better solution.

If you want to bring things I am avoiding into it though I am desperately avoiding trying to factor in those additional picks because I do not want to have to bring in this scenario: "You are going to draft position a QB and then position A, B, C, or D. If your draft pick performs about level X then your next year draft pick will be at one of the other 3 positions but if not it will be at one of the original 4. If your QB performs at an average level then you can use your 2nd pick also at one of the remaining 3 but if not you draft a QB again. What is the probability that you hit on your QB and 1-2 other first round picks? Furthermore what is the probability that you are at more non QB successful picks than the team with only 2 first round picks? What is the expected difference between your success and their success?"

I can solve that problem using even the knowledge I had but it would be exhausting. The Miner Problem is terrible and would have to be worked in there and I just would rather focus on not having to do that along with a bunch of other calculations that on their own I could do but would take me about an hour to do.

Also the reason I focus on the first round is because you are not looking for a QB to be the guy in round 4. You are looking for backups at that point and anything more is gravy.

 

[Adreme]

Do you know the chances of hitting on a Top QB are outside of the top 10?????? It happens, we have one of them, but it doesn't happen often and why what you would like to do won't work well or it would be done a lot more often.

10-15 is not that bad. Granted I do not have a large sample size (only 6 and 2 are from 2021 so too early to judge) but you have: Watson, Mahomes, Rosen, and Haskins. So basically 2 bums and 2 all pros. I think Jones is actually a passable QB and I have no idea what to think of Fields beyond the fact that the Bears need an offensive line and some weapons and a RB and a coach so I cannot even be sure what I am looking at when I look at Fields except that I am really glad the Ravens have a good GM and good coaching.

 

[rossihunter2]

Do you know the chances of hitting on a Top QB are outside of the top 10?????? It happens, we have one of them, but it doesn't happen often and why what you would like to do won't work well or it would be done a lot more often.

if we look only at 1st round picks not in the top 10 who most would suggest are franchise QBs:

in the same period i talked about earlier we're looking at 2/10 hits at QB from picks 11-32 in the draft (the 2 hits being lamar and pat mahomes who was taken 12th overall)

2 things to be gathered from that number in combination with the other numbers from earlier
4/5 of the hits at QB in the 1st round come in the top 10
there aren't many QBs the NFL deems worthwhile taking outside the top 10

so basically not only are the numbers against you hitting on a QB (about ~40% hit rate in the top 10 and ~25% hit rate between picks 11-32), if you're not picking in the top 10 your ability to even try and hit on a QB is massively reduced with 63% of QBs taken in the 1st round coming in the first 10 picks over the last decade

 

[rossihunter2]

Also the reason I focus on the first round is because you are not looking for a QB to be the guy in round 4. You are looking for backups at that point and anything more is gravy.

but this is the point...
you can find other positions in later rounds but you cant find QBs
which inherently makes it easier to find players at those positions than it does to find QBs (which are harder just in the 1st round let alone the rest of the draft)