QB is not stochastic at all. These are all quarterbacks who arrived at a team that was already good. "Quarterback rating" really measures the goodness of the whole passing offense. It is no surprise that the Patriots, Rams (before this year at least), Jaguars, Cowboys, and Patriots again can give an average QB great stats.
Now, you're arguing with yourself. If it's the "system" that's getting "rated", then there's even less reason to assume a team knows what they're doing when they're picking a specific QB.
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.
I think you misunderstand, because I'm certainly not arguing with me. I'm arguing with your methodology. Scouts do a solid job of picking the QBs that are the best.
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.
So there's a correlation with where a QB was picked and their performance? But you can't tell me how to, objectively, judge their performance? What, we're back to relying on the teams and how they dole out playing time?
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.
Looking at your more complete list, I see a bunch of QBs who were first picked who did well, with only one or two exceptions. I see some QBs who were picked second or third who also did well. (Overall picks aren't really fair, as teams have many reasons for selecting other positions.) And I see a couple black swans, like Romo.
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.
You are ignoring the huge difference between "teams are choosing the optimal QB" and "teams make decisions no better than random". The decision is neither perfect nor random.
This is getting far afield of the original critique. The point there was that scouts do a good job in selecting QBs, especially for picking the best QB (first!) in a given draft. There is very little evidence to support that claim.
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.
