Draft Analysis

[Chiefnj2]

I previously wrote: "Following up on your question, when someone argues that "A [fill in your position] hasn't been taken in the top 10, or top 5 for the last 10 years, or only once" as proof that drafting that position shouldn't be done, you are often relying on the draft strategies of the worst teams. The Lions, Browns and Bengals have had 18 top 10 picks the last 10 years. When you rely on what other teams are doing as proof as what should be done, you aren't picking the best gene pool (so to speak) from which to follow (I'm not even including KC, Oakland and AZ in the picture)."

I began to wonder what if anything I could make from the above, so I looked at:

1. The draft of teams that are generally regarded as being poor drafters (Det, Cincy, Clev., Oak, KC, Cards, Rams = 7 teams)
2. Draft picks of teams that are generally regarded as good draft teams (GB, Balt, NYG and Pitt = 4 teams)

From 2000-2009, with a top 13 pick this is how things break down:

A. Bad teams drafted 8 WRs (Thanks DET), 7 OTs, 5 QBs, 5 DEs, 4 DTs, 3 LBs, 2 HBs, and 1 CB, S and TE. That's a total of 37 draft picks.

B. Good teams drafted 2 RBs, 2 DEs , 2QBs, 2 DTs, and 1 WR, 1 LB. For a total of 10 picks.

The first thing that jumped out to me was the "good teams" didn't take an offensive tackle. (although the Ravens took Ogden about 5 years prior).

The next thing is that even though WR was the most popular choice, it doesn't seem to work immediately to turn a team around.

5 QB's were taken by bad teams and none of them have put their teams over any humps (too early to tell for Stafford).

Both good and bad teams often looked at DEs and DTs.

It's probably more of a case of WHO you take rather than a particular position.

Discuss.

[kstater]

Wait, a successful draft is all about who you choose will be a good player?


Learn something new everyday.

[htismaqe]

I previously wrote: "Following up on your question, when someone argues that "A [fill in your position] hasn't been taken in the top 10, or top 5 for the last 10 years, or only once" as proof that drafting that position shouldn't be done, you are often relying on the draft strategies of the worst teams. The Lions, Browns and Bengals have had 18 top 10 picks the last 10 years. When you rely on what other teams are doing as proof as what should be done, you aren't picking the best gene pool (so to speak) from which to follow (I'm not even including KC, Oakland and AZ in the picture)."

I began to wonder what if anything I could make from the above, so I looked at:

1. The draft of teams that are generally regarded as being poor drafters (Det, Cincy, Clev., Oak, KC, Cards, Rams = 7 teams)
2. Draft picks of teams that are generally regarded as good draft teams (GB, Balt, NYG and Pitt = 4 teams)

From 2000-2009, with a top 13 pick this is how things break down:

A. Bad teams drafted 8 WRs (Thanks DET), 7 OTs, 5 QBs, 5 DEs, 4 DTs, 3 LBs, 2 HBs, and 1 CB, S and TE. That's a total of 37 draft picks.

B. Good teams drafted 2 RBs, 2 DEs , 2QBs, 2 DTs, and 1 WR, 1 LB. For a total of 10 picks.

The first thing that jumped out to me was the "good teams" didn't take an offensive tackle. (although the Ravens took Ogden about 5 years prior).

The next thing is that even though WR was the most popular choice, it doesn't seem to work immediately to turn a team around.

5 QB's were taken by bad teams and none of them have put their teams over any humps (too early to tell for Stafford).

Both good and bad teams often looked at DEs and DTs.

It's probably more of a case of WHO you take rather than a particular position.

Discuss.

I think you opened a "chicken and egg" can of worms. :)

For example, you noted the number of OLT's and QB's drafted by bad teams.

Is it possible that the REASON they were bad teams is because they had no OLT or QB to begin with?

[DeezNutz]

I think you opened a "chicken and egg" can of worms. :)

For example, you noted the number of OLT's and QB's drafted by bad teams.

Is it possible that the REASON they were bad teams is because they had no OLT or QB to begin with?

Yep. Chick and egg.

Regarding the QBs, specifically: Did QB X not get his team over the hump because he sucked or because the organization "ruined" the QB or failed to put adequate resources around him?

Even HOF QBs need talent.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yep. Chick and egg.

Regarding the QBs, specifically: Did QB X not get his team over the hump because he sucked or because the organization "ruined" the QB or failed to put adequate resources around him?

Even HOF QBs need talent.

Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez would approve this message.

Seriously, those teams have nice offensive lineman in place and each have at least one first round selection on their line.

I'd say that's a pretty big determining factor as to immediate success.

[Hays]

Also good teams usually have a late round draft pick
at that point a top flight receiver or qb is gone so they don't usually draft those at this spot.

[DeezNutz]

Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez would approve this message.

Seriously, those teams have nice offensive lineman in place and each have at least one first round selection on their line.

I'd say that's a pretty big determining factor as to immediate success.

No doubt.

About the only QB whom I've ever seen make delicious chicken salad out of impressive chicken shit was Elway. But this was later in his career, of course, but those early SB teams weren't laden with talent...at all.

[Halfcan]

kc sucks at drafting=they should just trade their picks for Vets-lol

[Chiefnj2]

I think you opened a "chicken and egg" can of worms. :)

For example, you noted the number of OLT's and QB's drafted by bad teams.

Is it possible that the REASON they were bad teams is because they had no OLT or QB to begin with?

That is a good question, but even when the good draft teams drafted in the top 13 these last 10 years they did not take an offensive tackle.