NFL Draftology: The Safest Pick Myth
 

http://www.walterfootball.com/nfldraftology378.php

Every year you hear about, "Who is the safest player in the Draft? ... Should this team make the safe pick? ... You do not want to invest millions in a player who is not safe."

Quite frankly, I am getting sick of it. This does not make any sense to me, and I will tell you why later on. I am a big believer that in order to know where you are going, you have to know where you have been. So how did this "safe pick" philosophy come to be?

Well I think over the years as the NFL Draft has become increasingly popular, the busts of the draft have hit the media and draftnik windshield like a huge fly. Ryan Leaf, Heath Schuler, Tony Mandarich, Steve Emtman, Lawrence Phillips, Rae Carruth, Jeff George, Aundray Bruce, Robert Gallery, Mike Williams, the other Mike Williams... the list goes on and on.

Teams remember the busts, forget all of the stars and players who turned out to be solid starters in the league, see the money paid to the top pick and think: "Make the SAFE pick so you don't turn out with a bust."

Robert Gallery was revered by everyone to be the safest pick in the 2004 NFL Draft. Everyone loved him and thought there was no way he was going to bust in the league. Two short arms, a lacking nasty demeanor, and about five years later, here we are.

I think this is a terrible philosophy. Why should teams be scared when they draft a player? I do not understand it at all. If I am a general manager, I attack this draft with confidence; not a conservative mindset.

There is certainly something to be said for not drafting players who are risks, but the bottom line is every player in the draft is somewhat of a risk because they are not professionals yet. You do not know what can happen. Maybe a player has a crazy divorce and loses all self-confidence. Maybe a player has some sick knee injuries no doctor saw coming and was just a case of bad luck. Maybe the personnel around that player really hurt his confidence. Maybe the coaching staff is terrible. And so on.

Here is my philosophy which absolutely shatters the "safe pick myth": MAKE THE BEST PICK.

Period. End of discussion. End of debate. End of argument. I would love for someone to come up to me face-to-face and try to debate me with this philosophy. I would love for someone to say, "You know, maybe you should draft the third- or fourth-best player for this football team rather than the best one."

The bottom line is if a player has character issues, then he isn't the best pick. If a player has serious injury concerns, then he isn't the best pick. If the player has work ethic concerns, then he isn't the best pick.

I am sick of the media and some draftniks not having a clue with what they are talking about with the "safe pick myth." It is a myth. There is something to be said for not wanting to invest in a player with a risky personality or skill set, but if that is true, then is that player the best pick for the football team? Absolutely not.

Now, some players are more risky than others and I understand that, but my perception of the NFL Draft is you need to take the best value on the board in terms of a draft pick for your football team. This encompasses everything I have discussed in my NFL Draftology.

Teams will always make mistakes. We need to accept this to a certain extent. Teams do not get four to five impact players out of the draft every year, which is almost statistically impossible to do.

In the end, if you have one player on the draft board and he is the "safest" pick, but not the best pick, then you have some serious explaining to do.

People get paid to write stuff like this? :spock:

Seriously, there is some merit to making a "safe pick" IMO. Last year's draft the Jets went for boom or bust prospect Vernon Gholston; Pats took Jerod Mayo, who will be a solid player for a long time, but won't ever win a DPOY award....

Now we can only reflect on the Cp era not the SP to come era. But the way the Chiefs Pick safe is the way to go.:eek:

Pat's were also a ****ING great team compared to the JETS. Any rookie would fit in better on a great veteran team bud.

Sigh...

That article summed it up perfectly and the 1st 2 posts are immediately talking about safe picks, I wish stupidity was something people could be banned for.

Wow, this guy really went "full reerun". Those 3 qualities are pretty much the very definition of a "safe" pick!

:doh!:

Some of your best diatribe kstater.

No pick is safe that's the damn point.

Chiefs fans are the dumbest mother****ers in the entire NFL. Wanting to emulate a team that never did anything, constantly reacting out of fear rather than acting.

I think walter wrote this in response to all the lions " don't take a qb its too risky e-mails"

http://seahawksdraft.blogspot.com/20...pick-myth.html

Friday, 30 January 2009

The safe pick myth


When discussing the draft you'll often hear people refer to the 'safe pick'. It'll appear frequently in mock drafts, on a whole number of blogs and articles and probably when you're just talking with friends. Today we'll look at what exactly constitutes a safe pick and how much of it belongs to myth.

I was speaking to Kyle Rota from College Talent Scout yesterday and he raised an interesting point to me. The position of offensive tackle is largely considered a 'safe pick' at the top of the first round, someone you can plug in for years with big upside and little risk. At the other end of the scale, wide receiver is seen to be a huge risk with a number of high profile busts. For the full analysis, click here.

Kyle broke down the offensive tackles and wide receivers taken in the top five of the NFL draft dating back to 1998 and not including the most recent draft in 2008.

1998-2000
Peter Warrick, WR
Leonard Davis, OT
Chris Samuels, OT

2002
Mike Williams, OT

2003
Charles Rogers, WR
Andre Johnson, WR

2004
Robert Gallery, OT
Larry Fitzgerald, WR

2005
Braylon Edwards, WR

2006
D'Brickashaw Ferguson, OT

2007
Calvin Johnson, WR
Joe Thomas, OT
Levi Brown, OT

Looking at the list, there are some obvious elite talents and some clear busts. There are also a number of players where it is difficult to grade. For example, Leonard Davis has had success at guard but he wasn't drafted in the top five to play guard and he essentially failed as a dominant offensive tackle. Chris Samuels has had a steady consistent career including multiple pro-bowls, but hasn't been considered a player at the top echelon at his position. D'Brickashaw Ferguson was very highly rated coming out of college but has not lived up to the hype. Braylon Edwards had an extremely productive season in 2007 and appeared set to take his place amongst the NFL's elite receivers before regressing heavily in 2008. Levi Brown is yet to completely convince for the Cardinals although he is still in the early stages of his career.

By judging the number of clear busts against obvious elite talents, you could arguably categorise the following:

Stars: Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson (WR) Joe Thomas (OT)

Busts: Peter Warrick, Charles Rogers (WR) Mike Williams, Robert Gallery (OT)

Of course it is but an opinion on all these talents. I decided to include Calvin Johnson amongst the stars due to his exceptional 2008 season where, playing for an 0-16 Lions team with little other receiving threat (the opposition knew where the ball was going) he was a top five receiver in terms of yards (1331) and led the league with Larry Fitzgerald for touchdowns (12). In fact all three of the receivers listed above were amongst the top five at their position in 2008.

The analysis is far from conclusive but what it does show is that perhaps the two 'myths' about offensive tackle being a certified 'safe' pick and wide receiver being a 'high risk' are unjustified. This goes some way to show the 'myths' that exist when discussing the NFL draft. There's not conclusive proof, at least in the last decade, that wide receivers taken in the top five present any more of a risk than offensive tackles. As with every pick, there is no 'sure' thing and certain positions (such as tackle) are no different.

Matt McGuire at Walterfootball.com has his own take on the 'safest pick' mythology. He looks at what constitutes a true risk (for example, character or injury red flags) as opposed to using previous drafts to suggest what may or may not be a safe pick in 2009. He concludes his argument by suggesting,

"if you have one player on the draft board and he is the "safest" pick, but not the best pick, then you have some serious explaining to do." - - Matt McGuire

Patt Kirwan from NFL.com also weighs into the debate. He suggests that buying into the latest 'myth' or trend can come back to haunt a franchise.

"Every so often, an apparent new trend pops up in the NFL that gets its legs for some unfounded reason. And it usually involves a concept that teams can get by with inferior players at a certain position.

As one GM said to me at the owners' meetings this week, "I hope the latest myth floating around here lasts until after the draft, because I want a certain position to fall to me." - - Pat Kirwan

One example that could be used - the Super Bowl bound Arizona Cardinals. It seems pretty strange to suggest a team competing to be world champions this weekend could have been particularly 'better'.

Pete Prisco from CBS Sportsline however, looks at the 2007 NFL draft and the direction the Cardinals took. He reports that Arizona came pretty close to drafting Adrian Peterson, arguably the most dynamic running back in the league at the moment. When Joe Thomas (OT, Wisconsin) was selected by Cleveland with the third overall pick, the Cardinals were left to contemplate taking the second best tackle on their board (Levi Brown, Penn State) or take Peterson.

With reported 'fighting' in the war room over the pick, the Cardinals took Brown to help the running game as a mauling right tackle. Their running game is no better for the pick, but would it have been different with such an explosive player in the backfield? There were concerns about Peterson's durability - especially with such an upright running style. Did Arizona take the safe pick instead of the pick with the most talent? Even considering their appearance in Tampa this weekend would they have been even better?

"If Peterson were here, readying to play the Steelers, can you imagine what they would be saying about this Arizona offense? It would be considered one of the greatest ever, no matter who was playing right tackle in place of Brown." - - Pete Prisco

So can anything constitute a 'safe' pick and is the real agenda surrounding the draft not about finding someone who offers simply low risk, but whom has the most talent, can make an impact quickly and tick all the boxes in terms of character and injury?

How could Leonard Davis be considered anything less than a monumental bust. He was the #2 mother****ing pick and he's an above average guard.

He's an example someone will use as a safe pick see they'll say this..

"He didn't work out as a OT but he can still play, if you drafted a bust QB you can't do anything with him"

That's the kind of logic you get.

Obviously, we could move a busted QB to safety, fullback, or tight end.