Top 5 Pick Success Rate

[MIAdragon]

I got this emailed to me today and thought Id share. IDK anything about Mays but I like numbers.



http://sportsfountainhead.blogspot.c...cess-rate.html
Top 5 Pick Success Rate

Originally published by me at Draft Tek.


The debate rages on! Actually, this debate happens nearly every year. QBs are hot commodities; everyone wants to find the next Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman, or John Elway. In the 2009 Draft we are left with three prospects considered elite and possible first rounders: Matt Stafford (Georgia), Mark Sanchez (USC), and Josh Freeman (Kansas State). Generally speaking, Stafford and Sanchez are viewed as Top 10 picks - as Draft Tek Correspondent Mike Schottey pointed out here. However, our model and correspondents seem to disagree on team needs and the talent available compared with other mocks, “experts”, and you, the readers.

Let’s look at this using statistics. What are the odds that a player taken in the Top 5 will become an All Pro/Pro Bowl-caliber performer? Looking at 43 seasons of data (1966 through 2008, or the “Super Bowl Era”) we get these percentages for each position:

QB - There have been 39 taken in the Top 5 since 1966. Of those only 4 (~10%) have been named 1st Team All Pro with 20 (~51%) making the Pro Bowl at least once. But when using a high draft pick you’re not expecting someone to make the Pro Bowl once, you expect multiple trips - like an average of once every three seasons. That brings down the list to 11 out of 39 (~28%). Basically, 1 out of every 4 QBs selected in the Top 5 will really be worth that status and be “franchise” QBs. But because of sample size there are some outliers. Here is the list of the 10 “franchise” QBs drafted since 1966: Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, Michael Vick, Peyton Manning, Drew Beldsoe, Troy Aikman, John Elway, Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, Philip Rivers, and Bob Griese. Vick and Young? Not viewed in that light anymore. There’s also the some young QBs that could fall off and not have prolonged success: Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Philip Rivers. Assuming those three maintain their high level of play over the last three years that really leaves us with 9 out of the 39 (~23%) QBs that were Top 5 picks who are/were truly worthy of the “franchise” label; someone you’d actually want to take in the Top 5. As of now, 4 of the 39 (~10%) have been elected to the Hall of Fame (Troy Aikman, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, and Bob Griese). There will be at least one more joining them after Peyton manning retires. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~23%

RB - There have been 34 selected Top 5 since 1966, with 13 (~38%) being selected 1st Team All Pro at least once. 20 of the 34 (~59%) have made at least one Pro Bowl. Going back to the “1 Pro Bowl for every 3 years as a starter” rule, we’re left with 16 “franchise” RBs, which is ~47%. Of those 16, 3 have/had 5 or less years of playing experience (Billy Sims, Ronnie Brown, and Brent Fullwood) so their sample size comes into question. We’ll keep them in but I wanted to point that out. Anyway, of those 16 “franchise” RBs, 6 have made the Hall of Fame (Earl Campbell, O.J. Simpson, Eric Dickerson, Tony Dorsett, Barry Sanders, and Walter Payton). Most likely two more will join them in the near future (Marshall Faulk and LaDainian Tomlinson). FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~47%

WR - There have been a mere 16 taken in the Top 5 in the last 43 drafts. Only 3 of them (~19%) have made 1st Team All Pro, all only once. However, 10 of the 16 (~63%) have made at least one Pro Bowl. Expanding to our”franchise” requirement of 1 Pro Bowl every 3 years as starter leaves 7 of the 16 (44%). One of them, though, is Desmond Howard, more known for his return skills than for his receiving skills. He has only one accrued season as a WR (according to Pro Football Reference, where all these stats are from) and during it he made the Pro Bowl (most likely as a returner). We’ll throw him out, leaving 6 of the 16 (~38%). Three of the six have 5 or less years as a starter but are all young players (Braylon Edwards, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson). We’ll say they stay on their current pace and keep them in. It is interesting to note that none of the 16 Top 5 picks have been elected to the Hall of Fame… and it may not happen until Edwards, Fitzgerald, and Johnson hang it up for good. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~38%

TE - There has been only one TE taken in the Top 5, Riley Odoms (Houston) by Denver in 1972. He was a 10-year starter, made 1st Team All Pro twice, and was selected to 4 Pro Bowls. He was a success by my measure but the overall sample size is too small. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: N/A


OT - There have been 24 selected Top 5 since 1966. Of the 24, 8 have been named to the All Pro 1st Team (~33%) and 14 have made at least one Pro Bowl (~58%). Using the “1-every-3″ rule for a true franchise player we’re left with 11 out of 24, which is ~46%. Two of those 11 are young (Jake Long and Joe Thomas) but are viewed as perennial Pro Bowl players so they will remain in the group. There are currently 2 HOF Top 5 tackles - Ron Yary and Anthony Munoz. They’ll be joined by Jonathan Ogden and Orlando Pace in the coming years (and possibly Chris Samuels). FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~46%


OG - There have been 7 taken in the Top 5 in the last 43 drafts. Though I’d like to have at least 10 players for this analysis, I’ll go ahead with the OGs anyway. Four of the 7 made the All Pro 1st Team at least once. The same 4 made the Pro Bowl on multiple occasions. And all 4 count as “franchise” guards by making at least 1 Pro bowl every 3 years: Bill Fralic, Tom Mack, John Hannah, and John Niland. Mack and Hannah are in the HOF. It’s a small sample size but the position looks promising. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~57%

OC - Like the TE position, OCs are not normally selected high. There has been only one OC taken in the Top 5 in the “Super Bowl Era”, Bob Johnson (Tennessee) by the Bengals in 1968. He was the #2 overall pick, just behind HOF Tackle Ron Yary. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: N/A

DE - 34 have been selected in the Top 5 since 1966. Of those 34, only 10 have made an All Pro squad (~29%) with 13 making at least one Pro Bowl (~38%). Following my “franchise player rule” results in 10 elite players, which is again ~29%. Mario Williams is the youngest “franchise” player. We’ll keep him on the list because he has shown the skills necessary for a perennial Pro Bowl performer. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~29%


DT - Since 1966, 17 players have been selected Top 5. Of the 17, 7 (~41%) have made the All Pro 1st Team and 9 (~59%) have made at least one Pro bowl. However, only 5 ( are considered a “franchise” player and worthy of a Top 5 pick. Two of the 17 have made the Hall of Fame (Randy White and Joe Greene). It’s possible Cortez Kennedy could join them soon. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~29%

LB - There have been 26 taken in the Top 5 since 1966. ~39% have made the All Pro 1st Team (10 of 26) while 14 have made at least one Pro Bowl appearance (~54%). Satisfying the “franchise” player and justifying their draft position has been done so by 10 players, or ~39%. Two currently reside in the Hall of Fame (Lawrence Taylor and Derrick Thomas). In about 5 years Junior Seau will join them. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~39%

DB - Unfortunately Pro Football Reference doesn’t distinguish between cornerbacks and safeties so we have the ambiguous “defensive back” category. In the last 43 drafts only 16 DBs have been taken in the first 5 selections. Five of the 16 have been named to the All Pro 1st Team (~31%) and 10 have made at least one Pro Bowl (~63%). Once again five justify their draft position by reaching the limits for a “franchise” player. Only one (Mike Haynes) has made the HOF, though he may be joined by Deion Sanders and/or Charles Woodson in the future. FINAL SUCCESS RATE: ~31%

K/P - No kickers or punters have been selected in the Top 5 of any draft since 1966 (though one K did go #6 overall; Charlie Gogolak from Princeton by the Redskins in 1966). FINAL SUCCESS RATE: N/A

So there is a statistical analysis of players picked in the Top 5 of any draft during the “Super Bowl Era”. What does it tell us? Well here’s a quick reminder of the success rates:

QB: ~23%
RB: ~47%
WR: ~38%
TE: N/A
OT: ~46%
OG: ~57%
OC: N/A
DE: ~29%
DT: ~29%
LB: ~39%
DB: ~31%
K/P: N/A


The safest positions to draft early seem to be offensive lineman. The OG group had a small sample size but the highest success rate and OT had the 3rd highest success rate. RBs had the 2nd highest rate. That really is not a surprise. It has been said for years that the easiest position to fill through the draft is RB because there is little change from their duties in college to those in the NFL. Want the safe pick? Go with a RB or OG/OT. But stay away from… QBs and defensive lineman! They had the worst success rate at fulfilling the “franchise” label and earning their Top 5 pick paycheck. WRs and LBs can be decent picks too.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR 2009?

This really doesn’t apply to just 2009 but for any draft. Teams in the Top 5 should not go for QBs because they are more miss then hit and they can set back and already dismal frnachise another 5-10 years. The 2009 QB class is already considered weak so why reach for someone now when there are many more needs to fill? I say grab that OT (like Joe Thomas in ‘07 and Jake Long in ‘08 ) or stud RB; the future dividends could be huge. Detroit, St. Louis, and Seattle should all be thinking “OT” with their 1st pick. There are at least three that could go in the Top 5 and statistically speaking they are less likely to bust then QBs. Add in a can’t-miss WR in Michael Crabtree and you should know who the Top 4 are come April 25. In no particular order it should be Andre Smith, Eugene Monroe, Jason Smith, and Michael Crabtree.

This in no way means a QB should never be taken. There are going to be times when a team may actually be a QB away from contending. Maybe a team had some injuries and bad luck the prior year and just need a QB. Whatever the case may be. It seems that scouts, front office personnel, and fans put the QB position on such a high pedestal that when one doesn’t go early it’s a travesty. Stafford, Sanchez, and Freeman are not Top 10 picks. 1st round, most likely. They would have much better value between picks 15-25 than Top 5. If a QB-needy team like Detroit or Kansas City really wants one, they can maneuver to get him there. Just not at 1 or 3.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Holy hell, good to see you post again!

I hope I don't regret it.

This place is more toxic now than when I left. I didn't think that was possible.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

And here you go again with your stupidity. I said it was a valid question. I never claimed that the responses on either side were right or wrong.

But being a complete idiot and jumping on innocuous statements made by others seems to be what you do best.

It's not a valid question if the question raised is completely erroneous.

He's represented by the same people (Dunn) who represent Carson Palmer, Matt Hasselbeck, and a slew of other NFL QBs.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

If I personally picked Sanchez it would be out of desperation. Not because I thougt he was the best player. Is that the way to build a winner?

I'm in my mid 40's and have been a Chiefs fan for all of those senarios you guys speak of. But a knee jerk reaction is not the answer either. I've also seen how that works out.

I realize you think the guy will get it done in the long run. I don't. That's the difference.

You want to keep throwing up the history of the Chiefs in my face as a valid arguement of what not to do. However, you skate the same way of evaluating the player you want. If you look at history, Sanchez will bust.

Does that make it 100% absolute that it will happen? No. But there is no QB that has ever been taken that has succeeded under these circumstances.

Not drafting a player like that doesn't make you scared, it makes you dilligent.

At some point, though, you have to kick diligence to the curb and take a chance. If you don't, you do the "prudent" thing every year and you never end up adding the pieces you need to win it all. EVERY QB, every year, has question marks, even Manning had them. He couldn't win the big game, they said. You just can't keep putting it off forever.

I could understand the argument that Sanchez is TOO risky if there were players on the board that had better value, but there just isn't. This draft SUCKS at the top - absolutely sucks.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It took them 5 years to put it together. It's taken us SIXTEEN (if you want to count the Joe Montana AFC Championship game). Good lord man!

1.) You, and many others here, are unfair in your evaluations of the Chiefs in the past 20 years. 3 times in less than 15 years, the team has been 13-3. I'm not saying that the team's been the cat's ass, but it hasn't been as bad as some of the people here make it out to be. Good lord, imagine being a Lions' fan.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And I said "exactly" because you know deep down that the Ryan Sims debacle HAS EVERY BIT the impact on Chiefs fans as Ryan Leaf, if not more so. Ryan Sims was considered to be the "safest" DT in that draft - Haynesworth had character issues, Wendell Bryant was a pothead, and John Henderson had back problems. Ryan Sims is EXACTLY the kind of player that people are clamoring for when they say they want Curry - SAFE. Well, guess what? Even the "safe" picks aren't safe.

The reason "exactly" made no sense is because you tried to apply a specific example to a general principle, and that principle wasn't even applicable. A bust at QB is the most damaging position to bust at.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The Chiefs didn't draft Ryan Leaf. Furthmore, Ryan Leaf isn't eligible for this draft. What happened in 1998 has pretty much zero bearing on the present, unless you're willing to admit that Mecca and Hamas are right and you're just scared of a Ryan Leaf-like scenario.

You seem to be operating under a misconception. I'm not surprised by it, given the kind of posts that Hamas has made. I have no fear of taking a quarterback high. Last year I was pimping Matt Ryan as if I was his agent. I just wasn't on this board.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Like a little. We got Pioli! We got a young coach that was just in the Super Bowl. This is the best Chiefs offseason EVER! There's no better time than now to take a flyer on a QB. If he busts, so be it. I've been a fan for thirty years - it's time to take some risks.

Every pick is a risk in some way or another and, especially at the top of the draft, every pick needs to be made based upon the individual player as opposed to the position or the 'safe' tag put on him. Isn't that the lesson of Ryan Sims? As for having Pioli, you and Hamas and company are going to have to get used to the notion of team specific "value" as opposed to position or BPA. If Pioli thinkgs a kicker has more value than any other player on his draft board, you'll be getting a kicker.

[Mecca]

Going 13-3 because your team was built to fail in the playoffs isn't my idea of a good year.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's not a valid question if the question raised is completely erroneous.

He's represented by the same people (Dunn) who represent Carson Palmer, Matt Hasselbeck, and a slew of other NFL QBs.

So his brother is a liar?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/allt...hez-agent.html

UPDATE: Nick Sanchez confirmed the arrangement to LA Times reporter Gary Klein. He does have some experience in the sports world, as his firm represented the Angels in their fight with Anaheim over the Los Angeles name issue. David Dunn, an experienced agent who represents Carson Palmer, will be retained as an adviser.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Not at all. To use it as one example of many shows the point. Leaf is an easy example because he was recent, but I've given many examples from different teams. Furthermore, even San Diego's recovery took time and luck:

1-15
5-11
8-8
4-12
12-4
9-7

Even with the good fortune of getting Brees (IN ROUND 2), and then Rivers (+ picks), it took the Chargers 5 years to put it together.

I'm not sure why you're saying "exactly", but whatever works for you.

It took Dallas 4 years with Aikman. Chiefs are going to suck balls next year and more than likely be very average in 2010 anyways. I want to get the player that will be cornerstone for the next 10 to 15 years. A coverage linebacker isnt the answer.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

It took Dallas 4 years with Aikman. Chiefs are going to suck balls next year and more than likely be very average in 2010 anyways. I want to get the player that will be cornerstone for the next 10 to 15 years. A coverage linebacker isnt the answer.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with having this opinion, although I don't agree with the characterization of Curry and you're wrong about the time it took Dallas. Aikman was drafted in 1989. Dallas became made the playoffs for the first of 6 straight times (and 8 of 9) by going 11-5 in 1991.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

1.) You, and many others here, are unfair in your evaluations of the Chiefs in the past 20 years. 3 times in less than 15 years, the team has been 13-3. I'm not saying that the team's been the cat's ass, but it hasn't been as bad as some of the people here make it out to be. Good lord, imagine being a Lions' fan.

How many playoff games did those 13-3 teams win? Please, give us all a break. We're not being unfair to expect the Chiefs to win ONE playoff game in FIFTEEN years.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The reason "exactly" made no sense is because you tried to apply a specific example to a general principle, and that principle wasn't even applicable. A bust at QB is the most damaging position to bust at.

What? Deflecting by being purposefully obtuse is really unbecoming.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You seem to be operating under a misconception. I'm not surprised by it, given the kind of posts that Hamas has made. I have no fear of taking a quarterback high. Last year I was pimping Matt Ryan as if I was his agent. I just wasn't on this board.

I'm not operating under any misconception. I never said you ARE scared of taking a QB.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Every pick is a risk in some way or another and, especially at the top of the draft, every pick needs to be made based upon the individual player as opposed to the position or the 'safe' tag put on him. Isn't that the lesson of Ryan Sims? As for having Pioli, you and Hamas and company are going to have to get used to the notion of team specific "value" as opposed to position or BPA. If Pioli thinkgs a kicker has more value than any other player on his draft board, you'll be getting a kicker.

By generally lumping me in with the people you don't agree with, you show that it's you that's operating under a misconception. Thanks for the lecture though.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

So his brother is a liar?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/allt...hez-agent.html

It's almost like you don't even read the ****ing posts.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

If Pioli thinkgs a kicker has more value than any other player on his draft board, you'll be getting a kicker.

Well considering that Pioli released the best kicker in the history of the game when he was in his prime, it is obvious that Pioli doesn't value that position very highly.

Considering that until recently, Brady was one of the few highly paid players on that team, he does value the QB position very much.

Pioli pretty much values positions the same way the rest of the NFL does.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How many playoff games did those 13-3 teams win? Please, give us all a break. We're not being unfair to expect the Chiefs to win ONE playoff game in FIFTEEN years.

When ONLY wins in the playoffs will qualify as a successful season, sure you are.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

What? Deflecting by being purposefully obtuse is really unbecoming.

It wasn't obtuse. A general notion about blown picks on quarterbacks vs. a specific instance of Ryan Sims.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I'm not operating under any misconception. I never said you ARE scared of taking a QB.

Hmmmm....

unless you're willing to admit that Mecca and Hamas are right and you're just scared of a Ryan Leaf-like scenario.

Right, it must have been just me.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

By generally lumping me in with the people you don't agree with, you show that it's you that's operating under a misconception. Thanks for the lecture though.

It had nothing to do with lumping you in with people I don't agree with for any nefarious purpose. I already know that how Belichick and Pioli work a draft. I was simply pointing out that you, Hamas and company will have to learn it, albeit with only the Pioli half in KC.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's almost like you don't even read the ****ing posts.

Yes. You got the roles screwed up and I didn't read the posts. More brilliance on your part.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Well considering that Pioli released the best kicker in the history of the game when he was in his prime, it is obvious that Pioli doesn't value that position very highly.

Considering that until recently, Brady was one of the few highly paid players on that team, he does value the QB position very much.

Pioli pretty much values positions the same way the rest of the NFL does.

This is a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about people needing to learn how Pioli and Belichick do things. Vinatieri wasn't released. The Patriots, in fact, franchised him the year before he left for the Colts. However, I don't expect that Pioli will be drafting kickers in the first round. The 'value' formula just doesn't call for it. I merely used it as an example.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

When ONLY wins in the playoffs will qualify as a successful season, sure you are.

When your team hasn't won a playoff game since you were hitting 4-footers in college, you tend to start to want that. It might be different if we had actually won a few of those games.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

It wasn't obtuse. A general notion about blown picks on quarterbacks vs. a specific instance of Ryan Sims.

A "general" notion about blown picks on quarterbacks, supported by the specific instance of Ryan Leaf EQUALS the general notion that no picks are "safe", supported by the specific instance of Ryan Sims. Come on man, don't be that way.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Right, it must have been just me.

It was just just you, unless you're willing to admit that you have a problem with reading and comprehension.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

It had nothing to do with lumping you in with people I don't agree with for any nefarious purpose. I already know that how Belichick and Pioli work a draft. I was simply pointing out that you, Hamas and company will have to learn it, albeit with only the Pioli half in KC.

Again with the generalizations and again with the lecture. Give it a rest already. NOWHERE did I suggest that I WANT them to draft Sanchez. In fact, I never gave any definitive answer of who I want them to draft at all (other than that I don't want an OT).

I know too how BB and Pioli work a draft. That has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, so the "this is the way they do it, get used to it" argument rings very hollow.