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.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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

The question about what hiring his brother demonstrates is valid, but because it goes to decision making,.


No, it's not, because he has a well-developed support system, and he has outside representation:

Case in point of what I was alluding to:



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=218

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...nt#post5515773

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

That's fine, but it's a waste of successful seasons if you can't enjoy them.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

Your logic here is terrible, and the resultant Ryan Sims example is meaningless as a result.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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

Ummm... let me just say that you might want to re-read your post. I'll leave this there.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

Actually, it definitely does have bearing. Since you insist it doesn't, however, there's no sense discussing it further with you.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The question about what hiring his brother demonstrates is valid, but because it goes to decision making,.


No, it's not, because he has a well-developed support system, and he has outside representation:

Case in point of what I was alluding to:



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=218

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...nt#post5515773

You made assertions is this thread. The assertions were wrong. This was gently pointed out to you by Doomy, yet you continued on about it. You were wrong. Admit it or . It's bad enough that you don't seem to know a damned thing, but you can't even admit you made the obvious error? Sanchez DID, in fact, hire his brother as his agent.

Now, run along and let the adults talk. Come back when you can play nice.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You made assertions is this thread. The assertions were wrong. This was gently pointed out to you by Doomy, yet you continued on about it. You were wrong. Admit it or . It's bad enough that you don't seem to know a damned thing, but you can't even admit you made the obvious error? Sanchez DID, in fact, hire his brother as his agent.

Now, run along and let the adults talk. Come back when you can play nice.

I didn't see Doomy's post. I swapped the roles definitely, but those who were denigrating Sanchez were doing so on the premise that he hired his brother as his agent and his brother only, and that his brother was unqualified.

This isn't a Master P situation.

Furthermore, not only is Sanchez's brother a lawyer, but he is also advised by an agency that represents several NFL quarterbacks.

Thus, I refer to my prior assertion: claims about his lack of maturity or stupidity vis-a-vis that selection were, and remain, completely erroneous and without merit.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I didn't see Doomy's post. I swapped the roles definitely, but those who were denigrating Sanchez were doing so on the premise that he hired his brother as his agent and his brother only, and that his brother was unqualified.

This isn't a Master P situation.

Furthermore, not only is Sanchez's brother a lawyer, but he is also advised by an agency that represents several NFL quarterbacks.

Thus, I refer to my prior assertion: claims about his lack of maturity or stupidity vis-a-vis that selection were, and remain, completely erroneous and without merit.

Ok, now you admitted your mistake. Was that so difficult to do?

As for the Master P comparison, as I stated earlier, I hadn't come down on either side of the equation. I merely noted that it's a legitimate question. Now, you feel comfortable about how it's been dealt with and, at first blush, I don't see any problem with the way Sanchez is doing this, but it doesn't mean that it's somehow off the table as a question, no matter what your opinion on the subject happens to be.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, now you admitted your mistake. Was that so difficult to do?

As for the Master P comparison, as I stated earlier, I hadn't come down on either side of the equation. I merely noted that it's a legitimate question. Now, you feel comfortable about how it's been dealt with and, at first blush, I don't see any problem with the way Sanchez is doing this, but it doesn't mean that it's somehow off the table as a question, no matter what your opinion on the subject happens to be.

Dude, the entire premise of raising the question was done so on the belief that his brother was A) just his brother B) had no other training and C) Sanchez lacked other representation.

All were categorically false.

I presented this to you in link form, so that you could investigate it yourself. But like a true asshole, you continued on with your argument without seeing where it originated from, or its basis in reality.

If I say I don't want to draft Aaron Curry because he ****s tabby cats, it doesn't make it a legitimate red flag.

This kind of purposeful obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty is just sad.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

That's fine, but it's a waste of successful seasons if you can't enjoy them.

I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this past season when my Hawkeyes went 8-4 and capped it off with an impressive bowl win. Even without trouncing it would have been an excellent season. Why? Because of expectations. I don't have any illusions of a National Championship or going to the Rose Bowl every year. Now that the Cardinals have made the SB, the Chiefs are in Bengals/Lions territory, and frankly, I expect more. No, I don't expect them to win it all right now, or even in the near future. But they need to win a SINGLE playoff game once every 2 decades for chrissakes.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Your logic here is terrible, and the resultant Ryan Sims example is meaningless as a result.

The old "your logic is terrible" argument is a cop-out. Reminds me of me circa 2003. If you can't make an argument stick, just call the other guy a dummy. I'll leave it at that, I'm not gonna argue anymore about semantics.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Actually, it definitely does have bearing. Since you insist it doesn't, however, there's no sense discussing it further with you.

It WOULD have a bearing, IF I was in the "we're drafting a QB at all costs" camp, but I'm not.

See, you've made an assumption about me, one that is wholly incorrect.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Dude, the entire premise of raising the question was done so on the belief that his brother was A) just his brother B) had no other training and C) Sanchez lacked other representation.

All were categorically false.

I presented this to you in link form, so that you could investigate it yourself. But like a true asshole, you continued on with your argument without seeing where it originated from, or its basis in reality.

If I say I don't want to draft Aaron Curry because he ****s tabby cats, it doesn't make it a legitimate red flag.

This kind of purposeful obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty is just sad.

Oh, great, you've reverted back to child status. Shall we try again?

You made assertions. The assertions were wrong. Just because you made different arguments elsewhere, you think I should read those links and overlook what you wrote here. I don't agree.

And, as far as the specifics, your opinion does not equal fact. The FACT is that his brother is entering new territory. No matter what previous training he's had, this is a first for him. All the "yeah, but" crap in the world doesn't change that. It's still a legitimate issue to be brought up, whether you like it or not.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

No one is debating any of that, with the exception of the last part of your post....yeah, it's difficult to get him in-game, on-field exp., but that doesn't mean that film study and working with the 2nd and 3rd teams offer no benefits. If they didn't, teams would just throw rookies to the wolves.

With regards to the first, the lack of good QBs and the difficulty in finding one is precisely why we are arguing for one of these two quarterbacks. They have all the tools that you could want for a franchise signal caller, and since we all lack precognition, we're going to have to take a leap of faith that they will work out at the NFL level, because going on what we know, they have the skillset that very few other people on this earth do.

Um...no. Sanchez is 6'2" with an above average arm.

Sanchez will just be further behind the eight ball than even most junior QB's. He has to get experience, practice will only do so much. And then the point is can you get him that experience without killing his confidence.

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Oh, great, you've reverted back to child status. Shall we try again?

You made assertions. The assertions were wrong. Just because you made different arguments elsewhere, you think I should read those links and overlook what you wrote here. I don't agree.

And, as far as the specifics, your opinion does not equal fact. The FACT is that his brother is entering new territory. No matter what previous training he's had, this is a first for him. All the "yeah, but" crap in the world doesn't change that. It's still a legitimate issue to be brought up, whether you like it or not.

True.

Think about this from Sanchez's perspective for a moment. I imagine his brother is a smart guy with Sanchez's trust and respect. If he came to me, said, "Hey, I can do this. I'll be advised by a real agent, and I can actually look out for YOU, not just my bottom line." it could be pretty persuasive.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

It's still a legitimate issue to be brought up, whether you like it or not.

Depends how you define legitimate.

Sure, bring it up. No problem. But it's an ancillary issue at best.

When arguments about the draft value of a player often center around his selection of an agent and his coach's "butthurt" (to stay true to the Planet lexicon), they seem pretty flimsy.

Lack of game experience. That's the one, true "legitimate" concern, IMO.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this past season when my Hawkeyes went 8-4 and capped it off with an impressive bowl win. Even without trouncing it would have been an excellent season. Why? Because of expectations. I don't have any illusions of a National Championship or going to the Rose Bowl every year. Now that the Cardinals have made the SB, the Chiefs are in Bengals/Lions territory, and frankly, I expect more. No, I don't expect them to win it all right now, or even in the near future. But they need to win a SINGLE playoff game once every 2 decades for chrissakes.

I'm glad you enjoyed the Hawkeyes season. It makes my point, although I do understand the frustration that people get when their franchise is struggling long-term.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The old "your logic is terrible" argument is a cop-out. Reminds me of me circa 2003. If you can't make an argument stick, just call the other guy a dummy. I'll leave it at that, I'm not gonna argue anymore about semantics.

It's not a cop-out. Your logic there IS terrible and it makes your attempt to bring the Sims example into it a waste of time. What more do you want said about it?

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It WOULD have a bearing, IF I was in the "we're drafting a QB at all costs" camp, but I'm not.

See, you've made an assumption about me, one that is wholly incorrect.

I never made that assumption, which means that you've made an assumption. And around, and around it goes. I think it clearly has bearing, irregardless of your position on drafting a QB. You insist it doesn't. There's really no reason to discuss it further.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Honestly would you like me to be nice to someone who says "Mark Sanchez is a rapist"

I have never said he was a rapist. I did say he was arrested on sexual assault charges, but just another red flag that deserves rationalization and glossing over.

I hadn't brought that up today. Trying not to make that a part of my argument. Merely his lack of experience, his above average arm and his height are enough question marks to make me want to pass on him at #3.

The other stuff like ignoring his coach and his families advice, and the sexual assault just make me question his decision making... which was supposed to be his best asset.

[bdeg]

I would say it's definitely something I'd bet most teams touched on in the combine interviews.

the agent deal, that is

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Um...no. Sanchez is 6'2" with an above average arm.

Sanchez will just be further behind the eight ball than even most junior QB's. He has to get experience, practice will only do so much. And then the point is can you get him that experience without killing his confidence.

I don't think I buy that argument.

I'm of the opinion that these guys either have it or they don't.

But that's just a gut feeling at this point in time. Just like my feelings on both Stafford and Sanchez, it will change by this time tomorrow.

What a screwed up draft to be picking #3.