Great article on NFL success rate in the draft.

[Foedus]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Whos-been-doing-the-best-job-of-drafting.html


For all the Gruden fans still hanging on and the Dominik haters this article ends the debate in my opinion.  I was shocked what the reality of our drafts have been.

[lyronmewis]

Considering there's some ridiculous things I've seen on this board, I've never once seen someone call Gruden a good evaluator of talent.

The apologists just say that Gruden did well for the level of talent that he had on the team (which is true), or that the poor drafts are due to other people in the front office (which is partially true, but I'm sure Gruden had a lot of input).

It's impossible to argue in favour of the quality of drafts from 2002-2008 though. Everyone knows that those were some really poor drafts.

[Chief Joseph]

 "Considering there's some ridiculous things I've seen on this board, I've never once seen someone call Gruden a good evaluator of talent."

Even Java admits Gruden wasn't a good drafter. But some people prefer to take on imaginary foes. You'd think that they would win that battle sooner or later, but I guess not.

[Foedus]

 "Considering there's some ridiculous things I've seen on this board, I've never once seen someone call Gruden a good evaluator of talent."

Even Java admits Gruden wasn't a good drafter. But some people prefer to take on imaginary foes. You'd think that they would win that battle sooner or later, but I guess not.

It does seem most Dominik haters are still wanting Gruden to be the coach.   You can't separate Gruden the coach and Gruden the evaluator, they go hand in hand.   The sad part is we are 30th over last 10 years and 6th over the last 5 years.  Take away the last 5 years and we rank what 36th out of 32?  That's what shocked me I knew those drafts were bad, but this shows just how pathetic they were.

[Booker Reese]

It's an interesting analysis, but the problem with these types of analysis is the tug of war between quantity and quality.

[Foedus]

It's an interesting analysis, but the problem with these types of analysis is the tug of war between quantity and quality.

That's very true, I believe probowls have some weight to their metric.

[TBayXXXVII]

It's an interesting analysis, but the problem with these types of analysis is the tug of war between quantity and quality.

That's very true, I believe probowls have some weight to their metric.

That's pretty crappy too as those things are popularity contests and not necessarily performance based.  I remember one year where the Cowboys finished 7-9, but had 8 guys in the Pro Bowl.

[Feel Real Good]

Interesting analysis and not quite as flawed as others I've seen, but I'd say the 10-year study is a lot more telling about the quality of players because most of those players would have had to receive more expensive second contracts to justify them still starting. You can see a lot of generally bad teams like the Bucs, Chiefs, Dolphins, Browns, Lions, and Bills up there on the 5-year study because developing teams are more forgiving when it comes to starting young players than the really good teams which need to win now. Many players who started 30, 40, and 50 games for the Bucs like Geno Hayes and Jeremy Trueblood wouldn't have started that many games for good teams.

[Foedus]

It's an interesting analysis, but the problem with these types of analysis is the tug of war between quantity and quality.

That's very true, I believe probowls have some weight to their metric.

That's pretty crappy too as those things are popularity contests and not necessarily performance based.  I remember one year where the Cowboys finished 7-9, but had 8 guys in the Pro Bowl.

That's probably why it's so difficult to find a real accurate breakdown of past drafts.  Very subjective. 

[Foedus]

Interesting analysis and not quite as flawed as others I've seen, but I'd say the 10-year study is a lot more telling about the quality of players because most of those players would have had to receive more expensive second contracts to justify them still starting. You can see a lot of generally bad teams like the Bucs, Chiefs, Dolphins, Browns, Lions, and Bills up there on the 5-year study because developing teams are more forgiving when it comes to starting young players than the really good teams which need to win now. Many players who started 30, 40, and 50 games for the Bucs like Geno Hayes and Jeremy Trueblood wouldn't have started that many games for good teams.

I wonder if players who get a second contract with original team isn't a better indicator of  a successful draft pick.

[BucBalla85]

That should at least tell you that he had value to your team so you at least got that much success out of the pick. I think the draft is kind of a crap shoot. Its not easy to pick players that will stick around for a second contract. Even harder to pick a star player.

[TBayXXXVII]

Interesting analysis and not quite as flawed as others I've seen, but I'd say the 10-year study is a lot more telling about the quality of players because most of those players would have had to receive more expensive second contracts to justify them still starting. You can see a lot of generally bad teams like the Bucs, Chiefs, Dolphins, Browns, Lions, and Bills up there on the 5-year study because developing teams are more forgiving when it comes to starting young players than the really good teams which need to win now. Many players who started 30, 40, and 50 games for the Bucs like Geno Hayes and Jeremy Trueblood wouldn't have started that many games for good teams.

I wonder if players who get a second contract with original team isn't a better indicator of  a successful draft pick.

Maybe... but not necessarily.  We all saw Dominik give guys 2nd contracts to guys who should have been cut before their contract was even up.

[Booker Reese]

It's an interesting analysis, but the problem with these types of analysis is the tug of war between quantity and quality.

That's very true, I believe probowls have some weight to their metric.

That's pretty crappy too as those things are popularity contests and not necessarily performance based.  I remember one year where the Cowboys finished 7-9, but had 8 guys in the Pro Bowl.

That's part of it. I think the bigger problem is that it can't differentiate between the much larger group of players who can start on a bad team, but can't start on a good team. 

[TBayXXXVII]

Something that I'd like to see is the 5 and 10-year study that was done 5 years ago.   With that, you'd be able to see the first half of the 10-year study as compared to the previous.

[Chief Joseph]

 "It does seem most Dominik haters are still wanting Gruden to be the coach."

It only seems that way because you like to make up imaginary opponents. If there are so many of these people, why don't you name a few? I'll remind you of the qualifications you've set:
1. Dominik hater
2. Wants Gruden to be coach
3. Thinks Gruden drafted well

Good luck making your imaginary persecutors real.