Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Where does most talent come from? « previous next »
Page: 1

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2448
Online
: June 27, 2008, 11:39:26 PM

Was reading a good article on what rounds most talent comes from in the NFL by position over the following season 2006, 2007 and 2008. I think many will be surprised to see as well

Very Informative Read


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#1 : June 28, 2008, 01:13:24 PM

Interesting stats that contradict some preconceived notions and raise some questions. For instance, it has been shown that LB has the lowest percentage of busts in round 1, but this shows that most LBs come from later rounds.

The one issue this doesn't address is the difference in talent and depth among the teams.  The #3 DE on NYG is better than most #2s and some #1 guys.  The top 2 LBs or CBs on Cincy wouldn't make it through TC in Tampa or Chicago.  The #2 WR here is not better than the #3 WR on Az, or Cincy (in '05-'07).

It would be interesting to see a similar study but instead of using the 2 deep method, look at the top 32 or 64 players statistically.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#2 : June 28, 2008, 11:08:45 AM

Link didn't work for me - but I would offer good fortune plays a pretty big role in the draft but for a couple of GMs who have clearly used magic...

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant



Guest
#3 : June 28, 2008, 11:16:02 AM

correct link

http://ourlads.com/dayone.cfm

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#4 : June 28, 2008, 11:29:55 AM

Thanks Hate - seems like RBs and WRs need to be picked pretty high to get one that gets the job done most of the time... damn it.  Does kind of make the magic thing work though doesn't it... LOL

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant



Guest
#5 : June 28, 2008, 11:51:29 AM

Thanks Hate - seems like RBs and WRs need to be picked pretty high to get one that gets the job done most of the time... damn it. 

I would like to see a correlation on how many of those first round RBs are running behind excellent O lines, because that's where the team they play for has put their priorities.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27711
Offline
#6 : June 28, 2008, 12:14:06 PM

I have two concerns.

1.) It makes it sound like there are better players that go undrafted than in the later rounds but that is skewed because there are roughly 40-50 picks in each of the later rounds (including compensatory) and 300-400 undrafted players that go to camp with teams.

2.) There's no accounting for the division of labor between the positions with multiple spots on the field. It makes it sound like their are great linebackers all over undrafted free agent crops, but in reality there are lots of 3rd linebackers. You're not going to find a Derrick Brooks or Ray Lewis type lead linebacker, you'll just find a Ryan Nece or Bart Scott level linebacker to clean up the leftovers.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#7 : June 28, 2008, 12:30:29 PM

Would agree with both points FRG - but I think the point is well taken with the examples of players who were not drafted and have become #1s or even make squads.  And the qb stats were - something...

It is not a like everyone that gets drafted makes a team - heck what are teams looking for each year - 4-5 rookies from the draft or FA - and in what was presented it seems like a lot of those rookies, maybe even an inordinate amount are not coming from the draft.  I think the point was how - inaccurate maybe - the draft process is.  Maybe not so much on the great players - noting how RBs and WRs seemingly fell in line, but rather an overall team make up...

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Plank

****
Starter

Posts : 304
Offline
#8 : June 28, 2008, 02:31:56 PM

I agree Galt. I think the #s for LB and OL are skewed a little because teams carry so many. Like FRG said, they're not all Brooks and Lewis just because they have a roster spot.

Mellow

****
Starter

Posts : 850
Offline
#9 : June 28, 2008, 03:28:55 PM

I love this stuff (in general), but I have a few issues with this analysis:

(1) Making a team is one thing, being any good is another.  The article makes no effort to distinguish between how GOOD guys are, which I suspect is more tightly correlated with draft position.  One of the important questions to me is critical is it to use the draft (especially high pick) in order to get a really good player at a certain position?  This argument's routinely beaten to death around draft time, but for example while you might be able to get a DT for example outside of R1 it's not very likely you'll get a really GOOD one there.  On the other hand, it seems there's very little drop-off between R1 and R2 for receivers, which is one of the reasons teams finally wised up this year and didn't burn valuable R1 picks on this position.

(2) "OL"?!?  C'mon, that's just amateurish.  Lumping centers (which we all know routinely come from FA) with LOTs (which we all know come disproportionally from R1 of the draft) is just stupid.  I mean, the guy actualy includes analysis for long snapper but can't be bothered to distinguish OT from OG, let alone LOT from ROT?
Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Where does most talent come from? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools