Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Which teams seem to have the best drafting skills ? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

michael89156

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11943
Offline
« : April 05, 2013, 12:29:50 AM »



Tony Villiotti breaks down the production teams have gotten from their draft classes.

National Football Post

April 04, 2013, 10:30 AM EST..

 


 In the recent DRAFTMETRICS article “Late Round Draft Picks: The Key to Success?” the 2012 season was reviewed to determine whether success in the late rounds was an important success factor for ”good” teams. In this article, DRAFTMETRICS digs back into history to see if success at the draft has more to do with drafting skills or accumulating extra draft choices.
 
DRAFTMETRICS focused its review on five-year starters produced in the 1993 to 2006 drafts. A player must have started at least eight games in each of at least five seasons to be counted as a five-year starter by DRAFTMETRICS. This time period was selected because it allowed adequate time (seven seasons) for players to become five-year starters. The Browns and Texans were excluded from the analysis because of the small number of data point as they entered the league in 1999 and 2002, respectively.
 
I have received several requests to do an analysis such as this for General Managers as their “draft record” may be at least as relevant as an individual team. DRAFTMETRICS cannot do that at this time but will add the General Managers to its data base over the summer months and will be in a position to do such an analysis in the future.
 
For purposes of this article, teams are given credit for a player they drafted regardless of whether he started for that team for all five seasons. For example, Antonio Cromartie was drafted by the Chargers, where he started for three seasons before moving onto the Jets where he attained the five-year starter milestone. The Chargers receive credit for all of his starts because they drafted him, and the purpose of this exercise is to measure drafting ability.
 
There is a wide variation in the number of five-year starters resulting from the draft choices of NFL teams during the study period, with the Packers and Steelers each drafting 35 and the Lions at the low end with 17. The average number of five-year starters for each team is 26. Here is how each team stacks up.
 









This leads to the issue of determining why a team ended with more or fewer five-year starters than the average. Were they better judges of talent? Or was it simply a matter of accumulating draft choices?
 
DRAFTMETRICS tried to answer these questions by first calculating how the actual number of five-year starters a team produced compared with the number they should have given the number and location
 of their draft choices. This was done by categorizing each team’s draft choices into the seven Value Groups and applying the average league results (from the DRAFTMETRICS “Digging Deeper into Draft Probabilities” article). As a reminder, the Value Groups and the probabilities of drafting a five-year starter in each is shown below
 







After making that calculation,DRAFTMETRICS then determined the variation from the average that resulted from a team’s draft position and number of draft selections. The following table summarizes the results of the two calculations.
 
The “Efficiency” column shows how many more or fewer (indicated with a minus sign) five-year starters produced compared to what they would have been expected to produce, The “Choices” column shows the effect of their draft position and number of choices on the actual number of five-year starters. For
 example, the 49ers draft choices produced 4.52 more starters than would have been expected. Their draft position and number of choices cost them 0.52 five-year starters, leaving them with a net total of four five-year starters more than the average.
 



The best and worst from the above table are as follows:
 





Three teams stand out in these numbers, two of them good and one bad. The Packers and the Steelers represent the good. It is interesting to compare how they achieved their efficiency ratings. The Packers were very consistent. They had only two selections in the first 13 choices, but after that they had
 positive efficiency in every Value Group exceptthe 67-86 picks. Green Bay did very well in the late rounds with at least of a margin of two five-year starters above average in each of the Value Groups after the 86th pick. The Steelers, on the other hand, achieved two-thirds of their positive efficiency from the 87-149 picks. The Lions were pretty bad across the board, but especially so with the 14-40 picks and 87-149 picks. Overall, though, they produced fewer than the expected number of five-year starters in five of the seven Value Groups.
 
Finally, DRAFTMETRICS cannot leave this subject without a brief discussion about the “L” word, or Luck in this case. If a team truly had a superiorscouting and front office staffin comparison to its competition, one would expect a fair amount of consistency in draft results. Recognizing that injury and non-football related matters can cause some bumps in the road, this consistency seemed to be lacking in our review (the Packers looking like an exception).
 
One example illustrates the point. With selections 14-40 the Eagles had one of the worst records of any team, with 3.85 fewer five-year starters than expected. With selections 41-66 the Eagles had one of the
 best records, with 2.03 more five-year starters than expected. There may be explanations other than luck, but it was the same group of guys making the selections in both cases and in one case they stunk and in the other they were geniuses. It does cause you to wonder, though, if the draft is more like blackjack than bridge.

Three teams stand out in these numbers, two of them good and one bad. The Packers and the Steelers represent the good. It is interesting to compare how they achieved their efficiency ratings. The Packers were very consistent. They had only two selections in the first 13 choices, but after that they had
 positive efficiency in every Value Group exceptthe 67-86 picks. Green Bay did very well in the late rounds with at least of a margin of two five-year starters above average in each of the Value Groups after the 86th pick. The Steelers, on the other hand, achieved two-thirds of their positive efficiency from the 87-149 picks. The Lions were pretty bad across the board, but especially so with the 14-40 picks and 87-149 picks. Overall, though, they produced fewer than the expected number of five-year starters in five of the seven Value Groups.
 
Finally, DRAFTMETRICS cannot leave this subject without a brief discussion about the “L” word, or Luck in this case. If a team truly had a superiorscouting and front office staffin comparison to its competition, one would expect a fair amount of consistency in draft results. Recognizing that injury and non-football related matters can cause some bumps in the road, this consistency seemed to be lacking in our review (the Packers looking like an exception).
 
One example illustrates the point. With selections 14-40 the Eagles had one of the worst records of any team, with 3.85 fewer five-year starters than expected. With selections 41-66 the Eagles had one of the
 best records, with 2.03 more five-year starters than expected. There may be explanations other than luck, but it was the same group of guys making the selections in both cases and in one case they stunk and in the other they were geniuses. It does cause you to wonder, though, if the draft is more like blackjack than bridge.

Benchwarmer#1

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13137
Offline
« #1 : April 05, 2013, 12:45:50 AM »

Good baseline, but a lot of things unaccounted for as well.

Naismith was right about Revis. Everyone else is a dummy.

Spider 2 Y Banana

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2920
Offline
« #2 : April 05, 2013, 09:05:53 AM »

Most of it makes sense, but doesnt explain Rams being one of the most efficient and Falcons having one of the more negative impact.  Not a Falcons fan by any means but only recent bust of theirs was the 1st round pick of the DT Jerry from Ole Miss.  Everything else they have done in the draft has worked out pretty well. (Although who knows what the Julio trade really cost them considering it was with the Browns who took Wheedon).

Every time I see last post JC5100, I have to click on it.... Pure comedy.

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3028
Online
« #3 : April 05, 2013, 10:13:47 AM »

Most of it makes sense, but doesnt explain Rams being one of the most efficient and Falcons having one of the more negative impact.  Not a Falcons fan by any means but only recent bust of theirs was the 1st round pick of the DT Jerry from Ole Miss.  Everything else they have done in the draft has worked out pretty well. (Although who knows what the Julio trade really cost them considering it was with the Browns who took Wheedon).
It helps to read what post to see what they reviewed
It was a review of the draft from 1993 through to 2006, meaning Jones, Ryan & Jerry were complete none factors.
When it's looked at like that it makes perfect sense, I mean you only have to look at their 1st picks each year going backwards from 2006.
BUT it really means nothing at all being as the Falcons hired Dimitroff in 2008 and it all changed.
Same with us being as they are essentially reviewing McKay & Allens work not Doms.

One major problem with it that I have is the value of those 5 year starters
TE Daniel Graham
OG Langston Walker
DE Tyler Brayton
OC Jake Grove
They all count as 5 year starters for the teams that took them but are they really all that valueable considering the picks used to take them are the 4 picks we gave up for Gruden who got us over the hump and won a Super Bowl.
There are guys that are a "success" because they managed to put together 5 years that count where teams were in such a need they had to do it or because of "name value" or to simply justify the pick and then there are those that are a SUCCESS because they are year in, year out starters that play over a decade at a high level.
This is a breakdown where Robert Gallery counts as a successful pick after going #2 overall just the same as Larry Fitzgerald who went a pick later, we all know which was the better pick but here they are considered equal.
« : April 05, 2013, 10:16:25 AM TBTrojan »

Bucko40

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3539
Offline
« #4 : April 05, 2013, 12:19:47 PM »

Based on last year draft. The Bucs. 3 immediate starters with 1st 3 picks. That's some good drafting IMO.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27559
Online
« #5 : April 05, 2013, 12:31:56 PM »

There are guys that are a "success" because they managed to put together 5 years that count where teams were in such a need they had to do it or because of "name value" or to simply justify the pick and then there are those that are a SUCCESS because they are year in, year out starters that play over a decade at a high level.
I really don't like measuring pick success by whether players start because it doesn't take into account if the players are any good. Someone posted a study a little while ago that showed the Bucs as one of the best drafting teams of the last 5 or so years because they drafted a ton of starters. The obvious flaw in that logic is it heavily favors rebuilding teams devoid of veterans who will start anyone who is young and cheap. The Bucs may have played a bunch of homegrown players, but over the last 4 years those homegrown players have gone 24-40. Most of those players stink.

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

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
« #6 : April 05, 2013, 05:03:45 PM »

Horrible use of statistics.  "5-year starter" Really?  This is why reason needs to be tempered by wisdom.

All elephants are pink.
Ellie is an elephant.
Therefore Ellie is pink.

^^ the logic there is perfect.  But we can all see the flaw.

germcanbuc

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1031
Offline
« #7 : April 06, 2013, 05:38:47 PM »

Horrible use of statistics.  "5-year starter" Really?  This is why reason needs to be tempered by wisdom.

All elephants are pink.
Ellie is an elephant.
Therefore Ellie is pink.

^^ the logic there is perfect.  But we can all see the flaw.

Because elephants arent pink right?

Check out www.reverbnation.com/nickfreddy and follow me on twitter @nick_freddy

CalicoJack55

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4921
Online
« #8 : April 06, 2013, 05:59:40 PM »


My logo is bigger than your logo

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23214
Offline
« #9 : April 06, 2013, 08:39:04 PM »

Hopefully Dom can do a repeat performance on the years draft, that he did last year.

On a side note,  Ozzie has done a nice job with the Ravens.  In this article they have both the Bucs and Ravens middle of the pack.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
« #10 : April 06, 2013, 09:04:54 PM »

Hopefully Dom can do a repeat performance on the years draft, that he did last year.

Yes, it's interesting how having new people in the building suddenly improved his drafting skills. 

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23214
Offline
« #11 : April 06, 2013, 09:11:49 PM »

Hopefully Dom can do a repeat performance on the years draft, that he did last year.

Yes, it's interesting how having new people in the building suddenly improved his drafting skills.



I hear ya.  I have had my su**CENSORED**ions Butch Davis does more than scout opponents.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3028
Online
« #12 : April 06, 2013, 10:04:33 PM »

Hopefully Dom can do a repeat performance on the years draft, that he did last year.

On a side note,  Ozzie has done a nice job with the Ravens.  In this article they have both the Bucs and Ravens middle of the pack.
You have to consider the the Ravens didn't even exist for 3 of the years this is based on, plus you also have to factor in bad picks which every team has like Travis Taylor, Chris Redman, Kyle Boller.
Ozzie was a genius with defensive players during that period but offense was a whole different story.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23214
Offline
« #13 : April 06, 2013, 10:22:28 PM »

Hopefully Dom can do a repeat performance on the years draft, that he did last year.

On a side note,  Ozzie has done a nice job with the Ravens.  In this article they have both the Bucs and Ravens middle of the pack.
You have to consider the the Ravens didn't even exist for 3 of the years this is based on, plus you also have to factor in bad picks which every team has like Travis Taylor, Chris Redman, Kyle Boller.
Ozzie was a genius with defensive players during that period but offense was a whole different story.




Fair point. 

 Redman was a 3rd rounder, and lasted 11 years in the league

Boller was a first rounder, and lasted 8 years in the league.

Travis Taylor was a first rounder also, and lasted 8 years in the league.


At least they were good enough to stick around awhile. Did you see that 2005 Bucs draft thread?   Holy ^%$#....Some real failures on that list, a few of those players never played in one NFL game.



sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

Hate

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 39954
Offline
« #14 : April 07, 2013, 01:40:22 AM »

Did you see that 2005 Bucs draft thread?   Holy ^%$#....Some real failures on that list, a few of those players never played in one NFL game.

No surprise... considering who was at the helm. 

-------------------------------------------------------
   

 I thought Lovie said he wanted quickness & speed, even at the QB position?
  Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Which teams seem to have the best drafting skills ? « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools