- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
What doesn't make much sense is producing that list of players in an attempt to argue against the fact that they have drafted poorly. Regardless of where they were drafted those were bad picks (except TBC) . Also, just because you keep repeating that the Pats are a top 5 drafting team, it doesn't make it true or give it any real meaning.
The problem is that you don't seem to be able to grasp the notion of draft rounds and how that impacts draft success. Here, start with the beginning of this article:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/10159081
I did a 10-year study on the draft to judge the success rate of players selected in each round. I defined a successful player as one who is starting four years after being drafted. Four years gives him a chance to prove himself, and if you are not starting after four years you will probably be replaced on the roster. The results were as follows:
Round 1 -- 75 percent
Round 2 -- 50 percent
Round 3 -- 30 percent
Round 4 -- 25 percent
Round 5 -- 20 percent
Round 6 -- 9 percent
Round 7 -- 9 percent
Average -- 31 percent
Now, note that the Patriots draft at the bottom of the rounds most of the time, and note that they are drafting players that have to compete with players on the best team in the NFL for that starting job (In other words, and just as a hypothetical example rather than an assertion, Mike Wright might be a starter elsewhere, but he's a backup in New England.
From there, read the following thread beginning with post #55 for a varied discussion on the data:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/228493-forbes-drafting-success-paradox-ponder-page2.html#post1342206
Last edited: