How Many New Players Will We Actually Get From This Draft?

[DW Toys]

We all go to the end of April with Sugar Plumbs dancing in our head as Draft day appears. Except the Patriots fans that know how Belichick works perhaps Pats fans go in with low expectations, or at least they say that. I really think that we still all remain optimistic until we see the results at the end and see obvious flaws that most in this forum, will point out and be astutely correct.....But in all nievity we still hope that each and every selection makes an impact.

Trading down is an unpleasant subject to Pats fans.In fact Andy Hart just mentioned that since BB has been "buying the groceries", He has traded out of the first round pick for a future first round pick three years, and a total of eight times Belichick has either traded down or out with his first-round pick. And he’s traded down or out with a first-round pick in each of the last five drafts.

In fact it is proven BB is better at picking up FA, trades, UDFA than he does with his unremarkable down trading that have brought mixed results. It is also pretty ambitious thinking from all NFL fans and management that a single Draft day can make a Teams fortune, although a few have struck gold that day like the 74 Steeler Draft. Just don't be surprised at the results I have found.

There are 32 NFL Teams and all of the fans of each Team fan listens to the "Build Through The Draft" myth spun by the experts.

In Last years Draft 254 players were picked. Only 47 on them became actual full time starters or just 18%. . That is not even two players per Team. Another 4 started in at least 10 games and another 18 started in at least 5 as they worked themselves higher on depth charts. So we can use 69 as an extended success number or 27%. The single or few starts can be attributed to roster injury or end of year implications. Kicking game players were not figured in of the few in the 254.

Over a three year period on time, some of these 69 players will be injured, be traded or just be replaced by better players so the initial number goes down, but the fact that other Drafted players this year will ascend to be starters or high profile players and the percentages even out.

The Pats go to the Draft with six choices. Honestly, the chances are that less than two (say two) will work out to be full time starters or impact players on this Team. They do increase in success the higher they are Drafted!

The first and second Team All Pro players from 2011, over 90% were first or second round Draft picks.

The Point? The Pats have the opportunity to trade up and perhaps gain maybe three high profile players. Those are actually considered a good Draft. Six of those we have now for April, if we stand on those choices, 4 will wash out. The percentages say to uptrade and BB swapping down has only gotten us next years picks. It's like Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.

All NFL Fans have the same problem. "All seven choices will make my Team!"...Nyet, won't happen.

In the 2011 Draft the Team with the most starters from the Draft was the Cleveland Browns. One of the least amount of Starters in 2011 was the Packers at 0 for 9. The Browns had a need to get those guys playing. The Pack can wait to develop them. Better Teams can wait on players. BPA is also a myth. Teams to pigeon hole needs which brings us to the Pats.

.......At the end of the Day PASS RUSHERS ,...... we can't be looking for pass rushers from this Draft to replace the two we lost because chances are (and by facts) only two from our whole Draft will be quality players.

How do we obtain more pass rush from the loss of Anderson and maybe Carter? Scott might be o.k. but to say we are going to positively get two in the Draft may be folly. I say take one of these 1st round picks BB will likely trade anyway and go after Jared Allen.....or just package all your choices up to get to the front so you can get a couple....THE PASS RUSH IS WHAT EVERYONE HAS SAID THE PATS BIGGEST 2012 NEED IS.

Everyone made fun of Ditka and the Falcons last year of packaging up choices to get the guy they wanted. Wasn't that dumb.

Year after year it has been proven the actual Team Draft success is 17% of quality players retained for a term of three years for determination.

Your Thoughts?
DW Toys

 

[fester]

In fact it is proven BB is better at picking up FA, trades, UDFA than he does with his unremarkable down trading that have brought mixed results. It is also pretty ambitious thinking from all NFL fans and management that a single Draft day can make a Teams fortune, although a few have struck gold that day like the 74 Steeler Draft. Just don't be surprised at the results I have found.

There are 32 NFL Teams and all of the fans of each Team fan listens to the "Build Through The Draft" myth spun by the experts.

In Last years Draft 254 players were picked. Only 47 on them became actual full time starters or just 18%. . That is not even two players per Team. Another 4 started in at least 10 games and another 18 started in at least 5 as they worked themselves higher on depth charts. So we can use 69 as an extended success number or 27%.
DW Toys

So that is where you get your 18% success rate number that you bat around... first year rookie full time starters. That is a very narrow and restrictive filter that also neglects to account for team quality (very bad/talent shallow teams will have, all else being equal, more rookie starters than very deep veteran teams for instance...). A better metric would be how many players have been extended/offered new multi-year contracts at or above the 1st or 2nd round RFA tenders average annual value level.

The point of building through the draft is not first year starters but 2nd and 3rd year cheap but very talented starters. The only way for teams to be successful on the field and on the balance sheet is to have a decent chunk of its core players on either massively undervalued vet FA contracts OR on rookie deals. One or two years of FA binging can be papered over, but over the long run, which we all agree is that the Patriots management are long-runners, that produces very high variance results.

 

[Sciz]

Jared Allen isn't happening unless he takes a pay cut. Coming off a 22 sack season, he'd have every right to completely laugh at anybody who asks him to take a pay cut. It's not happening. Give it up.

 

[DW Toys]

So that is where you get your 18% success rate number that you bat around... first year rookie full time starters. That is a very narrow and restrictive filter that also neglects to account for team quality (very bad/talent shallow teams will have, all else being equal, more rookie starters than very deep veteran teams for instance...). A better metric would be how many players have been extended/offered new multi-year contracts at or above the 1st or 2nd round RFA tenders average annual value level.

The point of building through the draft is not first year starters but 2nd and 3rd year cheap but very talented starters. The only way for teams to be successful on the field and on the balance sheet is to have a decent chunk of its core players on either massively undervalued vet FA contracts OR on rookie deals. One or two years of FA binging can be papered over, but over the long run, which we all agree is that the Patriots management are long-runners, that produces very high variance results.

I agree. Three years is a very fair determination I have mentioned. But we as fans look at the Draft that all six choice will help in 2012. It is not realistic. My Thread is how many will we really get?

Recycling your core of roster is definitely important and that is what the Draft does for you. But we as fans overcalculate the impact our Team gets from the Draft from that specific year. We don't get as many as you think that can play even in this age of expanded media and computer aids.

Now that figure for that Team can increase their success rate if they have more second or MOSTLY first rounders like I stated you see in this years first and second Team Pro Bowlers. So my point is BB trades down for "value" and it has been a mixed bag at best. 18% is a realistic picture of what actual starters come from the Draft. The best Teams need fewer to Start, but I think the old adage BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE is no longer true, In this age of specialization, as every Team targets needs.

The Pats need not one but two pass rushers.Will BB trade out to avoid them so he can claim "value" in lower rounds?

Will he use the choices he is itching to rid of anyway and get a Jared Allen or the like?

Or will he actually move his chips upward to gain some blue chip players and thus...we actually get more "players" of value that way?
DW Toys

 

[DW Toys]

Jared Allen isn't happening unless he takes a pay cut. Coming off a 22 sack season, he'd have every right to completely laugh at anybody who asks him to take a pay cut. It's not happening. Give it up.

Example only Cousin....but if you price Anderson and what he got and Carter together, it might not be far off.
DW Toys

 

[fester]

I agree. Three years is a very fair determination I have mentioned. But we as fans look at the Draft that all six choice will help in 2012. It is not realistic. My Thread is how many will we really get?

18% is a realistic picture of what actual starters come from the Draft. The best Teams need fewer to Start, but I think the old adage BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE is no longer true, In this age of specialization, as every Team targets needs.

The Pats need not one but two pass rushers.Will BB trade out to avoid them so he can claim "value" in lower rounds?

Will he use the choices he is itching to rid of anyway and get a Jared Allen or the like?

A methodological question here, and then a critique --- on your 18% that is first year full time starters --- that is too restrictive on two counts for the point that I think you are trying to make.

Count 1 --- that 18% excludes Aldon Smith (16 games played, 0 Gntames started Aldon Smith: Game Logs at NFL.com) but given the rest of your argument, Smith is a player in your mind that the Patriots should trade away #27, and #31 if San Fran is dumb enough to accept the offer.

Count 2 --- maybe it is an imprecision in language, but an 18% hit rate on 256 draft picks (7 rounds +32 comp picks) implies 1.44 starters per team per year. That implies full starting line-up turnover every 15 years. That is not even close to the case (see Patriots starting line-up in both Super Bowl losses 10 of 11 starters turned over on defense, 7 or 11 on offense)

To your larger point, the trade-off is short term versus long term.

Jared Allen at a cap hit of $10 to 15 million next year and a cash hit of $20 million is almost certainly better than anyone the Patriots can draft at #27 and #31. However what is the residual value of him in 2014 when he is almost certainly on the steep downslope of his career AND his cap hits have prevented the Patriots from improving other areas of need on the team with anything other than rookies or Vet Min free agents.

If the Patriots played the window system, then I would concede your argument -- go for broke in 2012/2013, and get ready for a long reconstruction after that, but if the assumption is the Patriots don't play the window game, then continually restocking the cheap labor pool with the expectation that every few years they will hit on an elite player (Mayo, Gronk, Hernandez, potentially Solder and or Vollmer, potentially McCourty etc) And everyone in that list with the exception of Mayo is dirt cheap given current or expected performance for next season and that is how the Patriots have managed to keep their elite players (defined at Top-4 players at their position in the league) like Mankins, Brady, and Wilfork signed to market competetive deals while still remaining a good team.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Fester, you should post more. That is all.

 

[DaBruinz]

I agree. Three years is a very fair determination I have mentioned. But we as fans look at the Draft that all six choice will help in 2012. It is not realistic. My Thread is how many will we really get?

Recycling your core of roster is definitely important and that is what the Draft does for you. But we as fans overcalculate the impact our Team gets from the Draft from that specific year. We don't get as many as you think that can play even in this age of expanded media and computer aids.

Now that figure for that Team can increase their success rate if they have more second or MOSTLY first rounders like I stated you see in this years first and second Team Pro Bowlers. So my point is BB trades down for "value" and it has been a mixed bag at best. 18% is a realistic picture of what actual starters come from the Draft. The best Teams need fewer to Start, but I think the old adage BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE is no longer true, In this age of specialization, as every Team targets needs.

The Pats need not one but two pass rushers.Will BB trade out to avoid them so he can claim "value" in lower rounds?

Will he use the choices he is itching to rid of anyway and get a Jared Allen or the like?

Or will he actually move his chips upward to gain some blue chip players and thus...we actually get more "players" of value that way?
DW Toys

You claim the Pats need 2 pass rushers.. What do you base this on? I look at the Pats and I see that they added Trevor Scott to replace Mark Anderson. Scott is actually a better run defender than Anderson was and Anderson was actually pretty decent at the end of the year in his run defense. Scott was a decent pass rusher in Oakland in the 3-4 when he was used at OLB and not at DE in the 4-3. Something that Anderson hadn't had the benefit of in either Chicago or Houston.

The pass rush was better last year than people gave it credit for. And it was better during the entire season. I can remember numerous threads of people whining and moaning that the Pats didn't have a pass rush because they weren't getting sacks. But what they ignored was the pressure they were getting on QBs.

With 6 draft picks, the fewest since 2005, I would expect that all 6 would make the team. Especially if all of them are taken without any trades.. BB has yet to cut a draft pick of 4th round or higher in TC during the players rookie year.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I know we won't do it But, I would like to trade up for a de with 1a. Hope F. Cox falls past Philly. THere might be some trade partners if he does. SD, Cincy and Chicago. 27 AND 63 for a move up. There are some decent olb prospects. Take one at 31. Re-up Andre Carter to use as a situational pass rusher in our sub-packages. Allen is too expensive. Plus, not really a scheme fit. We failed miserably in the 4-3. Got better when we switched to the 3-4.

I think we only need 5-6 rookies. Don't want to build depth. We've already done that.

 

[DW Toys]

You claim the Pats need 2 pass rushers.. What do you base this on? I look at the Pats and I see that they added Trevor Scott to replace Mark Anderson. Scott is actually a better run defender than Anderson was and Anderson was actually pretty decent at the end of the year in his run defense. Scott was a decent pass rusher in Oakland in the 3-4 when he was used at OLB and not at DE in the 4-3. Something that Anderson hadn't had the benefit of in either Chicago or Houston.

The pass rush was better last year than people gave it credit for. And it was better during the entire season. I can remember numerous threads of people whining and moaning that the Pats didn't have a pass rush because they weren't getting sacks. But what they ignored was the pressure they were getting on QBs.

With 6 draft picks, the fewest since 2005, I would expect that all 6 would make the team. Especially if all of them are taken without any trades.. BB has yet to cut a draft pick of 4th round or higher in TC during the players rookie year.

That was a fair retort. I love the Scott move as I said, but is he enough if we go DT, CB, O line etc?
I am not the only who feels that two is the correct course.
Chances are more than 50/50 he trades out past four or next year.
DW Toys

 

[ay-yo]

ST: 5
Ghost, Mesko, Aiken (LS), White, Slater

Offense: 24
QB: Brady, Mallet, Hoyer - 3
RB: Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, 1 of FB’s - 4
WR: Welker, Lloyd, Gonzalez, Branch, Edelman - 5
OT: Light, Solder, Vollmer, Cannon - 4
OG: Waters, Mankins, Gallery - 3
OC: Connoly, Wendell - 2
TE: Gronk, Hernandez, Fells - 3

Defense: 19
DE: Fanene, Harrison, Deaderick, Pryor - 4
NT: Wilfork, Love, Brace - 3
OLB: Nink, Scott - 2
LB: Mayo, Spikes, Fletcher - 3
CB: McCourty, Dowling, Arrington, Moore, Cole - 5
S: Chung, Gregory - 2

total: 48

Leaves us w/ 5 spots.

I don't necessarily agree w/ the logic of the OP but given our team's roster I don't want to draft a bunch of guys who won't make the team. Give me 1 S, 1 OLB, 1 DL and then 2 more defenders at any position and I'll be happy.

 

[DW Toys]

A methodological question here, and then a critique --- on your 18% that is first year full time starters --- that is too restrictive on two counts for the point that I think you are trying to make.

Count 1 --- that 18% excludes Aldon Smith (16 games played, 0 Gntames started Aldon Smith: Game Logs at NFL.com) but given the rest of your argument, Smith is a player in your mind that the Patriots should trade away #27, and #31 if San Fran is dumb enough to accept the offer.

Count 2 --- maybe it is an imprecision in language, but an 18% hit rate on 256 draft picks (7 rounds +32 comp picks) implies 1.44 starters per team per year. That implies full starting line-up turnover every 15 years. That is not even close to the case (see Patriots starting line-up in both Super Bowl losses 10 of 11 starters turned over on defense, 7 or 11 on offense)

To your larger point, the trade-off is short term versus long term.

Jared Allen at a cap hit of $10 to 15 million next year and a cash hit of $20 million is almost certainly better than anyone the Patriots can draft at #27 and #31. However what is the residual value of him in 2014 when he is almost certainly on the steep downslope of his career AND his cap hits have prevented the Patriots from improving other areas of need on the team with anything other than rookies or Vet Min free agents.

If the Patriots played the window system, then I would concede your argument -- go for broke in 2012/2013, and get ready for a long reconstruction after that, but if the assumption is the Patriots don't play the window game, then continually restocking the cheap labor pool with the expectation that every few years they will hit on an elite player (Mayo, Gronk, Hernandez, potentially Solder and or Vollmer, potentially McCourty etc) And everyone in that list with the exception of Mayo is dirt cheap given current or expected performance for next season and that is how the Patriots have managed to keep their elite players (defined at Top-4 players at their position in the league) like Mankins, Brady, and Wilfork signed to market competetive deals while still remaining a good team.

I understand your point. I tend to use Brady years. I don't know how you feel but if Brady and Allen are playing well for the next three years, I will worry about 2016 when it happens. I care more about 2012 than 2016 at this point.

It doesn't have to be Allen. Maybe an Osi etc.

I counted Smith in my 69. I agree on three years but some of these 69 will be done as well so it evens out.
DW Toys

 

[Sfpat]

So that is where you get your 18% success rate number that you bat around... first year rookie full time starters. That is a very narrow and restrictive filter that also neglects to account for team quality (very bad/talent shallow teams will have, all else being equal, more rookie starters than very deep veteran teams for instance...). A better metric would be how many players have been extended/offered new multi-year contracts at or above the 1st or 2nd round RFA tenders average annual value level.

The point of building through the draft is not first year starters but 2nd and 3rd year cheap but very talented starters. The only way for teams to be successful on the field and on the balance sheet is to have a decent chunk of its core players on either massively undervalued vet FA contracts OR on rookie deals. One or two years of FA binging can be papered over, but over the long run, which we all agree is that the Patriots management are long-runners, that produces very high variance results.

Restrictive? Compared to the standard of many on this board (all pro by end of 1st camp or bust)? I agree the 2nd contract is a better metric, but the first year starter illustrates how tough it is for rookies to make meaningful contributions in the NFL and that one should wait a few years before grading draft classes.

 

[The Scrizz]

Pay attention DW. We're going to have 18 rooks on the roster next year, don't you read OTG's mocks?

 

[DW Toys]

Pay attention DW. We're going to have 18 rooks on the roster next year, don't you read OTG's mocks?

keen!
DW Toys

 

[cstjohn17]

Same story as every year, I love the draft but it is overrated. Between the draft and the UDFAs the Patriots will have about 5-7 players that make the 53 man roster. 2-3 of those will have some sort of contribution, a couple more may play special teams.

I actually like the trade down approach unless they make a move into the top 15. Basically from 15-50 there is not much difference.

Please insert your preferred rating system, I like NFP.
National Football Post College Big Board | National Football Post

Pick #15 is rated as a 7.0
Pick #52 is rates as a 6.8

Each team is going to have players slightly higher or lower but if your remove the names and become cold and uncaring like BB you see players that are basically the same. The sweet spot is around 30-50.

With at best a 50/50 chance of making any impact the Patriots minimize risk by moving back without much of a dropoff. There have been a lot of misses (same as every team) but the 2nd round has worked out well (Chung, Gronk, Spikes, Vollmer).


NFP Scale
NFP Prospect Grading System | National Football Post

7.0 Becomes a starter during his rookie year… Becomes a solid NFL player who has no real weakness… Can’t be exploited or consistently taken out of games.

Dirty Starter Caliber / Specialty Player

6.9 Contributes first year and starts second year… Must be able to get on the field and make a contribution as a rookie… Expected to start his second year in the league.

6.8 Contributes first year, but may take time to become a starter… Has the ability to become a starter and will be expected to assume a starting role.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

I rather not trade down that much compared to the last few drafts. I'm fine with trading one of the 1st or 2nd rounders for a future high round selection.

Also want to target a lot of defensive players.

 

[fester]

I understand your point. I tend to use Brady years. I don't know how you feel but if Brady and Allen are playing well for the next three years, I will worry about 2016 when it happens. I care more about 2012 than 2016 at this point.

It doesn't have to be Allen. Maybe an Osi etc.

I counted Smith in my 69. I agree on three years but some of these 69 will be done as well so it evens out.
DW Toys

Okay, so you have a high discount on the future for football.

I understand that but it appears from almost every decision made by the Patriots since 2000 that the Patriots management team has a fairly low discount on the future. All available evidence suggests that the Patriots won't ruin both their salary structure and their talent pipeline for future years in order to gamble for a short window. And that is what trading multiple Top-64 picks for a 30 year old defensive end entails. They'll borrow against the future (restructures) and put a pressure on the pipeline (trades for veteran players with a couple hundred points worth of draft picks) but they won't sell out the future for today.

Expecting anything else until there is evidence to suggest a shift in philosophy such as an embrace of the Brady window is setting yourself up for disappointment as Bill B won't be doing what you want him to do.

 

[fester]

ST: 5

Offense: 24


Defense: 19


total: 48

Leaves us w/ 5 spots.

I don't necessarily agree w/ the logic of the OP but given our team's roster I don't want to draft a bunch of guys who won't make the team. Give me 1 S, 1 OLB, 1 DL and then 2 more defenders at any position and I'll be happy.

I think there is a bit more roster flexibility than you suggest, especially on defense, but even on offense, a G/C prospect could displace Wendell, a WR could displace one of Gonzalez, Edelman or Branch etc. There are the 5 spots you have identified and probably another 5 to 8 spots where the coaching staffs wants to make some very tough decisions because an incumbent has been pushed very hard in OTAs and camps.

I agree with you that the Patriots aggregate depth is pretty good and the point of this draft is to fill in some holes and gaps in the future pipeline, especially on defense, but most position coaches could see at least one new face next season.

 

[fester]

I counted Smith in my 69. I agree on three years but some of these 69 will be done as well so it evens out.
DW Toys

The more I think about your metric, the more it is disinformative, at least as to how you have written it up. You wrote that the players you counted as successful were starters for at least 10 games in their rookie years. That by definition excludes Aldon Smith as he started no games for the 49ers. We both agree that he made an impact as a rookie so you included him in the tally for your 18% but you are changing definitions or at least not showing your work transparently.

You also neglect to account for player development.

By the end of year 3, most draft cohorts have more than 18% of their players routinely starting. They have to, just because career lengths are too short AND veteran starter contracts are too rich for anything else to happen.

Let's just take the 2010 Patriots draft --- in year 1 the "successes" defined as 10 or more starts would be: Gronk, Cunningham and McCourty. That same draft class, using the metric of intended starters or started 10 or more starts in 2011 had "successes" of Gronkowski, Hernandez, McCourty, Love, with intended starter but injured success of Spike. The true fall-off was Cunningham. Players develop and it has been repeatedly noted that the biggest jump in a player's ability is often between their rookie and 2nd year. Your metric neglects that, and then you handwave the criticism away. It is more likely that a rookie role player develops into a 2nd or 3rd year starter than a rookie starter devolving into a 2nd or 3rd year role player. Both happen, but the percentages lean towards development.