WAPO: Best teams ranked on Draft Value since 1996

Danger Zone covered it really well. And the methodology is a bit weird.

It would have been interesting to see expected AV vs. actual AV. So the Patriots drafting at 28 vs. the Colts drafting at 24, if they are equal in the draft, the Patriots, would still finish lower in the current system because they pick lower. But if it was expected value, then you could see who is exceeding it. That's why Jacksonville rates so high, they always have a top-10 pick. Of course if you just add up the AV of all the players and a team picks 20 spots higher than you year after year, they're going to score pretty well by this measure.

A few other notes: based on the methodology, I wonder if the Giants and Chargers got 0 value out of their 1st round picks in 2004 (Manning, Rivers) since they were both drafted first, then traded after. Therefore no value for their original drafting teams based on the methodology explained.

And then it doesn't factor in players for draft picks or vice versa. For example, the Patriots 4th-round pick for Randy Moss deal was huge. That draft pick (110) is worth 4.7 AV average based on Chase Stuart's draft chart. Moss's time in New England was worth 46 AV, plus a third round pick worth 7.4 AV (which was wasted on Mallett who had 0 AV in NE, so you could count it as nothing eventually or 7.4 at the time). Either way, almost 10 to 11 times more than the expected value of that pick.

Meanwhile, the Raiders got 0 AV out of that pick with John Bowie. But even if they got 1 AV, they would have "won" that trade based on this metric because they would have gotten credited for that draft selection and whatever AV came with it, while we get 0 because we traded the pick for a player.

If the Colts or Packers have drafted more players, so be it. And if they get more out of it, so be it. As I've said before and I'll say again, you play to win the game. I'd rather win a championship than win draft night. Part of why many teams have draft picks with lots of AV is because they have no choice. If they have an immature receiver they can't trust, they play him because they have to. If we have a guy who Brady doesn't trust, he doesn't play. The bad receiver gets catches and stats on his bad team and everyone wonders why we can't draft a guy like that. He gets handed the spot, given multiple chances to fail, and may or may not eventually develop.

I'm looking at you Darrius Heyward-Bey. He started 11 games as a rookie and caught 9 passes in 40 targets. The next year, he starts 14 games and catches 26 passes in 65 targets. He finally broke out a bit in his 3rd year, almost hitting 1,000 yards, before struggling in his last season in Oakland. Then he catches on with the Colts and doesn't produce much. But you can't coach speed, so he gets a few more seasons in Pittsburgh.

We cut Brandon LaFell because he only produced 37 catches in 74 targets in 9 starts for 515 yards after battling an injury all off-season. Heyward-Bey has exceeded that twice in 7 seasons despite only missing 7 games in his 7 seasons. The Raiders will get credit for 17 AV for Heyward-Bey, while we get 1 AV for Taylor Price because he wasn't good enough to start and didn't deserve it.

So I have a lot of issues with this study. I wouldn't put much into it.

RxJock1120 said:

Great idea, marginal execution.

The Ravens, Packers, and Colts who have combined to win a total of 3 Super Bowl titles since 1996 are all ranked higher than the Pat's who have won 4 Super Bowl titles???!!! Especially interesting considering that the Pats build their teams primarily through the draft.

Putting Ray Lewis in the same category as TB in regards to draft day steals is a complete joke. Say whatever you want about Ray Lewis, I can't stand him myself, but he was an amazing player....however he was drafted in the 1st Round while Brady was taken in the 6th!!!

Click to expand...

I've got to disagree with that statement that the Pats build their teams primarily through the draft. They build equally well through free agency and trades, from the top of the roster (Moss, Dillon, Amendola, Welker, Vrabel, et al) on down (Hicks, Siliga, Chandler, Lafell, Bostic, Poteat, Kitchen, etc etc). In fact it might very well be that the veteran acquisitions are the reason that drafting so late in each round is not a bigger problem.

The problem with these analyses is that they don't take into account need. Teams will often pass on a quality player if they are really deep at that position and take a 'weaker prospect" to fill a need. Sure, there were plenty of players taken after Nick Kaczur who had much better careers, but getting a decent starting player for a few years could be of more value then a slight upgrade at a position that is already filled with a good player. So value to a team can not solely be quantified by a players career.

supafly said:

Especially when you consider the fact that they normally draft top 5-10 every year!

Click to expand...

That's most likely, how they got that high, combined with the likelihood that more drafted stick because ther roster was so bad.

Ivan said:

That's most likely, how they got that high, combined with the likelihood that more drafted stick because ther roster was so bad.

Click to expand...

I thought about that, but I didn't think many of their picks hit lately, until recently with the offense.

wizwor said:

Do you really want a team that relies on the draft to win?

Click to expand...

Yes, but let me explain.

The draft is the 1st and best resort. Historically, it's built the great teams. Free agents and trades are to plug the gaps and more expensive.

This is an interesting effort to quantify the draft, and probably the best I have seen (lot of room for improvement) at a longitudinal study on teams draft prowess.. what it does show is BB's ability to draft is not at bad as often portrayed on this message board..

Would have like to seen the same results since 2000.. we may have moved up a notch or two.

Wait until next Sunday when posters heads will explode after BB is viewed as a "wtf is he thinking" moment.. which is usually caused by unhealthy doses of Mel Kiper and the rest of the draft prognosticators.. who all believe that if they talk louder and interject more useless stats will make them more credible..

Sorry but any metric that has Kevin Faulk and Dan Koppen as more valuable than Gronk is a flawed metric, end of story. I like the concept, and it's a pretty slick presentation, but the computations are flawed.

JDot said:

Mods you might want to move this to the Draft forum, but I am going to drop this link here first .

The Washington Post just Published a really cool draft value interactive read for each team since 1996. Just click on the link, then click on the team. A lot of great stats.

Legendary? Lousy? How your team has fared in the NFL draft
Really fun stuff to read and fiddle around with. Click on the Link, and enjoy.

Click to expand...

Thanks @JDot for the link. I can see me getting quite a lot of enjoyment from it down the road.

I found it interesting that 4 of the top 5 teams (Pitt, Indy, GB and NE) had the same average draft position of 21. The exception was Baltimore at 17.

The only negative that I have is their use of the pro football reference AV (Approximate Value) stat. Any stat that has Brett Favre and Peyton Manning rated well ahead of Tom Brady has to be skewed in some way.

Danger Zone said:

For what it's worth, where (on average) in the round were the top 5 Drafters picking?

Average Draft Position* (1st to 32nd) in each Round for the past 15 years.
1. Pittsburgh Steelers (16.37)
23rd (23.46)

2. Indianapolis Colts (15.27)
24th (24.13)

3. Green Bay Packers (14.86)
24th (23.53)

4. Baltimore Ravens (14.71)
21st (21.00)

5. New England Patriots (14.71)
28th (27.86)

Click to expand...

I am not going to run the numbers, but I bet if you took an average of the position of the Patriots' first selection in every draft over the past 20 years (ignoring trades) you would actually have a number greater than 32 because of losing 2 first round picks. Although that includes this year's draft which obviously is not factored into the evaluation.

XLIX said:

I am not going to run the numbers, but I bet if you took an average of the position of the Patriots' first selection in every draft over the past 20 years (ignoring trades) you would actually have a number greater than 32 because of losing 2 first round picks. Although that includes this year's draft which obviously is not factored into the evaluation.

Click to expand...

With the additional loss of another 1st Round Pick due to the Belichick "trade" adding up to a total of three First Round picks.

robertweathers said:

Yea from 05 to 08 the picks were pretty dearth of solid selections. Mayo and a few others but for 40 or so picks it was not a good showing.

Click to expand...

But let's not forget that 2007 was sui generis, and really shouldn't be counted. The Pats went into the draft arguably more stacked than they are now, and then they had 7 picks in the last three rounds.

hambone1818 said:

Sorry but any metric that has Kevin Faulk and Dan Koppen as more valuable than Gronk is a flawed metric, end of story. I like the concept, and it's a pretty slick presentation, but the computations are flawed.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. AV is a flawed metric in many ways. However, it's better than the majority of other stats we currently have, and despite it's issues, is probably the single-best measure out there.

One thing to note (which the WAPO article did as well) is that they used career AV during their period, so obviously players with longer careers will generate more AV.

Faulk has a career AV of 70 over 13 seasons, averaging 5.4 career AV. His highest AV season was 10.

Koppen played 11 seasons, generating 89 career AV or around 8.1 per year with a high of 16.

Gronk has played 7 seasons, several with injuries, and already generated 58 career AV, averaging 9.7 AV with a high* of 14 AV.

I think there are serious issues when calculating AV for OL, and it's hard to believe Koppen's best season was better than Gronk's best season. But for this measurement, using longevity is what matters so Gronk simply hasn't played enough (52 games fewer than Koppen, 81 fewer than Faulk).

Brady has played in 225 games and generated a career AV of 223 over 16 seasons (including his first season where he sat, and the lost injury season because he technically played in a game that year), averaging 13.9 AV per year with a high of 24.

Manning has played 17 full seasons (his missed season doesn't count), playing in 266 games and generated a career total of 271 AV, averaging 15.9 AV per year with a high of 21.

But if you exclude Brady's rookie season and 2008, he's averaged 15.9 AV per year as well. Manning has been a better regular season QB in terms of numbers, and he also has games on his side, although Brady's best season was better than Manning's best season. I don't think it's unrealistic to say Manning has been a better regular season QB in terms of numbers, partly from playing in a dome, partly from playing in a terrible division, and partly because they spent heavily on offensive weapons to help him out. AV also doesn't include playoffs, where we all know Manning is at a serious disadvantage to Brady. But I have no objection with a stat based on longevity and the regular season giving the nod to Manning.

Favre played 20 seasons, so based on career AV, that makes sense. His 20 years put him around 12.75 AV per year, but he's played 77 more games than Brady. His best AV season was 18, nowhere near Brady's. He's just played the equivalent of over 4 seasons more, so no surprise that the longevity score favours him.

This is not meant to be a defense of the AV numbers. Any single statistic used to measure punters and QBs and OL and DL is bound to have issues. But for this study, using career AV, those don't seem that far out of line with what I would see reality as.

How did they account for Spygate pick loss?

RecoveringCowboy said:

How are the Jaguars #7 ?!

Just two slots under the Pats?

DOES

NOT

COMPUTE

Click to expand...

If they draft well, then it has to be the coaching, for them.......

Marko said:

The problem with these analyses is that they don't take into account need. Teams will often pass on a quality player if they are really deep at that position and take a 'weaker prospect" to fill a need. Sure, there were plenty of players taken after Nick Kaczur who had much better careers, but getting a decent starting player for a few years could be of more value then a slight upgrade at a position that is already filled with a good player. So value to a team can not solely be quantified by a players career.

Click to expand...

Despite what Ted Thompson says, I think every team factors in need. I think the difference is the degree of how much it factors into decisions.

There are absolutely teams that will take a much lesser player to fill a need. But there are teams that stick true to the draft board, and may lean towards a need if the top of the draft board is the same.

And I disagree about how you are valuing a slight upgrade. It might be about more than talent on the field. Salary and potential also factor into it. If you can get a slight upgrade with a rookie who saves you a few million dollars and has the potential to be better, that's obviously an upgrade over 4 years than just looking at year 1 as many people do. Or he can fill a future need or give flexibility to a team for a player in his last year of his deal. There's all sorts of other factors besides just 1st-year impact.

I don't know if Kaczur is really a good example of what you're trying to say. First off, we already had Light and Ashworth, so he wasn't as big of a "need" as you suggest, and he started out the year on the bench. He moved into the line-up after Light's injury. And he allowed us to move on from Ashworth in the off-season, where he got a big deal from Seattle.

If every team knew who those guys were, they wouldn't have gone so late. At the time of the Kaczur pick, there were no obvious guys we'd rather have who turned out better. And out of the 155 picks after, a few had a highlight Pro Bowl season and not much else (Marion Barber, Jerome Mathis, Derek Anderson, Matt Cassel), but only a few had a better career than Kaczur (Sproles, Coles, Myers, Ratliff). So it's not like we passed on a treasure trove of great other players to "reach" for a tackle who would start the season on the bench.

And yes, every draft has guys that go later and turn out better than some guys drafted earlier. But we usually only know that in hindsight after looking back. The same year Kaczur was drafted, Aaron Rodgers tumbled down the draft board to 24, where the Packers took him despite having Brett Favre. Not really a need, but the value was there. I don't think anyone is going to dock them for not drafting for need there.

And that's the thing. Need matters, sure. But it shouldn't be a significant factor because injuries are random and areas of strength can become deficiencies quickly. Last year, Collins, Hightower, a healthy Mayo, and a returning Fletcher should have been great LB depth. Instead, Fletcher got hurt in the pre-season, Collins and Hightower both missed 4 games, Mayo never got all the way back and then got injured, and we're starting the likes of Jonathan Freeney.

A team that handles their business well and covers their bases smartly in free agency rarely has gaping holes that need to be filled by draft picks. At the top of the draft, the worst teams will guarantee their top 3-round draft picks a starting spot because they have no other choice. On this team, they have to earn it. There are weaker areas sure, but no outright handing of the job to anyone. There's decent depth throughout and that allows us to prioritize quality over need. Ditto the Packers.

Teams drafting early usually have to draft for need. Teams drafting late usually don't. And I certainly don't think we should be trying to copy the Jaguars and the old Browns and the worst franchises in the league.