Forbes: Drafting Success - A Paradox to Ponder

[Sicilian]

Perhaps the reason the American economy is in the toilet is exemplified by this:

Our "leading" financial publication has no idea how to properly analyze cause and effect.

 

[klinefan]

Our drafts have been horrendous. Dexter Reid, Guss Scott, Behtel, Chad Jackson...in time it will catch up. Although they've done a great job with FAs this year.

I am happy that BB seems like he's more involved this year. I think maybe SP was just gumming things up. Hopefully that's true.

I don't know why they're looking so hard at CBs though. No room on the roster for another, they have 5 good ones and richardson already. I could see a late round project but that's it.

 

[apple strudel]

Our drafts have been horrendous. Dexter Reid, Guss Scott, Behtel, Chad Jackson...in time it will catch up. Although they've done a great job with FAs this year.

I am happy that BB seems like he's more involved this year. I think maybe SP was just gumming things up. Hopefully that's true.

I don't know why they're looking so hard at CBs though. No room on the roster for another, they have 5 good ones and richardson already. I could see a late round project but that's it.

This is a good example of cherry-picking facts to make a point. Considering that you're going back more than 3 years, I'll do the same. Our entire offensive line and defensive line are draftees. Our quarterbacks are draftees. Our starting running back last year was a draftee. Our starting CBs last year were draftees. Our probable starting safeties next year are draftees. We've used draft picks to acquire talent like Wes Welker and Randy Moss in drafts perceived to be relatively weak. Our future OLBs are draftees. Our future CBs are arguably draftees. Our future QB is arguably a draftee. I'd say our drating has been an astonishing success. Maybe not the best, but among the best in the league, when examined overall.

You can take information out of context, or you can present information in proper context. Doing the latter is a more honest approach and gives you more accurate results.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

in the past three years, ... people read that part, right?

Exactly! That is my bone of contention with this faulty attempt at a statistical analyzation.

Because the sample size of the analysis is too narrow. The conventional wisdom in proper analysis of a draft class is only AFTER 3 years. But this clown , sorry - writer has sampled ONLY years 1, 2 and 3.

Not to mention all the other valid arguments presented already in this thread ex. non-drafted players: Guyton, BGJE, etc. draft trades, what round player drafted and so on.

This article is a great example of using statistics to basically make any argument one wishes to make.

Maybe we Pats(homer) fans should make a rebuttal statistical analysis with limited sample size of approximately 100 land miles of say - the country of Denmark where the highest point is only 400 or so feet above sea level - to statistically show that the earth is really flat!

EDIT: bad choice of wording - when I wrote 'clown', I did not mean to offend Bozo or any other professional circus performers. I apologize.

 

[Deus Irae]

If this is the only criteria they are using to determine who is the best and worst in the past three years, then the writer is correct.



I do not agree that this is the best way to judge success in drafting, but this is the only argument that the writer is making. And he is correct: we have the lowest percentage of players drafted in the past three years on our active roster of all 32 teams in the league. Is he wrong there?

If that had been the title of the story, you'd have a point. It wasn't, so you don't. Here is his premise:

Here's a thought: Instead of looking at how many draftees make the team's active roster, a better barometer of success might be a survey of the last three years of drafts for all 32 NFL teams. To judge them, we looked at the percentage of players from those three draft classes who were still listed as active members of the team.

In other words, he is asserting a superior way to evaluate drafts. You yourself don't buy his argument. That alone kills the rationale behind your interjection into the thread. He also calls Moss and Welker free agent acquisitions, Claims Kareem Brown was a 2nd round pick and calls Garrett Mills a running back. He got each and every specific player used as an example wrong, and that's just on the Patriots.

 

[BradyManny]

Read it all the way through before you kick the dog, it puts things in a better perspective than you might think at first blush.

Best And Worst NFL Draft Teams - Forbes.com

Reiss had a link to it and he summed it up pretty well as to why the article is semantics and/or plain wrong.

Having more rookies make your team certainly does not mean you draft better. It mainly just means your team sucks.

 

[Deus Irae]

Reiss had a link to it and he summed it up pretty well as to why the article is semantics and/or plain wrong.

Having more rookies make your team certainly does not mean you draft better. It mainly just means your team sucks.

Yes.... I posted this elsewhere about this same topic, but it fits here too:

1st round picks:

2008 - Jerod Mayo
2007 - Brandon Meriweather
2006 - Laurence Maroney

2nd round picks:

2008 - Terrence Wheatley
2007 - None
2006 - Chad Jackson

3rd round picks:

2008 - Shawn Crable, Kevin O'Connell
2007 - None
2006 - David Thomas

4th round picks:

2008 - Jonathan Wilhite
2007 - Kareem Brown
2006 - Garrett Mills, Stephen Gostkowski

I'll stop here in the interest of my sanity. Now, take a look at that group and you'll find only 3 of them aren't still with the team: Jackson, Mills and Brown.

Jackson is currently in Denver, Mills is in Minnesota and Brown is with the Jets. Every single draft pick taken in round 4 or higher is still in the NFL.

Furthermore, some other notes:

1.) Gostkowski is an All-Pro kicker
2.) Mayo was just the defensive rookie of the year.
3.) Mayo, Maroney and Meriweather, Wheatley and Wilhite have all seen time as starters
4.) The team didn't have either a 2nd or 3rd round pick in 2007 due to trades
5.) Thomas is the team's #2 tight end as of this moment.
6.) Crable ended up on the IR as a rookie.
7.) O'Connell ended the season as the team's #2 QB


Another misleading aspect about the article is that the Patriots have had so many lower round picks in the past 3 seasons. They've had 17 picks in the 4th round or later, compared to only 8 picks in the first 3 rounds (due to trades and losing a first rounder via the commissioner). Therefore, weighting a 7th round pick as equal to a first round pick is naturally going to skew the results under such circumstances.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The Forbes measure is a simplistic one for sure. But can anyone really disagree with the findings - the Pats just haven't drafted well in recent years. I would say that weak drafts are the #1 reason the franchise has slipped from Super Bowl winner to strong playoff contender over the last five years.

I think you've hit on something. That missed interception that caused them to go 18-1 instead of 19-0 certainly proves your case.

 

[BradyManny]

Yes.... I posted this elsewhere about this same topic, but it fits here too:

1st round picks:

2008 - Jerod Mayo
2007 - Brandon Meriweather
2006 - Laurence Maroney

2nd round picks:

2008 - Terrence Wheatley
2007 - None
2006 - Chad Jackson

3rd round picks:

2008 - Shawn Crable, Kevin O'Connell
2007 - None
2006 - David Thomas

4th round picks:

2008 - Jonathan Wilhite
2007 - Kareem Brown
2006 - Garrett Mills, Stephen Gostkowski

I'll stop here in the interest of my sanity. Now, take a look at that group and you'll find only 3 of them aren't still with the team: Jackson, Mills and Brown.

Jackson is currently in Denver, Mills is in Minnesota and Brown is with the Jets. Every single draft pick taken in round 4 or higher is still in the NFL.

Furthermore, some other notes:

1.) Gostkowski is an All-Pro kicker
2.) Mayo was just the defensive rookie of the year.
3.) Mayo, Maroney and Meriweather, Wheatley and Wilhite have all seen time as starters
4.) The team didn't have either a 2nd or 3rd round pick in 2007 due to trades
5.) Thomas is the team's #2 tight end as of this moment.
6.) Crable ended up on the IR as a rookie.
7.) O'Connell ended the season as the team's #2 QB


Another misleading aspect about the article is that the Patriots have had so many lower round picks in the past 3 seasons. They've had 17 picks in the 4th round or later, compared to only 8 picks in the first 3 rounds (due to trades and losing a first rounder via the commissioner). Therefore, weighting a 7th round pick as equal to a first round pick is naturally going to skew the results under such circumstances.

Great post, good points all around.

Another thing worth pointing out:

If anyone grabs a copy of any draft magazine this year, go thru the team by team section, see the list of draft picks of each team last year and how many games every player started. It's pretty revealing to see just how little rookies play. It isn't just in New England. There were plenty of teams that only got a handful of starts out of their entire 2008 rookie class, and these are teams with crappy rosters desperate for decent players.

 

[Carpentier]

Its funny that many here are offended by the article. I've read this article and came away the impression that there isn't necessary a correlation between great drafting and being successful. The Steelers and the Patriots haven't been this good and the Colts and the Giants have been in drafting. All four teams have enjoyed a lot success nevertheless.

 

[Urgent]

would be interesting to know the percentages of first rd picks still with their team over the course of say the last ten years and compare....and maybe each rd by itself.

And also maybe instead of just with the team maybe starting or contributing a certain percentage of snaps.

We looked at this on another site - this adjusts for round, and focuses on the entire Bill Belichick drafting era with the Patriots. Several 2008 picks were called Incomplete, so the percentages don't always total 100% or cover every single pick.

Answer to your questions from that analysis:

The results:
ROUND ONE
Pro-Bowl - 33%
Starter - 67%
The Patriots have never blown a first rounder.

ROUND TWO
Pro Bowl - 13%
Starter - 25%
Contributor - 38%
Non-contributor - 25%
The Patriots draft one bust in four in the second.

ROUND THREE
Pro Bowl - 0%
Starter - 33%
Contributor - 17%
Non-contributor - 50%
The bust rate doubles, although the Patriots have drafted a very small number of third rounders over the Belichick era.

ROUND FOUR
Pro Bowl - 14%
Starter - 7%
Contributor - 36%
Non-contributor - 43%
Actually historically better performance in Four than Three.

ROUND FIVE
Pro Bowl - 13%
Starter - 0%
Contributor - 13%
Non-contributor - 75%
Another huge jump in "bust" rate here.

ROUND SIX
Pro Bowl - 7% (guesses?)
Starter - 0%
Contributor - 14%
Non-contributor - 71%

ROUND SEVEN
Pro Bowl - 0%
Starter - 13%
Contributor - 27%
Non-contributor - 60%

 

[Deus Irae]

Its funny that many here are offended by the article. I've read this article and came away the impression that there isn't necessary a correlation between great drafting and being successful. The Steelers and the Patriots haven't been this good and the Colts and the Giants have been in drafting. All four teams have enjoyed a lot success nevertheless.

Let's try this again.....

I'm not offended by the article. The article is crap and I'm pointing it out. The Patriots, despite your decision to act as if the article is accurate, have not been the worst drafting team in the NFL. As for your correlation argument, you feel free to believe that. How's that line of thinking been working out for the Redskins?

 

[Sicilian]

Its funny that many here are offended by the article. I've read this article and came away the impression that there isn't necessary a correlation between great drafting and being successful. The Steelers and the Patriots haven't been this good and the Colts and the Giants have been in drafting. All four teams have enjoyed a lot success nevertheless.

I don't take offense to the article, I merely have a very big problem with the line of reasoning used. They take one statistic which is heavily dependent on multiple factors (none of which correlate to any meaningful depiction of draft savvy) and come to the conclusion that A) The Patriots don't draft well, and B) That you don't need to draft well to be successful.

Regardless of the validity of the results (Which I believe are blatantly false), the methodology is so flawed it leads me to believe Forbes had a writer drop out and needed some filler written in 30 minutes.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I can't believe there are some here defending this lousy article. I've noted that not one of these posters has actually attempted to refute the many issues that we have cited as to why the article is wrong.

Instead, they restated the writer's worthless conclusions as if they really were a good judge of draft success or insinuate we are just homers that can't accept to hear anything bad about the Patriots.

Try debating the points about how draft success can be evaluated accurately.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

We looked at this on another site - this adjusts for round, and focuses on the entire Bill Belichick drafting era with the Patriots. Several 2008 picks were called Incomplete, so the percentages don't always total 100% or cover every single pick.

Answer to your questions from that analysis:

The results:
ROUND ONE
Pro-Bowl - 33%
Starter - 67%
The Patriots have never blown a first rounder.

ROUND TWO
Pro Bowl - 13%
Starter - 25%
Contributor - 38%
Non-contributor - 25%
The Patriots draft one bust in four in the second.

ROUND THREE
Pro Bowl - 0%
Starter - 33%
Contributor - 17%
Non-contributor - 50%
The bust rate doubles, although the Patriots have drafted a very small number of third rounders over the Belichick era.

ROUND FOUR
Pro Bowl - 14%
Starter - 7%
Contributor - 36%
Non-contributor - 43%
Actually historically better performance in Four than Three.

ROUND FIVE
Pro Bowl - 13%
Starter - 0%
Contributor - 13%
Non-contributor - 75%
Another huge jump in "bust" rate here.

ROUND SIX
Pro Bowl - 7% (guesses?)
Starter - 0%
Contributor - 14%
Non-contributor - 71%

ROUND SEVEN
Pro Bowl - 0%
Starter - 13%
Contributor - 27%
Non-contributor - 60%

Nice work Urgent -now to 'complete the journey to the dark side' - here is an article about NFL draft average for starting in the NFL (after 4 years) - the sample size is over the last 10 years. This article was posted 2 years ago by Charlie Casserly on CBS Sportsline. Unfortunately - it does not break it down further as you did about (Pro Bowl vs. Starter vs role player, etc).
Team-by-team analysis: Judging without grades - NFL - CBSSports.com Football

" 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 "
excerpt : Charlie Casserly on CBS Sportsline

 

[Urgent]

Hey - excellent baseline data.

So, we can compare Pat's performance:

Round 1 -- 75 % league -- 100 % Belichick
Round 2 -- 50 % league -- 38 % Belichick
Round 3 -- 30 % league -- 33 % Belichick
Round 4 -- 25 % league -- 21 % Belichick
Round 5 -- 20 % league -- 13 % Belichick
Round 6 -- 9 % league-- 7 % Belichick
Round 7 -- 9 % league -- 13 % Belichick

Which just says that the Patriots' draft performance is, well, pretty close to league average.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Hey - excellent baseline data.

So, we can compare Pat's performance:

Round 1 -- 75 % league -- 100 % Belichick
Round 2 -- 50 % league -- 38 % Belichick
Round 3 -- 30 % league -- 33 % Belichick
Round 4 -- 25 % league -- 21 % Belichick
Round 5 -- 20 % league -- 13 % Belichick
Round 6 -- 9 % league-- 7 % Belichick
Round 7 -- 9 % league -- 13 % Belichick

Which just says that the Patriots' draft performance is, well, pretty close to league average.

Yes, I was also surprised BB wasn't head and shoulders above the average.

But when you consider a few extra points - (being the Pats homer I am) then it will clearly knock the Pats up a notch.

1) The first round BB & Pioli have nailed it. That is where the big money is and obviously you dont want to waste money on a bust prospect. Not only does that mean you have to roll the dice and draft (again) to replace a bust - but that lost production while you wait for the bust to develop (Chad Jackson says hi). That tied up money in a blown first round pick can really limit the team in FA (the other possibility to fill the hole that the bust creates).

2) The success BB & SP have had with identifying quality undrafted free agents. I believe it is every single year at least one UFA has made the team.

3) Success in late rounders. Not only drafting role players (Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk) or serviceable special teamers, but also drafting late round starters: David Givens, Dan Koppen, some slow footed kid from Michigan, etc.

4) Usually picking late in each round - from the 'bottom of the barrel'.

5) the success of draft day trades.

6) our draftees which don't make the Pats loaded team more often times than not end up on someone elses team or practice squad.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

3) Success in late rounders. Not only drafting role players (Patrick Pass, Kevin Faulk) or serviceable special teamers, but also drafting late round starters: David Givens, Dan Koppen, some slow footed kid from Michigan, etc.

Faulk wasn't a late rounder, but, I do agree... +MC.

 

[Ring 6]

I think anyone who feels the PAts have not drafted well hasn't paid attention.
There are many ways to manipulate data, but the reality is that the draft is part of building a team. Needs differ, spots on the roster differ, many things differ from team to team.
The draft is absolutely a critical part of building a team. Look at the key contributors to the Pats success, and consistently they were drafted or traded for with draft choices.
Basically, success is using the draft to build a stong team, so teams that win, almost by definition draft well, and teams that lose do not.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Every team has their busts... there are no teams that hit on every pick. This is impossible.

I believe for the most part, the Patriots do a good job in drafting.

Just not the higher rounds for wr's...