One of the constant pissing matches is what defines successful drafting. There are some posters in this forum (and I assume any other professional sports fans forums) that maintain anything less than hitting on 100% of picks is absymal failure that can only be corrected if the Patriots hire them based on their astute internet fan board scouting. I think that strawman is unreasonable. But there is a wide array of opinions as to what constitutes "successful" drafting. Let's list as many different success metrics as possible with potential upsides and downsides of using that particular definition. 1) 1st year rookie starters (credit DW Toys) --- % of drafted rookies who start 5 games or more OR 10 games or more during their rookie year. The more restrictive criteria produces an 18% hit rate in 2011. The upside of this metric is that it measures immediate impact. The downside is that it is very imprecise as it does not account for team quality (bad teams with horrendous depth will have more rookie starters, all else equal, than good deep teams (see the 2007 Patriots for instance). Other downside is that it does not account for slow to develop positions (Aaron Rodgers would be graded as "non-successful" using this metric) 2) 2nd contract evaluation --(my preferred method) --- % of drafted rookies who receive multi-year contract extensions that extend a player past their RFA time and into their UFA eligbility time) where the contract extension average annual value is equal to or greater than either a 1st round RFA tender, or a looser metric a 2nd round RFA tender. Upside is that this is a team's attempt to value a player entering their prime against market values. The downside is that this is a slow process, at least three years from the draft in question. 3) Starters per year (Good draft hit rates: Lower than you think - AFC South Blog - ESPN) Interesting ESPN article on two GMs (Titans and Colts) who think they need to find 3 solid starters per year on average. This neglects a bit of draft pick efficiency but looks strictly at effectiveness. In a single year, it has the downsides of #1 in neglecting team quality (bad teams should have more marginal hits because the rest of the roster sucks) but it compensates if there is a multi-year averaging. 4) Expected Performance outcomes (good example here NFL Draft Success by Round) A variety of models that look at a players' career achievements versus the expected performance for that draft position. This rewards teams who have low draft ammunition but good results while downgrading teams that are picking at the tops of the rounds (easier to find good players picking first instead of last). What other metrics of success are there, and what are their upsides and downsides.