1st round picks become starters less than 60% of the time

[convertedpatsfan]

The first round of the draft remains a total crapshoot

Interesting take by Dimitroff, puts the starter rate for 1st round picks at less than 60%.

If you listen to some armchair GMs around here, BB is a ****ing moron for drafting so and so in the 4th round or whatever other player in the 2nd. It misses league-wide perspective.

If you only watch Brady's incomplete passes, and compare them to Ryan Fitzpatrick's touchdown highlights, you'd conclude Fitz is a superior QB. This would be ****ing ******ed, yet people continue to do the exact same thing with BB's draft record, never looking at league averages, only pointing out successes of other GMs while ignoring their busts too.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Some interesting statistics in the following article from a Chief's site.

OL (83%), LB (70%) and TE (67%) have the lowest first round "bust" rates.
QBs are first round or bust (with one or two notable exceptions of course!)

DL's have highest first round bust rate - only a 58% chance of becoming a starter. But that's a lot better than the second round, where success rate drops to a mere 26% (about the same as 3rd round and actually worse than 4th round for some reason).

What stats tells us about the draft by round

 

[Kontradiction]

So what you're saying is that 60% of the time it works every time?

 

[Froob]

Fans trying to defend BB the GM again, should have traded for Le'Veon Bell but instead we get Danny Burkhead.

 

[Deus Irae]

Historically, you can round the data to something like

1/3 bust
1/3 mediocre
1/3 quality

 

[Shockt327]

I swear, I've been saying the same thing for years: it's roughly a 60% success-rate in the 1st round....

It's really nothing scientific on my part; no stats, or analysis, or anything. It's just that every-time I've looked at the draft results on, say, Wikipedia, or whatever, I usually find myself just eye-balling the list and counting the number of guys that stand-out or have made it to the pro bowl round-by-round. In most years, I usually find my count of successful players to get into the mid-teens through the 1st rd.

I'll add to that by saying the success-rate falls to roughly 45-50% in the 2nd Rd
...and then falls to a 35-40% success-rate in the 3rd round

Once you get into the 4th round and beyond, any success seems totally random; meaning the number of noteworthy players is just too small to really count and put a percentage on it. Year by year, there's seemingly little difference between the raw number of noticeable players in the 4th vs 5th vs 6th vs 7th. Basically, it's a crapshoot. You'll see far more noticeable names in the anecdotal list of un-drafted players than you will in any of those later rounds. And it makes sense too, because the overall number of un-drafted players far, far, far exceeds just the standard 32 per-round.

 

[Shockt327]

Also, on the same note, I'd honestly say that the year-by-year success rate of an individual GM, or franchise, is damn near impossible calculate in a meaningful way. I've tried to do this in the past -- granted, just by eyeballing this list of draftpicks -- often by noteworthy GMs or successful franchises (Polian in Indy, Pittsburgh, San Diego in early-mid 00s, Newsome in Balt, Pioli in KC, Dimitroff in ATL). It's just so hard to pin down. There are only 7 picks handed out per year. It's too little. Some years are good, some aren't, some just seem like totally blind luck because, say, the 1st rd pick was a bust, but they nailed it in the 3rd; so is that skill or luck? And should that success in the 3rd count just as much as success in the 1st? To add to that; They'll go three years with good draft results, then bomb for the next two years after that. Some guys bounce back. Other guys get fired. One year they are GM of the year, then, they are on the hot-seat three seasons later.

I honestly believe that on an individual level, trying to determine the success rate of a GM is like trying to compare/contrast the batting average of a MLB player after just a game or two (i.e one at-bat = one draft pick). So, I know Dustin Pedroia is a .300 hitter, and that's damn good. But that average is over 162 games. But per game? He can easily get 3+ hits in back-to-back games, followed by going 0/7 in the next series. It just happens. Was he a "bust" in that last series? Of course not.

So, imagine if an entire season of baseball were reduced to just two games, seven at-bats. You'd identify "success" as someone who goes 3/4 with a HR in a single game. And you'd probably expect that from them every "year." But in reality? That's absurd; no one is actually a .750 hitter over the course of time. That's honestly how I feel about the NFL draft; You see your franchise go 3/4 with a HR in one or two drafts, and you actually come to expect this on a year-to-year basis. But it's just not realistic, not in the slightest.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

ll add to that by saying the success-rate falls to roughly 45-50% in the 2nd Rd
...and then falls to a 35-40% success-rate in the 3rd round

If you look at DBs, which are the most-drafted position (about 25% of players in each round so there is less randomness), you see the following starter-success rate according to that article:

64% (first round)
46%
24%
11%
17%
8%
11% (7th round)

 

[BTTA]

If you look at DBs, which are the most-drafted position (about 25% of players in each round so there is less randomness), you see the following starter-success rate according to that article:

64% (first round)
46%
24%
11%
17%
8%
11% (7th round)

This opens up all kinds of fun. For example, I'm better off trading my 3rd round pick straight up for a 4th if I'm planning on drafting a DB? And my first round pick for 6 7ths?

 

[Tony2046]

Some interesting statistics in the following article from a Chief's site.

OL (83%), LB (70%) and TE (67%) have the lowest first round "bust" rates.
QBs are first round or bust (with one or two notable exceptions of course!)

DL's have highest first round bust rate - only a 58% chance of becoming a starter. But that's a lot better than the second round, where success rate drops to a mere 26% (about the same as 3rd round and actually worse than 4th round for some reason).

What stats tells us about the draft by round

I think I got that link from you last year. I put this chart together based on that link.

 

[Tony2046]

Also, on the same note, I'd honestly say that the year-by-year success rate of an individual GM, or franchise, is damn near impossible calculate in a meaningful way. I've tried to do this in the past -- granted, just by eyeballing this list of draftpicks -- often by noteworthy GMs or successful franchises (Polian in Indy, Pittsburgh, San Diego in early-mid 00s, Newsome in Balt, Pioli in KC, Dimitroff in ATL). It's just so hard to pin down. There are only 7 picks handed out per year. It's too little. Some years are good, some aren't, some just seem like totally blind luck because, say, the 1st rd pick was a bust, but they nailed it in the 3rd; so is that skill or luck? And should that success in the 3rd count just as much as success in the 1st? To add to that; They'll go three years with good draft results, then bomb for the next two years after that. Some guys bounce back. Other guys get fired. One year they are GM of the year, then, they are on the hot-seat three seasons later.

I honestly believe that on an individual level, trying to determine the success rate of a GM is like trying to compare/contrast the batting average of a MLB player after just a game or two (i.e one at-bat = one draft pick). So, I know Dustin Pedroia is a .300 hitter, and that's damn good. But that average is over 162 games. But per game? He can easily get 3+ hits in back-to-back games, followed by going 0/7 in the next series. It just happens. Was he a "bust" in that last series? Of course not.

So, imagine if an entire season of baseball were reduced to just two games, seven at-bats. You'd identify "success" as someone who goes 3/4 with a HR in a single game. And you'd probably expect that from them every "year." But in reality? That's absurd; no one is actually a .750 hitter over the course of time. That's honestly how I feel about the NFL draft; You see your franchise go 3/4 with a HR in one or two drafts, and you actually come to expect this on a year-to-year basis. But it's just not realistic, not in the slightest.

For discussion purposes. I put together a draft analysis last year and just updated it . It compares all the teams from the AFCE. I think it shows that BB has been quite a bit better than the other three teams. More first team all pro selections, Pro Bowl selections and similar amount of total games played despite picking later in each round than the other teams.

I do agree that it is tough to fully grade each GM completely. I haven't looked up which picks were traded for players or to move up etc... and wouldn't know what the results were for those transactions.

I also have to add that Brady's Pro Bowl and All Pro selections might throw this chart off a bit because of who he is. The Goat.
So for an FYI, Brady's All Pro selections are 2 and Pro Bowl 12.


Draft Years 2000-2016


New York Jets All-Time Draft History | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[TB_Helmet]

I think I got that link from you last year. I put this chart together based on that link.

View attachment 16889

That is one of the greatest football charts I've ever seen. Really puts things in perspective. Could we get the same chart for the Pats in the Belichick era?

63% success rate for QBs in the first round seems a little high to me but I'd have to see the full list to conclude that decisively.

 

[Tony2046]

That is one of the greatest football charts I've ever seen. Really puts things in perspective. Could we get the same chart for the Pats in the Belichick era?

63% success rate for QBs in the first round seems a little high to me but I'd have to see the full list to conclude that decisively.

I've been working on various charts. I'll post them when I get finished with them.

Btw: IIRC 63% includes backup QB's as well. As long as they are still on a roster they count as a success in that chart.

 

[jmt57]

There are so many variables that it makes quantifying draft success virtually impossible.

How do you quantify a successful draft pick? How do you draw the line between a good pick and a bust?

Then there is draft position. Is lumping a number one and number 32 pick together fair, when numbers 32 and 33 are given completely different criteria?

What happens when a player's career is curtailed by an unforeseen injury? Why is that placed in the same negative category as a guy who had neither the skill nor temperament to succeed?

And then there are trades. For example does the acquisition of Wes Welker merit the productivity of a second round draft pick? If not, why not; it is still player evaluation, correct?

If a team trades one draft pick for four draft picks and two pan out, why are they graded at only 50%? Isn't a 200% return on that one draft pick more accurate?



Bottom line is that the knee jerk reactions that flood the internet and airwaves only scratch the surface, and are far from an accurate assessment.

 

[Tony2046]

There are so many variables that it makes quantifying draft success virtually impossible.

How do you quantify a successful draft pick? How do you draw the line between a good pick and a bust?

Then there is draft position. Is lumping a number one and number 32 pick together fair, when numbers 32 and 33 are given completely different criteria?

What happens when a player's career is curtailed by an unforeseen injury? Why is that placed in the same negative category as a guy who had neither the skill nor temperament to succeed?

And then there are trades. For example does the acquisition of Wes Welker merit the productivity of a second round draft pick? If not, why not; it is still player evaluation, correct?

If a team trades one draft pick for four draft picks and two pan out, why are they graded at only 50%? Isn't a 200% return on that one draft pick more accurate?



Bottom line is that the knee jerk reactions that flood the internet and airwaves only scratch the surface, and are far from an accurate assessment.

I think you have to add it all up cumulatively.

You look over a select period of time and add as many judgement parameters as possible. Will it be perfect? No but it will start to identify things.

I'm working on a chart that will incorporate draft value according to the Walter Draft value chart.

The Wes Welker trade would be the product of a Second round pick because that is what the team gave up to get him. The grading would be emphasized on the team and not the player.

The pick trade and value concern is interesting because I think pick trade vs overall player return could be measure in a few ways. Starting time, playing time, etc... vs similar value for a 2nd round pick playing time or starting time. Not sure if that's necessary yet.

What I'm having a problem with is traded players for picks and picks for players. It gets complicated at that point.

Beyond the picks etc.... there is the unknowns such as the quality of the coaching staff. I'm not sure how to determine that. For example, let's say player A would be an All Pro under Staff A but he would only be a Starting player under Staff B. How do you recognize that?? That's a huge obstacle.

Ok those are my thoughts. Kind of thinking out loud.

 

[ViperGTS]

What I do from time to time is go back and look at the first round picks from years past.

Funny how you don't even recognize near most of the names. Really puts into perspective how a) short most careers are and b) how hard it is to discern talent, even in the first round of 32* total players.

* is due to the NYFL unjustly stripping picks from the Pats.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I think you have to add it all up cumulatively.

You look over a select period of time and add as many judgement parameters as possible. Will it be perfect? No but it will start to identify things.

I'm working on a chart that will incorporate draft value according to the Walter Draft value chart.

The Wes Welker trade would be the product of a Second round pick because that is what the team gave up to get him. The grading would be emphasized on the team and not the player.

The pick trade and value concern is interesting because I think pick trade vs overall player return could be measure in a few ways. Starting time, playing time, etc... vs similar value for a 2nd round pick playing time or starting time. Not sure if that's necessary yet.

What I'm having a problem with is traded players for picks and picks for players. It gets complicated at that point.

Beyond the picks etc.... there is the unknowns such as the quality of the coaching staff. I'm not sure how to determine that. For example, let's say player A would be an All Pro under Staff A but he would only be a Starting player under Staff B. How do you recognize that?? That's a huge obstacle.

Ok those are my thoughts. Kind of thinking out loud.

Interesting thoughts. Some additional food for thought. Have you considered using Pro Football Reference's AV vs. Chase Stuart's draft value chart (which uses the average AV per draft slot)? So if we know the average career AV of the 56th pick is 9, then we can see if a player has exceeded that average or not.

So we aren't measuring short term starter vs long term backup or whether a guy played because he was good or his team sucked. Just whether he exceeds the average for where he's selected. Because a guy drafted in the 7th round who makes the team and plays a bit is a successful pick in comparison to most 7th round picks.

 

[DarrylS]

Always thought the the whole draft prognostication was an invention of the NFL to perpetuate its brand and make money during the down time in March/April.. millions are spent on mock drafts and draft publications, lots of publicity for the NFL. It starts with the Combine another NFL invention, then on to college pro days and individual workouts..

Never understood how anyone can predict what will happen in the third round on as there are just too many variables..

Then there is Mel Kyper who for some reason has become an expert about guessing..

I enjoy the outcome, but the process seems somewhat convoluted and tilts heavily towards the interest of the league, rather than the teams.

 

[DaBruinz]

Charts like these really provide a good basis, but are just guidelines.. Though you will have people who will swear up and down that they know better all because they read web-based scouting reports and watch the games.. They forget that the people they're watching have personalities and egos and that sort of thing gets figured into the scouting when teams do one on one interviews.. And it's that sort of information we almost never hear about.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Interesting article in the Globe today by Volin about how OL drafting, which used to be lower risk compared to other positions, has now become high risk because a lot of these recent OL players have never really played from a 3-point stance given how the college game has evolved.

Offensive line a difficult position to project in NFL Draft - The Boston Globe