2003 - 2005 NFL Draft Analysis

[cstjohn17]

I am skeptical by nature and have wondered how the Patriots drafts compares to the rest of the NFL. Sometimes it is hard to tell because the local media can skew the information. I tried to find some analytical information to either confirm or deny the Patriots draft record. The best information I could find was from NFL Draft Scout (http://www.nfldraftscout.com/). They provide a 3-year analysis of all NFL teams; the data set consists of years 2003-2005.

After reviewing the data I am convinced that the Patriots draft very well. The analysis rates the Patriots 3rd best in the league from 2003-2005. Very impressive. considering their average draft position is very high. They have been remarkable productive, it also speaks to their ability to develop players to fit their system.

If their free agents signings could be as solid as their drafts the team would be absolutely stacked.

How to read the table, attached as 2005-3yeardraft-analysis.pdf.

Each team received a score based on the following categories:
Starter = Starters are worth 3.
Backup = Backups are worth 2
On another team = still in league but not on team that drafted them 1
Out of league = -1

 

[dryheat44]

This is some good research. Who would've thought that Tennesee and San Francisco would be on top? Or maybe that is simply evidence that they are bad teams, and you don't have to be very good to earn a starting position.

 

[PonyExpress]

To judge a draft on how many "starters" a team acquires is faulty. Bad teams start bad players, and GMs often force coaches to keep the dregs they acquire in order to justify their own decisions. IMO the best way to judge a team's draft is to use the Draft Trade Value Board, which assigns a point value to each draft position. Add up the values of all Team A's picks for a given year. Then, 3 years later, reshuffle the whole draft, putting players in the position where they would be redrafted. Then add up the new values assigned to Team A's players from that year. The team that has the best % return on its original draft value points drafted best.
Many publications publish "rankings" of current NFL players, and these could be used to establish a "revised" draft position for a given year. It would be an interesting exercise for real draft fanatic.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Or maybe that is simply evidence that they are bad teams, and you don't have to be very good to earn a starting position.

That is certainly a problem.

If I recall correctly, Massey and Thaler (http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/%7Ecadem/bio/massey%20&%20thaler%20-%20loser%27s%20curse.pdf) in their economic analysis of the draft use some maths that is way beyond me to try to compute player performance, focusing on compensation in the sixth year of a player's career.

 

[Mike the Brit]

To judge a draft on how many "starters" a team acquires is faulty. Bad teams start bad players, and GMs often force coaches to keep the dregs they acquire in order to justify their own decisions. IMO the best way to judge a team's draft is to use the Draft Trade Value Board, which assigns a point value to each draft position. Add up the values of all Team A's picks for a given year. Then, 3 years later, reshuffle the whole draft, putting players in the position where they would be redrafted. Then add up the new values assigned to Team A's players from that year. The team that has the best % return on its original draft value points drafted best.
Many publications publish "rankings" of current NFL players, and these could be used to establish a "revised" draft position for a given year. It would be an interesting exercise for real draft fanatic.

Excellent suggestion -- simpler than Massey and Thaler's (see previous post) and applicable after three years but less objective than compensation data.

 

[PonyExpress]

A fascinating read. Not to nit-pick... but I'm not sure I agree that compensation data is more objective than the admittedly "subjective" redraft via scouts' rankings. As I understand it, the authors judge the surplus value of the player as their free agent compensation minus draft compensation. The problem with viewing free agent compensation as real on-field performance value, is that the teams paying free agent deals are often the same incompetent ones drafting badly. Their ability to judge veteran talent can be as poor as their ability to judge college talent. An example of this would be the unjustified bonanza paid to Antowain Randel-El by the Redskins. His free agent compensation minus draft compensation is staggering, but more the result of one organization's folly than actual on-field value.