NFL draft success analysis

[Triumph]

Im just the messenger.

Which teams are the most efficient in the NFL Draft? | National Football Post

 

[Danger Zone]

Im just the messenger.

Which teams are the most efficient in the NFL Draft? | National Football Post

Honestly, I dont know where Belichick falls as a drafter. I think he puts much greater emphasis on things like dependability and team-orientated personalities than most other coaches. This can skew his draft grades when comparing them to other talent-first draft picks, and rightfully so.

Its certainly valid to question several of his picks.. they were failures no matter how you attempt to grade them. Still there is a reason that he picked these kids and that reason is NOT because he's an idiot. Let's keep that in mind.

But in the end though, I think it's perfectly clear that he has made mistakes or his approach is flawed at times.

The Patriots have drafted in the worst average position of any NFL team over the past 13 years.

They have done so because the Patriots have been the winningest team over that same period.

We are drafting at the 29th spot this year and this is kind of an average year for us. How do you fantasy guys like drafting after 28 other players have had a chance to pick before you in every round? Drafting after everyone else (28 other teams) has had the chance to take the very best of every round is a real and insidious handicap.

13 years in a row of picking so relatively late in the round and the detrimental effects of doing so simply add up. It is a real handicap to draft so late, doing so year after year has cumulative effects that should somehow be taken into consideration.

Just my two cents.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'll be the first to admit we've missed on some draft picks, especially between 2006-2009, but I find it amazing that 9 of the 10 Super Bowl winners in this evaluation period finished in the bottom half of the total number of starts by drafted players, and 7 of 10 Super Bowl winners in the bottom half of "efficiency" based on this formula.

Good teams draft later, thus theoretically getting worse players, so the draft starts make sense. But in terms of efficiency, it's either a busted formula, or it just shows that maximizing draft choices doesn't necessarily equate to ultimate team success.

 

[Danger Zone]

I'll be the first to admit we've missed on some draft picks, especially between 2006-2009, but I find it amazing that 9 of the 10 Super Bowl winners in this evaluation period finished in the bottom half of the total number of starts by drafted players, and 7 of 10 Super Bowl winners in the bottom half of "efficiency" based on this formula.

Good teams draft later, thus theoretically getting worse players, so the draft starts make sense. But in terms of efficiency, it's either a busted formula, or it just shows that maximizing draft choices doesn't necessarily equate to ultimate team success.

Very nice observation about the Superbowl winners.

No other team has been to as many Super Bowls or have won as many Super Bowl as the Patriots.

And no other team has been so consistent in how well they finish compared to all other teams year after year.

 

[RayClay]

We just had a thread on this.

Using your own picks to have 3 winning seasons out of ten is something, but it's not efficient. Not successful either. What a dumb concept.

Tennessee, the most efficient team, had 3 winning seasons in the 10 years of this study. Think about that.

Apparently, they drafted lots of players, who didn't fit their team, giving other teams free players without draft picks. They likely kept players that were bad for their team while cutting free agents that would have fit.

This is conjecture on my part, but making all those "good" draft picks for 3 total winning seasons is incredible.

The only people who could think this has positive value are those who think the only purpose of actually playing the season, is to decide their place in the draft.

Unbelievable.

 

[RayClay]

Of course, some good teams do well in this factor. I would say there is no relation whatsoever between this factor and team success.

 

[Sciz]

Just looking over this briefly, I'm not buying their methods. For one, I refuse to accept any draft grading based on an average. The affect good drafting has on teams is not an average. It is a sum. And ranking them based on starts is going to skew the results toward bad teams. Logan Ryan could have started for many teams last season and probably could for many next season. He's behind some pretty darn good cornerbacks. That's not reflected in these stats.

 

[Rob0729]

Several things:

- If you did this survey over the last five years, the Pats would probably be in the top third of the league. It was 2006-2009 where the Pats had the least draft success. From 2010-2013 have been solid draft.

- The fact that the Pats were successful in the draft in the last four years, but unsuccessful between 2006-2009 penalizes them in the number of starts category. A stud player drafted in 2006 is going to have more starts than a stud player in 2013. It is a simple fact. Say the Pats drafted Chandler Jones in 2006, he would have 128 starts (assuming he was healthy) in this study rather than 30 starts he has now even though he would be the same player. That category is definitely skewed to favor draft picks made ten years ago over last year.

- Most games started by draft picks is a misleading stat. When you have a Super Bowl contending team, it is difficult for a draft pick to crack the starting line up. There are many bottom tier teams starting players they drafted that wouldn't even make the Pats' 53 man roster. You see many of the teams most successful in this category were below .500 for most or all of the time period (2004-2013) surveyed. That tells you that this is a bad way to judge success in drafting.

- The Pats are penalized by some of these rankings for trading down. They use percentage of draft picks that go to the Pro Bowl. This is where they penalize the Pats for trading down. So if the Pats had two first rounders and one turned into a Pro Bowler, they would have a 50% success rate. If the Pats had two first rounders and traded one down for three picks and only the first rounder makes the Pro Bowl, the success rate turns into 25% even if the three players who were traded for were good players and a better value than one first rounder. This survey benefits a team like the Jets who tends to put their eggs in one basket and trade large portion of their draft for one player than a team like the Pats who values quantity of picks.

- The table that judges the success rate in the first three rounds is very skewed against the Pats since they trade out of the first round a lot.

I think the Pats have been above average drafting over the decade with a bad period early in that decade. This study penalizes them for this while forgives a team like the Steelers who drafted well in 2004-2008, but god awful in the last three years.

 

[Urgent]

This demonstrates the tremendous success the Patriots have had based on coaching.

Their personnel decisions have been below average. Their coaching of the players on the roster has been tremendous.

 

[Rob0729]

We just had a thread on this.

Using your own picks to have 3 winning seasons out of ten is something, but it's not efficient. Not successful either. What a dumb concept.

Tennessee, the most efficient team, had 3 winning seasons in the 10 years of this study. Think about that.

Apparently, they drafted lots of players, who didn't fit their team, giving other teams free players without draft picks. They likely kept players that were bad for their team while cutting free agents that would have fit.

This is conjecture on my part, but making all those "good" draft picks for 3 total winning seasons is incredible.

The only people who could think this has positive value are those who think the only purpose of actually playing the season, is to decide their place in the draft.

Unbelievable.

As I pointed out in my post, Tennessee gets bonus points for starting marginal players because they lack talent. Over the last ten years, Tennessee has started players who would struggle to make the 53 man roster of many of the top teams in the league. But this poll rewards them for poor personnel decisions and starting players who have no business starting because of these decisions.

 

[patfanken]

It would have been a lot better analysis if the author had taken one more step and added an analysis of draft pick efficiency to wins. He also should have had an analysis charting the success of UDFA's, where I'd wager the Pats would have shined.

 

[Urgent]

Several things:

- Most games started by draft picks is a misleading stat. When you have a Super Bowl contending team, it is difficult for a draft pick to crack the starting line up. There are many bottom tier teams starting players they drafted that wouldn't even make the Pats' 53 man roster. You see many of the teams most successful in this category were below .500 for most or all of the time period (2004-2013) surveyed. That tells you that this is a bad way to judge success in drafting.

I've seen this argument a number of times, and have trouble supporting it.

The Patriots commonly lead the league in undrafted rookies making the team.

Last year's team included James Develin, Kenbrell Thompkins, Zach Sudfeld, Will Svitek, Chris Barker, Josh Kline, Joe Vellano, AJ Davis, and Ryan Allen. Not positive about all those guys, but most were originally undrafted. Hard to argue that starting players drafted by another team wouldn't have made the Patriots 2013 roster.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Good Statistical reporting. the only problem is that his "Probably" oversimplified process is based on a false notion. Let's dig into it.

• For each team, the number of draft choices within each segment and the number of games started by those draft choices was aggregated

I understand his idea of efficiency, but he's rewarding teams that trade-up and give up more value to get a key player. Now, this might not be a bad thing if you don't have enough roster spots for rookies, but that is seldom the case.

As we know that a first round pick has 50-50 chance of being a solid starter, then doesn't it make more sense to have more picks to compensate for poor scouting or players who just won't give football heir all?

• The total number of games started was then divided by the number of players drafted to determine starts per draft choice, the principal efficiency measure used in this article

I think he really should just go with the total number of games started, but the concept is much more complex than that. If you had a really horrible team and drafted lots of rookies and started them, then did that make you good at drafting. I would think you'd had to look at the person who would fill that role in place of the rookie (some type of value over replacement formula).

• The number of players that made the Pro Bowl at least once was also determined as supplemental information

If probowl = talent, then maybe, but I can see how this would be included. Plenty of veterans make the pro bowl based on reputation and some players who are better don't make it because they aren't a household name. It'd be a player only their fan base or maybe division would know of.


To me, the real thing is how many real "spots" are open on a team for a rookie to fill? if you had 100% of a playoff caliber team come back, would the rookies really have a chance to make the team? Maybe 1 or 2, but even that is a tough choice. That throws off a fundamental evaluation in his equation.

There has to be a certain factor for position too. I know we have drafted a kicker, but good kickers/punters can be had for free with UDFA. Shouldn't that skew the draft? Speaking of UDFA, do they count in this equation?

 

[tasmlab]

Let me be the first to congratulate the Tennessee Titans for winning the draft. It'll be a proud moment when they hoist the trophy after the parade.

 

[Urgent]

- The Pats are penalized by some of these rankings for trading down. They use percentage of draft picks that go to the Pro Bowl. This is where they penalize the Pats for trading down. So if the Pats had two first rounders and one turned into a Pro Bowler, they would have a 50% success rate. If the Pats had two first rounders and traded one down for three picks and only the first rounder makes the Pro Bowl, the success rate turns into 25% even if the three players who were traded for were good players and a better value than one first rounder. This survey benefits a team like the Jets who tends to put their eggs in one basket and trade large portion of their draft for one player than a team like the Pats who values quantity of picks.

I think this is key.

They Patriots explicitly use a strategy of maximizing expected value of draft picks. They would rather have three picks each with a 30% chance of success than one with a 75% chance of success.

Thus, they try to optimize the longterm success of the team while decreasing the individual success of any specific selection.

Especially given injury rates in the NFL, but also given free agency, they would also rather have five B+'s than two A's. When one is injured, another player of similar quality is able to step in. This is increasingly important later in the season. There will be some team with very few injuries that is successful late in the season, but the Patriots should be able to weather their injuries, statistically, better than other teams.

You can compare the Jets recent strategy of trading up with the Patriots recent strategy of trading down. The Jets hit on Revis and failed on Gholston. But when Revis was injured it had a big impact. And now he's on the Patriots anyway.

Another alternative metric, evaluating draft success, would be percentage of starts on the team by drafted/undrafted players compared to free agents. The Patriots may have had more drafted/udrafted players than many other teams.

Of course, if you do an analysis of percentage of second-round selections making a contribution, we all know what the outcome of that will be. Argue as we might, the Patriots have had some notable failures in the draft.

 

[Rob0729]

I've seen this argument a number of times, and have trouble supporting it.

The Patriots commonly lead the league in undrafted rookies making the team.

Last year's team included James Develin, Kenbrell Thompkins, Zach Sudfeld, Will Svitek, Chris Barker, Josh Kline, Joe Vellano, AJ Davis, and Ryan Allen. Not positive about all those guys, but most were originally undrafted. Hard to argue that starting players drafted by another team wouldn't have made the Patriots 2013 roster.

You are kinda missing the point. In today's NFL no team has quality starters at every position. The Pats has areas where starters from some teams would not make the Patriots' 53 roster and others where their back ups would make the team and start.

Bad teams have a lot of bad starters. If you took a bad team's entire starting roster and let the Pats cherry pick from it, I would guarantee you that a large percentage of them would not make the Pats' 53 man roster. You do that with the Pats' roster and you might have 1-2 players.

In today's NFL every team have certain areas where they have marginal talent in back up roles. But in many areas, the Pats have depth better than a lot of bad teams' starters.

 

[RayClay]

As I pointed out in my post, Tennessee gets bonus points for starting marginal players because they lack talent. Over the last ten years, Tennessee has started players who would struggle to make the 53 man roster of many of the top teams in the league. But this poll rewards them for poor personnel decisions and starting players who have no business starting because of these decisions.

Statistics can be useful. In a game with a salary cap, a draft, free agency and UDFAs rating teams based on how many draft picks played, started, played for other teams etc. is about as useful as rating them based on which teams have my favorite color in their uniform.

Four different stores a model with a fixed budget could buy clothes in. How many she chooses to buy in each store is irrelevant to which fashion model looks better.

This study is as close to random nonsense as you can get.

 

[VrabelJr]

This is a terrible analysis. You can't measure the draft based on starts of drafted players. Look at all of the teams consistently in the top, they have sucked over the past decade mostly. Consistently good teams don't have to shove rookies into starting roles right away.

 

[varjao]

One thing for sure I would like to know, why the hell did BB draft Tavon Wilson in the 2nd round?

 

[oldrover]

Tavon Wilson... good grief. For each Tavon Wilson, there is a Julian Edelman. Or an Alfonso Dennard. Or a Tom Brady, for crying out loud. Even a Tully Banta-Cain.

Which brings me to my point that success for a first rounder is not the same as success for a 7th rounder or UDFA. This 'study' is crapola.