Poll: What is the lowest round where a missed draft pick can be a bust?

[RobertWeathers]

I agree with these (2) posts. I gather what we are writing about how noticeable the loss it.

I would assume 1st rd is the most visible and in terms of investment in draft capital is the one on which a lack of ROI hurts the most.

 

[upstater1]

3rd rounders flame out half the time, so the term bust would just be dead from overuse. If you miss on a 2nd rounder, that's a bust. 3rd round, no.

 

[nabwong]

The correct answer: 2nd round

Sincerely,
Duke Dawson, Glass I Dowling, Chad Jackson

And they weren't even coaches on the field.

 

[Deus Irae]

Used as a noun, the dictionary definition of “bust” is “a worthless thing.” So I think that applies to every round. They expend draft capital on someone in the hope that guy can contribute. If they can’t contribute/get on the field/stay healthy/etc, they’re worthless. Therefore, by definition, they’re busts. Doesn’t matter what round they were picked in.

I would opine that fans use the word as a bit of a term of art, or at least as a colloquialism, and is more about grading the choice than about the choice itself. In that sense, we tend to use "bust" to mean something more like "very disappointing in comparison to what was expected" than "a worthless thing". Trent Dilfer, for example, led his team to a Super Bowl win, so he obviously wasn't worthless, but many would still say that he was still a bust as a pick.

But that's just an opinion offered in an effort to try getting people on the same page with regards to the term, and YMMV.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If a pick does not pan out, it is a bust.

I gave you a "Like" on that even tho I'm not sure I 100% agree.

I've never had a conversation with an NFL GM, but it's my guess that they expect 90% of their 1st and 2nd round picks to be on the Roster in their third season and that the percentage goes down from there. But, and here's where I agree with you, I think that there are serious expectations for every pick...given the Patriots experience with a 6th Rounder and an UDFA...

 

[BobDigital]

I've always felt strongly the 4th round is the cut off pretty much. You don't always expect 4th rounders to be great players but you expect something. I tend to think of the draft more as by tier than by round.

Tier 1 - top QBs... usually between 0-2 picks a year. These are guys like Manning or Luck you pretty much know will be good. These guys are in their own catagory of value.
Tier 2 - Top talents and talented QBs 2-10 picks a year. These are players that are super talented and usually very safe. Sometimes this includes non-skill players who tend to fall. Also QBs who have a very good chance to hit. Guys like Bosa - DL, Adams - S, Nelson - G, Mayfield - QB, Quinnen Williams - DL.
Tier 3 - Talented and probably safe players. 10-20 picks a year. These are guys who should be good but are outside of top 5 consideration. Sometimes they injured guys in the first catagory. TJ Hockinson - TE, Jeffrey Simmons - DL, Gronk - TE, Myles Jack - LB, Minkah Fitzpatrick - S. Guys like these can even sometimes slide outside the first, though they shouldn't IMO.

The first 3 tiers are or should pretty much always be in the first round nearly entirely. The 2nd tier usually (not always but 95% of the time) starts at the end of the first and goes well into the 2nd or even 3rd.

Tier 4 - Very good player... but. These are players with a 'but' at the end. Maybe they didn't play long enough? Maybe they played bad competition. Maybe they had a few bad games. Maybe they are believed to be missing one aspect of their game. Maybe they just weren't dominate enough or have perceived upside or elite physical traits. Ect. Those things aren't always true, but many teams and scouts claim them to be there. These are guys like. Sony Michel, N'Keal Harry, Joejuan Williams, Chase Winovich, DK Metcalf, Deebo Samuel. This year there were a lot of these kinds of players.

Tier 5 - Good players... but. These are basically just like the other group of guys but seen a bit lower. This group goes between some part of the 3rd and 4th round. Sometimes all the way through and into the 5th. Sometimes ending at the end of the 4th. These players are often seen as role or specialty players. Limited starters or have big red flags. Damien Harris, Hakeem Butler - WR are some examples.

That's how i see it anyway.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

If a pick does not pan out, it is a bust.

I think Garcia & Rivers to a lesser extent are good examples of picks not panning out but not bust. At least imo. Very disappointing but I doubt Garcia gets drafted at all if his condition was known to the extent of how serious it really was. Rivers gets drafted to a complex system, tears ACL, buried in depth chart now & gets hurt again.

Idk fine line I guess?

 

[Hyped]

I voted for the 3rd round. In the first two rounds, you should have a starter even if it takes the guy 1-2 years to break the starting line up. In the 3rd, you should have a back up at the very minimum. After that, it's all a crap shoot.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I gave you a "Like" on that even tho I'm not sure I 100% agree.

I've never had a conversation with an NFL GM, but it's my guess that they expect 90% of their 1st and 2nd round picks to be on the Roster in their third season and that the percentage goes down from there. But, and here's where I agree with you, I think that there are serious expectations for every pick...given the Patriots experience with a 6th Rounder and an UDFA...

Yea. I'm just trying to make something which is gray black n white.

I look at it if you hire and employee and they suck or are fired, then they are a disappointment. The more they are paid and more strategic their role is, the bigger the "bust"

My belief is the same theory applies to draft picks.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The team that took the player who doesn’t pan out are the true bust.

 

[Triumph]

Undrafted no because they came at no risk or cost.

With at least 7 picks I will vote after the 4th pick. The 1st pick should be a started almost immediately because you're choosing 1 of 32 players among thousands of college players. The 2nd pick is some cases should have an impact as well. 3rd and 4th picks should be developmental players where you already have a starter.

I terms of Siffman and his 4th round selection. He is expected to at least come in and close out games without crapping his britches. When you only have 2 players at the position you're skill level should be good enough to play and hold the fort down.

 

[Deus Irae]

I find the current voting very interesting, for a few reasons:

• There are more votes for calling even UDFAs busts than there are for making the cutoff in rounds 5-7 combined.
• There are multiple votes for calling the cutoff the very first round
• Currently, the split is coming down between rounds 2 and 3, with the 4th round a distant follow. I'd guessed that the break would be between rounds 3 and 4.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bump

 

[Doctor DDS]

Am fine saying anyone that does not end up being a solid contributor is a bust but then I also fully understand that a high percentage of draft picks and even low end free agent acquisitions will end up in this category. The biggest issue with failures is their impact on the salary cap. It is imperative to have a decent percentage of your players outperforming their contracts and the easiest way to do that is to be successful on your draft picks. Dawson failing and Jackson succeeding is fine with me. Does not matter to me that Dawson was a 2nd round pick.

I don't pay close enough attention to other team's roster management but my sense is that the Pats have been slightly better than average at drafting while being well above average with low cost veteran picks ups (Van Noy, Collins, Chung round 2) Assume they probably have a similar number of "busts" to most other teams but their ability to take their successful acquisitions and coach them into an effective roster is second to none.

 

[Soliel]

I’ve seen busts in the draft even though the guy was the heismen trophy winner. Might not count as they were drafted by the lions.

I voted 1

 

[Ring 6]

Yea. I'm just trying to make something which is gray black n white.

I look at it if you hire and employee and they suck or are fired, then they are a disappointment. The more they are paid and more strategic their role is, the bigger the "bust"

My belief is the same theory applies to draft picks.

I’m not sure I agree with the analogy because in the NFL you “hire” 90 players for 53 jobs.
Hard to call 37 out of 90 busts.
But then it’s much more than that because people regularly call players that make the team and contribute but don’t become stars, busts as well.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I'd say Top 75. Arbitrary. But, late 3rd in 90's isn't a bust where we usually pick.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I’m not sure I agree with the analogy because in the NFL you “hire” 90 players for 53 jobs.
Hard to call 37 out of 90 busts.
But then it’s much more than that because people regularly call players that make the team and contribute but don’t become stars, busts as well.

I'm talking about the draft- not 90 players.