Reality of the NFL and 1st Round and Draft Picks

[Luvnit2]

Opening week, only 50% of the 1st 10 draft picks from 2017 will play due to not being good enough yet or injury. The reality is all NFL players are subject to injury as it is a violent tough sport. The other reality is they have to beat out veterans who are older, wiser and stronger to crack a team's starting line up. I know we have fans that expect all 11 of our draft picks in 2017 to be studs, but the numbers simply say closer to 60% even make active (53 man) rosters in year number one across the NFL.

thoughts?

[OrangeLacroix]

(09-07-2017, 12:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Opening week, only 50% of the 1st 10 draft picks from 2017 will play due to not being good enough yet or injury. The reality is all NFL players are subject to injury as it is a violent tough sport. The other reality is they have to beat out veterans who are older, wiser and stronger to crack a team's starting line up. I know we have fans that expect all 11 of our draft picks in 2017 to be studs, but the numbers imply say closer to 60% even make active (53 man) rosters in year number one across the NFL.

thoughts?

60% of top 10 picks (Or 1st Round Picks) make the 53 man roster their rookie year?

Fake News. 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(09-07-2017, 12:12 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: 60% of top 10 picks (Or 1st Round Picks) make the 53 man roster their rookie year?

Fake News. 

He said 60% of draft picks.

Reading comprehension and not cherry picking, should be studied, Fred.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-07-2017, 12:12 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: 60% of top 10 picks (Or 1st Round Picks) make the 53 man roster their rookie year?

Fake News. 

Read better. Clearly it says 60% of draft picks (collectively) make the 53-man roster.

[leonardfan40]

My thoughts are that you should get out of here with all of those facts and patience and logic. This is not a place for any of those things lol

Personally I always try to keep my expectations low and have patience with rookies or 2nd year players. And we should all know by now that no matter how good the scouting is, the draft will always be a crapshoot. The more picks you have the more likely you are to hit on a few of them.

[Luvnit2]

(09-07-2017, 12:12 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: 60% of top 10 picks (Or 1st Round Picks) make the 53 man roster their rookie year?

Fake News. 

Who pissed in your cheerios? Lately every post is a troll attempt. In this case, a dumb one showing your reading comprehension skills are not good.

[*ochocincos*]

(09-07-2017, 12:16 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: My thoughts are that you should get out of here with all of those facts and patience and logic. This is not a place for any of those things lol

Personally I always try to keep my expectations low and have patience with rookies or 2nd year players. And we should all know by now that no matter how good the scouting is, the draft will always be a crapshoot. The more picks you have the more likely you are to hit on a few of them.

I give first and second year players a bit of leeway for "growth time." I expect players in their third year will be what they will be for the rest of their career. If a player is struggling after their third year, they likely won't magically improve in future years. The only position I really ever see going against that is QB.

[OrangeLacroix]

(09-07-2017, 12:13 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Read better. Clearly it says 60% of draft picks (collectively) make the 53-man roster.

Of Course that is true. 

How is that relevant or newsworthy in relation to top 10 picks 

[*ochocincos*]

(09-07-2017, 12:19 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Of Course that is true. 

How is that relevant or newsworthy in relation to top 10 picks 

Because of Luvnit's statement that some fans expect all 11 of the Bengals draft picks will be studs and make the roster.

Overall, Luvnit is trying to make it known that a lot of rookies don't contribute (much) immediately, and a decent number don't even make rosters.
By trying to expose these facts, he's trying to help temper expectations that some people are setting for these rookies.

[sandwedge]

(09-07-2017, 12:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Opening week, only 50% of the 1st 10 draft picks from 2017 will play due to not being good enough yet or injury. The reality is all NFL players are subject to injury as it is a violent tough sport. The other reality is they have to beat out veterans who are older, wiser and stronger to crack a team's starting line up. I know we have fans that expect all 11 of our draft picks in 2017 to be studs, but the numbers simply say closer to 60% even make active (53 man) rosters in year number one across the NFL.

thoughts?

Great to see level headed post! It appears that Cleveland will be without the #1 pick overall for possibly a couple of weeks also. Injuries happen all the time, whether you have been injured before or not. 

[sandwedge]

(09-07-2017, 12:19 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Of Course that is true. 

How is that relevant or newsworthy in relation to top 10 picks 

[OrangeLacroix]

(09-07-2017, 12:23 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Because of Luvnit's statement that some fans expect all 11 of the Bengals draft picks will be studs and make the roster.

Overall, Luvnit is trying to make it known that a lot of rookies don't contribute (much) immediately, and a decent number don't even make rosters.
By trying to expose these facts, he's trying to help temper expectations that some people are setting for these rookies.

Temper expectations?   We want some of our 1st round picks to contribute in year one, in area the teams has needs for contribution.

No one ever said all draft picks should be contributors or stars.   It is pointless to even argue against it, because it's such an illogical and fake sentiment. 

It would be like me going to the Reds board and chastising fans for wanting 5 20 games winners to comprise the rotation -  Just to 'set expecations'

[*ochocincos*]

(09-07-2017, 12:31 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Temper expectations?   We want some of our 1st round picks to contribute in year one, in area the teams has needs for contribution.

No one ever said all draft picks should be contributors or stars.   It is pointless to even argue against it, because it's such an illogical and fake sentiment. 

It would be like me going to the Reds board and chastising fans for wanting 5 20 games winners to comprise the rotation -  Just to 'set expecations'

From seeing some people's reactions to Jake Elliott, JJ Dielman, and Brandon Wilson getting cut (not just on here but across other sites), you may find some people (secretly) do hope/expect all draft picks to be contributors.

For me, I've always expected our edge rushers to get the most involvement early, Mixon to eventually become the primary RB (but not for the first few games of the season at least), and John Ross to play a complimentary role as a rookie. Once LaFell is off the team, I expect Ross to get more snaps and production.
I think Josh Malone is at least a couple years away from contributing much at all.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-07-2017, 12:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Opening week, only 50% of the 1st 10 draft picks from 2017 will play due to not being good enough yet or injury. The reality is all NFL players are subject to injury as it is a violent tough sport. The other reality is they have to beat out veterans who are older, wiser and stronger to crack a team's starting line up. I know we have fans that expect all 11 of our draft picks in 2017 to be studs, but the numbers simply say closer to 60% even make active (53 man) rosters in year number one across the NFL.

thoughts?

Wow, knew it wasn't very good for even the 1st round draft picks but that kind of blew my mind.

We are looking alright considering, thanks Luvnit.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-07-2017, 12:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Opening week, only 50% of the 1st 10 draft picks from 2017 will play due to not being good enough yet or injury. The reality is all NFL players are subject to injury as it is a violent tough sport. The other reality is they have to beat out veterans who are older, wiser and stronger to crack a team's starting line up. I know we have fans that expect all 11 of our draft picks in 2017 to be studs, but the numbers simply say closer to 60% even make active (53 man) rosters in year number one across the NFL.

thoughts?

Wait, I thought free agency was risky so building through the draft was a more sure thing?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(09-07-2017, 12:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Wait, I thought free agency was risky so building through the draft was a more sure thing?

[OrangeLacroix]

(09-07-2017, 12:37 PM)ochocincos Wrote: From seeing some people's reactions to Jake Elliott, JJ Dielman, and Brandon Wilson getting cut (not just on here but across other sites), you may find some people (secretly) do hope/expect all draft picks to be contributors.

For me, I've always expected our edge rushers to get the most involvement early, Mixon to eventually become the primary RB (but not for the first few games of the season at least), and John Ross to play a complimentary role as a rookie. Once LaFell is off the team, I expect Ross to get more snaps and production.
I think Josh Malone is at least a couple years away from contributing much at all.

I think you have to look at the facts, as it pertains with the Bengals. 

They dont do anything in FA, so the Draft is important. 

They have gotten zero from their 1st rounders recently in year 1

All comp picks have been basically awful

And aside from the first 4 rounds in this years draft,  Elliot, Dielman, Wilson, Schreck are all not on the team.  And in thier places we could have used a T or G

[THE PISTONS]

(09-07-2017, 01:10 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: I think you have to look at the facts, as it pertains with the Bengals. 

They dont do anything in FA, so the Draft is important. 

They have gotten zero from their 1st rounders recently in year 1

All comp picks have been basically awful

And aside from the first 4 rounds in this years draft,  Elliot, Dielman, Wilson, Schreck are all not on the team.  And in thier places we could have used a T or G

Those are pretty undisputable facts.

At any rate...the worst thing we could do is sign free agents! They cost a lot and are risky!!!

[THE PISTONS]

"According to our most recent statistics that we drew on the first round, it’s less than 60 percent of those players that are starting,” Dimitroff said. “

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/04/22/the-first-round-of-the-draft-remains-a-total-crapshoot/

[*ochocincos*]

I'll add that pick #9 was a not a great spot to be in the 2017 draft.
Outside of Garrett, Adams, and Thomas, there were clear concerns with every prospect.

Allen had tendenitis that people wondered would shorten his career, plus his fit in a 4-3 was likely going to be just nickel DT.
Hooker was recovering from injury (IIRC?) and only had one year of production.
Corey Davis was recovering from injury and didn't participate in the Combine because of it. Also concerns over his level of competition in college.
Mike Williams refused to run the 40 and looked to have more pedestrian speed, which the team wanted.
Reuben Foster was recovering from injury and had his spat with the medical staff at the Combine, forcing him to leave early. Plus there were concerns of his coverage ability given most of his best plays were hitting the ball carrier in the flat. Add in the addition of Minter and it was tough to see him being a starter as a rookie.
Clear question marks about the quality of OL, as no OL went in the top half of the draft.
Bengals didn't need another CB.
Pick #9 was considered too early to take a TE, and people questioned Howard's worth at that spot anyway given his lack of usage as a receiver in college.
John Ross is a dynamo with clear injury concerns by some.
Heck, Leonard Fournette, while being a huge, fast guy, had concerns about his ankles and ability to catch out of the backfield.

Probably the best thing the Bengals could/should have done was trade back, but there was no guarantee they would have found a partner that would have given a fair trade.