Reality of the NFL and 1st Round and Draft Picks

[Luvnit2]

(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?

I have never said building through the draft is a sure thing, I said many teams have done it well. But, I have also said I thought we should look and add that last key ingredient to get us over the hump via free agency, but we won't and don't.

[Joelist]

The correct question is percentage of teams that drafted a first round pick and did not play them significant snaps (say over 30%) in one year, then two straight years, then three years and so on.

[Luvnit2]

(09-07-2017, 02:37 PM)Joelist Wrote: The correct question is percentage of teams that drafted a first round pick and did not play them significant snaps (say over 30%) in one year, then two straight years, then three years and so on.

Great question, please feel free to research it and let us know the results.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-07-2017, 02:36 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have never said building through the draft is a sure thing, I said many teams have done it well. But, I have also said I thought we should look and add that last key ingredient to get us over the hump via free agency, but we won't and don't.

I didn't mean you. I mean the Bengals. They constantly talk about how free agency is risky and expensive so they build through the draft. The rate of success through the draft isn't that great...

Ironically, drafting a Center in the 1st Round vs Signing a free agent center...the success rate of the signed Center is probably higher. Of course the draft pick costs less and can be used for PR purposes.

[Shake n Blake]

(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?

Agreed. The draft is kind of a crap shoot and we expect too much out of it. Also, I understand some worry with Ross' injury, but I think those who didn't like the pick are blowing it up into something it's not. It's a bit too soon to slap the "glass" label on the guy. Funny how MLJ missed as many games as Eifert over their first 3 seasons, yet you wouldn't guess that about MLJ with the way folks idolized the guy. Ross is getting the opposite treatment.

(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?

It's fair to bring this up. Relying on the draft to fix everything has it's risks. We've seen it first hand.

(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

This is also fair and all facts. It's a bit early to start slamming this draft class, but our last 3-4 drafts have been pretty weak looking back. It just shows that they shouldn't have ignored free agency the way they have. They had a window and should've capitalized. That doesn't mean sign a 100 million dollar blockbuster free agent. It means they should've done better than AJ Hawk, James Harrison, BJGE, Michael Johnson, Andre Smith, Derrick Harvey, Denarius Moore, etc. 

Lets be honest, our FA forays have been a shit show. The Redskins historically (not every year) have spent the most. We spend the least. It'd be nice to see us move towards "average" as far as FA spending.

[Essex Johnson]

(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?

crazy, i just posted on another thread i thought wow a lot of injuries with 1st round picks and here you had a thread on it... Bravo

[Essex Johnson]

(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'

Not always.. 1st rounders can be picked for future starters also.. ie QBs and Tackles are two areas that are picked not for year 1 but for year 2/3

[*Nately120*]

(09-07-2017, 01:17 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: 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!!!

Meh, so it goes.  We talk about FA's and trades as being the mark of a desperate team, but we see the Steelers and Patriots both making lots of moves following seasons that got them to the AFC Championship game and beyond.

[*bengalfan74*]

The rookie wage scale started a few years ago fell right into MB's wheel house.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, so it goes.  We talk about FA's and trades as being the mark of a desperate team, but we see the Steelers and Patriots both making lots of moves following seasons that got them to the AFC Championship game and beyond.

Precisely.

I think it's fair to say that you can't be a perennial 3-13 team and sign 2 of the priciest free agents out there and become a 10-6 playoff team.

You have to draft well no matter how you slice it.

But upgrading 1 or 2 positions in free agency is desirable.

There is no way you are going to totally build a team through the draft. You just don't know which players at which positions will pan out and you end up with weak positions like we have at Center.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-07-2017, 09:26 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: The rookie wage scale started a few years ago fell right into MB's wheel house.

Yeah because remember how many holdouts we had before that? We had to lead the NFL in that regard.

I'm pretty sure they didn't feel so great about building through the draft then.

The fact remains that modern free agency started in the NFL in 1992 and we haven't won a playoff game since.

[sandwedge]

(09-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, so it goes.  We talk about FA's and trades as being the mark of a desperate team, but we see the Steelers and Patriots both making lots of moves following seasons that got them to the AFC Championship game and beyond.

I won't argue that both those team have been busy this offseason, but I think it backfired on the Pats lastnight. They had players, who they recently picked up, playing and they were lost. Maybe in a couple of weeks they will be fine. 

[Shake n Blake]

(09-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, so it goes.  We talk about FA's and trades as being the mark of a desperate team, but we see the Steelers and Patriots both making lots of moves following seasons that got them to the AFC Championship game and beyond.

We've been making similar arguments since I joined the old boards way back in the 2011 offseason. 

I've yet to see any of the anti-FA crowd seriously acknowledge a post about all the successful teams that use FA/trades. 

I guess when we type Patriots, Seahawks, Broncos and Steelers...they see Redskins, Jaguars, Rams and Browns instead.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-08-2017, 11:50 AM)sandwedge Wrote: I won't argue that both those team have been busy this offseason, but I think it backfired on the Pats lastnight. They had players, who they recently picked up, playing and they were lost. Maybe in a couple of weeks they will be fine. 

Indeed. But the point remains that Super Bowl contenders do improve through free agency.

It's a fallacy to think that contenders only improve through the draft.

Just imagine if we signed a LB that could cover a TE a couple years ago? Or if we upgraded at Center?

Now our roster has declined through losing free agents to the point it doesn't matter.

[Whatever]

(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

There is impetus on every team to hit with their early round picks, however, as teams built in FA quickly fall apart with salary cap issues.  

Schreck is on IR, and Elliott and Wilson are on the PS.  They could still pay dividends down the road.  There probably wasn't a G from round 5 back that was going to knock Westerman off the roster, and no T you could rely on to play significant snaps.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-08-2017, 01:32 PM)Whatever Wrote: There is impetus on every team to hit with their early round picks, however, as teams built in FA quickly fall apart with salary cap issues.  

Schreck is on IR, and Elliott and Wilson are on the PS.  They could still pay dividends down the road.  There probably wasn't a G from round 5 back that was going to knock Westerman off the roster, and no T you could rely on to play significant snaps.

The teams that sign free agents typically fall apart because of salary cap issues thing is a myth too. The salary cap is exploding. It increases by about $10 million a year.

Teams like the Steelers that everyone thinks is entering cap hell...just signed Joe Haden. They just traded for a TE. They clearly have cap room. There hasn't been a mass exodus from their roster.

We however have lost Whitworth, Zeitler, Nelson, Hall, Jones, Sanu, and Peko over the past 2 seasons. Clearly teams have to try to make a run while their window is open.

Now...we're partially rebuilding.

[McC]

(09-08-2017, 01:22 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We've been making similar arguments since I joined the old boards way back in the 2011 offseason. 

I've yet to see any of the anti-FA crowd seriously acknowledge a post about all the successful teams that use FA/trades. 

I guess when we type Patriots, Seahawks, Broncos and Steelers...they see Redskins, Jaguars, Rams and Browns instead.

It's like having a toolbox full of tools but refusing to use the hammer to drive nails.  You might eventually manage to sink the nails with a wrench...

[*ochocincos*]

(09-08-2017, 02:29 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The teams that sign free agents typically fall apart because of salary cap issues thing is a myth too. The salary cap is exploding. It increases by about $10 million a year.

Teams like the Steelers that everyone thinks is entering cap hell...just signed Joe Haden. They just traded for a TE. They clearly have cap room. There hasn't been a mass exodus from their roster.

We however have lost Whitworth, Zeitler, Nelson, Hall, Jones, Sanu, and Peko over the past 2 seasons. Clearly teams have to try to make a run while their window is open.

Now...we're partially rebuilding.

I feel like the Bengals will have a sign like this in their stadium at some point...

[sandwedge]

(09-08-2017, 01:25 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Indeed. But the point remains that Super Bowl contenders do improve through free agency.

It's a fallacy to think that contenders only improve through the draft.

Just imagine if we signed a LB that could cover a TE a couple years ago? Or if we upgraded at Center?

Now our roster has declined through losing free agents to the point it doesn't matter.

I get what you are putting down. I also think though you have to look at what or who is a FA. The draft this year was bad for OL. I honestly don't think the FA guys were the answer to what we need or needed. The list of tackles that came out, in my opinion, were pro-bowlers maybe 5 years ago. Take Clady for instance, pro-bowler for a few years but that wasn't the player we would be getting in Clady. Same with Mangold! Not the same player he was 5 years ago. So are we really improving over what we already have? We grabbed Minter in FA, I honestly don't see a huge difference from what we had before, so far.  Not saying that is the way it is every year but this year it seemed to me it was.

[Hammerstripes]

(09-08-2017, 04:10 PM)McC Wrote: It's like having a toolbox full of tools but refusing to use the hammer to drive nails.  You might eventually manage to sink the nails with a wrench...

True - and I completely agree.

The only thing that I will say is that the free agent market isn't the way it used to be.  Now, teams HAVE to spend a certain amount, so you start to see some of these outrageous contracts.  Guys that should make $6 million are getting double that.  Just look at Zietler's contract.

It's not as simple as using free agency, since the cost of getting a tier 1 or tier 2 free agent is probably double to triple the cost of another guy.