Ranking All NFL Teams 5-year Success by Draft Class

[Hammerstripes]

(11-21-2017, 06:02 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Eventually they'll pay. They must have had good drafts in the 6-10 years before.

I know they've had a lot of misses recently in the drafts.

The one notable difference is the Steelers will pay a Guard and Center big money and they try to retain most of their free agents. The Bengals let those guys go and hoped that draft picks would produce.

Thus we're bad. They're good.

The reality is that in today's NFL, the Center and Guards are just as important or even more important than the tackles.

I don't know why it's not talked about more. 

When a QB is in the shotgun, the quickest line to the QB is up the gut.  
When trying to run the ball, you have to have good interior play.

Our interior is garbage, which is why our running game sucks.  Which is pretty sad, because Mixon seems to be doing a pretty good job getting yards (even if it's only 1 or 2) when there's nothing to be found.

[THE PISTONS]

(11-21-2017, 07:17 PM)Benton Wrote: Yeah, because a big chunk of that production has been from guys drafted before then.

you're comparing impact players and plug in starters that lifted down teams/rebuilding teams like the Cowboys and GB to teams that have't changed positions as much in five years. Look at the playmakers who play the biggest chunks — Geno, Burfict, AD, AJ, Dunlap, MJ, Jones, etc — they're 7+ years guys. Even many of the situational/depth/rotation guys — Huber, LaFell, VRey, Winston, A Smith — are getting near double digits. 

We've had a couple horrific drafts, but looking at the last five years as a snapshot works if your team has been rebuilding. Ours hasn't, they've been trying to patch up. A list like this might be worth looking at in a few years, but it's really slanted in favor of teams that were in rough shape several years ago and recently had picks pay dividends. 

So after the past 5 draft classes excluding this past years...name the guys that you think are good?

Saying we had good starters and we didn't need the guys to play is irrelevant. Which of those guys is good?

[THE PISTONS]

(11-22-2017, 11:58 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Outside the '15 draft, they haven't been terrible. Not great, but not terrible.

'12 they hit on 5 picks; Dre, Z, Sanu, Mo Jones, Iloka highlight this draft.
'13 they hit on roughly 4-5 picks; Eifert, Gio, and to a lesser extent, Shawn Williams, Rex.
'14 they hit on roughly 4 picks; Dennard, Hill, Blodine, AJ, and to a lesser extent Clarke.
'15 they totally whiffed outside backup players Kroft, Uzomah, and Shaw.
'16 They hit on roughly 2 players; WJIII & Boyd, and to a lesser extent Vigil, Core, and Fej
'17 seems to hit on 2-3 players, but of course to early to really tell; Mixon, Lawson, Willis all seem to have good promise.

So the '15 and '16 draft derailed alot of the momentum we had going post AD & AJ era.

I consider a hit a quality starter in the NFL. Not some guy who occasionally plays or starts and is bad.

From 2012 - Only Kirkpatrick and Iloka remain. Kirkpatrick grades out as Poor and was terrible for all but his contract year. Iloka is average to above average. Zeitler was good and left. Same with Jones and Sanu.
13 - Bernard has been mediocre. Williams is maybe average. Eifert was good when healthy which is rarely.
14 - Dennard is a hit based on what? He was a special teamer most of his career now he's the 4th CB. Clarke was waived without contributing. Hill had 1 good year and is on his way out of town. Bodine is probably the worst starting Center in football. To call him a heat?
15 - Kroft is average who just started playing, Uzomah is a backup, Shaw is a backup.
16 - I like Jackson. Is Boyd a hit? The coaches seem to not want to play him.
17 - Lawson is a hit. How can a guy averaging 2.8 ypc in Mixon be considered a hit?

[Benton]

(11-22-2017, 02:42 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So after the past 5 draft classes excluding this past years...name the guys that you think are good?

Saying we had good starters and we didn't need the guys to play is irrelevant. Which of those guys is good?

Ok... let me try it this way.

You're playing Madden (no, this isn't an attempted slam, just a good way to illustrate). 

You have Bob Smith on your roster. He's a DE with an 84 ranking. 

You draft Tom Thumb. He's a DE with an 82 ranking.

Did you have a horrible draft? Bob stays healthy and Tom doesn't play for three seasons... does that mean you haven't been drafting well? Or does that mean you drafted well and you haven't seen how some players, like Tom, panned out?

Our TE situation is a good example. Eifert was a solid pick... until he wasn't. Kroft was just — to some — a waste, a bad pick, some guy riding the pine as we spiraled hopelessly down, down, down. My God! 10 receptions in 14 games!? 10!? 14 games!!!!! And then out of nowhere, Kroft isn't a wasted pick. He's pulling in 30 receptions and 3 touchdowns and looking decent doing it.

We've had a couple disastrous picks. I've taken a lot of lumps the last two years for my criticism of our drafts, both on the board and off. But to say we're a bad drafting team because so many we haven't seen or have seen but they weren't coached well, I don't agree with. And I'll leave it at that.

[Circleville Guy]

Every team has hits and misses every draft. A winning team also has off draft years. Winning teams have the willingness and knowledge to cut losses and to add legitimate free agent players. I think it's best to look at the totality of an off-season. Losing 2 top OLmen when you have a weak OL, resigning CB's instead. If this team cut the expensive deadweight and actually used a brain in Free Agency to address needs with above average players, they would win. They go fo cheap has beens or never was types looking to catch lightning in a bottle. They wait too long to cut turd players. The funny thing is by cutting two duds at vet pay, you can sign one solid, real talent. You replace the other guy by drafting, I don't know???? Maybe not early round guys that have had major injuries? Maybe emphasize good character because good characters don't get arrested fo b.s. and they tend to buy into team concepts. They aren't worried about dancing and me first. Rex Burkhead was a perfect example at why we suck. He gave 100%, cared, had multi purpose talent and was cheap. He isn't a priority to keep. Pac man is a thug, pure and simple. He's selfish, undisciplined and expensive. He's a must keep. Who does that? It makes it seem like they're trying to lose or they are completely incompetent. Sorry, to get away from draft talk... I'd say each draft pick needs three years and a fair shot before he's labelled as bad though.

[THE PISTONS]

(11-22-2017, 03:04 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: Every team has hits and misses every draft. A winning team also has off draft years. Winning teams have the willingness and knowledge to cut losses and to add legitimate free agent players. I think it's best to look at the totality of an off-season. Losing 2 top OLmen when you have a weak OL, resigning CB's instead. If this team cut the expensive deadweight and actually used a brain in Free Agency to address needs with above average players, they would win. They go fo cheap has beens or never was types looking to catch lightning in a bottle. They wait too long to cut turd players. The funny thing is by cutting two duds at vet pay, you can sign one solid, real talent. You replace the other guy by drafting, I don't know???? Maybe not early round guys that have had major injuries? Maybe emphasize good character because good characters don't get arrested fo b.s. and they tend to buy into team concepts. They aren't worried about dancing and me first. Rex Burkhead was a perfect example at why we suck. He gave 100%, cared, had multi purpose talent and was cheap. He isn't a priority to keep. Pac man is a thug, pure and simple. He's selfish, undisciplined and expensive. He's a must keep. Who does that? It makes it seem like they're trying to lose or they are completely incompetent. Sorry, to get away from draft talk... I'd say each draft pick needs three years and a fair shot before he's labelled as bad though.

Yeah had we added a couple solid free agent lineman we're not in this mess as bad...which is what some of us called for.

Heck, keeping Zeitler instead of Kirkpatrick and relying on Jackson to start would have been an awesome move! And yes...they may have been able to extend Zeitler for $10 million a year before free agency. I'm sure he didn't dream of playing for the Browns.

[THE PISTONS]

(11-22-2017, 03:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Ok... let me try it this way.

You're playing Madden (no, this isn't an attempted slam, just a good way to illustrate). 

You have Bob Smith on your roster. He's a DE with an 84 ranking. 

You draft Tom Thumb. He's a DE with an 82 ranking.

Did you have a horrible draft? Bob stays healthy and Tom doesn't play for three seasons... does that mean you haven't been drafting well? Or does that mean you drafted well and you haven't seen how some players, like Tom, panned out?

Our TE situation is a good example. Eifert was a solid pick... until he wasn't. Kroft was just — to some — a waste, a bad pick, some guy riding the pine as we spiraled hopelessly down, down, down. My God! 10 receptions in 14 games!? 10!? 14 games!!!!! And then out of nowhere, Kroft isn't a wasted pick. He's pulling in 30 receptions and 3 touchdowns and looking decent doing it.

We've had a couple disastrous picks. I've taken a lot of lumps the last two years for my criticism of our drafts, both on the board and off. But to say we're a bad drafting team because so many we haven't seen or have seen but they weren't coached well, I don't agree with. And I'll leave it at that.

So if a guy is good but is always injured he was still a god pick? This is a where the rubber meets the road moment. They base it on actual production.

Having a Pro Bowl TE that never plays doesn't help us win any games...so no matter how you slice it his production is low.

re: Kroft - If you see the field in the NFL you're going to get atleast some numbers. Like a #2 WR on most teams will get 600-800 yards. A TE will get 400-500 yards as a starter. It's just how the ball is distributed.

[Circleville Guy]

(11-22-2017, 03:22 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah had we added a couple solid free agent lineman we're not in this mess as bad...which is what some of us called for.

Heck, keeping Zeitler instead of Kirkpatrick and relying on Jackson to start would have been an awesome move! And yes...they may have been able to extend Zeitler for $10 million a year before free agency. I'm sure he didn't dream of playing for the Browns.

I didn't mean to change the subject from the draft. It's just screwy that the team had two different avenues to strengthen and fix holes. The holes are always pretty obvious to most fans but we're to believe that the owner and coaches couldn't identify these blatantly obvious to an idiot holes? The media saw it, the fans saw it and the Bengals denied it. The local media won't ask for explanations as to why everyone but the team saw the obvious. They pissed away a great opportunity this year.

[Benton]

(11-22-2017, 03:25 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So if a guy is good but is always injured he was still a god pick? This is a where the rubber meets the road moment. They base it on actual production.

Having a Pro Bowl TE that never plays doesn't help us win any games...so no matter how you slice it his production is low.

re: Kroft - If you see the field in the NFL you're going to get atleast some numbers. Like a #2 WR on most teams will get 600-800 yards. A TE will get 400-500 yards as a starter. It's just how the ball is distributed.

To the question: No. That was always my criticism of ASmith... his inability to play at a consistently high level due to injuries (or apathy). 

Which if that's all you take out of five years of drafting — that arguably the guy with some of the most potential was often injured — then I can see where you'd be disappointed.

[THE PISTONS]

(11-22-2017, 03:34 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: I didn't mean to change the subject from the draft. It's just screwy that the team had two different avenues to strengthen and fix holes. The holes are always pretty obvious to most fans but we're to believe that the owner and coaches couldn't identify these blatantly obvious to an idiot holes? The media saw it, the fans saw it and the Bengals denied it. The local media won't ask for explanations as to why everyone but the team saw the obvious. They pissed away a great opportunity this year.

I don't know that it's that they can't identify the issues. I think it's 2 things:

1) The guys that are the issues are signed to a cheap contract and fixing the issue would cost more money. Like it or not the Bengals are managed like a business and not necessarily to win without any other considerations. This team has 5 playoff wins in franchise history.
2) Many of the coaches who are responsible for picking these players is who are responsible for playing them. That creates bias and makes them stay with guys longer to try to prove they made the right choice.

[THE PISTONS]

(11-22-2017, 03:37 PM)Benton Wrote: To the question: No. That was always my criticism of ASmith... his inability to play at a consistently high level due to injuries (or apathy). 

Which if that's all you take out of five years of drafting — that arguably the guy with some of the most potential was often injured — then I can see where you'd be disappointed.

From 2013/2014/2015/2016 I'd argue that Eifert is the only guy that if healthy would start on the Steelers. Our of ALL of those guys picked...Jackson is the only guy with Pro Bowl potential.

How do you expect to beat the Steelers if basically every single player on their offense is better than the equivalent on our offense?

Yes...EVERY single Steelers starter on offense is better than the Bengals equivalent. Even Brown over AJ Green.

[Hoofhearted]

(11-22-2017, 02:50 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I consider a hit a quality starter in the NFL. Not some guy who occasionally plays or starts and is bad.

From 2012 - Only Kirkpatrick and Iloka remain. Kirkpatrick grades out as Poor and was terrible for all but his contract year. Iloka is average to above average. Zeitler was good and left. Same with Jones and Sanu.
13 - Bernard has been mediocre. Williams is maybe average. Eifert was good when healthy which is rarely.
14 - Dennard is a hit based on what? He was a special teamer most of his career now he's the 4th CB. Clarke was waived without contributing. Hill had 1 good year and is on his way out of town. Bodine is probably the worst starting Center in football. To call him a heat?
15 - Kroft is average who just started playing, Uzomah is a backup, Shaw is a backup.
16 - I like Jackson. Is Boyd a hit? The coaches seem to not want to play him.
17 - Lawson is a hit. How can a guy averaging 2.8 ypc in Mixon be considered a hit?

"hits" should also correlate with the round you drafted them. You shouldn't expect a guy drafted in the third round to have relative expectations as a first rounder, right? And some of the guys you mentioned also were productive for us at some point time, albeit maybe not at a "superstar" level, but as role players. 

[THE PISTONS]

(11-22-2017, 05:41 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: "hits" should also correlate with the round you drafted them. You shouldn't expect a guy drafted in the third round to have relative expectations as a first rounder, right? And some of the guys you mentioned also were productive for us at some point time, albeit maybe not at a "superstar" level, but as role players. 

Yeah...you need role players on a roster and you need stars. You also need to not have a bunch of bad starters. That's where we've failed miserably the past 2 seasons.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(11-21-2017, 04:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This seems like common sense, so I'm not sure why anyone would argue with you over it. This team has fallen apart for a reason. We let a lot of talented players walk, relied 100% on the draft to replace them, and failed miserably. Our drafts have let us down lately. That's why we're losing.

Yep and we rely too much on the draft, these guys are unproven players.

Need to dip into FA once in awhile and grab a top tier FA that fills a need. These guys are proven in the NFL.

Gotta have this especially with shitty coaching.

[Circleville Guy]

(11-22-2017, 04:35 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I don't know that it's that they can't identify the issues. I think it's 2 things:

1) The guys that are the issues are signed to a cheap contract and fixing the issue would cost more money. Like it or not the Bengals are managed like a business and not necessarily to win without any other considerations. This team has 5 playoff wins in franchise history.
2) Many of the coaches who are responsible for picking these players is who are responsible for playing them. That creates bias and makes them stay with guys longer to try to prove they made the right choice.

True, both 1 and 2 relate to being cheap. I read an old article awhile back. The Bengals received something like 245 million in revenue sharing in 2016. Their payroll was around 118 million and they were like 32 million under the salery cap. These numbers are round about and off of memory. I don't think that it counted local revenue. I'd love to get an idea of how much ole Ebenezer Brown makes a year. If winning did matter in the least, that cap number would look way different. 

[Benton]

(11-22-2017, 04:42 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yes...EVERY single Steelers starter on offense is better than the Bengals equivalent. Even Brown over AJ Green.

Good day.

[THE PISTONS]

(11-21-2017, 04:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This seems like common sense, so I'm not sure why anyone would argue with you over it. This team has fallen apart for a reason. We let a lot of talented players walk, relied 100% on the draft to replace them, and failed miserably. Our drafts have let us down lately. That's why we're losing.

Oh there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that our talent is gone and drafts have failed and that we're looking at most likely a long rebuild. They want to believe that we're a few tweaks away from winning just like bringing Lazor in was going to be the magic fix.

They see we have star talent at the top of the roster but they don't see that we have about 10 starters who are pretty Terrible.

Our drafts have been putrid. So bad that people argue that Eifert was a great pick even though he doesn't play much because of injury and his career may be over here.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-22-2017, 11:58 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Outside the '15 draft, they haven't been terrible. Not great, but not terrible.

'12 they hit on 5 picks; Dre, Z, Sanu, Mo Jones, Iloka highlight this draft.
'13 they hit on roughly 4-5 picks; Eifert, Gio, and to a lesser extent, Shawn Williams, Rex.
'14 they hit on roughly 4 picks; Dennard, Hill, Blodine, AJ, and to a lesser extent Clarke.
'15 they totally whiffed outside backup players Kroft, Uzomah, and Shaw.
'16 They hit on roughly 2 players; WJIII & Boyd, and to a lesser extent Vigil, Core, and Fej
'17 seems to hit on 2-3 players, but of course to early to really tell; Mixon, Lawson, Willis all seem to have good promise.

So the '15 and '16 draft derailed alot of the momentum we had going post AD & AJ era.

Some of these are pretty weak "hits" to me. None wound up being foundational players. 1 pro-bowler (Eifert) who has missed 41 of 80 games.

Major hits: 

None

Filled a starter spot for awhile, played well but not a huge difference-maker: 


Lawson (I could see him potentially moving up)
DreKirk
Zeitler
Marv Jones
Mo Sanu
Iloka
Gio
Williams
Kroft
Vigil
Dennard


Too early to tell or they weren't on the field enough to make an impact:

WJIII
Lawson
Willis
Burkhead
McCarron
Fej


Injured too much:


Eifert


Sucks (starters that suck get an asterisk):


Hill (unfortunately due to line issues, I have to throw him here. I think Hill is solid, but his 3.6 YPC since 2014 is bad)*
Mixon (Same deal as Hill. He's not making any impact due to the line)*
Blodine*
Ogbuehi*
Fisher*
Core
Uzomah
Boyd
Dawson
Clarke
Margus Hunt
Sean Porter
Still
Thompson
Orson Charles

(11-22-2017, 01:24 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Love you, man, but I couldn't disagree more.  This is 100% on the current coaching staff.  When the talented coaches left our roster, our team failed.  With just good coaches, this team is a perennial playoff team.  With great coaching, they could contend for a title.  Yep, even with Ogbuehi.  

It isn't the players that have left.  It is the coaches that left and left us with Marv....he sucks ass big time.  

I can't say it's 100% on the coaching when we drafted 3-4 guys that are failing in historically bad fashion on the o-line. I think Belichick would struggle to make this offense look good with Ogbuehi-Boling-Bodine-Hopkins-Fisher up front. Now that's not me letting the coaches off the hook by any stretch. They wanted these guys, and they're mostly the same coaches that are permanently 0 for forever in the playoffs. 

I do think Marv would have this team at 10-6 with a proper line...but he has to be at fault for the state of the line as well as the playoff/prime-time/Steelers struggles. It's time for everyone to go.

(11-22-2017, 04:42 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yes...EVERY single Steelers starter on offense is better than the Bengals equivalent. Even Brown over AJ Green.

I'd take Kroft over Jesse James, and Green/Brown is a wash to me, Plus Dalton is outplaying Ben this year... but agree on the rest.

[J24]

I am a guy who is behind the build through the draft philosophy but it doesn't mean you completely ignore free Agency. Like the Bengals have done the past three years.

[J24]

(11-23-2017, 12:25 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Some of these are pretty weak "hits" to me. None wound up being foundational players. 1 pro-bowler (Eifert) who has missed 41 of 80 games.

Major hits: 

None

Filled a starter spot for awhile, played well but not a huge difference-maker: 


Lawson (I could see him potentially moving up)
DreKirk
Zeitler
Marv Jones
Mo Sanu
Iloka
Gio
Williams
Kroft
Vigil
Dennard


Too early to tell or they weren't on the field enough to make an impact:

WJIII
Lawson
Willis
Burkhead
McCarron
Fej


Injured too much:


Eifert


Sucks (starters that suck get an asterisk):


Hill (unfortunately due to line issues, I have to throw him here. I think Hill is solid, but his 3.6 YPC since 2014 is bad)*
Mixon (Same deal as Hill. He's not making any impact due to the line)*
Blodine*
Ogbuehi*
Fisher*
Core
Uzomah
Boyd
Dawson
Clarke
Margus Hunt
Sean Porter
Still
Thompson
Orson Charles


I can't say it's 100% on the coaching when we drafted 3-4 guys that are failing in historically bad fashion on the o-line. I think Belichick would struggle to make this offense look good with Ogbuehi-Boling-Bodine-Hopkins-Fisher up front. Now that's not me letting the coaches off the hook by any stretch. They wanted these guys, and they're mostly the same coaches that are permanently 0 for forever in the playoffs. 

I do think Marv would have this team at 10-6 with a proper line...but he has to be at fault for the state of the line as well as the playoff/prime-time/Steelers struggles. It's time for everyone to go.


I'd take Kroft over Jesse James, and Green/Brown is a wash to me, Plus Dalton is outplaying Ben this year... but agree on the rest.

Dude you are majorly underrating Marvin Jones and Zeitler. Not to mention we signed Vontaz  in 12 as undrafted free agent  (which counts in a draft class).  Bernard was really good for us in his first 3 years  before an injury and the suckitude known as our Offensive line made it impossible for any RB to be be good.