Interesting stat showing which teams value the draft

[fredtoast]

I was surprised recently when I saw a very simple stat for the first time. I had never thought to just look at the number of picks each team has had over the last few years. there was a greater difference than i thought there would be. Over the last five years the Bengals have had 49 picks. That is 6th in the league. The Forty-niners had the most (50) and 3 teams tied for last with 31 each (Car, NO, CHI). That is a massive sixty-one percent difference. In just 5 years the Niners 19 extra picks was more than three full additional drafts (6 per year) for each the last place teams.

Over the last 10 years the Bengals had 90 picks which is third behind only Green Bay and New England who had 92 each. The last place team (NO) only had 62 picks. That difference of 28 players amounts to about four and a half additional drafts (6.2 per year) for the Saints.

I never thought the differences would be so extreme.

It also makes me wonder about draft rankings. It seems that they should be adjusted to reflect success per pick. Which team would you consider the better at drafting. A team that selected 50 players over 5 years and got 10 starters, or a team that took 31 players and got 9 starters?

[gobobro]

I'm going to get the percentages wrong, but the essence of what he said correct... I think:

Bill Polian was talking about GMs on the radio once, and broke it down like this:

Bad GM's hit on 50% of their day 1 and day 2 picks.
Average GM's hit on 55ish% of their day 1 and day 2 picks.
Good GM's hit on 60ish% of their day 1 and day 2 picks.
Great GM's hit on 66% of their day 1 and day 2 picks.


The meat of it was that the difference between a bad GM and a great GM isn't that much. Having more picks than everyone else seems like a good way to up your hits per draft.

[Mike M (the other one)]

The more picks you have, the better your odds of finding starters/serviceable players.
Not only that, but certain positions have better odds in certain rounds of also being serviceable.

Now to answer your question, obviously the team that got 9 starters out of 31 picks over 5 years is much more efficient at drafting starters per pick than the other team.

However, it is not a fair question, because team 1 could have much more quality depth and non-starters than team 2 which could give them the advantage just from having 19 more picks than the other team. Then we also have to take into account which positions both teams got their starters in and the quality of those starters.

During the 90's didn't MB draft a lot of starters? But most of them didn't last too long in the league because they simply weren't all that good to begin with, but hey, they were starters.

[*Go Cards*]

Certainly the team that selected 9 starters out of 31 drafted better percentage wise over the one who had 10 out of 50.

Still would rather have 10 starters over 9 though.

[Shake n Blake]

(02-10-2016, 03:01 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Certainly the team that selected 9 starters out of 31 drafted better percentage wise over the one who had 10 out of 50.

Still would rather have 10 starters over 9 though.

It depends on what the team got for all those picks they traded away and the quality of the starters.

You can't judge a draft solely on how many "starters" came out of them. That's a very Mike Brown way of looking at it.

For example, Tom Brady as a 6th rounder was possibly the best draft pick ever. Jerome Simpson wasn't a good draft pick, but he did start.

[CINwillWIN]

This would be a good movie idea.... (Kevin Costner would have to play the lead though...)

[BengalChris]

(02-10-2016, 03:40 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It depends on what the team got for all those picks they traded away and the quality of the starters.

You can't judge a draft solely on how many "starters" came out of them. That's a very Mike Brown way of looking at it.

For example, Tom Brady as a 6th rounder was possibly the best draft pick ever. Jerome Simpson wasn't a good draft pick, but he did start.

I'm with ya.

I'm more impressed when a team finds good starters in the later rounds than those who only seem to hit in the first two. The Bengals have had their share of later round starters, like Geno Atkins and George Iloka. So have the other good teams in the league.

On the flip side, there are picks like Devon Still and Margus Hunt (both 2nd rounders by the Bengals) who make us all go bonkers cause the team seems to keep them longer than their value dictates. We've had some misses on the DL lately.

Some teams, like those Browns, have a hard time finding good starters anywhere in the draft, but more specifically in the 1st round.

Some teams have traded away picks and the results vary, but some trades have netted a team a much better starter than they'd likely have been able to draft at that spot. For example, Arizona traded for Palmer, the Bengals traded for Reggie Nelson. Those were well traded picks.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-10-2016, 03:40 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It depends on what the team got for all those picks they traded away and the quality of the starters.

You can't judge a draft solely on how many "starters" came out of them. That's a very Mike Brown way of looking at it.

For example, Tom Brady as a 6th rounder was possibly the best draft pick ever. Jerome Simpson wasn't a good draft pick, but he did start.

Exactly. The Browns probably got like 5 "starters" in the Julio Jones trade, but Julio Jones is still more valuable to a team than all of them combined. I'd take 1 JJ Watt over 20 Margus Hunts. Or 1 Peyton Manning over 40 Blaine Gabberts.

[OrlandoBengal]

(02-11-2016, 03:22 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Exactly. The Browns probably got like 5 "starters" in the Julio Jones trade, but Julio Jones is still more valuable to a team than all of them combined. I'd take 1 JJ Watt over 20 Margus Hunts. Or 1 Peyton Manning over 40 Blaine Gabberts.

The term "starter" is very misleading.  Someone may start on another team, but be a backup on a better one.  Everyone is talking about Marvin Jones and the possibility of him leaving.  He is the number two wide receiver here, and the third receiving option.  There are many teams where he can probably be the number one.

[*Go Cards*]

(02-10-2016, 03:40 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It depends on what the team got for all those picks they traded away and the quality of the starters.

You can't judge a draft solely on how many "starters" came out of them. That's a very Mike Brown way of looking at it.

For example, Tom Brady as a 6th rounder was possibly the best draft pick ever. Jerome Simpson wasn't a good draft pick, but he did start.

True, but it is way more in depth than that.

Believe the Bengals have done well with their draft picks in recent history. 

Tom Brady is the exception to the rule. Also star players break your bank now a days. Have to choose wisely. 

Will take, Dalton, Gio, and Kirkpatrick over still having a disgruntled Carson. 

[*Go Cards*]

Lets just look at the info provided.

New England, Green Bay, and Cincinnati had the most.

Carolina, New Orleans, and The Bears had the least,


Personally like what the teams with the most have done in recent times over the least.

Of course Carolina did go to SB this year. So it is not just a cookie cutter answer.

Looks as if both ways can work.

So it becomes a personal preference. Will take the extra chances all day.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-11-2016, 03:22 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Lets just look at the info provided.

New England, Green Bay, and Cincinnati had the most.

Carolina, New Orleans, and The Bears had the least,


Personally like what the teams with the most have done in recent times over the least.

Of course Carolina did go to SB this year. So it is not just a cookie cutter answer.

Looks as if both ways can work.

So it becomes a personal preference. Will take the extra chances all day.

I looked at the info provided and turns out they are 5 teams who have been to the SB in the last 10 years... and the Bengals.

Someone having four 7th round picks or three 6th round picks doesn't make them inherently better. You need to do something with it other than drafting Kirkpatricks, Hunts, Clarks, and Stils for having more draft picks to matter.

[fredtoast]

(02-10-2016, 03:01 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Certainly the team that selected 9 starters out of 31 drafted better percentage wise over the one who had 10 out of 50.

Still would rather have 10 starters over 9 though.

If you don't have as many picks that means to may have traded some for players, or else you signed more free agents than you lost.  So the teams that don't have as many picks should have more players from other sources.

[fredtoast]

(02-11-2016, 03:22 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Exactly. The Browns probably got like 5 "starters" in the Julio Jones trade, but Julio Jones is still more valuable to a team than all of them combined. I'd take 1 JJ Watt over 20 Margus Hunts. Or 1 Peyton Manning over 40 Blaine Gabberts.

But it works both ways.  The Rams got a lot more talent and production from all the Redskin draft picks than Washington got from RG3.

[fredtoast]

My theory is that once you get past the top 10 to 20 players there is not going to be a lot of difference between any specific player and one taken one round (32-40 picks) later.

[RagnarLothbrok]

I would rather have higher quality picks over a large quantity. Obviously depth is necessary, but I'd rather draft quality players with less picks.

[fredtoast]

(02-11-2016, 05:34 PM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote: I would rather have higher quality picks over a large quantity. Obviously depth is necessary, but I'd rather draft quality players with less picks.

But I think once you get past the first round there is not a bi difference between any one pick and the guy taken one round later (32 to 40 picks).

So I would much rather have two picks in the middle of the fourth round than one pick in the middle of the third round.

Of course there is a limit top thisa type of logic.  I would not trade away all my picks in the first three rounds for an entire boatload of 6th and 7th rounders.  But I've seen teams drop a 3rd or 4th round pick to just move up 10 to 15 places.  I be taking extra picks like that all the time.  Especially if I was in the bottom third of the first round like the Bengals.  

And, of course, all this is meaningless if you love a guy that is still on the board.  All this trade talk depends on who specifically is available.

[Housh]

(02-11-2016, 05:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I think once you get past the first round there is not a bi difference between any one pick and the guy taken one round later (32 to 40 picks).

So I would much rather have two picks in the middle of the fourth round than one pick in the middle of the third round.

Of course there is a limit top thisa type of logic.  I would not trade away all my picks in the first three rounds for an entire boatload of 6th and 7th rounders.  But I've seen teams drop a 3rd or 4th round pick to just move up 10 to 15 places.  I be taking extra picks like that all the time.  Especially if I was in the bottom third of the first round like the Bengals.  

And, of course, all this is meaningless if you love a guy that is still on the board.  All this trade talk depends on who specifically is available.

The NFL draft is a superior way to find talent compared to the NBA draft but I do agree with what you said. First round is the untouchable round. You don't trade those away or mess with those at all. If your in the first 5 or so picks in the 2nd those are also untouchable. But when we start getting to the late 2nd and 3rd and on then depending on your position you have some thinking to do about the true value of your remaining draft. Don't expect to get great lineman ready to play from day one past early round 2. You can get a good running back throughout the drafts entirety. I could do this for all positions but we get it. 


If this was the NBA I'd say if you don't have a top 6 or 7 pick to just give up and trade the pick to a team dumb enough to think they can find an all star. The NBA draft has become total trash IMO. Guys like Nerlens Noel can go top 10 and he literally can't shoot a jump shot. Talent has diminished. It's their but it's more rare. 

[Bengalbug]

Agree the draft is important , but so is FA which we always ignore. Build through the draft supplement with FA , we never tend to do the latter

Demarcus ware, Emmanual sanders, Owen Daniels, Peyton manning (though not great or even good at this point), Evan Mathis, aqib talib,

Brandon Lafell, revis, browner, amendola, Blount,

Lynch, zach miller, Chris Clemons, Michael Bennett

Key contributors on the last 3 Super Bowl teams not drafted by the original team. Who have we picked up in FA lately that we could say is a key contributor. Reggie Nelson, Adam jones, - I guess this doesn't prove my point but those two are guys we got on the cheap who turned around their career. If you look at the other teams they made a point to invest in upgrading their roster

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-11-2016, 05:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But it works both ways.  The Rams got a lot more talent and production from all the Redskin draft picks than Washington got from RG3.

Yup, agreed, sometimes it gives you more chances to get hits, but sometimes it doesn't really make a ton of difference.

Was just saying that number of draft picks aren't really indicative of draft success, or team success.

Panthers had only 5 picks in 2015, but went to the Super Bowl. Browns had 12 picks in 2015 and went to the store to pick up more tissues for their 3-13 season.