Just How Little Draft Evaluations Mean...

[Dibs]

The draft is not a crapshoot. Is there risk? Of course. But almost all of the exceptional players are selected in the first 3 rounds of any given draft. Dibs has a very simple breakdown in this very thread.

 

And YES, the biggest problem with the Bills has been ignoring the QB position in the draft. For the past 50 plus years.

 

I think people use the term crap shoot because there is a common misconception that whomever you draft in the 1st(& 2nd & 3rd) will become a good long term player for your team......where the reality is that you are likely looking at a 1 in 3 chance for that to happen from the 1st round.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Dibs

[OldTimer1960]

Just wanted to point something out as we approach the 2013 draft. You're going to hear a lot about how certain guys are "8-10 year starters" etc. Well, just remember that nobody has a clue what they're talking about in this regard.

 

With today's trade of Alex Smith, I decided to take a look at the 2005 draft, as it was held 8 years ago. Here's what I found...

 

- Out of 32 first-round picks, only 8 are still with their remaining teams:

 

Demarcus Ware - Dal (starter)

Thomas Davis - Car (starter)

Derrick Johnson - KC (starter)

Marcus Spears - Dal (backup)

Aaron Rodgers - GB (starter)

Roddy White - Atl (starter)

Heath Miller - Pit (starter)

Logan Mankins - NE (starter)

 

- Not a single top 10 pick is still on the team that drafted them

 

- Out of 32 second-round picks, only 3 are still with their original teams:

 

Michael Roos - Ten (starter)

Corey Webster - NYG (starter)

Jonathan Babineaux - Atl (starter)

 

So just keep in mind that--as we analyze prospects and try to determine who successfully adds talent that will help in the long-term--nobody really knows what the results will be years from now.

[BADOLBILZ]

I think people use the term crap shoot because there is a common misconception that whomever you draft in the 1st(& 2nd & 3rd) will become a good long term player for your team......where the reality is that you are likely looking at a 1 in 3 chance for that to happen from the 1st round.

 

The implication is that success or failure is random. And there are some people out there who actually believe that.

[Dibs]

The implication is that success or failure is random. And there are some people out there who actually believe that.

 

To large large extent(not totally), I believe that.

 

When you regularly get prospects who all believe will be great.....and are drafted accordingly....who don't pan out(due to whatever reason).....it shows that there is a large element of randomness/luck involved.

[Malazan]

I think people use the term crap shoot because there is a common misconception that whomever you draft in the 1st(& 2nd & 3rd) will become a good long term player for your team......where the reality is that you are likely looking at a 1 in 3 chance for that to happen from the 1st round.

 

I think the misconception comes from the amount of information out there about top prospects. People can go back down memory lane and use the ole, "I totally said they should have drafted that guy!" without having to face the music on all the other guys they would have picked and all the guys they didn't pick. It seems to lead to the idea that all the picks are sure things and missing means that the scouts/GM/etc are bad at their jobs.

[mannc]

I'd like to add a little 1st round draft trivia factoid if I may:

 

All 3 of Buddy Nix's 1st round selections are still on the roster, either performing at a high level, or pro bowlers. Seriously think about that for a minute. I know the team's fortunes haven't been all that great, but it really says a lot when the team is now hitting on their 1st round picks for once, and that they are very good additions to a team that has been starved of talent for a very long time.

 

Given the excellent info provided by the OP, that says a lot to what Buddy has contributed so far. Not all is doom and gloom in the front office, well with the exception of douche-bag Russ Brandon.

Sorry, but the information contained in the OP does not in any way support the idea that Buddy is a good drafter. It simply shows that not that many 1st rounders in the 2005 draft are still with their original teams, and even fewer 2d rounders are. Not surprising; in fact, I'm surprised that many are still with their original teams, especially since 2005 was not a great draft.

 

As for Buddy's first round record, Spiller appears to have been a good pick albeit at a position of zero need at the time. Too early to tell with Gilmore. And if you are giving Buddy props for drafting Dareus at no. 3 in the 2011 draft, then I don't know what to say to you.

Edited February 28, 2013 by mannc

[OldTimer1960]

The average length of career is far less than 8 -10 years, so not a big surprise that there aren't many players drafted 8 years ago that are still with the team that picked them.

 

Only a few truly excellent and durable players last that long. That does not mean that teams shouldn't bother to evaluate players or that they don't know what they are doing. The draft is essentially a hiring exercise and I would wager that the hiring success rate is as high or higher than most businesses manage.

[Dibs]

......And if you are giving Buddy props for drafting Dareus at no. 3 in the 2011 draft, then I don't know what to say to you.

 

I distinctly remember Dareus being universally predicted to be a top 4 talent. It was a no-brainer pick which to this point has not panned out as one would hope.

3rd year DT......that's the year to assess them.

[C.Biscuit97]

The implication is that success or failure is random. And there are some people out there who actually believe that.

 

There's a ton of that, don't kid yourself. Alex Smith went before Rodgers and Aaron sank like a rock. The Pack drafted him simply because he had good value. Aaron Curry, Keith Rivers, Rolando McClain were about as safe of picks as they were. Predicting how a 20-23 year old will adjust to getting a ton of money and playing with the elite game after game, not to mention the many injuries football causes, is a crap shoot.

 

Best strategy is to load up on picks and do whatever it takes to get a QB. And if you make a mistake, don't be stubborn, admit it, and move on.

[BADOLBILZ]

There's a ton of that, don't kid yourself. Alex Smith went before Rodgers and Aaron sank like a rock. The Pack drafted him simply because he had good value. Aaron Curry, Keith Rivers, Rolando McClain were about as safe of picks as they were. Predicting how a 20-23 year old will adjust to getting a ton of money and playing with the elite game after game, not to mention the many injuries football causes, is a crap shoot.

 

Best strategy is to load up on picks and do whatever it takes to get a QB. And if you make a mistake, don't be stubborn, admit it, and move on.

 

Check out the pro bowl rosters and see how the players break down by round. The point is that the evaluation process is remarkably effective when you realize the number of players that teams have to sort out and project to the pro level while at the same time accounting for a certain amount of attrition due to injury/youthful indiscretion and other human factors. It is FAR from a 7 round crap shoot.

[ganesh]

Excellent info by OP, thanks, drafting is a lot harder then it looks. I won't be so critical of buddy now , but wish we could draft like SF or NE

 

Not many people on this board are critical at the draft record of Buddy. The biggest issue with Buddy was his reluctance or lack of insight to drafting a QB for this team. Also, NE's drafting track record over the last decade is pretty piss poor in spite of multiple top round draft picks that they accumulated with trades. I would rather have Baltimore as a team for comparison. They know how to draft good/great players.

Edited February 28, 2013 by ganesh

[San Jose Bills Fan]

It is FAR from a 7 round crap shoot.

 

And it's far from an exact science.

[ganesh]

To large large extent(not totally), I believe that.

 

When you regularly get prospects who all believe will be great.....and are drafted accordingly....who don't pan out(due to whatever reason).....it shows that there is a large element of randomness/luck involved.

 

And that people who don't try have a 0% chance for luck. Not attempting to draft a QB and sign misfits like Thigpen, Young, TJ are the reason why w are where you are.

[C.Biscuit97]

Check out the pro bowl rosters and see how the players break down by round. The point is that the evaluation process is remarkably effective when you realize the number of players that teams have to sort out and project to the pro level while at the same time accounting for a certain amount of attrition due to injury/youthful indiscretion and other human factors. It is FAR from a 7 round crap shoot.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/1/27/3920050/2013-pro-bowl-rosters-and-the-nfl-draft

 

Certainly, 1st rounders made up the round with the most players. But it was less than half and UDFAs were as plentiful as 2nd rounders. Also, Brady (6th) would have replaced Luck, Rice would have replaced Spiller (1st), etc. So yes, 1st round is where the most talent is, but still there are plenty of misses.

 

It might actually be more useful to look at which positions seem to have higher rounders dominating and which positions sees more lower rounders. Quick glance seems like Wrs and tackles are 1st round dominated. Guards and DTs saw more lower rounders.

[Dibs]

And that people who don't try have a 0% chance for luck. Not attempting to draft a QB and sign misfits like Thigpen, Young, TJ are the reason.....

 

Hopefully we not only try this draft....but get lucky and don't need to do it again for another 18 years.

[BillsVet]

Not many people on this board are critical at the draft record of Buddy. The biggest issue with Buddy was his reluctance or lack of insight to drafting a QB for this team. Also, NE's drafting track record over the last decade is pretty piss poor in spite of multiple top round draft picks that they accumulated with trades. I would rather have Baltimore as a team for comparison. They know how to draft good/great players.

 

You must be kidding. Plenty of fans are critical of Nix and the roster he's built the past 3 seasons and off-seasons. And Buddy's issue is not just the lack of a QB. He didn't formulate a plan or at least didn't develop a good one to rebuild a team 6-10 after 3 off-seasons of rebuilding.

 

NE's track record is poor? Gronkowski, Hernandez, Vollmer, Solder, Mayo, Devin McCourty, Ridley, Chandler Jones. That's pretty good, especially picking at the back of every round. I hate the Patriots, but their record makes Buddy look worse not better.

[BADOLBILZ]

And it's far from an exact science.

 

That's why they call it an "inexact" science. The fact that people don't believe that there is an obvious correlation between the quality of players and where they are selected in the draft is kinda' crazy. (Like when Carl Everett said he didn't believe dinosaurs existed, crazy)

 

Rolling dice is a game of chance. Each individual roll has the same odds of providing the desired result. It doesn't change. The quality of talent in the draft changes significantly from round to round. The further you get back, the more the returns diminish. Maybe not from individual pick to pick, because the sample size is not as big, but from a range of picks in a round to a round.......the draft bears fruit by the draft position. It works, and it works well in it's job of providing the opportunity for parity.

 

But MAYBE the Bills draft like a crapshoot. When you defy the odds by using 57% of your first picks on DB's and RB's, which account for only 24% of your starting positions since 1990......you are treating each draft like an individual role of the dice. It shouldn't be like that. There should be a direction, and that direction should include drafting a frickin' QB when you don't have a proven good QB.

[Dibs]

That's why they call it an "inexact" science. The fact that people don't believe that there is an obvious correlation between the quality of players and where they are selected in the draft is kinda' crazy. (Like when Carl Everett said he didn't believe dinosaurs existed, crazy)

 

Rolling dice is a game of chance. Each individual roll has the same odds of providing the desired result. It doesn't change. The quality of talent in the draft changes significantly from round to round. The further you get back, the more the returns diminish. Maybe not from individual pick to pick, because the sample size is not as big, but from a range of picks in a round to a round.......the draft bears fruit by the draft position. It works, and it works well in it's job of providing the opportunity for parity.

 

But MAYBE the Bills draft like a crapshoot. When you defy the odds by using 57% of your first picks on DB's and RB's, which account for only 24% of your starting positions since 1990......you are treating each draft like an individual role of the dice. It shouldn't be like that. There should be a direction, and that direction should include drafting a frickin' QB when you don't have a proven good QB.

 

I still think that you don't understand the crap-shoot analogy.

 

There is more(much more) chance to "hit" when using a higher pick. Though this is often ignored by some people.....it is an obvious truth.

 

There is however no guarantee.....even when using the very top draft picks(top 4) that your player picked is going to "hit"......thus calling it a crap shoot. Even though you "think" you are selecting a can't miss, multi pro-bowler, future HOF type.....he might still be a bust.....and for most positions has a higher than 50% chance of being a bust no matter where he is chosen in the draft.

[BADOLBILZ]

I still think that you don't understand the crap-shoot analogy.

 

There is more(much more) chance to "hit" when using a higher pick. Though this is often ignored by some people.....it is an obvious truth.

 

There is however no guarantee.....even when using the very top draft picks(top 4) that your player picked is going to "hit"......thus calling it a crap shoot. Even though you "think" you are selecting a can't miss, multi pro-bowler, future HOF type.....he might still be a bust.....and for most positions has a higher than 50% chance of being a bust no matter where he is chosen in the draft.

 

Oh, I understand what a crapshoot is. How many potential results do you have with the roll of the dice, dibs? Are dice results subjective the way players vary in productivity? Determinations of which players to select are made based on a range of criteria. They are educated guesses as opposed to random results. It is a ridiculous analogy and usually used in an attempt to deflect criticism or make failure look like nothing more than an uncontrollable twist of fate.

[billsfan89]

It speaks more so to the volatility of the league and the draft than the meaninglessness of draft evaluation. Players get hurt, are busts, traded or leave through free agency.