DB in the 1st....good or bad?

[Dibs]

For years I have seen the opinion around here that using one's best draft stock on the DB positions is not only a bad way to build a successful team but also a way to hinder the chances of general team improvement. I have always been neutral to this concept(neither for, nor against it)......but as I have always felt that there might be some element of truth to it I decided to do a bit of a study on recent drafting to see if any patterns occurred.

 

 

I decided to look at the last 13 drafts(since 2000) of good and bad teams in relation to their DB drafting.

 

Bad Teams I determined by teams that had 3 or fewer play-off appearances(11 teams).

Bills(0), Browns(1), Lions(1), Cardinals(2), Texans(2), Jaguars(2), Chiefs(2), Panthers(3), Dolphins(3), Raiders(3), Redskins(3)

 

For the good teams, I decided to have two groups....one based upon consistent play-off appearances(8 or more) called Top 6.....and the other comprised of the last 8 Super Bowl contenders(called SB Teams).

 

Top 6: Colts(11), Patriots(10), Eagles(9), Packers(9), Ravens(9), Steelers(8)

SB Teams: Ravens, 49ers, Giants, Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Saints, Colts

 

 

I then broke their drafting into 3 different categories:

 

Top 10 picks

Bad Teams: 11 in 63(17.5%)

Top 6: 0 in 11(0%)

SB Teams: 0 in 19(0%)

 

Top 15 picks

Bad Teams: 12 in 82(14.6%)

Top 6: 0 in 21(0%)

SB Teams: 1 in 33(3%)

 

Top 23 picks

Bad Teams: 20 in 115(17.4%)

Top 6: 1 in 41(2.4%)

SB Teams: 5 in 58(8.6%)

 

 

I was quite surprised to see such a massive disparity between the good and bad teams......and that the good teams only once have selected a DB in the top 15 over the past 13 years......

 

People can read into these figures what they like. I personally am now convinced that it is a bad move to spend your best draft stock on DBs.

 

 

For those interested....red = DB

Bills(0): 3, 4, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 1 1, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23

Browns(1): 1, 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 16, 21, 21, 21, 22, 22

Lions(1): 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 20, 23

Cardinals(2): 2, 3, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18

Texans(2): 1, 1, 3, 10, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20

Jaguars(2): 5, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 13, 21, 21

Chiefs(2): 3, 5, 5, 6, 11, 15, 15, 20, 21, 23

Panthers(3): 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 19, 23

Dolphins(3): 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19

Raiders(3): 1, 2, 4, 7, 7, 8, 17, 17, 23, 23

Redskins(3): 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16

 

49ers(4): 1, 6, 7, 7, 10, 11, 11, 16, 17, 22

Saints(5): 2, 6, 7, 13, 13, 14, 18, 23

Giants(7): 1, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22

Steelers(8): 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23

Ravens(9): 5, 10, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23

Packers(9): 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 23

Eagles(9): 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23

Patriots(10): 6, 10, 13, 17, 21, 21, 21, 21

Colts(11): 1, 11, 22

[boyst]

Those same good teams have not picked in the top end of the draft often enough to give this full merit.

[RyanC883]

wow, you put a lot of work into that analysis. Thanks. It is interesting.

[Dibs]

Those same good teams have not picked in the top end of the draft often enough to give this full merit.

 

I listed the numbers, the percentages and the actual picks. There is certainly enough data to form a distinct pattern here.

 

The Top 6 Teams had 41 picks inside the top 23......and only selected 1 DB.

The Bottom Teams had 63 picks inside the top 10.....and selected 11 DBs.

[KeisterHollow]

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't account for what those good teams would have done had they the opportunity to draft a CB in the top ten, since they weren't there.

 

There's no totally objective way to break down the numbers, since the better teams are always picking AFTER the top prospects are off the board.

 

Still, there could be some trends that would be uncovered if, perhaps, one were to break down the good, bad, and SB teams as was done, and account for the percentages given to each position in the first round, or first two rounds. I probably would reflect that the good teams draft certain positions more frequently in the higher rounds than the bad teams. Even there, though, QB would probably be a skewed stat, since the best QB's are almost always gone in the first few picks - something only bad teams generally have. Still, thanks for the time spent!

[Prickly Pete]

Yeah, but are they bad because their defensive backfield is weak?

[C.Biscuit97]

Interesting stuff but it may be a little flawed. The league has changed quite a bit in the last 13 years. Probably in the last 3 years or so, there is more passing than ever. Qbs get 4,000 yards regularly when that used to be record seeking. Now while some posters think any draft pick spent on a DB is a bad one, it is simply not the case. The Ravens had a 1st round safety (Reed) and corner (Smith). The 49ers have 3 former 1st rounders in their defensive backfield (Whitner, Nmandi, and Carlos Rogers).

 

Trust me, I understand why the rules are the way they are but it is a league that is slanted towards the offenses. The days of Ronnie Lott are gone. But it is what it is, and you need good defensive backs to run with receivers if you want to have a chance. The days of smashmouth football are done.

[Dibs]

Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't account for what those good teams would have done had they the opportunity to draft a CB in the top ten, since they weren't there.

 

There's no totally objective way to break down the numbers, since the better teams are always picking AFTER the top prospects are off the board.

 

Still, there could be some trends that would be uncovered if, perhaps, one were to break down the good, bad, and SB teams as was done, and account for the percentages given to each position in the first round, or first two rounds. I probably would reflect that the good teams draft certain positions more frequently in the higher rounds than the bad teams. Even there, though, QB would probably be a skewed stat, since the best QB's are almost always gone in the first few picks - something only bad teams generally have. Still, thanks for the time spent!

 

You are the second poster to try to use the argument that the top teams don't draft high very often etc.....when there is clearly enough data to suggest a strong difference between the Top & Bottom Teams.

 

When the top teams did get top draft picks(11 inside the top 10....21 inside the top 15)......they NEVER draft DBs.....0%

They had 41 picks inside the top 23.....and only drafted 1 DB......2.4%.

The Bad Teams drafted DBs at a rate of 17.5% inside the top 10.

 

Interesting stuff but it may be a little flawed. The league has changed quite a bit in the last 13 years. Probably in the last 3 years or so, there is more passing than ever. Qbs get 4,000 yards regularly when that used to be record seeking. Now while some posters think any draft pick spent on a DB is a bad one, it is simply not the case. The Ravens had a 1st round safety (Reed) and corner (Smith). The 49ers have 3 former 1st rounders in their defensive backfield (Whitner, Nmandi, and Carlos Rogers).

 

Trust me, I understand why the rules are the way they are but it is a league that is slanted towards the offenses. The days of Ronnie Lott are gone. But it is what it is, and you need good defensive backs to run with receivers if you want to have a chance. The days of smashmouth football are done.

 

I don't disagree......the argument is however "Does one use their best draft stock on DBs?"

 

The 49ers certainly haven't......5 top 10 picks(7 top 11)......no DBs selected.

The combined Top 6 teams haven't.....11 top 10 picks(21 top 15)......no DBs selected.

 

You might be right about the last 3 years etc......but it might also be irrelevant. I will be watching this concept keenly over the next bunch of years to see if the pattern changes.

[C.Biscuit97]

Here's a draft link for defensive backs: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?position=CB&type=position

 

Of last year's playoff teams, 1st round defensive backs:

Minnesota - 2 (Winfield, Smith)

Bengals - 4 (Clements, Pacman, Kilpatrick, Hall)

Pats - 1 (McCourty)

Texans - 1 (Joseph)

Redskins 1 (hall)

Falcons - 1 (Robinson)

Plus, the Ravens and 49ers I listed above. Also, some of the teams invested 1st on guys that didn't work for whatever reason: Meriweather, Sean Taylor. Also, the Giants have used several 1sts on DBs high.

[Dibs]

Here's a draft link for defensive backs: http://www.nfl.com/d...B&type=position

 

Of last year's playoff teams, 1st round defensive backs:

Minnesota - 2 (Winfield, Smith)

Bengals - 4 (Clements, Pacman, Kilpatrick, Hall)

Pats - 1 (McCourty)

Texans - 1 (Joseph)

Redskins 1 (hall)

Falcons - 1 (Robinson)

Plus, the Ravens and 49ers I listed above. Also, some of the teams invested 1st on guys that didn't work for whatever reason: Meriweather, Sean Taylor. Also, the Giants have used several 1sts on DBs high.

 

Again....the argument is "best draft stock". (I know my thread title is a little misleading in that respect.)

You have no argument from me that a large number of the better DBs in the league were drafted in the 1st round(as with most positions)......the point is that it seems that when successful teams get high draft picks(top 10/15).....and even reasonable draft picks(top 23).....they consistently chose to draft positions other than DB.

 

And further to the point, a lot of those DBs you list were the very same high draft picks that the Bottom Teams drafted. This can argue to the point that spending high draft stock on DBs is regularly wasted(compared perhaps to a lot of other positions).

Edited April 15, 2013 by Dibs

[C.Biscuit97]

Again....the argument is "best draft stock". (I know my thread title is a little misleading in that respect.)

You have no argument from me that a large number of the better DBs in the league were drafted in the 1st round(as with most positions)......the point is that it seems that when successful teams get high draft picks(top 10/15).....and even reasonable draft picks(top 23).....they consistently chose to draft positions other than DB.

 

I definitely think the league is changing though. Teams are going to devote more resources to the pass happy offenses. Receivers, defensive backs, and tight ends are going to go in record numbers higher in drafts than they ever did before. Safetys mever went high in drafts and now we see them go in the top 10. It's just a much different league than it was 10 years ago.

[cosmo]

So good teams don't draft DBs in the 1st, they just sign those guys later. Sucks for us though as those players tend to only want to sign with the "good" teams.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because they already have good DBs playing which is what makes them good. Maybe bad teams draft DBs high because they know that good DBs make bad teams good teams. Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because all the good DBs drafted have already been drafted by bad teams. Maybe bad teams are bad because they draft bad DBs at the top of the draft and the good teams are good because they draft good DBs after the bad drafting bad teams draft the bad DBs which should have been drafted later in the draft.

[Prickly Pete]

Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because they already have good DBs playing which is what makes them good. Maybe bad teams draft DBs high because they know that good DBs make bad teams good teams. Maybe good teams don't draft DBs high because all the good DBs drafted have already been drafted by bad teams. Maybe bad teams are bad because they draft bad DBs at the top of the draft and the good teams are good because they draft good DBs after the bad drafting bad teams draft the bad DBs which should have been drafted later in the draft.

 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ What I wanted to say

[NewEra]

 

 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ What I wanted to say

 

Me too. Maybe the bad teams have crappy QBs.

[reddogblitz]

Shouldn't the Cardinals be in the SB AND bad team category since they went to the SB on 2009?. Somehow I'm thinking this is why you chose only the last 4 years instead of 5?. Would change things.

 

Shouldn't they all be compared over the same amount of time?

 

Good work on the stats. It is interesting.

Edited April 15, 2013 by reddogblitz

[Webster Guy]

That's some interesting data for sure.

 

I think the Bills are going to take Patterson at 8 thinking that even though he's raw, in his second season when we are ready to make a run, he'll be ready. If we go into this season relying on Stevie and late round WR talent it's gonna be a long year for CJ and our QB.

[Matt in KC]

I like the attempt to analyze. Thanks!

 

Why did you stop at pick 23? I just pulled more data for the discussion, below. It looks like there are an additional 10 picks for the good teams and 5 for the bad teams in the first round.

 

2012

29 - Vikings - Harrison Smith (S)

 

2011

27 - Ravens - Jimmy Smith (CB)

**First 2 picks of the 2nd round the Pats and Bills took CBs

 

2010

27 - New England - Devin McCourtney (CB)

32 - Saints - Patrick Robinson (CB)

 

2009

25 - Dolphins - Vontae Davis (CB)

 

2008

25 - Cowboys - Michael Jenkins (CB)

 

2007

24 - New England - Brandon Meriweather (S)

 

2006

24 - Bengals - Joseph (CB)

31 - Seahawks - Jennings (CB)

 

2005

29 - Colts - Marlin Jackson (CB)

 

2004

25 - Green Bay - Carroll (CB)

28 - Panthers - Gamble (CB)

 

2003

28 - Tenessee - Woolfolk (CB)

30 - Chargers - Davis (CB)

31 - Raiders - Asomugha (CB extraordinaire)

 

2002

24 - Ravens - Ed Reed (FS extraordinaire)

26 - Eagles - Lito Sheppard (CB)

27 - 49ers - Rumph (CB)

 

2001

24 - Broncos - Middlebrooks (CB)

26 - Dolphins - Fletcher (CB)

28 - Raiders - Gibson (SS)

 

2000

24 - 49ers - Plummer (CB)

[benderbender]

If we draft a DB in the 1st round (assuming no extra pick from trading down), it is a clear indication that the higher ups have given Marrone at least 3 more years to rebuild and this season is expected to be a tank for Johnny Football year.

[boyst]

Looking at this in full view on my laptop I can understand it. That, and I have a beer in me.