What do folks demand as proving success from a draft?

[Pyrite Gal]

I start this off as a new thread because though this question was inspired by another thread assessing our specific 06 draft, I feel like some feedback on this more general question would help get me and all of us grounded as we approach the next draft.

 

How do folks make their assessment of a draft?

 

For me, it really is all about W/L results for the team. Of course though I am a "the future is now" kind of fan, my desire to see my team win right here, right now is somewhat moderated by recognizing we must also prepare for the future. The key measure to me is whether a draft class contributes to a team producing a better W/L.

 

This actually can be seen in objective data as whether members of a draft class get significant playing time (PT) on a team which improves its W/L. PT can be objectively seen in stats such as game starts and W/L can obviously be seen. Further, one should also take into account the relative quality of opponents and judge whether this W/L was produced against tougher or easier competition than than previous teams.

 

It seems fairly straight-forward to me.

 

There are a a lot of ways this can be done and this can provide interesting fodder for posts. However, much of this fodder is fairly ignorable (for example some have made a big point about the statistically demonstrable point that SS's are rarely taken with top 10 picks- true but who cares as though this was true in past drafts, in last years draft OAK took one of the 2 safeties worth taking in the first round with pick 7 an the team with pick 9 had a need for an SS so us taking our SS with pick 8 was not only reasonable but actually mandated by our needs and player rankings, the statistical occurences of the past are mere interesting trivia for those who choose to live in the present) and the other fodder of timing of picks are completely outweighed by assessing the total draft.

 

Looking back to the 06 Bills draft as an example of this point, I think assessing it to this point (and the over-arching key is that no real or full conclusion can be drawn for about three years as the first couple of years results can actually be quite different than how a player's career ultimately turns out) is also fairly straight-forward.

 

The baseline is that a team starts with 7 picks and depending upon various moves and league decisions this may go up or go down but for the 06 class the results for the Bills after a single season of play were:

 

1. The W/L improved from 5-11 to 7-9. While not earth-shattering as we did not make the playoffs this was a significant improvement for the team mostly reflecting moving beyond the discord of life under TD and this change was reflected in the draft among other things. This is a key piece of background info for the objective data below as it makes little positive difference if the 06 draft class contributed to a team going backwards in results.

 

2. I have not compared the results achieved by our 05 opponents with the results achieved by our 06 opponents so others can do a full comparison, but I feel no need to do this as it is clear our 06 opponents achieved good results so I am even more impressed by the improvement in W/L achieved by the 06 team.

 

We improved our record by two wins while playing half of our games against teams which made the playoffs who had an 06 where they produced the top 5 seeds in the AFC (SD, BAL, IN, NE, and NYJ) and the top seeded Bears from the NFC. In retrospect, losing to the non-playoff teams TN at home and DET on the road did this team in as they also failed to win games they had the lead in like NE on the road and the timing of the split with NYJ also had impacts. Still we improved but it simply was not that our opponents were stiffs.

 

3. Turning 7 rounds into 9 players was a positive for this team though ultimately the assessment is based not on this issue of opportunity but in the final results achieved. They had 10 and traded one in to move up which turned out to be a bust move so far in terms of product but we will see how it works out. In any case this issue is a sidelight which deserves note but not the focus of assessing the real results.

 

4. Of the 9 players chosen all made the roster. It is not unheard of and not even unusual for at least one player to be cut and brought back on the PS or even cut outright, the fact all 9 made the roster and ultimately the team improved is a sign of good basic work.

 

5. Of even greater note, 7 of the 9 players chosen actually saw significant PT in getting at least one game start. I even feel OK about the two who did not get starts as though McCargo was a disappointment for a 1st round choice the team traded away resources to get, he at least got some PT before he got IR'ed and some judge his showing in his final game to be some sign (I hope so but will believe it when I see it) he is turning things around. Butler did not play well enough to get a GS, but I am happy he got some PT so JMac can better assess him. The 7 players with game starts I feel very good about.

 

6. 2 of these players are on a track to be starters for a while (Whitner and Simpson). The jury is still out on Pennington but his play and potential allows us to use our limited resources to upgrade at G and rely on Pennington, development of Butler and low-resource acquired long shots at RT. 1 position may well have been filled from this draft as 5th rounder Williams not only started a vast majority of the games at RDT, but is the clear starter on the current roster. Our run D had enough trouble that we still want to upgrade our DT play, but given that the possibilities are further development of Williams (possible though not certain and maybe not likely but we will see) or that McCargo may prove to be the performer we expected him to be and though he is on the depth chart behind Triplett if he blossoms my guess is we sit Williams more than Triplett though there is still some possibility that we chose a player like Okoye, the 06 draft may be the solution on this issue if either of these two rookies step up.

 

7. In addition to these 4 starters produced by the 06 draft, I feel good about Ellison who I doubt will start in the future unless injury forces it, but injuries to Crowell and to some extent TKO gave Ellison the opportunity to impress the coaches in practice and contribute on the field with 6 starts in 06. Aaron Merz also proved to be an unexpected and unsung hero as he stepped up to start a game at G due to injury despite his being a late throw-in pick. he also became an ST regular.

 

8. Youbouty is the final player worth noting. It is a fact that most starters are drafted on the first day and that only 1 of our 3 first day picks had a productive 06 on the field. However, complaining about this simply comes off as whining since the 06 draft class simply contributed a bunch of PT to the team' improved record.

 

This complaint look even more small minded and overly focused on the observers expectations and not the real world results when you look at the particulars of why the players failed to produce as much as was hoped for in 06. Specifically, as Youbouty missed training camp because he is the oldest child in a family where the single parent Mom died, I would wonder about him if he in fact blew off the needs of his siblings and came to play this boys game.

 

In fact, it is a very good sign that not only did he eventually come back to be a part of the team, but in fact impresses the coaches enough that he started the game against NYJ when our D scheme called for combating Chad Pennington with an extra DB on the field filling in for the loss of Crowell to injury. In fact. the pre-draft assessment of Youbouty was that he had 1st round CB physical skills but could have used another year of college development working on some technique issues.

 

I think the situation actually bodes quite well for him being at least a player capable of playing the nickel role for us in 07 as again the draft assessment of him was that he should be able to play the pro style well quite early but needed to work on some technique issues particularly related to him playing with his back to the ball on long passes.

 

Though it is unfortunate he did not get the game time he would have gotten in college I actually prefer that he got his year of perfecting his play in our system in the pros rather than getting PT at OSU. If he was able to improve his technique in Bills practice and by watching the success and failures of NC and McGee from the sideline then this likely was a very good year for him. The fact we trusted him enough that the coaches felt they could put him on the field says a lot.

 

I expect he should perform as our nickel and given the help we need on 3rd down this is good. There is also the possibility (possible but certainly not probable) that if NC leaves (which looks likely at this point though it is not a sure thing at all) he MAY even be able to step in as #2. The interesting thing here is that in our scheme at CB he will not be called upon a lot to actually turn his back to the QB and run with a WR. In our Cover 2, the CBs have short (about 10 yards and in) or at most medium zone duty. He will be asked to do press coverage and the pre-draft assessment of him spoke a lot about his competiveness and both willingness and ability to challenge big WRs doing hand battles for position. Who knows if the prognosticators have him pegged correctly, but the Cover 2 was built for him and what he has shown. This sense of him simply makes the whining about our first day choices seem not only short-sighted because of the real world production of PT from second day choices last year, but simply wrong in terms of feeling bad about our 1st day choices.

 

Overall, I do not know what the real world record is of getting first year starters from a draft is. However, getting 4 starters on a team which significantly improved its record from a 7 round draft sounds like it has got to be one of the best results achieved in the NFL last year.

 

While the NYJ draft is one which is probably judged even better than ours as they got two starters on their OL from the first round and made the playoffs (results are the key) it would not surprise me if the key to this result was NYJ doing well in the many other areas where a winning team is built and that even their draft may or may not have produced 4 players who started a majority of their games. It actually is simply a comparison point since if the case is that 1 team or even 4 or so teams produced more PT on a team which improved than the Marv led Bills team it simply means the Marv group was very good rather than #2 or #3. Complaints about producing one of the top 5 drafts as measured in contribution to an improved team is what comes off as whining.

 

I certainly do not think the Bills braintrust is beyond reproach on their draft work in 06 or perfect, but it is simply hard for me to see how they could have reasonably expected to produce better results from their draft than getting 4 solid starters and other contributions from the 06 draft class. The failings i 96 should be certainly be noted, but feeling bad about the results of failings such as the first day production merely comes off as whining since a look at the entire production was simply very good.

 

If this was not very good then what (not how as we all easily see what could have worked out better if Youbouty's Mom had not died) could have been produced in the real world to make this better. if one is going to be devoted to past stats as those who seem to be overly focused on safties rarely being top 10 picks seem to be, what is the precedent for a team improving with 5 or 6 players getting a majority of the games as starts?

[RayFinkle]

cliff notes please...