San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 An interesting article by Bill Barnwell of Football Outsiders. He did a study on which positions are the safest to draft in the first round. The success rate at that position determines if that position is a "safe pick." "First, to figure out which positions are safer than others, we looked at every first-round selection from 1988 through 2005. We stopped at 2005 in order to have four years of data available for each player. Virtually all first-round picks remain under the control of the organization that selected them for the first four years of their career. While defining whether a player was a success is always going to be a tricky concept, our simple rule is this: If a player made a Pro Bowl in his first four seasons, he was a successful draft pick." Position Success % QB 27 % RB 32.3 % WR 27.5 % TE 30 % C O % G 35.7% T 14.1% DE 13.6% DT 34.0% LB 27.9% DB 19.1% Like any stats there are factors which affect the validity of the numbers. For instance, teams usually try to draft "difference makers" in the first round. They like to take "sexy" picks. As a result, guards and defensive tackles are not selected in the first round at a high rate. But the ones that are picked are usually players that grade out so high that there is little inherent risk in taking them. You can see that no centers have been taken in the first round in the last five year. But if a center is taken in the first round this year, for instance, Alex Mack, that player probably has an excellent chance to be a successful draft pick. Also note the high bust rate at defensive end and defensive back, positions commonly drafted in the first round. Also note the high bust rate for offensive tackles drafted in the first round. What would have been nice is if he'd included the number of players drafted at each of those positions.
Guest dog14787 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 An interesting article by Bill Barnwell of Football Outsiders. He did a study on which positions are the safest to draft in the first round. The success rate at that position determines if that position is a "safe pick." "First, to figure out which positions are safer than others, we looked at every first-round selection from 1988 through 2005. We stopped at 2005 in order to have four years of data available for each player. Virtually all first-round picks remain under the control of the organization that selected them for the first four years of their career. While defining whether a player was a success is always going to be a tricky concept, our simple rule is this: If a player made a Pro Bowl in his first four seasons, he was a successful draft pick." Position Success % QB 27 % RB 32.3 % WR 27.5 % TE 30 % C O % G 35.7% T 14.1% DE 13.6% DT 34.0% LB 27.9% DB 19.1% Like any stats there are factors which affect the validity of the numbers. For instance, teams usually try to draft "difference makers" in the first round. They like to take "sexy" picks. As a result, guards and defensive tackles are not selected in the first round at a high rate. But the ones that are picked are usually players that grade out so high that there is little inherent risk in taking them. You can see that no centers have been taken in the first round in the last five year. But if a center is taken in the first round this year, for instance, Alex Mack, that player probably has an excellent chance to be a successful draft pick. Also note the high bust rate at defensive end and defensive back, positions commonly drafted in the first round. Also note the high bust rate for offensive tackles drafted in the first round. What would have been nice is if he'd included the number of players drafted at each of those positions. I'm not sure were I seen the article and I wish I could find it, but if I remember correctly success was based more on becoming an contributing starter on the team quickest and compared much differently then rating success by making it to the Pro bowl in 4 years. To me, considering some positions take longer to develop then others, its an inaccurate way to gauge Success. On the article I read, DB's were at the top of the list as far as contributing to the team goes, different ways to look at it I suppose.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Anyways I did some additional research. I've included the number of players picked at each position in the first round from 1988 to 2005. This was added to Football Outsiders' study, below. "First, to figure out which positions are safer than others, we looked at every first-round selection from 1988 through 2005. We stopped at 2005 in order to have four years of data available for each player. Virtually all first-round picks remain under the control of the organization that selected them for the first four years of their career. While defining whether a player was a success is always going to be a tricky concept, our simple rule is this: If a player made a Pro Bowl in his first four seasons, he was a successful draft pick." Position Success % #Picks QB 27 % 36 RB 32.3 % 62 WR 27.5 % 69 TE 30 % 19 C O % 7 G 35.7% 18 T 14.1% 59 DE 13.6% 69 DT 34.0% 48 LB 27.9% 59 DB 19.1% 87 The safest picks are at guard and defensive tackle. But as I stated in the original post, relatively few players at those positions are drafted in the first round. The ones that are would be so highly rated that they are made the exception to the draft rules. You can see that defensive backs have been drafted in the first round more often than any other position in the 17 years of the study. Surprise, surprise. We established yesterday that the Bills do indeed draft more DBs than most other teams in the first 3 rounds but clearly all teams draft more DBs than other positions in the first round. The biggest bust potential is at defensive end and offensive tackle...arguably the Bills biggest draft needs. (Ominous silence) Let me know what you think of the numbers (when you get tired of arguing whether Jason Peters is a good player or not).
Guest dog14787 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Anyways I did some additional research. I've included the number of players picked at each position in the first round from 1988 to 2005. This was added to Football Outsiders' study, below. "First, to figure out which positions are safer than others, we looked at every first-round selection from 1988 through 2005. We stopped at 2005 in order to have four years of data available for each player. Virtually all first-round picks remain under the control of the organization that selected them for the first four years of their career. While defining whether a player was a success is always going to be a tricky concept, our simple rule is this: If a player made a Pro Bowl in his first four seasons, he was a successful draft pick." Position Success % #Picks QB 27 % 36 RB 32.3 % 62 WR 27.5 % 69 TE 30 % 19 C O % 7 G 35.7% 18 T 14.1% 59 DE 13.6% 69 DT 34.0% 48 LB 27.9% 59 DB 19.1% 87 The safest picks are at guard and defensive tackle. But as I stated in the original post, relatively few players at those positions are drafted in the first round. The ones that are would be so highly rated that they are made the exception to the draft rules. You can see that defensive backs have been drafted in the first round more often than any other position in the 17 years of the study. Surprise, surprise. We established yesterday that the Bills do indeed draft more DBs than most other teams in the first 3 rounds but clearly all teams draft more DBs than other positions in the first round. The biggest bust potential is at defensive end and offensive tackle...arguably the Bills biggest draft needs. (Ominous silence) Let me know what you think of the numbers (when you get tired of arguing whether Jason Peters is a good player or not). Which indicates what the article said about DB's being the most successful coming out of the first round is probably true.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Which indicates what the article said about DB's being the most successful coming out of the first round is probably true. Not sure I follow you dog. The success rate for first round DBs is only 19.1% That's relatively low. In fact only DEs and OTs have a lower success rate. Am I misunderstanding you?
Guest dog14787 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Not sure I follow you dog. The success rate for first round DBs is only 19.1% That's relatively low. In fact only DEs and OTs have a lower success rate. Am I misunderstanding you? You are rating success by making the pro bowl, I'm rating success by becoming a contributing starter, faster. As I said and with all due respect, it doesn't seem like an accurate way to gauge success.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 You are rating success by making the pro bowl, I'm rating success by becoming a contributing starter, faster. As I said and with all due respect, it doesn't seem like an accurate way to gauge success. Gotcha. I would say it's hard to come up with parameters/criteria for a study like this. I like the criteria Barnwell uses though...a player making a Pro Bowl in their first 4 years seems reasonable to me. For the sake of discussion, the consensus view is that it takes rookie wide receivers and quarterbacks longer than other positions to contribute on the field. The game is a bit more complex, more of an adjustment from college, etc. Given that belief don't you think it's very interesting that 27% of all QBs and WRs drafted in the first round make the Pro Bowl within their first four seasons?
quikchomp Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 It says no Center has been drafted in the first round in the past five years....isn't the Jets center, Mangold, a first round pick from 2006?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 It says no Center has been drafted in the first round in the past five years....isn't the Jets center, Mangold, a first round pick from 2006? The study goes up to the 2005 season. As explained in the original post this is because they needed four complete years for each player in the study.
quikchomp Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The study goes up to the 2005 season. As explained in the original post this is because they needed four complete years for each player in the study. I did see that - but it should say "no center was taken in the last five years of the study." Mangold has since made a Pro Bowl as well, so outside of this study, it seems first-round centers of late have been decent. I hope the Bills take Alex Mack at #28 (regardless of this study).
DasNootz Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Gotcha. I would say it's hard to come up with parameters/criteria for a study like this. I like the criteria Barnwell uses though...a player making a Pro Bowl in their first 4 years seems reasonable to me. For the sake of discussion, the consensus view is that it takes rookie wide receivers and quarterbacks longer than other positions to contribute on the field. The game is a bit more complex, more of an adjustment from college, etc. Given that belief don't you think it's very interesting that 27% of all QBs and WRs drafted in the first round make the Pro Bowl within their first four seasons? It also doesn't hurt that reserve players for the Pro Bowl tend to be "specialty" type playsers. Last year there were 7 Pro Bowl QBs vs. 4 Centers. Each position only gets one player on the field at a time, but nearly twice as many QBs get chosen. In 2008 there were 8 QBs... that's 25% of the league's starters. WRs can get to the ProBowl as a WR or a kick/punt returner.
Ramius Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Surprise, surprise. We established yesterday that the Bills do indeed draft more DBs than most other teams in the first 3 rounds
Guest dog14787 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Gotcha. I would say it's hard to come up with parameters/criteria for a study like this. I like the criteria Barnwell uses though...a player making a Pro Bowl in their first 4 years seems reasonable to me. For the sake of discussion, the consensus view is that it takes rookie wide receivers and quarterbacks longer than other positions to contribute on the field. The game is a bit more complex, more of an adjustment from college, etc. Given that belief don't you think it's very interesting that 27% of all QBs and WRs drafted in the first round make the Pro Bowl within their first four seasons? It is interesting considering its probably two of the harder positions to play when it comes to getting up up to NFL speed. It would also be interesting to know the overall percentage of players coming out of the first round making the Pro bowl within four years and how it compared to players making the pro bowl in each of the following rounds.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 But it's true Ramius. Here's what I found out yesterday: The Bills have drafted a total of 6 DBs in the last 3 years. NFL teams have drafted a mean average of 4.34 DBs over the last 3 years. The median average is exactly between 4 and 5 (16 teams drafted 4 or less, 16 drafted 5 or more). Statistically the median becomes 4.5 DBs drafted. The Bills have drafted 3 DBs in the first 3 rounds. NFL teams have drafted a mean average of 1.66 DBs in the first 3 rounds. The median average however is 2.5 DBs. We have two sets of averages (mean and median) however the way I would interpret these numbers is that the Bills have tended to draft more DBs than the NFL average over the last 3 years and have tended to draft considerably more DBs than the NFL average in the first 3 rounds. Glad I did the numbers myself...sorta.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 I did see that - but it should say "no center was taken in the last five years of the study." Mangold has since made a Pro Bowl as well, so outside of this study, it seems first-round centers of late have been decent. I hope the Bills take Alex Mack at #28 (regardless of this study). Thanks for the feedback quikchomp. I appreciate it. Here are the 7 centers taken in the first round during the 17 year study period, the pick and year they were drafted and their accomplishments. I also included Nick Mangold: Brian Williams, 18th overall in 1989 Bern Brostek, 23rd overall in 1990 Steve Everitt, 14th overall in 1993 Jeff Hartings, 23rd overall in 1996, Pro Bowl in his 8th and 9th years with his second team, Pittsburgh Damien Woody17th overall in 1999, Pro Bowl in his 3rd year Jeff Faine, 21st overall in 2003, Pro Bowl alternate in his 5th year Chris Spencer, 26th overall in 2005 Nick Mangold, 29th overall in 2006, Pro Bowl in his 3rd year No center has been taken higher than 14th overall since 1988. These players (8 total) are in fact the only first round centers taken in that time. They were all taken between #14 and #29. Damien Woody did make a Pro Bowl in his 3rd year so the study was in error on that. It should have been 14.2%, not 0%. If you add Woody and Mangold, the success rate for centers in the study is 25%, albeit with a small sample size. I think Alex Mack would be a great pick at #28. I'm disappointed that two of our biggest needs, OT and DE have such high bust rates. It's very arguable at this point that we should draft Brandon Pettigrew and Alex Mack in that order. They might have the least chance of busting.
Ramius Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 But it's true Ramius. Here's what I found out yesterday: The Bills have drafted a total of 6 DBs in the last 3 years. NFL teams have drafted a mean average of 4.34 DBs over the last 3 years. The median average is exactly between 4 and 5 (16 teams drafted 4 or less, 16 drafted 5 or more). Statistically the median becomes 4.5 DBs drafted. The Bills have drafted 3 DBs in the first 3 rounds. NFL teams have drafted a mean average of 1.66 DBs in the first 3 rounds. The median average however is 2.5 DBs. We have two sets of averages (mean and median) however the way I would interpret these numbers is that the Bills have tended to draft more DBs than the NFL average over the last 3 years and have tended to draft considerably more DBs than the NFL average in the first 3 rounds. Glad I did the numbers myself...sorta. I did 7 years of draft study, including the 2008 draft, comparing the DBs taken in rounds 1 to 3: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=66210&hl= Theres a lot or talk on the boards about the bills drafting strategy lately, namely about the way the Bills use some picks on CBs. I've run some numbers to simply see what the league says about this arguement. I took a look at all DBs drafted by teams in rounds 1-3 (the old "day 1" picks). I feel that these picks can be expected to reasonably complete and develop into NFL players. I also tracked drafts back to, and including the 2001 draft. That gives the past 7 years (to me, a reasonable time frame), plus this most recent draft. Heres the results. The average team in the NFL has drafted 5.03 DBs in the first 3 rounds since 2001. The Bills have drafted 5 DBs in this same span. The most DB picks spent are by the Colts (10), Chargers (8), Raiders (7), and Packers (7) The fewest DB picks spent are by the Texans (2), Dolphins (2), Buccs (3), and 49ers (3) The average NFL team has spent 1.56 first rounders on DBs in that 8 year span. The Bills have spent 3 firsts, along with 4 other teams. The most firsts spent are the Raiders (5), and the Chargers (4) 6 teams have NOT spent a 1st rounder on a DB in that span, the Browns, Chiefs, Saints, Bears, Vikings, and Lions. For those that say no one drafts like the Bills did in 2006, there are some other notable times teams have spent lots of early picks in the DB(we'll call them BillinNYC drafts). Philly in '02 spent the #26, 58, and 59 picks on DBs San Diego in '03 spent the #30, 46, and 62 picks on DBs Seattle in '03 spent the #11 and 42 picks on DBs Denver in '05 spent their 1st 3 picks, 56, 76, 97 on DBs In the 07 and 08 drafts, the giants have spent the #20 (2007) and then the #31 and 63 picks this year on DBs. Some general thoughts: Teams that do NOT spend picks on the secondary generally have bad secondaries. Note the teams with 0 first rounders spent, 5 of the 6 (bears excluded) have had traditionally garbage secondaries. Also, teams that spent few picks on DBs generally have bad secondaries (miami, houston, san fran) The Buccs have only spent a few picks on DBs, but they have had Ronde Barber and Brian Kelly locking down the CB position for a long time now, thus having no need to replenish the secondary. The good teams over the past few years have had wildly different strategies for building their good teams. Some good teams spend more picks on DBs, and some good teams spend fewer picks on DBs. There is no one set formula to follow. The numbers are all over the board. In conclusion: While there is no set method for being a good team, it seems to be that ignoring the secondary on draft day is simply not a smart move. Teams that ignore the secondary early on draft day have bad secondaries. If you look at the teams with few picks early spent on DBs, you'll see a shortage of victories and playoff success.
Mr. ChumChums Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 This story's 2 years old, but it still pretty much applies. Here's a MUCH more comprehensive analysis on ESPN about which positions have a higher success rate. Really long, and really comprehensive. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbacks/070425 Here are the summary numbers if you want. First-Round Bust Percentages QB -- 53 percent RB -- 49 percent WR -- 45 percent DT -- 33 percent OL -- 31 percent DE -- 31 percent CB -- 29 percent LB -- 16 percent S -- 11 percent First-Round Pro Bowl Percentages (Percentage of players making at least one Pro Bowl) S -- 53 percent DT -- 40 percent LB -- 39 percent RB -- 36 percent DE -- 33 percent QB -- 33 percent WR -- 31 percent OL -- 26 percent CB -- 23 percent Teams with the Most Busts Bears -- 8 Lions -- 8 Eagles -- 8 49ers -- 7 Broncos -- 7 Cardinals -- 6 Patriots -- 6 Rams -- 6 Redskins -- 6
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Ramius, I went over your numbers and my numbers and generated some more numbers (don't ask why). I have the results and will post them some time soon. I don't want to corrupt this thread. Thanks buddy.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 This story's 2 years old, but it still pretty much applies. Here's a MUCH more comprehensive analysis on ESPN about which positions have a higher success rate. Really long, and really comprehensive. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbacks/070425 Cool Chum, The two sides go from opposite directions, one with a bust percentage and the other with a success percentage. Also the criteria is deeper in the ESPN study but not necessarily more accurate to the point of justifying the effort. I guess that's not for me to decide. I compared the Pro Bowl percentage in each study because that's what they have in common. The Barnwell study differentiates between centers, guards, and tackles. The Kluck study does not. The Kluck study differentiates between cornerbacks and safeties. The Barnwell study does not. I noticed a few things. In the Barnwell, first round guards make Pro Bowls at a much higher rate (36% to 14%) than do tackles. The Kluck number lumps offensive linemen together and that number is right in the middle (26%). Both studies ignore the middle class a bit. One studies busts and the other successes but not all players fall under either category. Anyways to paraphrase Peter King, this is a Factoid that only I might find interesting. Thanks for sending the ESPN study along.
Mr. ChumChums Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Both studies ignore the middle class a bit. One studies busts and the other successes but not all players fall under either category. I noticed this as well. While first round picks that just fill in their role (a la Dante Whitner) aren't considered busts, they still never really live up to their talent. I guess what we really need is some way to judge and rate that middle ground.
Recommended Posts