2000 to 2010 NFL Draft Team Analysis

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Anonymous

Guest
[ Image ]

2000 to 2010 NFL Draft Team Analysis

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1180349.html

Is there’s really any value in the late round picks, and is it a good idea to trade draft picks for established veterans?

Which teams have done the best job of drafting? Which positions are the safest to take? Which positions produce the biggest busts?

In an attempt to try to answer all of those questions and make sense of the science of the draft process, CFN has put together a rough breakdown of every pick from 2000 to 2010 - leaving out 2011 because it’s still way too early to make a proper judgment on most of the top players.

An NFL general manager has one job and one job only when it comes to the draft: find players who can actually help the team.

While that might be obvious, it takes nothing more than blind luck to come up with a superstar, Pro Bowl performer, and almost half of all players drafted are absolutely worthless. By our calculations, roughly 30% of all players drafted make a major impact, while the other 70% are either bodies, and nothing more, or aren’t worth the time, effort, and signing bonus to draft.

The odds of getting a good starter go into the tank the longer the draft goes on, and while that might not come as a shocker, the drop-off from round to round is far greater than you might think.

Yes, once in a while a fifth-rounder rocks, and every year the campfire stories are told about Tom Brady and Terrell Davis to keep fans mildly interested in the late rounds, but remember, the entire idea of drafting is to take a chance on a prospect. The odds of finding a living, breathing player after the first 100 picks are horrendous – it’ll all be broken down in a moment – meaning that if you can trade two third rounders for a Brandon Marshall, or give up a fifth rounder for a Keith Rivers, or a fourth for DeMeco Ryans, then by all means do it.

A general manager has to find starters, and as we found out, that’s really, really hard to do. Drafting players late to be special teamers and fill out a roster is easy, but unnecessary. Bodies can always be picked up off the waiver wire or traded for using late draft picks, but drafting a good starter means everything in a draft.

To figure out just how the draft breaks down, every player was assigned a rating based on whether or not the pick worked, and it’s a more obvious call than you might think.

The criteria is extremely loose. Basically, if the player is a regular starter, then that’s all that matters, and players who were just bodies to make a team don’t really help the cause.

- 5 – The elite of the elite. These are the perennial Pro Bowl performers and the potential Hall of Famers who become the stars of a franchise. If you have to make a case for a player to be a 5, he’s not a 5.

Over the 11 drafts analyzed there are just 31 of these players, but none came from the 2011 class since it’s still too early a call to make on Ndamukong Suh and a few other burgeoning stars.

More importantly, just six of these elite players were drafted after the first round – Lance Briggs in the third round of the 2003 draft and Jared Allen by Kansas City in the fourth round 2004 draft are as borderline as this category gets, while Tom Brady in the sixth round of the 2000 draft is the only other elite player taken after the second round. Devin Hester – he’ll go in the Hall as a kick returner - in the 2006 second round, Maurice Jones-Drew in the 2006 second round, and Drew Brees with the first pick in the second round in 2001 are the only other non-first round elite of the elite picks.

- 4 – Difference makers. These are the top starters who made a Pro Bowl or two and/or were high level stars. Out of the 152 players in this category, just 28 were taken after the second round and a mere 11 were selected after the fourth. That means that out of 2,779 players drafted from 2000 to 2010, roughly 12 players taken after the fourth round became more than just solid starters.

- 3- Starters. These are real, live NFL players who were functional starters for a long time, or were sensational for a short time, or a mix of both. Any of the players in this category would be classified as a successful pick for a general manager. They might not have all been worth the value of the pick – we’ll deal with value later – but at the very least they were starters. Some probably belong in the 4 category, and several could be ranked a bit lower, but at the very least these picks didn’t bust.

Out of the 682 players put in this category, 250 of them were drafted after the third round and 154 of those were drafted after the fourth. That means, give or take a few players here or there, about 6% of the players drafted after the fourth round from 2000 to 2010 - roughly 166 of the 2,779 players drafted - became strong NFL starters or more.

- 2 – Guys. Some are solid NFL starters and some even had a year or two of stardom, but for the most part these are just guys on a team. These are the live bodies needed to fill out a roster, and while they aren’t necessarily busts, they’re the run-of-the-mill NFL players that teams can live without. These are the cogs – they aren’t the difference makers.

- 1 – Easy cuts. There might be an occasional starter in this group, but these are the players who saw a little time, made some money, and filled in roles. However, the picks didn’t matter. These are mostly the easily replaceable players who can be taken off the scrap heap at any time.

- 0 – Nope. These are the busts who didn’t work out. Some might have hung around a roster in a backup role, and some might have found a niche as a special teamer, but for the most part these players didn’t do anything on the field worthy of the draft pick. Out of the 888 players put in this category, just six first rounders – R. Jay Soward, Sylvester Morris, and Chris McIntosh in 2000; Jamal Reynolds in 2001; Charles Rogers in 2003; and Rashaun Woods in 2004 – made the cut.

787 of the players in this category were taken after the third round. In all, 1,136 players taken after the third round over an 11-year span were, at best, guys who filled out a roster and nothing more. Out of all the players drafted during this time frame, roughly 41% of the total players drafted turned out to be have little to no value were and were taken after the third round.

Alright, so what does this all mean?

Finding a worthwhile starter after the third round is almost all luck.

To break this all down by round by percentage per round from 2000 to 2010:

First Round 349 players total

You have to really, really try to screw up in the first round. Just 10% of the first round picks were disasters while 62% of the players taken were at the very least functional NFL starters. A team has a far, far better chance of finding a star in the first round than a bust, so yes, first round picks really are that valuable.

5 – 25 players 7%
4 - 83 players 24%
3 - 143 players 41%
2- 64 players 18%
1- 28 players 8%
0 – 6 players 2%

Second Round 350 players total

There’s better than a 50/50 shot of finding a good starter in the second round and there’s little risk of the pick being a total bust. While the superstars are almost certainly going to be snapped up in the first round, there aren’t too many major misses in the second with a mere 7% of the picks doing nothing and 22% of the selections failing to produce at a decent level. Teams should load up on as many second round picks as possible because that’s where the starters are.

5 - 3 players 0.86%
4 – 42 players 12%
3 – 153 players 44%
2 - 75 players 21%
1 - 53 players 15%
0 - 24 players 7%

Third Round 375 players

And here’s where the production falls off the map. Lance Briggs is the lone third round pick to make the top category, and just over 3% of the third round picks became major difference-makers. This is when it becomes a gamble to find a good starter with 43% of the third round picks bringing little or no value and 65% of the picks failing to provide a starter worth getting excited about. In other words, teams need to play the percentages and trade a third round pick and any other later round picks to move up into the second whenever possible.

5 – 1 player 0.3%
4 - 11 players 3%
3 – 121 players 32%
2 – 86 players 23%
1 – 85 players 23%
0 – 71 players 19%

Fourth Round 396 players

There isn’t a major difference between the third and fourth rounds. Roughly 65% of the third round picks didn’t turn into difference-making starters, while over 70% of the fourth round picks failed to become worthwhile. There are almost no big-time stars coming from the round – sackmaster Jared Allen was the lone superstar player. If a team was told it had roughly a 3-in-10 shot of getting a starter, would it still want its fourth round pick?

5 – 1 player 0.25%
4 – 6 players 1.5%
3 – 106 players 27%
2 – 89 players 22%
1 – 70 players 18%
0 – 124 players 31%

Fifth Round 394 players

This is the dumping round. A fifth round pick sounds relatively valuable, but it’s not. A whopping 44% of the picks were total wastes of time and over 80% of the draft picks failed to become relevant starters.

5 – No players 0%
4 – 6 players 1.5%
3 - 62 players 16%
2 – 65 players 16%
1 – 86 players 22%
0 – 175 players 44%

Sixth Round 423 players

Over half the players taken had no value and 73% failed to do much of anything. Just over 11% of the players taken in this round turned out to be starters, and there weren’t even many bodies to fill in the gaps with just over a quarter of the players selected going on to do anything.

5 - 1 player 0.2%
4 – 2 players 0.47%
3 – 45 players 11%
2 – 66 players 16%
1 – 95 players 22%
0 – 214 players 51%

Seventh Round 492 players

Don’t even bother. Over 75% of the seventh rounders did absolutely nothing and there’s just over a 1-in-10 shot of finding a decent starter. It would be better to blow off the seventh round altogether, save the money, and go get the top rookie free agents still available.

5 – No players 0%
4 – 3 players 0.6%
3 – 54 players 11%
2 – 61 players 12%
1 – 99 players 20%
0 – 275 players 56%

In other words, be glued to your TV on Thursday night because that’s the future of the NFL. Go out and do something more valuable with your life during the rest of the draft.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I can see us having value in later rounds mostly because we got a kicker. I think this could be a good year for the Rams in terms of value in the draft. Richardson, depending on how long Jackson lasts, could be good too. I like the potential with him, but I'm not sure he hangs around if Jackson does. And I don't see Jackson wanting to have 3 RB's... He wants all the carries.
 

F. Mulder

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
773
bluecoconuts said:
I can see us having value in later rounds mostly because we got a kicker. I think this could be a good year for the Rams in terms of value in the draft. Richardson, depending on how long Jackson lasts, could be good too. I like the potential with him, but I'm not sure he hangs around if Jackson does. And I don't see Jackson wanting to have 3 RB's... He wants all the carries.


The funny thing is that under Devaney the Rams actually did better with UDFAs and Practice Squad raids from other teams than their later picks. I think it's nearly a complete clean slate and some guys who had Spags' eye may have to earn it even moreso now with pretty much intenese competition across the board. Guys like D. Scott and Cudjo, and Sims especially. Regarding the RB situation, the fact that Pead can be not only a change of pace back but can handle returns makes him valuable on two fronts but I can't envision Richardson not making it despite Jackson, and his desire for the majority of carries. If Richardson can play special teams he should stick. Hell guys like Quinn Porter and J Norwood got through years as the 3rd RB.

This is going to be a key year regarding the RB position in that, despite Jackson's great physical training and desire, the fact that he is winding down, AND has a big contract expiring will somewhat define the issue. The Rams need to see if Pead has the potential to be a feature back, or at least a shared RB or if he is purely a returner and specialist. This is NOT a knock on Jackson but I think the end is near, at least as a featured back, and one who wants to get paid like one.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
F. Mulder said:
The funny thing is that under Devaney the Rams actually did better with UDFAs and Practice Squad raids from other teams than their later picks.

What's your standard? What is "doing well with later picks"? And I don't mean a guess, what numbers do good drafting teams show?

Here's a couple of examples.

Sixth Round 423 players

Over half the players taken had no value and 73% failed to do much of anything. Just over 11% of the players taken in this round turned out to be starters, and there weren’t even many bodies to fill in the gaps with just over a quarter of the players selected going on to do anything.

5 - 1 player 0.2%
4 – 2 players 0.47%
3 – 45 players 11%
2 – 66 players 16%
1 – 95 players 22%
0 – 214 players 51%

Looking at rank 3. What they basically call a decent starter. They came up with 45 in round 6.

That's 45 in the entire league, all 32 teams, across ten years.

Meaning, in 10 years, on average--if you just even it all out and make all things equal--one single team could count on getting one solid starter from the 6th round every 7 years.

Or look at this, for example. The Steelers, one group of 3 years (2010-2008). All picks from those years after round 3. I go back 3 years because then you can judge. I only do three years cause I'm freaking lazy.

Color code. Red = starter or major contributor

YEAR ROUND PICK POSITION
2010 4 116 Thaddeus Gibson DE
2010 5 151 Chris Scott G
2010 5 164 Crezdon Butler DB
2010 5 166 Stevenson Sylvester LB
2010 6 188 Jonathan Dwyer RB
2010 6 195 Antonio Brown WR
2010 7 242 Doug Worthington DT

2009 5 168 Joe Burnett DB
2009 5 169 Frank Summers RB
2009 6 205 RaShon Harris DT
2009 7 226 A.Q. Shipley C St.
2009 7 241 David Johnson TE

2008 4 130 Tony Hills T
2008 5 156 Dennis Dixon QB
2008 6 188 Mike Humpal LB
2008 6 194 Ryan Mundy DB 2011

So what's a good hit rate in the lower rounds...based on actual data?
 

F. Mulder

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
773
I'm not interested in trying to calibrate guys as "decent" starters etc, simply basing it on making the team.

Using this year's roster of what I calculate to be UDFAs and/or PS guys from the Rams, or other rosters, I come up with the following guys who have a chance to make a roster. Obviously a fair number won't, and I haven't included 2012 UDFAs but some of these guys were on the Rams roster/active and I assure you there are a lot more than mid/later round picks.

Amendola (PS)
Brandstater (PS)
Cudjo
Guidiguli
Kevin Hughes
B. Mattison (projected as a potential starter)
Chase Reynolds
Domique Curry (2 years on active roster)
N Miller WR
T Barnes (OL)
R McKee (OL)
J Cole (LB)
D Nixon (LB)
J Gordy (2 active games with GB)

add to that the number of UDFAs who were on active rosters during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons in which they are no longer on the team and compare them to the later round picks Devaney made and their status with the team. Citing the fact that few late round picks even make the team is probably true but when you are cutting late round picks that you chose to draft vs. UDFAs and Practice Squad guys would seem to me to signify that Devaney did a better job raiding PS and UDFAs than mid/late round drafts

Looking at mid-round/late round picks under Devaney

2009
D. Scott (made the team but has a good chance of being cut this year)
Brooks Foster
K Null (2 years?)
Chris Ogbyonnnii (1 year)

2010
Gilyard
Hal Davis
Fendi Onubu
Marquis Johnson
Selvie

2011
Hines
no 6th pick
Baker
J Williams
Nelson

So obviously a few guys made it for a year or, in some rare cases two, while others were outright cut or never saw the field. I would think a team with so many holes could get some decent ST, or developing players in the mid/later rounds based on the fact that their starting talent base was so much lower than most other NFL teams, combined with the fact that they seemed to find Practice Squad or UDFA guys who contributed equally or better/longer than these draft picks.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,855
I was hopin 2 see Ozzie Newsome's picks, b/c apparently he is a GM god of some sort. :roll:
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
F. Mulder said:
bluecoconuts said:
I can see us having value in later rounds mostly because we got a kicker. I think this could be a good year for the Rams in terms of value in the draft. Richardson, depending on how long Jackson lasts, could be good too. I like the potential with him, but I'm not sure he hangs around if Jackson does. And I don't see Jackson wanting to have 3 RB's... He wants all the carries.


The funny thing is that under Devaney the Rams actually did better with UDFAs and Practice Squad raids from other teams than their later picks. I think it's nearly a complete clean slate and some guys who had Spags' eye may have to earn it even moreso now with pretty much intenese competition across the board. Guys like D. Scott and Cudjo, and Sims especially. Regarding the RB situation, the fact that Pead can be not only a change of pace back but can handle returns makes him valuable on two fronts but I can't envision Richardson not making it despite Jackson, and his desire for the majority of carries. If Richardson can play special teams he should stick. Hell guys like Quinn Porter and J Norwood got through years as the 3rd RB.

This is going to be a key year regarding the RB position in that, despite Jackson's great physical training and desire, the fact that he is winding down, AND has a big contract expiring will somewhat define the issue. The Rams need to see if Pead has the potential to be a feature back, or at least a shared RB or if he is purely a returner and specialist. This is NOT a knock on Jackson but I think the end is near, at least as a featured back, and one who wants to get paid like one.

Oh for sure Richardson sticks this year, and probably next as well. I'm more saying that when his contract is up and it's time for him to resign, if Jackson is still here looking to get most of the carries, he may want to play somewhere else where he gets more touches. I think he has great potential, and will want to shoulder more than a few carries a game if he's lucky.
 

F. Mulder

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
773
bluecoconuts said:
F. Mulder said:
bluecoconuts said:
I can see us having value in later rounds mostly because we got a kicker. I think this could be a good year for the Rams in terms of value in the draft. Richardson, depending on how long Jackson lasts, could be good too. I like the potential with him, but I'm not sure he hangs around if Jackson does. And I don't see Jackson wanting to have 3 RB's... He wants all the carries.


The funny thing is that under Devaney the Rams actually did better with UDFAs and Practice Squad raids from other teams than their later picks. I think it's nearly a complete clean slate and some guys who had Spags' eye may have to earn it even moreso now with pretty much intenese competition across the board. Guys like D. Scott and Cudjo, and Sims especially. Regarding the RB situation, the fact that Pead can be not only a change of pace back but can handle returns makes him valuable on two fronts but I can't envision Richardson not making it despite Jackson, and his desire for the majority of carries. If Richardson can play special teams he should stick. Hell guys like Quinn Porter and J Norwood got through years as the 3rd RB.

This is going to be a key year regarding the RB position in that, despite Jackson's great physical training and desire, the fact that he is winding down, AND has a big contract expiring will somewhat define the issue. The Rams need to see if Pead has the potential to be a feature back, or at least a shared RB or if he is purely a returner and specialist. This is NOT a knock on Jackson but I think the end is near, at least as a featured back, and one who wants to get paid like one.

Oh for sure Richardson sticks this year, and probably next as well. I'm more saying that when his contract is up and it's time for him to resign, if Jackson is still here looking to get most of the carries, he may want to play somewhere else where he gets more touches. I think he has great potential, and will want to shoulder more than a few carries a game if he's lucky.

I understand what you are saying and like I said (or tried to say), I'm a big SJ fan but I cannot imagine him being with the Rams when his contract is up. 1) He's going to feel it's time to get paid and the Rams are obviously trying to rebuild and don't want to tie a lot of money into an aging RB when they have Bradford, Long, JL, and others tying up $ or on second contracts and 2)Someone will offer SJ a 1-2 year deal that will be decent and he'll take it if it is from any type of contender because he wants to go out with the chance to play in the postseason. I just see it as a win/win (or lose/lose based on your persepctive) that the Rams will have a new feature RB by 2013/2014 and SJ will be elsewhere.

Sorry for the ramble. :oops:
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
F. Mulder said:
I'm not interested in trying to calibrate guys as "decent" starters etc, simply basing it on making the team.

I meant, where is your standard from.

What counts as a hit on picks after the 3rd round and what percentage of hits counts as good drafting. I'm not looking for something abstract, but something based on a real tally of how good drafting teams do.

I'm not sure making the roster counts because teams will keep guys for a year or 2 simply because they drafted them.

That doesn't apply to the Rams last year, though, since Spags had final say over the roster and did not keep any pick after Salas. He got caught in a numbers game with injuries and trying to do things like sneak Wms. through waivers to put him on the practice squad. So that doesn't count against Devaney--that was a head coach roster call, which in this case did not reflect on the pick.

In any event when someone says a team did or did not do well drafting from round 4 down, what's the criteria?

It seems to me people just mostly assume that the percentage of hits is higher with good drafting teams and then never make an effort to demonstrate whether or not that's true.
 

F. Mulder

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
773
I'm do not have the time to do the type of raw numbers you are after.

My premises are these:

1) a team so devoid of talent as the one that Spags/Devaney took over in 2009 should have had more opportunities from that year on for guys from the 4th round and lower to make the team and contribute in comparison with good teams where guys drafted from the 3rd round and lower would have a tough time even making the team. So, the draft stats you cited, which I'm sure are correct, are LIKELY? skewed based on the records of the teams who drafted. In other words, teams with lower base talents should have more openings for drafted mid/lower round guys than good teams and yet the Rams seemed to somewhat follow the overall stat of the majority of these guys not making the active roster, or only doing so for a year

2) Despite the fact that such mid/lower round draft guys didn't make it, a higher quantity of UDFAs and/or practice squad guys from other teams did which I find odd since the Rams controlled the draft picks and scouted them and yet did better either raiding another team's practice squad or sigining a UDFA which is quite a different process than drafting your own player.

If I get a chance I may do some looking into this but as I said, you would think that a 4th round WR like Gilyard would pan out better than Gibson and some of the others the Rams trotted out to hold WR spots in the past. Hal Davis didn't get out of camp with the Rams. Last year Nelson, Baker, Hines, and eventually Williams were cut. I listed the guys previously and am surprised that so many didn't pan out via the coaches perspective (which means the scouts missed or the coaches couldn't develop them) and yet UDFAs and practice squad guys were more able to make active rosters.
 

Anonymous

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
F. Mulder said:
I'm do not have the time to do the type of raw numbers you are after.

My premises are these:

1) a team so devoid of talent as the one that Spags/Devaney took over in 2009 should have had more opportunities from that year on for guys from the 4th round and lower to make the team and contribute in comparison with good teams where guys drafted from the 3rd round and lower would have a tough time even making the team. So, the draft stats you cited, which I'm sure are correct, are LIKELY? skewed based on the records of the teams who drafted. In other words, teams with lower base talents should have more openings for drafted mid/lower round guys than good teams and yet the Rams seemed to somewhat follow the overall stat of the majority of these guys not making the active roster, or only doing so for a year

2) Despite the fact that such mid/lower round draft guys didn't make it, a higher quantity of UDFAs and/or practice squad guys from other teams did which I find odd since the Rams controlled the draft picks and scouted them and yet did better either raiding another team's practice squad or sigining a UDFA which is quite a different process than drafting your own player.

If I get a chance I may do some looking into this but as I said, you would think that a 4th round WR like Gilyard would pan out better than Gibson and some of the others the Rams trotted out to hold WR spots in the past. Hal Davis didn't get out of camp with the Rams. Last year Nelson, Baker, Hines, and eventually Williams were cut. I listed the guys previously and am surprised that so many didn't pan out via the coaches perspective (which means the scouts missed or the coaches couldn't develop them) and yet UDFAs and practice squad guys were more able to make active rosters.

The cuts you list from 2011 are really problematical because those were clearly coach's roster cuts, and victims of both no off-season (giving rookies less value) AND of the injury situation, which led to a lot of roster juggling (for example the Rams did not IR Smith but needed a replacement on the roster, which means there had to be a cut somewhere, with a rookie with no off-season being a clear possibility). On top of it they tried to sneak Williams through waivers and keep him--he just got snatched up. Which means he was a good pick by Devaney and a circumstances-driven cut by Spags, yet you're holding him against Devaney's tally of picks.

Anyway, neither one of us has data on how many "hits" there are in drafts after round 3, but you seem willing to assume there will be more...but can't offer numbers backing that assumption. In fact, we shouldn't assume because for all we know the assumptions are simply anywhere from groundless to flat false.

It seems to me that it's more of an assumption than anything else to say that somehow a 4th round pick has or ought to have more automatic value than a UDFA or a practice squad raid. That's especially the case when you consider the fact that with the Rams, the GM did not have roster say. Only the head coach did. So the GM presents the coach with a range of options at say WR, and the coach gets to choose between and among a 4th rounder, a UDFA, and a practice squad raid. That IS good talent provision. Why would we automatically assume the 4th rounder had more value?

I have looked at numbers selectively a couple of times--for example, seeing how many "hits" there were in Green Bay drafts from 2005-2007--and it's a lot lower than most assume.

On top of it, there also seems to be an assumption out there that teams build in three years and ought to have depth by then or several draft hits. I have found that teams that do turn around in a 3 year span invariably had more inherited good veteran talent on the roster than the Rams did in 09. Expansion teams have done the 3 year thing, but only in the modern era when they have special advantages--extra draft picks, an expansion draft, and unlimited cap space to take advantage of free agency.

Other than that, teams that radically rebuild from scratch just do not have the kind of depth you're talking about within 3 years.

As for UDFAs,it does not suprise me that teams as a rule have a higher percentage of UDFAs on their rosters than lower draft picks. Though no one has numbers on which to expect from each (so, IMO, we shouldn't assume.) In fact, Snead did a study of UDFAs and what they contribute. To directly quote him, and he was talking about starters, "16 to 17 percent come from college free agency." It's the same percentage as 2nd and 3rd round draft picks. The way he put it was: "I’ve always done a study at the end of the season of where starters are, where you get starters from. And you can get the same percentage of starters from college free agency as you can the second and third rounds." (link)