Change to Nick Foles Gives Rams Average Offseason Grade/Wagoner

[FrantikRam]

Coming in to this offseason the questions for this team were:

What to do at QB?

How to fix the OL?

How to improve the offense in general?

The Rams responded with Foles, multiple draft picks, and Todd Gurley - they answered every question, and looking back on it, that seemed totally impossible at the end of last season. They did so while simultaneously saving more money (Bradford) than they spent (Foles, draft picks) on offense.

Throw in Fairley and Ayers for the defense - two upgrades over the players they will be playing for or replacing - and this offseason is an A+

Every team is in a different situation and are dealt different cards for the offseason. Teams that pick before us should have a better draft than us, and teams with more cap space should sign better free agents - so you can only judge a team by what they can do and what you believe they should do - and in these regards the Rams exceeded all of our expectations.

Wagoner is lying to himself if he says otherwise.

 

[Rmfnlt]

He's been covering the team since 2004. He saw the worst of the worst and wasn't nearly as negative as he has been over the last 2 years or so.

I'm sure part of it is since he's no longer on the Rams payroll he gets to say whatever he wants. Not to mention controversy sells on ESPN.

I'm sure being a Rams employee (if he was) was part of it... but, I also think:
* Yes, those bad years are gone... but that doesn't mean they didn't have a lasting effect. I see many here saying how it's been harder to stay optimistic after this long of a playoff drought. You can only get kicked in the nuts so many times before it takes it toll.
* When Jeff Fisher came in, a lot of fans thought he would right the ship. And, he has accomplished a lot. But, eventually fans do look at the record and last year was a real bummer. I suspect guys like Wagoner also felt the let-down.

I don't think "B-" was really that outrageous.. but that's just me.

 

[bskrilla]

I think this is pretty much impossible before games are played, but I'd cautiously grade the off-season a B+ or possibly an A-. The only thing the team didn't do that I would have liked was to sign one veteran OL to help shore up such a young unit. Apart from that they made a move to address QB, drafted OL, and picked up a projected superstar on offense. I dig it.

 

[Robocop]

Without the acquisition of Foles and Ayers I'd have assigned a grade of C-. With those two additions a B- seems fair to me. That must mean that I hate the Rams and I've given up on them right.

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future. Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have really really crappy backup plans for any injuries at LT and the depth at the other G and T positions suck too. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have no proven options at C and that we didn't even try to lock in the only player with any experience at OC who many think will win the job. What I can't ignore is the math concerning our draft picks. Ignoring all that math isn't possible for me. Doesn't mean we can't beat the odds though.

Havenstein - approximately 33% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being marginal starter.
Brown - approximately 40% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being marginal starter.
Donnal - approximately 50% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being marginal starter.
Wichmann - approximately 80-90% chance of being a bust and an even greater chance of being a marginal starter.

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/
The chance of a bust in the NFL draft
May 1, 2012

With the 2012 NFL draft officially complete, the fans of every NFL franchise are dissecting their teams draft picks looking for hidden gems and potential busts. Intuitively, early picks in the draft have a much higher propensity to succeed in the NFL as we showed last week. What about the chance that a pick will be a bust? It’s been well covered that, out of the four times in NFL draft history a QB has been chosen 1 and 2, only once have both QBs been successful (1971: Jim Plunkett and Archie Manning). We decided to expand the search and look at all picks over the last 50 years and determine the average chance an NFL draft pick will be a bust.

What is a “bust?” We'll look at it two different ways. First, a bust is a player that ends up with a value score of less than 5 according to pro-football-reference.com. A value of less than 5 is equivalent to a marginal role player that has limited game experience and contributes little to no value to an NFL franchise. Here it is in a visual:

You can see from about round 6 (pick 160) and later, the percent chance of failing on a draft pick is over 70%. With such a low hit rate, NFL teams should focus their decision making on players that fit their current schema and can be a strong contributor on special teams.


Now, with early round picks, the expectation is a lot higher than just contributing on the field. With a first or second round pick, an NFL team is expecting a player that can come in, start, and contribute for years to come. With that in mind, our second method for setting the bar for a “bust” is that the player starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. Here's the same visual with the different way of measuring busts:

A couple of interesting notes from the graph. First, picking at the end of the second round only gives your team a 50% chance of finding a starter. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%. Using this criteria and ourdraft value chart from last week, let’s evaluate a couple of the trades from Friday.

• The Browns trading out of pick 67 to the Broncos for picks 87 and 120. The Browns increased their chance of getting a starter from 41% to 49%. On a pick value basis, the Browns increased their pick value from 259 to 299. All in all a fairly even trade for both sides but I give the edge to the Browns.
  
• What about the Cowboys and Rams trade in the first round? The Cowboys traded away picks 14 and 45 for the 6th pick in the draft from the Rams. From a “starter” perspective, the Cowboys decreased their chance of picking a starter from 88% to 85%. From a pick value perspective, the Cowboys decreased their value from 1141 to 779. From a stat point of view, looks like the Rams got the better of the deal but once again a fairly even trade.
  Another interesting note, in the later rounds, an NFL team has a really slim chance of finding the next Tom Brady in round 6 or Donald Driver in round 7. The data shows that finding a starter in round 6 or 7 is only 10 - 20%. Further strengthening the argument to search for players that are effective on special teams in later rounds. Finally, see pick 148 on the graph (highlighted in blue). In the past 50 years, only two players picked 148 have started more than one year and played in at least 40 games. Best of luck to Chris Greenwood of the Detroit Lions, the 148th selection of the 2012 draft. According to the data, you are the true Mr. Irrelevant.

thanks for the nightmares about the upcoming season AND the flashback nightmares of struggling through statistics class alm:

 

[FrantikRam]

Without the acquisition of Foles and Ayers I'd have assigned a grade of C-. With those two additions a B- seems fair to me. That must mean that I hate the Rams and I've given up on them right.

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future. Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have really really crappy backup plans for any injuries at LT and the depth at the other G and T positions suck too. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have no proven options at C and that we didn't even try to lock in the only player with any experience at OC who many think will win the job. What I can't ignore is the math concerning our draft picks. Ignoring all that math isn't possible for me. Doesn't mean we can't beat the odds though.

Havenstein - approximately 33% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being marginal starter.
Brown - approximately 40% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being marginal starter.
Donnal - approximately 50% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being marginal starter.
Wichmann - approximately 80-90% chance of being a bust and an even greater chance of being a marginal starter.

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/
The chance of a bust in the NFL draft
May 1, 2012

With the 2012 NFL draft officially complete, the fans of every NFL franchise are dissecting their teams draft picks looking for hidden gems and potential busts. Intuitively, early picks in the draft have a much higher propensity to succeed in the NFL as we showed last week. What about the chance that a pick will be a bust? It’s been well covered that, out of the four times in NFL draft history a QB has been chosen 1 and 2, only once have both QBs been successful (1971: Jim Plunkett and Archie Manning). We decided to expand the search and look at all picks over the last 50 years and determine the average chance an NFL draft pick will be a bust.

What is a “bust?” We'll look at it two different ways. First, a bust is a player that ends up with a value score of less than 5 according to pro-football-reference.com. A value of less than 5 is equivalent to a marginal role player that has limited game experience and contributes little to no value to an NFL franchise. Here it is in a visual:

You can see from about round 6 (pick 160) and later, the percent chance of failing on a draft pick is over 70%. With such a low hit rate, NFL teams should focus their decision making on players that fit their current schema and can be a strong contributor on special teams.


Now, with early round picks, the expectation is a lot higher than just contributing on the field. With a first or second round pick, an NFL team is expecting a player that can come in, start, and contribute for years to come. With that in mind, our second method for setting the bar for a “bust” is that the player starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. Here's the same visual with the different way of measuring busts:

A couple of interesting notes from the graph. First, picking at the end of the second round only gives your team a 50% chance of finding a starter. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%. Using this criteria and ourdraft value chart from last week, let’s evaluate a couple of the trades from Friday.

• The Browns trading out of pick 67 to the Broncos for picks 87 and 120. The Browns increased their chance of getting a starter from 41% to 49%. On a pick value basis, the Browns increased their pick value from 259 to 299. All in all a fairly even trade for both sides but I give the edge to the Browns.
  
• What about the Cowboys and Rams trade in the first round? The Cowboys traded away picks 14 and 45 for the 6th pick in the draft from the Rams. From a “starter” perspective, the Cowboys decreased their chance of picking a starter from 88% to 85%. From a pick value perspective, the Cowboys decreased their value from 1141 to 779. From a stat point of view, looks like the Rams got the better of the deal but once again a fairly even trade.
  Another interesting note, in the later rounds, an NFL team has a really slim chance of finding the next Tom Brady in round 6 or Donald Driver in round 7. The data shows that finding a starter in round 6 or 7 is only 10 - 20%. Further strengthening the argument to search for players that are effective on special teams in later rounds. Finally, see pick 148 on the graph (highlighted in blue). In the past 50 years, only two players picked 148 have started more than one year and played in at least 40 games. Best of luck to Chris Greenwood of the Detroit Lions, the 148th selection of the 2012 draft. According to the data, you are the true Mr. Irrelevant.

Let's ignore the fact that several people more knowledgeable about knees than you have checked out Gurley and said he would be fine.

You don't need superstars on the offensive line. You need 5 guys that play well together. The whole should always be better than the sum of the parts.

Given all your percentages, I'd say there's essentially a 99.99% chance that one of the four offensive lineman we drafted turns in a solid rookie year and develops into an integral part of this offensive line.

So we have Robinson, Saffold, Jones, and a rookie - based on his college career, health, and the coaches confidence I can reasonably expect Jones to be a good player. Therefore we would have 4 offensive lineman that are considered "good" individually - this would allow the other rookie that starts a bit of leeway.

Is it ideal? No.

But what else could the Rams have done? And don't say draft different players, because that's not realistic.

 

[bskrilla]

I don't think "B-" was really that outrageous.. but that's just me.

I don't either. It's just the more general feeling I've gotten from reading him over the last couple years. He's either finally been worn down by the losing, or has always been a pessimist and can now finally let it fly.

 

[Alan]

Robocop not liking my Debbie Downer impersonation:
thanks for the nightmares about the upcoming season AND the flashback nightmares of struggling through statistics class alm:

I know, I suck.

@FrantikRam unaware that I spent an evening at a Holiday Inn Express:
Let's ignore the fact that several people more knowledgeable about knees than you have checked out Gurley and said he would be fine.

Good thing I'm relying on the math and not the medical stuff eh? Also, no doctor said he wouldn't be subject to an increased risk of another knee injury in the same or even the opposite knee because they would have been lying. That my friend, is a statistical fact and not just my opinion.

You don't need superstars on the offensive line. You need 5 guys that play well together. The whole should always be better than the sum of the parts.

Picture a couple of O-line players playing at a "bust" level (Joseph & Wells) and then tell me that again.

Given all your percentages, I'd say there's essentially a 99.99% chance that one of the four offensive lineman we drafted turns in a solid rookie year and develops into an integral part of this offensive line.

It's a darn shame that we need two of them to turn out that well isn't it?

But what else could the Rams have done? And don't say draft different players, because that's not realistic.

I've already addressed that in a different thread so I won't get into that now but what does a lack of good options have to do with the grade for what we did do? Just because you painted yourself into a corner and decided that walking over your newly painted floor was better than knocking out a section of the wall behind you doesn't mean you get an A.

 

[Corbin]

I know, I suck.

@FrantikRam unaware that I spent an evening at a Holiday Inn Express:
Let's ignore the fact that several people more knowledgeable about knees than you have checked out Gurley and said he would be fine.

Good thing I'm relying on the math and not the medical stuff eh? Also, no doctor said he wouldn't be subject to an increased risk of another knee injury in the same or even the opposite knee because they would have been lying. That my friend, is a statistical fact and not just my opinion.

You don't need superstars on the offensive line. You need 5 guys that play well together. The whole should always be better than the sum of the parts.

Picture a couple of O-line players playing at a "bust" level (Joseph & Wells) and then tell me that again.

Given all your percentages, I'd say there's essentially a 99.99% chance that one of the four offensive lineman we drafted turns in a solid rookie year and develops into an integral part of this offensive line.

It's a darn shame that we need two of them to turn out that well isn't it?

But what else could the Rams have done? And don't say draft different players, because that's not realistic.

I've already addressed that in a different thread so I won't get into that now but what does a lack of good options have to do with the grade for what we did do? Just because you painted yourself into a corner and decided that walking over your newly painted floor was better than knocking out a section of the wall behind you doesn't mean you get an A.

You can't really argue with statistics however I refuse to believe whoever they plug in to replace Davin Joseph could be potentially worse than how that shit bag did last year for us.

If Jamon Brown just physically gets in the way of the the pass rusher half the times Joseph let a free rush by ill be happy! Lol

 

[Ram65]

Without the acquisition of Foles and Ayers I'd have assigned a grade of C-. With those two additions a B- seems fair to me. That must mean that I hate the Rams and I've given up on them right.

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future. Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have really really crappy backup plans for any injuries at LT and the depth at the other G and T positions suck too. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have no proven options at C and that we didn't even try to lock in the only player with any experience at OC who many think will win the job. What I can't ignore is the math concerning our draft picks. Ignoring all that math isn't possible for me. Doesn't mean we can't beat the odds though.

Havenstein - approximately 33% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Brown - approximately 40% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Donnal - approximately 50% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Wichmann - approximately 80-90% chance of being a bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/
The chance of a bust in the NFL draft
May 1, 2012

With the 2012 NFL draft officially complete, the fans of every NFL franchise are dissecting their teams draft picks looking for hidden gems and potential busts. Intuitively, early picks in the draft have a much higher propensity to succeed in the NFL as we showed last week. What about the chance that a pick will be a bust? It’s been well covered that, out of the four times in NFL draft history a QB has been chosen 1 and 2, only once have both QBs been successful (1971: Jim Plunkett and Archie Manning). We decided to expand the search and look at all picks over the last 50 years and determine the average chance an NFL draft pick will be a bust.

What is a “bust?” We'll look at it two different ways. First, a bust is a player that ends up with a value score of less than 5 according to pro-football-reference.com. A value of less than 5 is equivalent to a marginal role player that has limited game experience and contributes little to no value to an NFL franchise. Here it is in a visual:

You can see from about round 6 (pick 160) and later, the percent chance of failing on a draft pick is over 70%. With such a low hit rate, NFL teams should focus their decision making on players that fit their current schema and can be a strong contributor on special teams.


Now, with early round picks, the expectation is a lot higher than just contributing on the field. With a first or second round pick, an NFL team is expecting a player that can come in, start, and contribute for years to come. With that in mind, our second method for setting the bar for a “bust” is that the player starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. Here's the same visual with the different way of measuring busts:

A couple of interesting notes from the graph. First, picking at the end of the second round only gives your team a 50% chance of finding a starter. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%. Using this criteria and ourdraft value chart from last week, let’s evaluate a couple of the trades from Friday.

• The Browns trading out of pick 67 to the Broncos for picks 87 and 120. The Browns increased their chance of getting a starter from 41% to 49%. On a pick value basis, the Browns increased their pick value from 259 to 299. All in all a fairly even trade for both sides but I give the edge to the Browns.
  
• What about the Cowboys and Rams trade in the first round? The Cowboys traded away picks 14 and 45 for the 6th pick in the draft from the Rams. From a “starter” perspective, the Cowboys decreased their chance of picking a starter from 88% to 85%. From a pick value perspective, the Cowboys decreased their value from 1141 to 779. From a stat point of view, looks like the Rams got the better of the deal but once again a fairly even trade.
  Another interesting note, in the later rounds, an NFL team has a really slim chance of finding the next Tom Brady in round 6 or Donald Driver in round 7. The data shows that finding a starter in round 6 or 7 is only 10 - 20%. Further strengthening the argument to search for players that are effective on special teams in later rounds. Finally, see pick 148 on the graph (highlighted in blue). In the past 50 years, only two players picked 148 have started more than one year and played in at least 40 games. Best of luck to Chris Greenwood of the Detroit Lions, the 148th selection of the 2012 draft. According to the data, you are the true Mr. Irrelevant.

I gave you a like for the post but,

Heck with the numbers! The Rams went young untested talent over old almost washed up old talent. I have faith that the Rams can beat the numbers posted. Snead has put together a top scouting department. The Rams made mistakes in the past I believe have learned from them. This is the year it comes together. I guess it's a wait and see type of thing so as Boston mentioned giving a grade now seems pointless. Looking and where they were at the start of the off season and now it makes me very excited.

 

[RamBall]

Maybe it's time to start grading the local sports coverage? What grade would you give the Rams media pool?

D- maybe.

 

[Alan]

Corbin liking the upgrade:
You can't really argue with statistics however I refuse to believe whoever they plug in to replace Davin Joseph could be potentially worse than how that crap bag did last year for us.

If Jamon Brown just physically gets in the way of the the pass rusher half the times Joseph let a free rush by ill be happy! Lol

I agree. I too find it impossible to picture anyone we drafted or could have drafted being worse than what we had. That's why I'm fine with the overall B- grade I agreed with. I'm never upset about getting an above average grade. It's the Gurley pick and not the O-line picks that brought down the preliminary grade I gave them for the draft. Of course, our O-line picks might have looked quite different had we not drafted Gurley.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I agree. I too find it impossible to picture anyone we drafted or could have drafted being worse than what we had. That's why I'm fine with the overall B- grade I agreed with. I'm never upset about getting an above average grade. It's the Gurley pick and not the O-line picks that brought down the preliminary grade I gave them for the draft. Of course, our O-line picks might have looked quite different had we not drafted Gurley.

Shhhhh....

 

[nighttrain]

Yeah I see it similarly. B- is pretty fair tbh and that is even though I am an offseason Kool-Aid drinker extraordinaire.

The good thing here is that Coach Boudreau finally has TALENT to work with on the OL. This will be the first time we can say that really, as he has made it work with some subpar pieces and pretty good results considering.

I like to see things all sort of coming together and it really seems like that can happen for us this season. Cigs is loading up a passing game that should stretch the defenses horizontally as well as vertically, the running game should be respectable and provide balance, and Foles is solid at the least. So add Coach Bou and that young OL and I am more optimistic than I probably should be. For some reason I am just not worried about that line and hopefully it's not a sugar buzz lol.

This, and TWO quality running backs in case of injury, which would really throw a wrench into Fishers plans
train

 

[nighttrain]

I agree. I too find it impossible to picture anyone we drafted or could have drafted being worse than what we had. That's why I'm fine with the overall B- grade I agreed with. I'm never upset about getting an above average grade. It's the Gurley pick and not the O-line picks that brought down the preliminary grade I gave them for the draft. Of course, our O-line picks might have looked quite different had we not drafted Gurley.

Why? The refrigerators on legs we drafted should make Gurley a star
train

 

[Alan]

Ram65 with a faith based outlook:
Heck with the numbers! The Rams went young untested talent over old almost washed up old talent. I have faith that the Rams can beat the numbers posted. Snead has put together a top scouting department. The Rams made mistakes in the past I believe have learned from them. This is the year it comes together. I guess it's a wait and see type of thing so as Boston mentioned giving a grade now seems pointless. Looking and where they were at the start of the off season and now it makes me very excited.

While I wouldn't use the word "faith" in a description of my outlook for the Rams in 2015, I would use the word "hope" instead. My hopes are based on a modest improvement in our offense and a major improvement in our defense. I think the D will not only show a an overall improvement, it will also be much much more consistent.

I'm excited too. More than last year and I was at a pretty high level then too. Of course, being a long time Big Red fan means it doesn't take much to excite me.

 

[nighttrain]

Coming in to this offseason the questions for this team were:

What to do at QB?

How to fix the OL?

How to improve the offense in general?

The Rams responded with Foles, multiple draft picks, and Todd Gurley - they answered every question, and looking back on it, that seemed totally impossible at the end of last season. They did so while simultaneously saving more money (Bradford) than they spent (Foles, draft picks) on offense.

Throw in Fairley and Ayers for the defense - two upgrades over the players they will be playing for or replacing - and this offseason is an A+

Every team is in a different situation and are dealt different cards for the offseason. Teams that pick before us should have a better draft than us, and teams with more cap space should sign better free agents - so you can only judge a team by what they can do and what you believe they should do - and in these regards the Rams exceeded all of our expectations.

Wagoner is lying to himself if he says otherwise.

This has been the best off season since 98, the year we acquired Warner, Faulk, and Co,
train

 

[FrantikRam]

I know, I suck.

@FrantikRam unaware that I spent an evening at a Holiday Inn Express:
Let's ignore the fact that several people more knowledgeable about knees than you have checked out Gurley and said he would be fine.

Good thing I'm relying on the math and not the medical stuff eh? Also, no doctor said he wouldn't be subject to an increased risk of another knee injury in the same or even the opposite knee because they would have been lying. That my friend, is a statistical fact and not just my opinion.

You don't need superstars on the offensive line. You need 5 guys that play well together. The whole should always be better than the sum of the parts.

Picture a couple of O-line players playing at a "bust" level (Joseph & Wells) and then tell me that again.

Given all your percentages, I'd say there's essentially a 99.99% chance that one of the four offensive lineman we drafted turns in a solid rookie year and develops into an integral part of this offensive line.

It's a darn shame that we need two of them to turn out that well isn't it?

But what else could the Rams have done? And don't say draft different players, because that's not realistic.

I've already addressed that in a different thread so I won't get into that now but what does a lack of good options have to do with the grade for what we did do? Just because you painted yourself into a corner and decided that walking over your newly painted floor was better than knocking out a section of the wall behind you doesn't mean you get an A.

Well, I have heard that knees can be stronger after these surgeries...so there actually is a chance that he is less of an injury risk...all depends on the person. But either way, I doubt the Rams draft him if there is a concern.....so as fans we shouldn't be concerned about the knee.

Joseph and Wells didn't play well, and they didn't play well with the unit. Simply replacing them with different but equally (less) talented players could have improved the OL. Replacing them with younger guys that have more talent....only good.

We don't actually need two of them to turn out - we need 1. Along with the other solid starters, one weak link on an offensive line - well, every team has that.

I guess we will have to disagree on the last part. I outlined why, and I'm not sure how you could argue with it, but just to recap: based on the cap space, Bradford situation, and draft picks we had - this offseason turned out as good as it possibly could have. That's worth an A in my book.

 

[Alan]

nighttrain with a deceptively small question:
Why? The refrigerators on legs we drafted should make Gurley a star

Would those refrigerators have made Mason a star? If the answer is yes then why did we draft Gurley? If the answer is no they why did we draft Mason and why wouldn't they have made him a star too?

 

[nighttrain]

Would those refrigerators have made Mason a star? If the answer is yes then why did we draft Gurley? If the answer is no they why did we draft Mason and why wouldn't they have made him a star too?

RB's are notoriously injury prone, IN a Fisher offense it makes sense to bulk up on RB's, at least that's my opinion
train
ps average career for RB 5 years or less

 

[RAGRam]

Without the acquisition of Foles and Ayers I'd have assigned a grade of C-. With those two additions a B- seems fair to me. That must mean that I hate the Rams and I've given up on them right.

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future. Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have really really crappy backup plans for any injuries at LT and the depth at the other G and T positions suck too. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have no proven options at C and that we didn't even try to lock in the only player with any experience at OC who many think will win the job. What I can't ignore is the math concerning our draft picks. Ignoring all that math isn't possible for me. Doesn't mean we can't beat the odds though.

Havenstein - approximately 33% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Brown - approximately 40% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Donnal - approximately 50% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Wichmann - approximately 80-90% chance of being a bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.

http://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/
The chance of a bust in the NFL draft
May 1, 2012

With the 2012 NFL draft officially complete, the fans of every NFL franchise are dissecting their teams draft picks looking for hidden gems and potential busts. Intuitively, early picks in the draft have a much higher propensity to succeed in the NFL as we showed last week. What about the chance that a pick will be a bust? It’s been well covered that, out of the four times in NFL draft history a QB has been chosen 1 and 2, only once have both QBs been successful (1971: Jim Plunkett and Archie Manning). We decided to expand the search and look at all picks over the last 50 years and determine the average chance an NFL draft pick will be a bust.

What is a “bust?” We'll look at it two different ways. First, a bust is a player that ends up with a value score of less than 5 according to pro-football-reference.com. A value of less than 5 is equivalent to a marginal role player that has limited game experience and contributes little to no value to an NFL franchise. Here it is in a visual:

You can see from about round 6 (pick 160) and later, the percent chance of failing on a draft pick is over 70%. With such a low hit rate, NFL teams should focus their decision making on players that fit their current schema and can be a strong contributor on special teams.


Now, with early round picks, the expectation is a lot higher than just contributing on the field. With a first or second round pick, an NFL team is expecting a player that can come in, start, and contribute for years to come. With that in mind, our second method for setting the bar for a “bust” is that the player starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. Here's the same visual with the different way of measuring busts:

A couple of interesting notes from the graph. First, picking at the end of the second round only gives your team a 50% chance of finding a starter. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%. Using this criteria and ourdraft value chart from last week, let’s evaluate a couple of the trades from Friday.

• The Browns trading out of pick 67 to the Broncos for picks 87 and 120. The Browns increased their chance of getting a starter from 41% to 49%. On a pick value basis, the Browns increased their pick value from 259 to 299. All in all a fairly even trade for both sides but I give the edge to the Browns.
  
• What about the Cowboys and Rams trade in the first round? The Cowboys traded away picks 14 and 45 for the 6th pick in the draft from the Rams. From a “starter” perspective, the Cowboys decreased their chance of picking a starter from 88% to 85%. From a pick value perspective, the Cowboys decreased their value from 1141 to 779. From a stat point of view, looks like the Rams got the better of the deal but once again a fairly even trade.
  Another interesting note, in the later rounds, an NFL team has a really slim chance of finding the next Tom Brady in round 6 or Donald Driver in round 7. The data shows that finding a starter in round 6 or 7 is only 10 - 20%. Further strengthening the argument to search for players that are effective on special teams in later rounds. Finally, see pick 148 on the graph (highlighted in blue). In the past 50 years, only two players picked 148 have started more than one year and played in at least 40 games. Best of luck to Chris Greenwood of the Detroit Lions, the 148th selection of the 2012 draft. According to the data, you are the true Mr. Irrelevant.

I have the numbers slightly different restricting the draft picks to OL only, I have the chance of finding at least one solid starter (40+ starts) at 96%, and the chances of finding 2 starters at 72%. But then I'm suffering from really bad hay fever at the moment so who knows .