How Far Can We Drop In This Draft

[iBruce]

If we can't afford new draft picks with the current restrictions on how much rookies can make, we're paying way too much to our vets.

 

[Alan]

iBruce looking at the front end instead of the back end:
If we can't afford new draft picks with the current restrictions on how much rookies can make, we're paying way too much to our vets.

It's not the cost of signing them that's the problem. It's the cost of re-signing them when all the contracts end at the same time (sort of) that the problem comes up. If you have 12 draft picks and 75% of them are still on your team after their initial contracts end versus 75% of 7 contracts it can cause CAP problems.

It's a corollary that can be found when looking at a bunch of old players on your O-line. They often have to be replaced in mass which isn't easy especially when you add in a certain percentage of younger players whose contracts also come to an end at the same time.

 

[Sum1]

Guys...TIME OUT.

The notion that you your chances of elite talent coming in the top ten is inaccurate. This is why I truly hate the outlook that teams overdraft people. Draft position should be more about getting the opportunity at a bigger selection rather than a pre-determined value.

Since 2008 (22) players drafted in the top 10 have become pro-bowlers...while (28) other 1st round picks have become pro-bowlers.

 

[Alan]

Sum1BTRthnU with funny math:
Guys...TIME OUT.

The notion that you your chances of elite talent coming in the top ten is inaccurate. This is why I truly hate the outlook that teams overdraft people. Draft position should be more about getting the opportunity at a bigger selection rather than a pre-determined value.

Since 2008 (22) players drafted in the top 10 have become pro-bowlers...while (28) other 1st round picks have become pro-bowlers.

22 of 60 = 37% vs 28 of 132 = 21%. Almost twice as big a chance to pick a PB player in the first 10.

 

[Sum1]

22 of 60 = 37% vs 28 of 132 = 21%. Almost twice as big a chance to pick a PB player in the first 10.

That is a good point, and I did consider that. I still don't believe that tells you that you can't trade out of the top 10 and have high probability of landing top end talent. Especially when you look at those years individually and see that the '10 and '11 years really weight the top 10 picks. If you dig a little deeper and look back at other drafts prior to those years it starts to paint an even clearer picture that the high end talent can be had later. The difference isn't to the extent to be concerned about moving down.

 

[Alan]

Sum1BTRthnU added:
I still don't believe that tells you that you can't trade out of the top 10 and have high probability of landing top end talent.

I totally agree but I think you're not considering another very important factor. QB desperation. I think if you subtracted all the picks that are the direct result of hoping for a franchise QB the percentages would be even higher in the first 10. I think that GMs and other "experts" are generally pretty good at picking the top guys in the draft based on their performances in college. It's when the desperation to get your franchise QB kicks in that the stats get screwed up. I'm counting on that desperation factor kicking in when we try and trade down.

 

[Sum1]

I totally agree but I think you're not considering another very important factor. QB desperation. I think if you subtracted all the picks that are the direct result of hoping for a franchise QB the percentages would be even higher in the first 10. I think that GMs and other "experts" are generally pretty good at picking the top guys in the draft based on their performances in college. It's when the desperation to get your franchise QB kicks in that the stats get screwed up. I'm counting on that desperation factor kicking in when we try and trade down.

Good theory...but also inaccurate.
Top 10 selections 2008-2012
2008- 1 QB probowler (1 drafted), 2 non QB probowlers
2009- 0 QB porbowlers (1 drafted), 1 non QB probowler
2010- 0 Qb probowlers (1 drafted), 7 non QB probowlers
2011- 1 Qb probowler (2 drafted), 5 non QB probowlers
2012- 2 QB probowlers (3 drafted), 2 non QB probowlers

 

[blackbart]

The pro bowl has really lost any significance for me, it really isn't anything more than a popularity contest and promotional stunt. Not really a measure of achivment.

Gone is the familiar AFC vs. NFC match-up that has existed since 1971. Instead, players will be selected without regard to conference in voting by fans, coaches and players.

 

[Sum1]

The pro bowl has really lost any significance for me, it really isn't anything more than a popularity contest and promotional stunt. Not really a measure of achivment.

Gone is the familiar AFC vs. NFC match-up that has existed since 1971. Instead, players will be selected without regard to conference in voting by fans, coaches and players.

The format change really has no significance to this subject. Regardless if it is a popularity contest or not, players drafted in the past 4-5 years have to produce in some fashion to get the nod...we're not talking about aging vets getting in on reputation.

 

[Alan]

Sum1BTRthnU after a lot of work:
Good theory...but also inaccurate.
Top 10 selections 2008-2012
2008- 1 QB probowler (1 drafted), 2 non QB probowlers
2009- 0 QB porbowlers (1 drafted), 1 non QB probowler
2010- 0 Qb probowlers (1 drafted), 7 non QB probowlers
2011- 1 Qb probowler (2 drafted), 5 non QB probowlers
2012- 2 QB probowlers (3 drafted), 2 non QB probowlers

OK, obviously I have to try and do a better job of explaining myself. What I was trying to say is that you need to take all the QB picks out of the equation. That would mean that you would compare the top ten picks that aren't QBs to the next 22 picks that weren't QBs. Thus taking QB desperation out of the equation. So many QBs are taken in first round and taken high, who simply wouldn't be in the top ten or even in the first round were they not QBs. They completely skew the stats in favor of the the bottom 22. Not only does that skew the stats of the top ten, it also makes the players picked in the first round look less certain to be PB picks.

Let's forget about the PB for a second and just look at players picked in the first round. I think the anecdotal evidence would tell you that most of the QB's picked in the first round are what we would consider, at any other position, to be busts. They are also given much more time to prove themselves than players at other positions are. At least that's my theory.

We waited for Ogletree. We'd never have done that to pick Sam.

 

[Sum1]

OK, obviously I have to try and do a better job of explaining myself. What I was trying to say is that you need to take all the QB picks out of the equation. That would mean that you would compare the top ten picks that aren't QBs to the next 22 picks that weren't QBs. Thus taking QB desperation out of the equation. So many QBs are taken in first round and taken high, who simply wouldn't be in the top ten or even in the first round were they not QBs. They completely skew the stats in favor of the the bottom 22. Not only does that skew the stats of the top ten, it also makes the players picked in the first round look less certain to be PB picks.

Let's forget about the PB for a second and just look at players picked in the first round. I think the anecdotal evidence would tell you that most of the QB's picked in the first round are what we would consider, at any other position, to be busts. They are also given much more time to prove themselves than players at other positions are. At least that's my theory.

We waited for Ogletree. We'd never have done that to pick Sam.

Umm no, pretty sure I completely understood what you were saying. I just posted the QBs drafted in the top ten and how many of them made the Probowl. It sure looked to me that the lone year more than 2 were drafted the 66% (2 of 3) made the pro bowl...the one that didn't was Ryan Tannehill, hardly a bust. My point is that the QBs being taken in the top 10 have fared fairly well, thus not skewing the top ten negatively.

Oops...did make one mistake though...2011 actually had 3 QBs drafted. Only one of which is really a bust (Blaine Gabbert)...though I think Jake Locker is a bit underwhelming.

 

[Alan]

It's good to know you understood me but if you did why did you list all the QBs chosen instead of eliminating them from consideration? My contention is that they skew the stats. One way or the other. Although I contend they effect the top ten more than 11-32.

Still, while you didn't use my formula, your data is compelling and I think you're probably correct about the QB effect. Or lack there of.

That will teach not to make contentions without doing the math first.

 

[Sum1]

It's good to know you understood me but if you did why did you list all the QBs chosen instead of eliminating them from consideration? My contention is that they skew the stats. One way or the other. Although I contend they effect the top ten more than 11-32.

Still, while you didn't use my formula, your data is compelling and I think you're probably correct about the QB effect. Or lack there of.

That will teach not to make contentions without doing the math first.

Because it isn't that relevant. It isn't as if they are busting at a high rate...they are about the same as the other positions drafted that high.

 

[Ramhusker]

Hey Husker! What TE's do you see being picked in the top 12? Everything I read, and from watching him personally, tells me that E. Ebron is the best TE talent in the draft but I haven't seen him mocked higher that about 16.

Sorry, typo, meant DEs. Clowney, Mack ( hybrid front 7 guy),Tuitt. Although I have seen Ebron mocked at 11 and Amaro at 16.

 

[LesBaker]

I think using Pro Bowl selections is a short sighted method to judge. You could be the third best QB in the NFL but if you played in the AFC you might not see the Pro Bowl very often because of Manning and Brady.

Look at it this way. Chris Long has never been elected to the Pro Bowl. Yet there isn't a team in the NFL that wouldn't want him. And what if the Rams had 11 guys on defense and 11 guys on offense that played their respective positions as well as Long plays his? How good would that teams of 22 non pro bowlers be?

It's just not a smart way to measure success or ability across the board, it's just one facet.

 

[Sum1]

I think using Pro Bowl selections is a short sighted method to judge. You could be the third best QB in the NFL but if you played in the AFC you might not see the Pro Bowl very often because of Manning and Brady.

Look at it this way. Chris Long has never been elected to the Pro Bowl. Yet there isn't a team in the NFL that wouldn't want him. And what if the Rams had 11 guys on defense and 11 guys on offense that played their respective positions as well as Long plays his? How good would that teams of 22 non pro bowlers be?

It's just not a smart way to measure success or ability across the board, it's just one facet.

Oh I agree...exactly, just one facet. But I do think it is relevant. It does show that players at the top of their game come from everywhere in the draft, not just the top ten.

 

[BonifayRam]

and still pick up ELITE talent?
I am not sure that I am all that crazy about dropping out of the top 10.

Guess how you look @ the draft & how you want the draft to build onto your team. I look @ the draft as a way to build your team over a 4 yr plan along with some UFA's & UDFA's & on a rare chance you can keep them around with a new cap busting inflated priced contract.

Seems like Rob Quinn just arrived??? Rams drafted Robert Quinn in the first round @ #14 who has turned into an Elite player in his third yr of his contract. Rob is a UFA this time next season. Opps that was quick gone so fast back into the NFL pool of UFA'cy. Now days you pick'em high to play them fast to get whatever in this 4 yr plan can give you. Can the Rams get lucky again with their own #13 first round pick? Brockers & Quinn sure look good to me!

Snead & Fisher drafted a Ram team need with the first rd. @#14 DT/NT Brockers inserted Brockers & played Brockers day one @ DT/NT in our 43. Once again drafted a Ram team need with the first rd. @#30 OLB Ogletree the same started day one. Snead traded up this time to get the top elite offensive talent in the 2013 draft a serious big Ram need ...so playmaker @ #8 was selected Tavon Austin..... a total different result than the other two first rd picks. Who figured? I would have bet all my thought for-sure that TA would be on the field on every offensive series thru-out this past season goes to tell how much I know.

If it were me & the Rams were trading down from the second overall pick selection one by one & getting 2nd rd picks & later 3rd rounders for each trade down so the Rams would drop that #2 pick clean down maybe to the 11th with a final trade with Titans... I would be very happy with first round picks of #11 & #13 and a boatload of second day picks to scope in the targeted prospects.

 

[Alan]

BonifayRam singing my song:
I would be very happy with first round picks of #11 & #13 and a boatload of second day picks to scope in the targeted prospects.

Me too. This year. Were I a perennial contender I would probably think differently.