Subtle draft trends

[Alan]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12813373/five-subtle-draft-trends-2015-nfl-draft-clayton-mailbag
Holding this year's NFL draft in Chicago appeared to be a great move. Seeing close to 60,000 football fans watching a draft in a waterfront park was amazing.

There is no word yet about next year's location, but it's doubtful the draft will be held again in longtime home New York anytime soon. But the venue wasn't the only thing that changed in this year's draft.

Click here to send a note to his mailbag.

Plenty of little nuances in the way teams evaluate players surfaced over the weekend. The 2015 draft was strong for quantity and quality at wide receiver, offensive line, pass-rusher and running back. Beyond that, there are some subtle trends that emerged.

Here are five things we learned during the 2015 draft:

1. A clear list of top-tier players minimized the number of first-round trades. Most teams and draft observers felt two quarterbacks, two running backs, three wide receivers, three offensive linemen, at least two pass-rushers, two defensive linemen and one cornerback were the elite talents in this class. The only debate was about the order in which those players would go. There were no surprises in the top 16 picks and only one trade into that group, with theSan Diego Chargers moving up to get halfback Melvin Gordon at No. 15.

There was only one other first-round trade. The last time there were only two first-round trades was in 2011, a draft in which 12 of the first 16 picks have become Pro Bowlers. Because the ratings of these players were so strong, teams were reluctant to give up their early picks unless they received a great offer. TheTennessee Titans weren't going to give up quarterback Marcus Mariota to a team in the middle of the draft order unless they received at least three first-round picks. Teams in the top six were willing to listen, but Jacksonville wasn't going to give up Dante Fowler Jr. and Washington wasn't going to give up the chance to take a pass-rusher or offensive lineman Brandon Scherff without loading up on picks.

It's in the years when the top of the draft isn't strong that you see a lot of trades. The 2013 draft wasn't considered strong and had five first-round trades, including two in the top 10. The 2012 draft was considered better than 2013's, but there were nine first-round trades, including four in the top 10. Looking back to 2012, Robert Griffin III, Trent Richardson, Matt Kalil, Justin Blackmon andMorris Claiborne were taken in the top six, but they haven't lived up to their billings.

2. Drafting for schemes is taking some of the sizzle out of the draft.Fans yawn seeing versatile safeties, slot cornerbacks and inside pass-rushers drafted in the 20s of the first round, but get used to it. Teams are drafting scheme-specific players. The Green Bay Packers used first-round picks over the past two years on free safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix and safety Damarious Randall. Some were scratching their heads with Carolina's selection of linebacker Shaq Thompson. He fits in as a weakside linebacker who can work well in pass coverage in the mold of Thomas Davis.

Once the draft gets past the 20th pick, most players on the board have second-round grades, even though some will be first-round picks. Because teams drafting from 21 on down in the first round are playoff teams, they usually already are strong enough that they can draft for spots in the top 30 on their roster. That might not be sexy, but it works.

Shane Ray clearly saw his value drop on paper, but that didn't stop him from being a first-round pick. Some had him going in the top six until he was cited for marijuana possession the Monday before the draft. Denver rated him 10th on the board. The Broncos traded up to No. 23 to get him. The drop cost him millions, but it gave the Broncos a chance to grab a top-10 talent.

Dorial Green-Beckham was considered a first-round receiver by some, maybe the fourth-best receiver in this draft. He fell into the second round and was taken by Tennessee at No. 40. Pass-rusher Randy Gregory (second round to Dallas) and cornerback P.J. Williams (third round to New Orleans) had off-the-field issues that contributed to them falling from the first round. LSU tackle La'el Collins didn't get drafted after the story broke about an ex-girlfriend who was fatally shot. Though police say he isn't a suspect, they want to question him as part of the investigation. Collins basically became undraftable until his role in the case is completed.

4. The spread of spread quarterbacks is working against their entry into the NFL. Mariota might be considered the best spread quarterback coming into the league in recent years and was taken second overall by the Titans.

Bryce Petty of Baylor and Brett Hundley of UCLA weren't as fortunate. Petty went in the fourth round to the Jets and Hundley is now stashed behind Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay after being selected in the fifth round. They come from pure spread offenses that didn't allow them to work out of a huddle or do three-, five- and seven-step drops. Garrett Grayson of Colorado and Sean Mannion of Oregon State came from pro-style offenses and went ahead of them. Based on this year's draft, it appears teams might be willing to take pure spread quarterbacks only as developmental players, which lowers their stock into the middle of the draft. Overall, only seven quarterbacks were taken.


5. There is a little bit of a push for more power running offenses. TheSt. Louis Rams drafted Todd Gurley and two offensive linemen to use more power runs. The Redskins drafted Scherff to give them more power runs to the right. Detroit took guard Laken Tomlinson and fullback Michael Burton with the idea of running the ball. The Cincinnati Bengals drafted two tackles in the first two rounds to ensure the ability to power run in the future. After seeingMarshawn Lynch in two Super Bowls, teams are appreciating the value of the power run.

 

[junkman]

5. There is a little bit of a push for more power running offenses. TheSt. Louis Rams drafted Todd Gurley and two offensive linemen to use more power runs. The Redskins drafted Scherff to give them more power runs to the right. Detroit took guard Laken Tomlinson and fullback Michael Burton with the idea of running the ball. The Cincinnati Bengals drafted two tackles in the first two rounds to ensure the ability to power run in the future. After seeingMarshawn Lynch in two Super Bowls, teams are appreciating the value of the power run.

"Two" offensive lineman?? Counting is clearly not John Clayton's long suit.

The number is 4, John, like all the digits on my assistant's right hand. Just so this doesn't confuse you John, yes, you have 5.

 

[Alan]

 

[Afro Ram]

 

[Stel]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12813373/five-subtle-draft-trends-2015-nfl-draft-clayton-mailbag
. . .

4. The spread of spread quarterbacks is working against their entry into the NFL. Mariota might be considered the best spread quarterback coming into the league in recent years and was taken second overall by the Titans.

Bryce Petty of Baylor and Brett Hundley of UCLA weren't as fortunate. Petty went in the fourth round to the Jets and Hundley is now stashed behind Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay after being selected in the fifth round. They come from pure spread offenses that didn't allow them to work out of a huddle or do three-, five- and seven-step drops. Garrett Grayson of Colorado and Sean Mannion of Oregon State came from pro-style offenses and went ahead of them. Based on this year's draft, it appears teams might be willing to take pure spread quarterbacks only as developmental players, which lowers their stock into the middle of the draft. Overall, only seven quarterbacks were taken.
. . .

The proliferation of spread QBs has resulted in most being unable to immediately come in and be successful. We may see the return to the highly drafted QB being a clipboard holder for a year or two before they see the field. Given the change in the rookie salary scale, this becomes more likely.

On a related note, seems to me a good college program which has trouble getting top level high school talent (think Missouri) could market itself well to top recruits by switching to a pro style offense, get some pro style coaches, and go after recruits with the pitch that we'll teach you what you need to know to maximize your chance of playing in the NFL - blocking schemes, route trees, etc. Seems to me a kid that dreams of being a pro would see the value in learning pro schemes over spread schemes.

 

[Alan]

Stel not seeing the logic:
On a related note, seems to me a good college program which has trouble getting top level high school talent (think Missouri) could market itself well to top recruits by switching to a pro style offense, get some pro style coaches, and go after recruits with the pitch that we'll teach you what you need to know to maximize your chance of playing in the NFL - blocking schemes, route trees, etc. Seems to me a kid that dreams of being a pro would see the value in learning pro schemes over spread schemes.

I'm lost here because I can't understand why college coaches think a pro style offense can't win championships. When you add that to the great point you make about that enducement to use the pro style offense in recruiting just mystifies me all the more as to why teams don't use it more.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

I'm lost here because I can't understand why college coaches think a pro style offense can't win championships. When you add that to the great point you make about that enducement to use the pro style offense in recruiting just mystifies me all the more as to why teams don't use it more.

I think its less that they think a pro style offense can't win and more that the spread allows them to win with lesser talent on the team.

 

[Alan]

Jorgeh0605 with the reason:
Its less that they think a pro style offense can't win but that the spread allows you to play with lesser talent on your team.

But wouldn't that only be true if you thought the athletes of today aren't as good as those before them? The spread is relatively new and colleges had no problem producing great athletes that played the pro style and were ready for the pros prior to that. As far as knowledge of the system goes that is. I really think the athletes are getting better all the time. They don't seem to last as long though.

It still doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Stel]

But wouldn't that only be true if you thought the athletes of today aren't as good as those before them? The spread is relatively new and colleges had no problem producing great athletes that played the pro style and were ready for the pros prior to that. As far as knowledge of the system goes that is. I really think the athletes are getting better all the time. They don't seem to last as long though.

It still doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe the spread is easier to teach and implement? I don't know the reason, but the spread has, well, spread. May just be copy cat stuff, but teams have success with it so others copy it. Just seems to me a pro style offense could be a huge recruiting tool, especially for QBs and WRs.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

But wouldn't that only be true if you thought the athletes of today aren't as good as those before them? The spread is relatively new and colleges had no problem producing great athletes that played the pro style and were ready for the pros prior to that. As far as knowledge of the system goes that is. I really think the athletes are getting better all the time. They don't seem to last as long though.

It still doesn't make sense to me.

Yea but that relatively new tool gave teams that used it an advantage. Now teams that wouldn't have been good or had less draw power for recruits could compete and even win championships. It is like inventing a new tool that allows you to make something better and easier, the old tool worked, but it required more resources than the new tool was.

 

[Mackeyser]

The talent differential, even at top schools is substantially larger than in the Pros.

As well, in the spread, kids don't have the same level of responsibility. They can just PLAY. Getting up to speed is much faster and a coach can "do all the thinkin". Heck, you look at some spreads and the QB doesn't hardly do any reads, he's got a play and an option. That's pretty much it.

If the HC and OC for a team has schemed the opponent well and they have better athletes, then their team is going to just trounce the opponent. And we see that.

With the narrow talent differential in the Pros as well as the much more complicated schemes were each player has significant and often multiple responsibilites, the spread just doesn't work. Spread components work within a Pro framework, but the Spread doesn't work.

And the Spread has been around for more than 40 years in college, so it's not new.

The reason colleges don't run Pro style systems is that it's harder to recruit kids who can actually play in it. It can take a lot of years to build up a program and a lot of successful recruiting classes to build up a school where that works.

I agree that some schools after a draft like this will be able to sell themselves as better equipped to prepare a prospect for the pros based on their system. I mean, if OSU and UCLA are knocking on a QBs door, you can make the case that OSU is the better stop even though they know they need to recruit a ton of OL. Same with Stanford, FSU and a few other schools.

It won't take many more drafts before even the top programs start losing out on QB recruits who want to go pro to lesser schools due to scheme.

Remember, College Coaches are paid to win, not send QBs to the pros. They don't really care if they have 3 RBs in the backfield. Not really. *cough* Georgia Tech *cough*

The Pro game may want and NEED QBs, but the college game is THRIVING without the very thing that is critical to the NFL.

All the more reason to resurrect NFL Europe...

In the mean time, Fisher's plan to go run heavy looks great as the good QBs look to retire soon and teams struggle to replace QBs (some will try and fail) or try to replicate what we're doing without our D.

For once, I feel ahead of the curve...

 

[Alan]

Good points @Mackeyser and @Jorgeh0605 .

My problem is that we know it's an inferior offense or the pros would use it. Doesn't saying that there's a greater talent differential in college ignore the fact that it's relative? Who is not in the same boat? Isn't that why they have divisions? Podunk U. is never going to be in the same division as Alabama and the relative talent levels should, for the most part be equal within a division or conference.

You're correct Mac about the spread not being new. What I meant was the huge expansion of the spread in college was relatively new.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

Good points @Mackeyser and @Jorgeh0605 .

My problem is that we know it's an inferior offense or the pros would use it. Doesn't saying that there's a greater talent differential in college ignore the fact that it's relative? Who is not in the same boat? Isn't that why they have divisions? Podunk U. is never going to be in the same division as Alabama and the relative talent levels should, for the most part be equal within a division or conference.

You're correct Mac about the spread not being new. What I meant was the huge expansion of the spread in college was relatively new.

How would you achieve more equal talent levels between divisions? All 127 schools in Div 1 are trying to get high school recruits. I'm not aware of any balancing of talent that happens between divisions. What mechanism is in place to make teams within conferences equal?

 

[Jorgeh0605]

Good points @Mackeyser and @Jorgeh0605 .

My problem is that we know it's an inferior offense or the pros would use it. Doesn't saying that there's a greater talent differential in college ignore the fact that it's relative? Who is not in the same boat? Isn't that why they have divisions? Podunk U. is never going to be in the same division as Alabama and the relative talent levels should, for the most part be equal within a division or conference.

You're correct Mac about the spread not being new. What I meant was the huge expansion of the spread in college was relatively new.

It is an inferior offense in the Pro's. IMO it is superior in both High School and College. It puts pressure on every single player on the opposing defense exposing their weaknesses in positions that lack the talent to play the position well. That difference in talent in high school and college is increasingly larger for a number of reasons than it is in the pros. Simply stated, in the pros everyone is good so using a scheme that looks for the worst player doesn't end up being the most useful.

Edit: My God my spelling and grammar are atrocious today.

 

[Mackeyser]

Good points @Mackeyser and @Jorgeh0605 .

My problem is that we know it's an inferior offense or the pros would use it. Doesn't saying that there's a greater talent differential in college ignore the fact that it's relative? Who is not in the same boat? Isn't that why they have divisions? Podunk U. is never going to be in the same division as Alabama and the relative talent levels should, for the most part be equal within a division or conference.

You're correct Mac about the spread not being new. What I meant was the huge expansion of the spread in college was relatively new.

But it's not that way. Alabama has had significantly better talent than other teams in its division. I mean, at one point, all 5 guys on their OL would play in the NFL. No other team had more than 1...that's IF they had one. And 3 of those OL went in the 1st round.

Thus, even in the SEC, the talent differential can be and is often...substantial.

 

[8to12]

"Two" offensive lineman?? Counting is clearly not John Clayton's long suit.

The number is 4, John, like all the digits on my assistant's right hand. Just so this doesn't confuse you John, yes, you have 5.

Are we sure the article wasn't written after the end of day 2, and not at the end of the draft? The videos that are attached to the article speak about picks that were made on Friday.

 

[Yamahopper]

I remember a interview I saw with the Texas Tech coach Leach awhile back. He said if his 4th & 5th wr was better than the other teams 4th &5th db's he could score points. And if could score he had a chance of winning.
He said a player could pick the scheme up in six weeks. Few more for a qb.

It equalized talent. Tho against teams with a surplus of talent say Bama it doesn't work as well.

And if they keep limiting what defensive players can do in the NFL it will become more prevalent.

 

[Alan]

Jorgeh0605 not down with the theory of relativity:
It is an inferior offense in the Pro's. IMO it is superior in both High School and College. It puts pressure on every single player on the opposing defense exposing their weaknesses in positions that lack the talent to play the position well. That difference in talent in high school and college is increasingly larger for a number of reasons than it is in the pros. Simply stated, in the pros everyone is good so using a scheme that looks for the worst player doesn't end up being the most useful.

How would you achieve more equal talent levels between divisions? All 127 schools in Div 1 are trying to get high school recruits. I'm not aware of any balancing of talent that happens between divisions. What mechanism is in place to make teams within conferences equal?

Mackeyser with his take on equality:
But it's not that way. Alabama has had significantly better talent than other teams in its division. I mean, at one point, all 5 guys on their OL would play in the NFL. No other team had more than 1...that's IF they had one. And 3 of those OL went in the 1st round.

Thus, even in the SEC, the talent differential can be and is often...substantial.

I understand what your points are but I remain unconvinced that those same weaknesses can't be exploited using an NFL style offense. NFL offenses attack the perceived weaknesses of their opposing teams too. The only difference I can see is that the absolute level of weakness isn't the same in the NFL as it is in college. The relative weaknesses remain about the same. If an NFL team has a weak secondary their opponents devise game plans to attack that secondary. That "weak" secondary might be considerably better than every single secondary in college but then the offenses attacking it are also considerably better than every offense if college too. It's all relative. Bur not necessarily equal.
What's the relative difference between the NFL and a Division I college team and a Division I college team and a Division II college team? From a relative talent level standpoint I'd contend that there is no difference. From an absolute talent level standpoint there is of course a huge difference.

Division I level CBs play against Div I level WRs. It's all relative. Of course there are players within each division, whether it's Div I, Div II or the NFL who don't have a talent level commensurate with the average talent level of their peers. They will either exploit their difference in talent level or suffer from that difference in talent level. Just as there will always be JAGS and Pro Bowlers in the NFL.

To answer your other point that I quoted (from both of you), there is no equality in any division. There will always be teams like Duke who will suck within a conference/division just as there will always be teams like Alabama who excel within that same conference/division. There will always be teams like Oakland who will suck within a conference/division/league just as there will always be teams like Denver who will excel within that same conference/division/league. There is no equality in sports or there wouldn't be winners and losers. But barring some strange anomaly, all NFL teams will have a talent level higher than all Division I colleges and all Division I colleges will have talent levels higher than all Division II schools. But they all play against teams with the same relative talent levels and when they don't, as in when Alabama starts its season by playing a Division II school it will usually result in a huge mismatch.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

After seeingMarshawn Lynch in two Super Bowls, teams are appreciating the value of the power run.

So, Clayton believes that teams didn't realize the value of a power run scheme until they saw Marshawn Lynch and Seattle in the Superbowl?

The proliferation of spread QBs has resulted in most being unable to immediately come in and be successful. We may see the return to the highly drafted QB being a clipboard holder for a year or two before they see the field. Given the change in the rookie salary scale, this becomes more likely.

On a related note, seems to me a good college program which has trouble getting top level high school talent (think Missouri) could market itself well to top recruits by switching to a pro style offense, get some pro style coaches, and go after recruits with the pitch that we'll teach you what you need to know to maximize your chance of playing in the NFL - blocking schemes, route trees, etc. Seems to me a kid that dreams of being a pro would see the value in learning pro schemes over spread schemes.

I totally agree. If I was a high school recruit, that played offense, then I would be looking for a college that runs a pro style offense. But that is rarely the case. Most of the high school teams are just crazy for the top teams most of the time. Ohio State has a great recruiting class right now and it is no coincidence that they wont the National Championship (even though they should never have been in the game to begin with). However Ohio State does not run a pro system. I am wondering if it is more than a coincidence this year that they missed on the top two Tackle recruits in the state of Ohio, who chose to go elsewhere.

The Pro style coaching lure should be a boon for Jim Harbaugh at Michigan. I know that if I was a high school coach and thought one of my students had NFL ability, then I would be telling him to look for a pro offense first.

I wish that there would be enough of a push for college to start predominantly return to Pro offenses but I don't think it will ever happen. Some here argued that College QBs are better prepared coming out, but I still disagree because so many of them play the spread for 8 years (first in high school and then college).

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The Pro game may want and NEED QBs, but the college game is THRIVING without the very thing that is critical to the NFL.

All the more reason to resurrect NFL Europe...

In the mean time, Fisher's plan to go run heavy looks great as the good QBs look to retire soon and teams struggle to replace QBs (some will try and fail) or try to replicate what we're doing without our D.

Great points! I totally agree.

I hate what the spread is doing when it comes to College Olinemen, WRs and mostly QBs. But I don't see it going away anytime soon, for all the reasons you stated in your post.