I know these threads are tedious and people will say it's not Madden and other comments, but one indisputable fact is that success in the NFL, while the definition can vary, is directly correlated to round the player was drafted in as an average. I believe it's furthered the higher up in the first the player is taken but that hasn't been tested in this study. And unlike trading down, which he's never done, Reese does have a track record for trading up.
To agree with this post you have to be willing to accept three things:
1. the draft value chart. I think it's still an accepted guide and most trades involving draft picks are close to it
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/
2. the success of draft pick loosely defined in this blog on a Chiefs fan site.
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
Criteria
This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league. |
3. Reese has a terrible track record (with the jury still out on Thompson) in the 3rd round.
Here are Reese's 3rd round picks since he's been GM:
2016: Darian Thompson S
2015: Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE
2014: Jay Bromley DT
2013: Damontre Moore DE
2012: Jayron Hosley CB
2011: Jerrel Jernigan WR
2010: Chad Jones S
2009: Ramses Barden WR (trade up), Travis Beckum TE
2008: Mario Manningham WR
2007: Jay Alford DT
Manningham was not what I'd call a bust, but he was only ever at best the 3rd WR on the team and like I said jury is still out on Thompson (and probably Odi for that matter, but he seems like Wynn and Owkara have passed him or stay ahead of him) So even if you allow for the success of Thompson, Odi and Manningham and discount Chad Jones since hard to blame Reese for that, it makes the case to trade up even more compelling.
So, the point is
if a player the Giants covet is available at 17 or in that vicinity the Giants should package their 1st and 3rd and move up for that player.
Here are the by round and position success rates for draft picks (from the blog which studied 10 years of draft history from 2004 to 2014):
Historic Success Chart
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%) |
the numbers are compelling, even if the player in the 1st is not an OL and to remove subjectivity from "success" it's strictly playing time, which IMO inflates the OL stats anyway. OL get longer to be bad IMO than other positions. Especially when drafted early.
Maybe this study will also demonstrate to the poster (Go Terps?) who was advocating for drafting the next franchise QB in the 4th round or later how ridiculously unlikely that really is.
Trading down (IF you can find the right partner) always seems better. Ideally, you're sitting with multiple players in the same "row", all in need positions. Trading down a few slots and getting an extra pick is great.
Unless the player is clearly the last one in your row AND the position is a major need AND you are convinced a team(s) in front of you has as strong or stronger need for that player than you do AND IF the trade costs aren't too high, only then would I consider a trade up.
In the Eli trade, there were much fewer variables (i.e. top of the draft) and we only moved up 3 slots.
Reese traded up for Barden, Nassib, Collins and maybe others.
The point though is you target a player and get that player instead of waiting for the draft to come to you. Howard is a good example. I've seen him picked as high as top 10 so that wouldn't work, but if he's there at 16/17 you get aggressive and make the move.
Last year the Giants were leapfrogged twice, but TEN and CHI to take Conklin and Floyd. Rumor is the Giants would have taken either should they have fallen. I don't know about Floyd, but Conklin would have been a great fit.
So based on the fact the Giants have got that 1st tier of players they like the league-wide (not just Reese) crap-shoot by the time you get to the 3rd round, why not get aggressive and pounce on the guy you like.
These are league wide success results for the 3rd round from 2004 - 2014.
Reese may be even worse than this, but it's rough for everyone. I think 3rd round picks might be over-valued by everyone.
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%
27% for DL and Reese took three of them in that decade.
6 picks where league wide in the 3rd they had just a 26% chance of becoming a starter. People view 3rd round as a premium pick still, but your odds are much better in the 1st. The conditions obviously need to be right and you of course need a willing trade partner, but if those two are met get aggresive and move closer in the 1st.
I never said this. I'd advocate (after Eli retires) moving away from the franchise QB model altogether.
I have no problem drafting a QB in round 1. I do have a problem with paying a QB (or any other player) 1/8 of the entire cap unless he's a HOF level player. Paying Kirk Cousins or Matt Stafford $20 million+ ain't getting you any closer to a Super Bowl.
Trading down (IF you can find the right partner) always seems better. Ideally, you're sitting with multiple players in the same "row", all in need positions. Trading down a few slots and getting an extra pick is great.
Unless the player is clearly the last one in your row AND the position is a major need AND you are convinced a team(s) in front of you has as strong or stronger need for that player than you do AND IF the trade costs aren't too high, only then would I consider a trade up.
In the Eli trade, there were much fewer variables (i.e. top of the draft) and we only moved up 3 slots.
The Eli trade (4th pick to 1st) was substantially more costly than the move the original poster was suggesting (23rd to 17th).
To me the lesson is that it depends on the player and team need, and when the value is there and the player is likely to slip pull the trigger (e.g., Shockey).
Reese's "track record" in the third round is abysmal. But his past failures don't mean that he won't succeed this year.
I'm fine if Reese gives up one day three pick to move up in the first round, but nothing more.
It's not a comment on volume, simply "success" defined in the OP Criteria section.
I never said this. I'd advocate (after Eli retires) moving away from the franchise QB model altogether.
I have no problem drafting a QB in round 1. I do have a problem with paying a QB (or any other player) 1/8 of the entire cap unless he's a HOF level player. Paying Kirk Cousins or Matt Stafford $20 million+ ain't getting you any closer to a Super Bowl.
I see, I misunderstood. My apologies. I still think if you do get your franchise QB you pay him, but that's another topic.
As for trading up in the first round, in a vacuum I'm not really in favor of it...though with our track record in the 1st vs. 3rd rounds I can get behind that.
Generally I'd be in favor with amassing as many picks as possible as they generate the most cost-efficient players.
From everything I have read and heard, this draft is much deeper than it is star-studded. Apparently this is specifically true for tight ends, corners, receivers and running backs. All of these are positions that we need competition as a starter or at the very least depth.
Again, that is generically speaking. It all depends on which player has dropped and to what spot.
Think of all the QBs taken number 1 who were busts: Carr, House, George, Harrington. Or Ryan Leaf and Alkili Smith Then throw in all the other guys taken early who had a minimum of success (e.g. Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick).
Think of all the QBs taken number 1 who were busts: Carr, House, George, Harrington. Or Ryan Leaf and Alkili Smith Then throw in all the other guys taken early who had a minimum of success (e.g. Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick).
success is defined strictly by starts. In order to be less subjective.
This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.
Think of all the QBs taken number 1 who were busts: Carr, House, George, Harrington. Or Ryan Leaf and Alkili Smith Then throw in all the other guys taken early who had a minimum of success (e.g. Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick).
Success criteria was in the OP.
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.
You would imagine if you draft a QB in the first round, he will get over 50% of the starts.
but these days I think every 1st round pick has a chance to fail. You don't see 1st round picks groomed like you used to.
I think he can hit on a 3rd round pick this year and I'd rather have another good young player added to the roster. Now if it was giving up a 3 or 4 next year to move up this year, count me in.
Why is that?
Part of that though has been specifically about our scouting, draft philosophies, and uses of the players after they've been drafted.
Take Travis Beckum. Strange pick from the start: TE/H-Back type in an offense that didn't really utilize one. Or Ramses Barden...did we ever actually try to employ him in a manner that utilized his ability to go up and get the ball (I'd ask that same about Larry Donnell)? And obviously we've had the DE/LB types where we have flopped (Sintim, Odi, the jerking around of Kiwanuka). And wasn't it strange how we did/did not utilize Sinorice Moss and Jerrel Jernigan? Even Andre Williams didn't seem like he was utilized in a way that best fit his style.
My point is that with this franchise there have been some cases of square pegs/round holes in the past decade or so when it comes to the draft. And I wonder how much effort was made to re-shape the holes after we had already drafted the pegs.
27% for DL and Reese took three of them in that decade.
6 picks where league wide in the 3rd they had just a 26% chance of becoming a starter. People view 3rd round as a premium pick still, but your odds are much better in the 1st. The conditions obviously need to be right and you of course need a willing trade partner, but if those two are met get aggresive and move closer in the 1st.
Reese has picked positions in the 3rd that have a lower success rate.
In this draft, need and value could align in the 3rd with an OL or TE -- positions that have a higher success rate statistically in the 3rd.
In a vacuum it's an interesting point, but in this specific draft I don't think it would be smart to give up a 3rd.
I never said this. I'd advocate (after Eli retires) moving away from the franchise QB model altogether.
I have no problem drafting a QB in round 1. I do have a problem with paying a QB (or any other player) 1/8 of the entire cap unless he's a HOF level player. Paying Kirk Cousins or Matt Stafford $20 million+ ain't getting you any closer to a Super Bowl.
This may not be popular but I agree smart teams should move away from the conventional model when it comes to QBs. College just isn't producing The type of cerebral QBs we think of when it comes to franchise QBs.
Look around the league at the "good" young QBs. I'm not impressed.
No one ever remembers these narratives and looks back 3 years later and says "huh, that wasn't as strong a draft as it was supposed to be"
Read up on the 2013 draft if you get some free time.
It was "loaded" with premier pass rushers and OL.
guys like Damontre Moore, Bjorn Werner, Barkevious Mingo, Dion Jordon and Sam Mongtomery.
Luke Joeckel, DJ Fluker, etc.
it turned out to be one of the worst drafts ever (off the top of my head).
So I'd never build my draft strategy based on the media narratives, I'd trust my scouts and if the player and opportunity arises I'd make the move.
but I like the discussion and dissenting opinions.
no one right or wrong way to approach it.
I would do the same in the second round.....we need starters...
and apply it to Reese's picks:
2015: Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE - DL (27%)
2014: Jay Bromley DT - DL (27%)
2013: Damontre Moore DE - DL (27%)
2012: Jayron Hosley CB - DB (24%)
2011: Jerrel Jernigan WR - WR (25%)
2010: Chad Jones S - DB (24%)
2009: Ramses Barden WR (trade up), Travis Beckum TE - WR (25%)
2008: Mario Manningham WR - WR (25%)
2007: Jay Alford DT - DL (27%)
It seems like Reese has picked a lot positions (DL, CB) that have about a 25% success rate. Maybe 1 of 3 out of the DBs.
The league success rate data are useful.
Collectively, we've probably got 1 of 4 on the DL and 1 of 4 out of the WRs
I would rather have fewer and higher picks than a bunch of 3rd to 5th rounders that provide tons of competition but little in the way of production.
I think it's a jinx I'd trade that sucker every draft if it was me !!!!
If anything the smart thing in this draft is to acquire 2nd and 3rd round picks because that's where the value is. I'm not adverse to moving out of the 1st if there's decent value in it.
Pats (brady)
Broncos (Peyton)
Pats
Seahawks (Wilson)
Ravens (Flacco)
Giants
Packers (Rodgers)
Saints (Brees)
Steelers (Ben)
Giants
Even if you allow the argument that Peyton wasn't really a franchise QB for Denver (fair to say, IMO), that's still quite a list chockful of franchise QB's. Flacco is not, Wilson is, but wasn't paid like one at that time, which allowed them to spend $$ elsewhere.
Otherwise, they are all Franchise QB's.
Heck, even look at the list of QB's who lost - Ben, Brady, Ryan, Cam, Kapernick, Ben, Peyton, Warner. Kap is not, Ryan is debatable, but all the others are Franchise Qb's (Peyton was still elite when the lost to Seattle)
Now, were they the only reason why they won (or even made it to the SB)? Of course not; most of those teams had great skill players and/or defenses.
But this notion that teams can win - or even make it to the game - with a mediocre guy like Dilfer is long gone, and quite silly...
The Patriots (for example since they're the gold standard of value based drafting and pick accumulation) have only traded out of the 1st once in the new CBA (for draft picks) and in 2012 they actually made two first round picks.
While hitting on a 1st is still crucial, it's not like it used to be like when guys like Jason Smith and Aaron Curry got $60M+ contracts as rookies.
The Patriots (for example since they're the gold standard of value based drafting and pick accumulation) have only traded out of the 1st once in the new CBA (for draft picks) and in 2012 they actually made two first round picks.
While hitting on a 1st is still crucial, it's not like it used to be like when guys like Jason Smith and Aaron Curry got $60M+ contracts as rookies.
I think the key to the Patriots success is Brady-Belichik. Not trying to deny the good points people are making on this thread, but somehow I don't think the Patriots model would be quite as successful if say they had Collins-Fassel. Just like the WC offense was unstoppable with Walsh-Montana-Rice but not so much with Mariucci and Jeff Garcia.
Quote:
drafting like the Patriots used to do isn't as much a thing under the new CBA. Standard 4 year deals and rookie $$ slots take a lot of the albatross potential away from a missed 1st round pick. Compare the extremes Sam Bradford (last #1 on the old CBA 6 year $76M) with the next two: Newton (1st year new CBA): 4 year $22M and Luck (2nd year new CBA): 4 year $22.5M
The Patriots (for example since they're the gold standard of value based drafting and pick accumulation) have only traded out of the 1st once in the new CBA (for draft picks) and in 2012 they actually made two first round picks.
While hitting on a 1st is still crucial, it's not like it used to be like when guys like Jason Smith and Aaron Curry got $60M+ contracts as rookies.
I think the key to the Patriots success is Brady-Belichik. Not trying to deny the good points people are making on this thread, but somehow I don't think the Patriots model would be quite as successful if say they had Collins-Fassel. Just like the WC offense was unstoppable with Walsh-Montana-Rice but not so much with Mariucci and Jeff Garcia.
Of course that's correct, but regardless as GM Belichick sort of created the value based drafting approach (trade down and accumulate picks). And in NE it drove the media crazy. They still won at a legendary pace, though they experienced a 10 year SB drought, but the roster and personnel decisions were often questionable.
It's been well chronicled the players they had an opportunity to draft but passed on for more "at-bats" in the 2nd - 4th rounds and no one can claim it worked out better than if they had simply drafted a player in their original spot. but...winning cures all and i won't get in that debate again about if you can question anything Belichick has ever done, some people here worship at the altar of Belichick and he's infallible.
Pats (brady)
Broncos (Peyton)
Pats
Seahawks (Wilson)
Ravens (Flacco)
Giants
Packers (Rodgers)
Saints (Brees)
Steelers (Ben)
Giants
Even if you allow the argument that Peyton wasn't really a franchise QB for Denver (fair to say, IMO), that's still quite a list chockful of franchise QB's. Flacco is not, Wilson is, but wasn't paid like one at that time, which allowed them to spend $$ elsewhere.
Otherwise, they are all Franchise QB's.
Heck, even look at the list of QB's who lost - Ben, Brady, Ryan, Cam, Kapernick, Ben, Peyton, Warner. Kap is not, Ryan is debatable, but all the others are Franchise Qb's (Peyton was still elite when the lost to Seattle)
Now, were they the only reason why they won (or even made it to the SB)? Of course not; most of those teams had great skill players and/or defenses.
But this notion that teams can win - or even make it to the game - with a mediocre guy like Dilfer is long gone, and quite silly...
But no one is trying it any other way. Every team either has, erroneously believes they have, or is trying to get the stereotypical franchise quarterback. There isn't a team out there that treats the QB position more like the other positions on the field.
Everything on every team is built around whether or not they have the franchise QB. That seems odd to me considering they are so hard to get.
Look at our situation in 2004 and the extent to which the planets had to align to get Eli Manning. Collins, Accorsi, Fassel's firing, the spate of injuries that destroyed the 2003 season, the excellent 2004 QB class. All that had to line up just so, and even then it took an enormous trade in order to get the quarterback we wanted.
There has to be a smarter, more efficient method to building a team. There has to be.