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.
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...
Yet only one of those QBs is young and he rode the back of an elite defense and running game.
When you combine Reese’s 3rd round success (or failure) rate with the trade value, it makes sense. Getting a 17th pick in return puts the Giants a little ahead value wise. Pick 23 (value 760) + pick 87 (value 155) = 915. Pick 17 has value 950. By trading those 2 picks the Giants would gain 35 points of value.
The basis of all this is of course statistical analysis. Some support it, and others have trashed using it for decision making. I find it gives a fun way to look into draft possibilities.
Greg
Quote:
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
and apply it to Reese's picks:
Quote:
2016: Darian Thompson S - DB (24%)
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
To be fair, looking at those names, 5 were utter failures (Barden, Beckum, Hosley, Jerrnigan, Moore), 5 were players most people here would agree are good players that could be a big part of the team, but either are too young to assess (Odi, Bromley, Thompson) or had serious injuries derail their career (alford, Jones). And one unquestioned success in Manningham. Id say 50/50 is an ok ratio for 3rd rounders.
In the end, Reese has to trust his scouts or fire them. If there is a can't miss talent in round 1, get them. Much like we did with Landon Collins (pick 33 is damn near first round). Otherwise sit pat and trust your scouts can find a guy in round 3. Lets not forget we've hit on many second rounders and even thirds (Tuck) though post-Acorsi it has been dismal.
Quote:
Quote:
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
and apply it to Reese's picks:
Quote:
2016: Darian Thompson S - DB (24%)
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
To be fair, looking at those names, 5 were utter failures (Barden, Beckum, Hosley, Jerrnigan, Moore), 5 were players most people here would agree are good players that could be a big part of the team, but either are too young to assess (Odi, Bromley, Thompson) or had serious injuries derail their career (alford, Jones). And one unquestioned success in Manningham. Id say 50/50 is an ok ratio for 3rd rounders.
And Moore has a ton of talent, first round talent even. He's just a fucking psycho who can't help himself.
Part of the problem with trading the 3rd'er is the 4th round being moved back as punishment for the walkie talkies. Give up a 3rd round pick and they don't draft for about 80 places.
Let's work an example. On the draft trade value chart, a mid first round pick is worth two mid second rounders and a mid third rounder. Now let's say you spent the pick on one or three linebackers. With the first rounder you have a 70% chance of success. With 2 seconds and a third your chance of at least one success is 87% (= 1-.45*.45*.66)
Now obviously, there are some limits, so it isn't completely clean. For example, if you apply this strategy too often, you don't have roster space for all the picks, so you don't really get as many bites at the apple as you want. You might have a better chance of drafting a star with 400 7th round picks that with the #1 overall but 1) there aren't 400 7th round picks and 2) You can't bring that many players to camp.
Let's work an example. On the draft trade value chart, a mid first round pick is worth two mid second rounders and a mid third rounder. Now let's say you spent the pick on one or three linebackers. With the first rounder you have a 70% chance of success. With 2 seconds and a third your chance of at least one success is 87% (= 1-.45*.45*.66)
Now obviously, there are some limits, so it isn't completely clean. For example, if you apply this strategy too often, you don't have roster space for all the picks, so you don't really get as many bites at the apple as you want. You might have a better chance of drafting a star with 400 7th round picks that with the #1 overall but 1) there aren't 400 7th round picks and 2) You can't bring that many players to camp.
What do I say the statistics show? I just presented them.
However, you and i both know should the Giants trade out of the 1st and get a 2nd and 3rd to do it they are not drafting 3 LB's with the two 2nds and a 3rd, so your example is not remotely realistic. Statistically valid? perhaps. Realistic? No.
My other point, which I admitted the study didn't analyze is the higher up in the 1st the higher the likelihood for a successful draft pick. That is the premise on which the trade up is based, as well as last year's draft which saw the Giants top couple rumored targets taken the two picks before the Giants both in trade ups.
And it doesn't matter much if you use all the picks at one position or different ones. Suppose in my example you picked an LB with 1 second and the third and a TE with the other second. You'd end up with a 70% chance of a successful LB (the same as the #1) + a 50% of a TE + a 30% of both LB's being successful, with an over 85% chance of at least one success.
Point is, GM's are willing to overpay to move up because they fall in love with particular players. If you recognize that the draft is a crapshoot, you are better off with more picks.
And it doesn't matter much if you use all the picks at one position or different ones. Suppose in my example you picked an LB with 1 second and the third and a TE with the other second. You'd end up with a 70% chance of a successful LB (the same as the #1) + a 50% of a TE + a 30% of both LB's being successful, with an over 85% chance of at least one success.
Point is, GM's are willing to overpay to move up because they fall in love with particular players. If you recognize that the draft is a crapshoot, you are better off with more picks.
Not in terms of high end talent. Take the time and do the study, the best players comes from the early parts of the first round or at worst the first round.
Of course there are exceptions, but in general it's a proven fact. look at the all-pro teams, hall of fame, league leader boards, etc. where are those players coming from?
first round picks overwhelmingly.
HOF by draft round: http://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/hall-of-famers-by-draft-round/
All-pro by draft round: a couple examples:
Just 2012 and 2014, but I expect the pattern sticks
2012 http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/03/30/what-do-all-pro-teams-tell-us-about-nfl-draft
2014:
It's the theory of would you rather have one horse or three ponies. If you trust your scouts and find a player that you really covet it makes a lot of sense to target the player and get the player.
First round has typically been good for the Giants under Reese. 3rd and below, we drop off a cliff.
Unless you see a can't miss type player within trade up range in the first, hold on to your mid round picks.
Yes, but that was Accorsi as GM.