What does history teach us about draft success ...

are very interesting.

When in doubt, wait on a TE.

Really makes you think about going DL in the 1st round. As BW said, it's incredible to think there is about a 1/3 hit rate on TE in the fifth and a 1/4 hit rate on TE in the 6th, which is well above the normal success rate for picks made in those rounds. Goes to show you that picks like Kittle (while probably not to his level of success) are out there to be had.

I think teams have to consider those success rates when drafting, though it should not be the determine factor as to whom a team selects.

How did we manage to end-up with Pugh, Flowers, Richmond, etc ?

History tells you that waiting until the second round will end up resulting in you getting a player who will bust. Franchise QBs are almost always selected in the first round. There are exceptions, of course, but I'd rather not play Russian Roulette with the QB position.

In comment 14384613 Manny in CA said:

Quote:

How did we manage to end-up with Pugh, Flowers, Richmond, etc ?

Plain and simple Reese and Ross

Please chime in. Is OL confounded by the fact that it is most numerous? Yes, QB is least, but it is much easier to discriminate the decent ones?

Which meant Flowers was a success.

Think about it.....

In what world would anyone think Flowers was a success?

Not "have"

We continue to get the argument, “Pass on a quarterback, too risky, go defense, draft is loaded with DL”

Love this post, because it demonstrates taking other positions in first round is as risky as taking quarterback.

i'd still draft D, D, D and try to build up the team, but this shows that if there is a QB you believe in you grab him.

The study measures success as a player who has started for at least half of his career.

Darren Sproles is a failure. Alvin Kamara, a failure? Danny Woodhead? How about situational pass rushers drafted in the 3rd or 4th round - all failures? Slot receivers - all failures? Just for the G-Men alone there are probably dozens of good players who don't rank as a success in this analysis. A few off the top of my head...Jeff Hostetler, Brandon Jacobs, Dave Meggett,

This all has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Starting and sucking....is sucking.

... Draft is a Crap shoot. Which is why you don't eff around with a guess/reach and take the absolute best player on your board at every spot.

in a lake whose average depth was two feet?

I am not a statistician, but the stats in the cited article seem flawed to me and I don't just mean the usage of criteria (plural) for criterion (singular).

"This post has a simple criteria [sic]: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter."

The flaw: These stats do not take into account that the number of "starters" on a team varies from position to position. It lumps all 5 OL starters together and compares it to QB and other positions where there is only one starter. Wouldn't it be more accurate to go by starting LT, RT, LG, RG, and C?

There is only one starting QB, RB, and TE, but there are 3 or 4 starting DLs, 3 or 4 starting LBs, 2 CBs and 2 Safties and 2 or 3 WRs.

Wouldn't you expect that an OL would be five times more likely to get drafted than say, a TE? Maybe yes, maybe no, because what if you consider that teams generally keep 10 OL and 3 TEs. That changes the ratio from 5:1 to 3.33:1.

Watch out for that lake folks. It looks safe, but don't fall in.

The three of them bungled those three OL picks.

I blame Flowers on Coughlin. Clearly Coughlin’s guy.