Draft success by round

Extreme case is DeOssie. He never started 1 game to my knowledge but he was a very success pick for the Giants.

.

pick (#116) for a long-snapper?

I admit it's an anomaly, and I agree DeOssie had what I'd call a good career, but I have to believe no one's goal for 4th round pick is long snapper, at least I don't think.

from the same data used in your link, As you can see after the 2nd round it gets consistently less than 50%.

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%)

inflates the value of draft picks for the obvious reason the OP highlighted. Bad players sometimes start out of necessity or because you don't know yet that they're bad.

But on charts like this to be able to quantify and analyze you need a stake in the ground somewhere, so starting half your games I think is fair.

the two scenarios it doesn't allow for are the aforementioned shitty player ("on scholarship") who starts simply due to his draft status and two a player who is so bad go straight from starting to cut (so they fill the criteria of starting half their games).

But once you try and eliminate all the warts in this methodology you wind up with no solution.

I would like to see this updated. this chart is from 2004 to 2014.

I'd also like to see them add UDFAs as their own "draft round"

yes, that chart is from the original link.

In comment 15011576 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

pick (#116) for a long-snapper? I admit it's an anomaly, and I agree DeOssie had what I'd call a good career, but I have to believe no one's goal for 4th round pick is long snapper, at least I don't think.

A pro bowl special teams player? Yes, it was a good pick.

In comment 15011598 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

In comment 15011576 pjcas18 said: Quote: pick (#116) for a long-snapper? I admit it's an anomaly, and I agree DeOssie had what I'd call a good career, but I have to believe no one's goal for 4th round pick is long snapper, at least I don't think. A pro bowl special teams player? Yes, it was a good pick.

Like I said, I think it's an anomaly and if you had to make exceptions for every scenario like this you probably wouldn't be able to have a reasonable analysis.

100% a homerun pick. My point is simple, saying a player starting half of the games is nowhere near enough when evaluating draft picks. This isn't baseball where starts mean something. This is football. You can be a great rotational player and still be a good pick.

In comment 15011619 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

100% a homerun pick. My point is simple, saying a player starting half of the games is nowhere near enough when evaluating draft picks. This isn't baseball where starts mean something. This is football. You can be a great rotational player and still be a good pick.

It's not meant (IMO) to be like WAR, it's meant as a simple way to track if a draft pick was successful and allow for some basic analysis. If you have to look into the details of every pick you lose the ability to aggregate picks this way. it's just not scalable.

If you feel like this is meaningless because of obscure scenarios then don't use it.

This doesn't go by rounds, but it does go back 10 years evaluating each team's overall draft.

It starts with how much draft capital a team begins with. Followed what each team got in return. Then you get the efficiency score for each draft.

You can sort the columns to see how your team did in a particular year.

Link - ( New Window )