"Hit rate for WRs drafted first-round
Drafting a first-round WR is hard, and the hit rate here is historically lower than other positions. There's a 63 percent chance of drafting a bust or a reach. Think of a reach as a serviceable starter who should've been drafted three rounds later, like Tavon Austin (No. 8 in 2013, 21 spots ahead of DeAndre Hopkins) or Mike Williams (No. 7 in 2017)."
Scoop City - (
New Window )
Second, how many of these guys should have actually been drafted in the first round? I'm sure there are multiple guys that were taken who were done so because their team put a higher value on the position and took a 2nd round talent vs a 1st round talent at a lower valued position.
Think taking a WR with a 79 grade via Sy' vs a TE with an 81.
Or, are they looking WRs that had "pro bowl" grades before the draft and then flopped?
Quickly looking at Sy's ratings for the last 4 drafts, he has hit on EVERY receiver that he rated as a "pro bowl" or higher receiver (85 or higher).
He is batting a 100% over that time frame.
Fair point, although I would counter that the context for this topic is often the argument that a QB selection carries a very high bust rate (true) AND that a WR would not have the same risk. Relative to the positional value for each, that's just not exactly the case (in the manner that many fans try to suggest). QB is a very risky choice, but the potential payoff justifies the risk; WR is less risky (but hardly risk-free), and the potential payoff is also comparatively lower than a QB.
Honestly, the only reason why it's not a completely debunked argument (IMO) is the fact that at almost any other position besides QB, there's a path to still providing on-field value even if the player fails to reach expectations. A WR "bust" (like Tavon Austin in this OP) can still generate some value on specials and in certain sub-packages. A QB, on the other hand, is much more binary. They either become starters or they don't; they either assume the mantle of "franchise QB" or they don't.
Tavon Austin was a WR bust who became a valuable special teams contributor. Johnny Manziel was a QB bust who became a former NFL player. That is a big part of the equation (and a huge part of fan perception).
Here's the biggest issue though, IMO: when a WR pick busts, no one spends 5+ years trying to convince themselves that he wasn't a bust and was instead just a victim of circumstance. No one is asking if Charles Rogers had a good enough OL. No one is asking if Peter Warrick had a good enough supporting cast. No one announces that they've done everything possible to screw up Darrius Heyward-Bey. No one has to justify taking another WR a year or two later after drafting Kevin White.
The problem isn't draft picks who bust, because there will be busts in every round, at every position, for every team. The problem is spending half a decade deluding yourself into believing that your busted picks didn't actually bust because your standard for choosing them in the first place is falling in love with them. There's only one position where that applies, at least for this franchise.
WRs Taken in Top 6 of NFL Draft (2000 - 2023)
M.S. : 4/8/2024 7:42 am
Over the past 24 NFL Drafts, 14 WRs have been taken within the Top 6 picks. By my count, 8 have been "Hits"; 6 have been "Misses" -- a 57% success rate. Every NFL Draft is different, and it is not a stretch to imagine that Marvin Harrison, Jr., Malik Nabors and Rome Odunze will all be "Hits" regardless of their Draft position. But historically, the success rate has been roughly 60%, not 100%:
8 Hits: (Draft Year/Pick/Prospect)
2003/ 3/ Andre Johnson
2004/ 3/ Larry Fitzgerald
2007/ 2/ Calvin Johnson
2011/ 4/ A. J. Green
2011/ 6/ Julio Jones
2015/ 4/ Amari Cooper
2021/ 5/ Ja'Marr Chase
2021/ 6/ Jaylen Waddle
6 Misses: (Draft Year/Pick/Prospect)
2000/ 4/ Peter Warrick
2003/ 2/ Charles Rogers
2005/ 3/ Braylon Edwards
2012/ 5/ Justin Blackmon
2014/ 4/ Sammy Watkins
2017/ 5/ Corey Davis
As was pointed out a couple of days ago, is the answer not to draft anyone?
They are subjective metrics. But they weren't that unreasonable to me.
What would you have used instead?
As was pointed out a couple of days ago, is the answer not to draft anyone?
I have read several articles over the years that OLs have the best hit rate in round one. This is a decent article from The Athletic.
Drafting OLs - ( New Window )
Plus, WR criteria is different than other positions.
for example, is Evan Neal considered a bust? Ereck Flowers?
Teams have a tendency to play highly drafted OL even if they perform poorly. Same with QB's due to the investment. but if a WR isn't running the right routes or catching the ball they tend to see the field less because it's easier to plug in other options.
So, WR's bust, just like every other position even at the top of the draft, but this article unfairly holds WR to different criteria that makes comparisons impossible.
Quote:
with a grain of salt. He is using measures that are subjective to the position. So it’s not a fair comparison to insinuate that WR is a higher bust rate than other positions. Interesting stats, yes. A logical argument for increased risk of drafting WR, no.
Let me rephrase. The metrics are fine. It’s the conclusion that is being drawn off of them. It’s all subjective. Again, very interesting. I like the comparison too but I don’t think it’s fair to then say “WR busts more than these other positions.”
They are subjective metrics. But they weren't that unreasonable to me.
What would you have used instead?
Between the evolution of the college game and lessons learned and advanced metrics improving WR scouting evaluations there seems to be less total busts in the top of the draft.
OL seemed to be a sure thing in the past but many top OL picks don’t pan out. I think practice rules and limited repetitions have impacted this.