Best teams at drafting (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I looked at every team's draft in the ten year period from the mid-90s to the mid-00s. Everyone was included except punters and kickers.

I then compared the approximate value of each player selected at any spot in the draft, relative to the draft value of that pick. If the players you've drafted have accumulated more value than the pick is worth, you've done good. Most of the teams are in the negative, because a lot of the younger players still have many years left in their career. I think that's okay, and the only systemic error should be for the Texans and any team with a disproportionately high amount of their draft value in picks in the last years of the study.

Who were the winners and losers? Not surprisingly, the Colts top the list. Perhaps even less surprisingly, the Lions are last on the list. The first column of data shows the draft value of all the team's actual draft picks (so the first pick is worth a lot, the 90th pick a medium amount, and 7th round picks not so much). The second column shows the actual production of the players drafted with those picks, regardless of draft position. The last column represents the difference, and shows how much value each team has gotten out of drafting.

Indianapolis Colts 1244 1443 198Green Bay Packers 1155 1260 105Baltimore Ravens 1223 1300 78Pittsburgh Steelers 1247 1317 71Philadelphia Eagles 1330 1318 - 12Buffalo Bills 1176 1159 - 17New York Giants 1151 1104 - 47Kansas City Chiefs 1083 1004 - 80Tennessee Titans 1392 1282 -110Dallas Cowboys 1243 1131 -113Miami Dolphins 1214 1099 -115Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1186 1069 -117Chicago Bears 1413 1287 -126Denver Broncos 1228 1101 -128Jacksonville Jaguars 1407 1275 -131St. Louis Rams 1432 1280 -152New England Patriots 1383 1218 -165New York Jets 1289 1121 -168Seattle Seahawks 1382 1205 -177Washington Redskins 1062 864 -197Atlanta Falcons 1161 951 -210Cincinnati Bengals 1447 1200 -247Carolina Panthers 1264 1015 -250San Francisco 49ers 1233 979 -254Minnesota Vikings 1304 1035 -269Houston Texans 626 330 -296Oakland Raiders 1246 936 -311Arizona Cardinals 1549 1177 -373New Orleans Saints 1232 844 -389San Diego Chargers 1259 866 -393Cleveland Browns 1122 671 -451Detroit Lions 1307 818 -488What players have been the biggest steals? Once again, the first column shows how many projected points of value a player drafted in that spot should get, the second how many they actually got, and the third, the difference.

Zach Thomas	   10	109	99Terrell Owens	 17	108	92Ray Lewis		 32	123	91Jason Taylor	  19	107	87Tom Brady		  7	 91	84Marvin Harrison   36	118	82Ronde Barber	  20	 99	78La'Roi Glover	  9	 87	78Tiki Barber	   28	100	71Randy Moss		35	106	71Matt Hasselbeck	7	 70	63Sam Madison	   26	 88	62Brian Dawkins	 21	 82	60Donnie Edwards	16	 76	60Peyton Manning	73	133	60Ahman Green	   19	 78	59Hines Ward		16	 75	58Joe Horn		  11	 69	57Derrick Mason	 16	 70	55Jon Runyan		14	 67	53Joey Porter	   19	 72	52Darren Sharper	22	 74	52Jeremiah Trotter  19	 71	52Marco Rivera	   6	 58	52Tony Gonzalez	 41	 92	52

Certainly there are flaws with any method that doesn't rank Brady as the biggest steal of these ten drafts. But I don't think there are any systemic errors in the process; rather, Brady himself is simply undervalued. QBs are given points for leading high scoring offenses, and the Pats offense hasn't been very high scoring until last season. And this approximate value system only looks at regular season statistics. The worst 25 picks?

Alex Smith 73 8 -65Ryan Leaf 64 3 -61Charles Rogers 64 4 -61Akili Smith 59 1 -58Andre Wadsworth 59 13 -47Courtney Brown 73 28 -45Cedric Benson 56 12 -44Robert Gallery 64 21 -44Tim Couch 73 30 -44Curtis Enis 53 10 -43Ronnie Brown 64 22 -43Jamal Reynolds 44 2 -42Troy Williamson 49 8 -41Johnathan Sullivan 51 10 -41Lawrence Phillips 51 11 -40Eli Manning 73 33 -40Mike Williams 44 5 -39Cadillac Williams 53 15 -38Wendell Bryant 42 4 -38Yatil Green 39 2 -37Braylon Edwards 59 22 -37Mike D. Williams 56 19 -37Jerome McDougle 39 3 -36Pacman Jones 51 15 -36David Terrell 47 11 -36Alex Smith, assuming he starts another season, should pass Leaf. Ronnie Brown, Eli Manning, Braylon Edwards and Pacman Jones are simply too early into their careers to properly rate. Most of those guys were busts, though.Which teams have done the best in the first round?

Indianapolis Colts	  370	635	 265Denver Broncos		  336	389	  52Baltimore Ravens		475	523	  48Pittsburgh Steelers	 362	399	  36New York Jets		   442	451	   9Jacksonville Jaguars	456	464	   8Tennessee Titans		305	310	   5New England Patriots	493	497	   5Philadelphia Eagles	 417	416	-  1Dallas Cowboys		  320	314	-  6Buffalo Bills		   332	321	- 12New York Giants		 405	390	- 15St. Louis Rams		  541	514	- 28Seattle Seahawks		512	484	- 28Kansas City Chiefs	  259	214	- 46New Orleans Saints	  425	369	- 55Atlanta Falcons		 335	273	- 62Miami Dolphins		  264	187	- 77Carolina Panthers	   427	340	- 86Cincinnati Bengals	  530	438	- 93Green Bay Packers	   347	247	-100Minnesota Vikings	   384	284	-101Tampa Bay Buccaneers	286	181	-105Houston Texans		  247	124	-123San Diego Chargers	  324	194	-130Washington Redskins	 392	249	-143Arizona Cardinals	   608	444	-164Oakland Raiders		 497	327	-170San Francisco 49ers	 384	194	-190Chicago Bears		   384	178	-206Cleveland Browns		389	180	-209Detroit Lions		   556	313	-243

Which teams have done best in rounds 4-7?

Green Bay Packers	   399	534	 135Pittsburgh Steelers	 416	466	  49Baltimore Ravens		411	414	   4Oakland Raiders		 338	339	   2Atlanta Falcons		 475	464	- 12New York Giants		 372	359	- 13Indianapolis Colts	  423	405	- 18Kansas City Chiefs	  414	384	- 30Dallas Cowboys		  428	385	- 42Denver Broncos		  399	346	- 53Buffalo Bills		   407	354	- 53Philadelphia Eagles	 469	408	- 61San Francisco 49ers	 373	296	- 77Jacksonville Jaguars	461	383	- 78Miami Dolphins		  469	387	- 82Houston Texans		  186	104	- 82Chicago Bears		   472	388	- 83Tennessee Titans		510	424	- 87Minnesota Vikings	   407	307	-100New York Jets		   452	352	-100Cincinnati Bengals	  389	286	-103New England Patriots	485	378	-108St. Louis Rams		  431	323	-108Carolina Panthers	   399	267	-133Detroit Lions		   335	199	-137Arizona Cardinals	   429	289	-141Cleveland Browns		364	223	-141Tampa Bay Buccaneers	452	307	-145Washington Redskins	 313	151	-162New Orleans Saints	  412	236	-176Seattle Seahawks		423	245	-178San Diego Chargers	  436	238	-199

Notes: This study does not look at draft pick trades. If a team traded the 1st pick in the draft for the 50th pick, and the 50th pick ended up being pretty good, said team would be given credit in my study for drafting a good player with the 50th pick, and docked zero points for not valuing the first pick properly. Further, trading your 4th round pick for a HOF WR earns you zero points, too. I'm looking ONLY at the specific, narrow task of player selection. Further, some of the elite teams simply don't have the roster space for many picks. To the extent that the Colts or Patriots get penalized for drafting a better player with the 200th pick than the Cardinals do with the 199th pick, but the Cardinals get more points from that player since he started for Arizona and the 200th pick did not start for New England or Indianapolis, then the top teams are unfairly penalized.

 

[David Yudkin]

Just curious how Tom Brady, who was like the 199th pick in his draft, ended up only 5th in overall value. Or does draft position make no difference in the actual value calculation?

 

[TheFanatic]

This is all a load of crap. The Rams are ranked waaaayyyyy too high in all of these lists. The Rams are horrible at drafting...

 

[awesomeness]

Just curious how Tom Brady, who was like the 199th pick in his draft, ended up only 5th in overall value. Or does draft position make no difference in the actual value calculation?

He goes over that in the OP.I dont think the value calculation takes into effect the amount a team wins, or the amount of superbowls they win. Just simply offensive stats in the regular season alone. Brady hasn't put up exceptional regular season numbers except for this past year.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I figured the Colts and Ravens would be at the top of this list, no matter how faulty a list it may be.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Very cool post.

No fair including the Bobby Beathard years, though. Let's try it with just the AJ Smith years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is all a load of crap. The Rams are ranked waaaayyyyy too high in all of these lists. The Rams are horrible at drafting...

The Rams' first round picks in 2005, 2006 and 2007 have underwhelmed. But they're not in this study.Orlando Pace and Torry Holt were really good picks. Grant Winstrom and Eddie Kennison had pretty good careers, even if with other teams. A ton of picks outside the top ten end up being pretty useless. The Rams aren't really special in that regard.

 

[SSOG]

Surprising that the Broncos wind up ranking 2nd for their first-round picks during this span. Very surprising. I suspect that they get a bonus because they're the only team in the league that didn't get a single top-10 selection over that span (meaning none of their busts could possibly be as damaging as another team's busts, and all of their first round "steals" would naturally be more valuable than another team's first round "steals").

 

[Despyzer]

Chargers have gone 46-16 over the last four years with almost an entire roster of guys drafted by the franchise, and yet they are one of the worst drafting teams in the last decade? Something doesn't add up. If the selections of Sammy Davis and Ryan Leaf are hurting them this much in the analysis, then perhaps too much weight is being given to those picks.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chargers have gone 46-16 over the last four years with almost an entire roster of guys drafted by the franchise, and yet they are one of the worst drafting teams in the last decade? Something doesn't add up. If the selections of Sammy Davis and Ryan Leaf are hurting them this much in the analysis, then perhaps too much weight is being given to those picks.

No one said they were. And don't forget, Gates went undrafted.

 

[Kleck]

This was good read, Chase.

Hopefully it doesn't take too much time to update each year. I'd be interested to see what your data says about the Sherman vs. Thompson drafts in a few years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

BTW, here's a quick list of each team's top three picks over the period. To avoid giving myself a huge formatting headache, I'll be using the player's pro-football-reference code. If for some reason you can't figure out the player from the code, you can type the code in the search engine here to find out.

To read the list, look at SmitSt01, a few rows down. From left to right, it reads: In the 2001 draft for the Panthers, Steve Smith, WR, went 74th overall. His approximate value for his career was 54; his expected value, based on being drafted 74th, was 19; that difference is 35, which ranks as the 2nd best steal for the Panthers in the draft, slightly behind Muhsin Muhammad. (I know Steve Smith's the better receiver, but Muhammad has started over twice as many games in his career as Smith, and Smith hasn't been twice as good as Muhammad over their careers).

Each team's top three picks are listed below.

year team id pos ovr av ev diff tmrk1998 atl SalaEp20 T 199 54 7 47 11999 atl McClTo20 C 237 38 5 34 21999 atl KernPa99 DE 30 62 30 31 31996 buf MoulEr00 WR 24 74 33 41 12001 buf SchoAa99 DE 46 54 25 29 22003 buf McGeTe99 DB 111 41 14 27 31996 car MuhaMu00 WR 43 74 26 48 12001 car SmitSt01 WR 74 54 19 35 21997 car MintMi21 DB 56 57 23 35 32000 chi UrlaBr00 LB 9 91 46 45 12003 chi BrigLa99 LB 68 56 20 35 21996 chi EngrBo00 WR 52 55 23 31 31997 cin DillCo00 RB 43 74 26 48 12001 cin JohnCh01 WR 36 74 28 45 21996 cin AndeWi00 T 10 85 44 41 32002 cle DaviAn20 LB 141 33 11 22 12001 cle HenrAn20 DB 97 30 16 14 21999 cle RainWa20 LB 124 26 13 14 31996 clt HarrMa00 WR 19 118 36 82 11998 clt MannPe00 QB 1 133 73 60 21999 clt JameEd00 RB 4 106 56 50 31997 crd PlumJa00 QB 42 77 26 51 11998 crd PittMi00 RB 95 48 16 32 21996 crd RiceSi00 DE 3 86 59 26 31997 dal CoakDe00 LB 65 66 21 45 11996 dal GodfRa20 LB 49 69 24 45 21998 dal AdamFl00 T 38 61 27 33 31997 den PrycTr00 DT 28 72 31 40 12002 den PortCl00 RB 51 62 24 39 21999 den WilsAl00 LB 31 69 30 39 31998 det LiwiCh20 G 207 38 6 32 12001 det RogeSh99 DT 61 44 21 23 21996 det HartJe55 C 23 54 34 20 31998 gnb HassMa00 QB 187 70 7 63 11997 gnb SharDa00 DB 60 74 22 52 21996 gnb RiveMa01 G 208 58 6 52 32003 htx DaviDo01 RB 101 31 15 16 12002 htx PittCh20 T 50 35 24 11 22005 htx BrowC.20 DB 188 14 7 7 31998 jax TaylFr00 RB 9 86 46 41 12001 jax McCrMa20 DB 233 38 5 33 21997 jax PaynSe20 DT 114 41 14 28 31996 kan EdwaDo20 LB 98 76 16 60 11996 kan HornJo00 WR 135 69 11 57 21997 kan GonzTo00 TE 13 92 41 52 31996 mia ThomZa01 LB 154 109 10 99 11997 mia TaylJa03 DE 73 107 19 87 21997 mia MadiSa00 DB 44 88 26 62 31998 min MossRa00 WR 21 106 35 71 11998 min BirkMa00 C 173 53 8 44 21999 min CulpDa00 QB 11 84 43 41 32000 nor BulgMa00 QB 168 51 9 42 11996 nor SmitBr21 DE 70 39 20 19 22001 nor McAlDe00 RB 23 52 34 18 32000 nwe BradTo00 QB 199 91 7 84 11996 nwe BrusTe99 LB 86 66 17 49 21996 nwe MillLa00 DB 36 68 28 40 31997 nyg BarbTi00 RB 36 100 28 71 11996 nyg ToomAm00 WR 34 63 29 34 21997 nyg GarnSa20 DB 136 43 11 32 32000 nyj ColeLa00 WR 78 59 18 41 11997 nyj FergJa21 DT 229 45 5 40 21998 nyj FabiJa20 T 111 49 14 35 31997 oti MasoDe00 WR 98 70 16 55 11996 oti RunyJo20 T 109 67 14 53 21996 oti GeorEd00 RB 14 77 40 37 31996 phi DawkBr00 DB 61 82 21 60 11998 phi TrotJe00 LB 72 71 19 52 22002 phi WestBr00 RB 91 58 16 42 31998 pit WardHi00 WR 92 75 16 58 11999 pit PortJo00 LB 73 72 19 52 21996 pit EmmoCa20 LB 242 55 5 51 31996 rai GlovLa00 DT 166 87 9 78 11997 rai JackGr20 DT 193 48 7 41 21999 rai BartEr20 LB 146 40 10 30 31996 ram MillFr21 T 141 61 11 50 11999 ram HoltTo00 WR 6 91 51 41 21996 ram KennEd00 WR 18 71 37 34 31996 rav LewiRa00 LB 26 123 32 91 12000 rav ThomAd00 LB 186 58 7 51 21997 rav SharJa20 LB 34 61 29 32 32001 sdg TomlLa00 RB 5 104 53 51 12001 sdg BreeDr00 QB 32 68 30 38 22004 sdg OlivSh20 T 209 34 6 28 31998 sea GreeAh00 RB 76 78 19 59 11996 sea DaniPh20 DE 99 63 15 48 22000 sea JackDa00 WR 80 57 18 39 31996 sfo OwenTe00 WR 89 108 17 92 12002 sfo KosiKy20 G 249 27 4 23 21998 sfo SchuLa00 DB 119 36 13 23 31997 tam BarbRo00 DB 66 99 20 78 11997 tam DunnWa00 RB 12 89 42 47 21997 tam HarrAl21 DB 169 47 9 39 31996 was DaviSt00 RB 102 58 15 43 11997 was SmitDe21 LB 80 61 18 43 21999 was BailCh00 DB 7 89 49 40 3Same stuff, but bottom three picks. Remember, guys from '05 and '04 will be overrepresented here, since they've only had a few years in the league. But to read another line from the list, in 2001, for Chicago, David Terrell, WR, was the 8th pick in the draft. His approximate career value was 11; the 8th pick should be worth about 47; therefore, he underperformed by abouy 36, making him, sadly, only the third biggest bust for the Bears during this time. Some guys never even played in the NFL. Their full name, instead of their ID, is listed.

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1997	atl	BookMi20	DB	11	8	43	-35	11997	atl	DaviNa20	DE	32	0	30	-30	22004	atl	HallDe99	DB	8	29	47	-18	32002	buf	WillMi22	T	4	19	56	-37	12000	buf	FlowEr20	DE	26	6	32	-27	22004	buf	LosmJ.00	QB	22	17	34	-17	31998	car	PeteJa20	DE	14	10	40	-30	12000	car	AndeRa21	DB	23	6	34	-28	21997	car	CarrRa00	WR	27	8	32	-24	32005	chi	BensCe00	RB	4	12	56	-44	11998	chi	EnisCu00	RB	5	10	53	-43	22001	chi	TerrDa00	WR	8	11	47	-36	31999	cin	SmitAk00	QB	3	1	59	-58	12005	cin	PollDa20	LB	17	3	38	-35	21999	cin	FishCh20	DB	33	0	29	-29	32000	cle	BrowCo22	DE	1	28	73	-45	11999	cle	CoucTi00	QB	1	30	73	-44	22005	cle	EdwaBr00	WR	3	22	59	-37	31999	clt	Brandon Burlsworth	G	63	0	21	-21	12005	clt	JackMa22	DB	29	11	31	-20	21996	clt	MathDe20	DB	51	5	24	-19	31998	crd	WadsAn20	DE	3	13	59	-47	12002	crd	BryaWe20	DT	12	4	42	-38	22005	crd	RollAn20	DB	8	12	47	-35	32004	dal	RogeJa20	T	52	0	23	-23	12000	dal	GoodDw20	DB	49	1	24	-23	21997	dal	LaFlDa00	TE	22	12	34	-22	32001	den	MiddWi20	DB	24	4	33	-30	11998	den	NashMa00	WR	30	1	30	-29	22001	den	Paul Toviessi	DE	51	0	24	-24	32003	det	RogeCh01	WR	2	4	64	-61	12005	det	WillMi03	WR	10	5	44	-39	22002	det	HarrJo00	QB	3	30	59	-30	32001	gnb	ReynJa20	DE	10	2	44	-42	12005	gnb	RodgAa00	QB	24	1	33	-32	21999	gnb	VinsFr20	DB	47	1	25	-24	32002	htx	CarrDa00	QB	1	43	73	-30	12005	htx	JohnTr20	DT	16	9	38	-30	22003	htx	JoppBe00	TE	41	1	26	-25	32000	jax	SowaR.00	WR	29	2	31	-29	12004	jax	WillRe00	WR	9	21	46	-25	21998	jax	TaylCo20	DB	57	1	22	-21	32002	kan	SimsRy20	DT	6	15	51	-36	12000	kan	MorrSy00	WR	21	6	35	-29	22004	kan	SiavJu20	DT	36	2	28	-26	32005	mia	BrowRo05	RB	2	22	64	-43	11997	mia	GreeYa00	WR	15	2	39	-37	21998	mia	AverJo00	RB	29	4	31	-27	32005	min	WillTr01	WR	7	8	49	-41	12005	min	JameEr20	DE	18	7	37	-30	21999	min	UndeDi20	DT	29	1	31	-30	32003	nor	SullJo23	DT	6	10	51	-41	11997	nor	KellRo20	DB	33	8	29	-22	21996	nor	CherJe20	DB	40	7	27	-20	31998	nwe	EdwaRo00	RB	18	13	37	-24	11997	nwe	CantCh20	DB	29	8	31	-23	21999	nwe	KatzAn20	LB	28	9	31	-22	31996	nyg	JoneCe20	DE	5	20	53	-33	12004	nyg	RivePh00	QB	4	28	56	-27	22003	nyg	JoseWi20	DT	25	10	33	-23	31996	nyj	VanDAl00	WR	31	2	30	-28	11997	nyj	TerrRi20	DT	31	5	30	-25	22003	nyj	RobeDe20	DT	4	32	56	-24	32005	oti	JonePa20	DB	6	15	51	-36	11996	oti	MixxBr20	DE	38	1	27	-26	22003	oti	WoolAn20	DB	28	6	31	-26	32003	phi	McDoJe20	DE	15	3	39	-36	11997	phi	HarrJo26	DE	25	6	33	-27	22001	phi	MitcFr00	WR	25	13	33	-19	32004	pit	ColcRi20	DB	38	2	27	-25	11996	pit	StepJa20	T	29	6	31	-25	21998	pit	StaaJe20	DE	41	3	26	-24	32004	rai	GallRo20	T	2	21	64	-44	11998	rai	Leon Bender	DT	31	0	30	-30	22005	rai	WashFa20	DB	23	10	34	-24	31996	ram	PhilLa00	RB	6	11	51	-40	12003	ram	KennJi21	DT	12	13	42	-28	22001	ram	LewiDa20	DT	12	19	42	-23	32005	rav	CodyDa20	DE	53	0	23	-23	12003	rav	BollKy00	QB	19	18	36	-18	21997	rav	GrahJa00	RB	64	3	21	-18	31998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	32000	sea	McInCh20	T	22	7	34	-27	12004	sea	TubbMa20	DT	23	10	34	-24	22005	sea	SpenCh21	C	26	12	32	-21	32005	sfo	SmitAl03	QB	1	8	73	-65	11999	sfo	McGrRe20	DT	24	1	33	-32	21997	sfo	DrucJi00	QB	26	1	32	-31	32005	tam	WillCa02	RB	5	15	53	-38	12004	tam	ClayMi00	WR	15	17	39	-22	21997	tam	AnthRe00	WR	16	21	38	-18	32005	was	RogeCa20	DB	9	11	46	-35	11996	was	JohnAn20	T	30	0	30	-30	22003	was	JacoTa00	WR	44	2	26	-24	3

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I'd like to see the list since AJ Smith took over for SD. Bethard clearly lost his mind as GM of the bolts

 

[Chase Stuart]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick.

Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

 

[Ghost Rider]

This is all a load of crap. The Rams are ranked waaaayyyyy too high in all of these lists. The Rams are horrible at drafting...

The Rams drafted pretty well when Vermeil was there, and this thread is talking about the years 1996-2005, so there ya go.

 

[Bri]

Very nice work Chase, alot of excellent info to digest

Top of my head

I'm wonderring where Derek Brown is first round NYG TE bust. Miss the cutoff?

Like David, I think Brady should be higher.

Where's Housh and Colston? Too few years to properly mesh with the others in the study?

"best value" or "best picks" don't often make me think of first rounders. They're (in theory) locks to be good so, because of that, I'm thinking you need to tweak the list that begins with Zach Thomas.

Q about Joe Horn and your system. If I'm understanding it correctly, the Saints probably are earning the Chiefs credit here. That doesn't seem right. Could you plug in a minimum stats with original team to qualify?

Really fascinating great work, just suggesting tweaks it's "sharp" already

 

[Getinthemix]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

 

[Twilight]

Alex Smith, assuming he starts another season, should pass Leaf. Ronnie Brown, Eli Manning, Braylon Edwards and Pacman Jones are simply too early into their careers to properly rate. Most of those guys were busts, though.

Why isn't Alex too early to properly rate? He came out with Edwards.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd like to see the list since AJ Smith took over for SD. Bethard clearly lost his mind as GM of the bolts

Smith took over right before the '03 draft. I'm not really sure if that should count for him or not, but certainly wasn't above average from a selection standpoint. Nothing stands out as a great pick, and the top pick, Sammy Davis, was a bad one.So with Smith it's just '04 and '05. I'm hesitant to grade any GM based on the '06 or '07 draft. It's just too early. Shane Olivea was obviously an excellent pick. Nick Hardwick looks like a very good one, too. Shaun Phillips looks like another steal. Michael Turner could end up looking like a great pick, although not for SD. Igor Olshansky and Rivers (or Manning) were the top picks, and both have potential, but it's unclear yet whether they'll end up being considered great picks, good picks, or bad ones. The rest of the draft was late round guys that didn't contribute.As for '05, Luis Castillo is tough to grade because of injuries. Who knows how his career will go. Merriman looks great, of course, but he's still only played three seasons. Vincent Jackson? He's contributed little to date. The rest of the draft picks were late round guys who didn't do much, although Sproles has returned kicks well.So it's pretty difficult to give Smith much of a grade. The signs look good, but it's really, really early.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow. 33 games started by a first round pick is really bad. Like I said a few times, guys in the '05 draft will be undervalued here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Alex Smith, assuming he starts another season, should pass Leaf. Ronnie Brown, Eli Manning, Braylon Edwards and Pacman Jones are simply too early into their careers to properly rate. Most of those guys were busts, though.

Why isn't Alex too early to properly rate? He came out with Edwards.

Because Edwards looks like he'll be a stud for a few more years, while Smith looks like he's going to stink. That's all.

 

[Getinthemix]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow. 33 games started by a first round pick is really bad. Like I said a few times, guys in the '05 draft will be undervalued here.

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow. If the 05 draft was redone, I would bet that Castillo would go higher and that is value.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow. 33 games started by a first round pick is really bad. Like I said a few times, guys in the '05 draft will be undervalued here.

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow.

You're free to think that. It's a fine line between getting complete data and getting recent data. Your post says my numbers are too recent, a few other posts say my numbers don't include enough recent drafts.I think ten years from '96 to '05 is a pretty good compromise, but YMMV.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Very nice work Chase, alot of excellent info to digestTop of my headI'm wonderring where Derek Brown is first round NYG TE bust. Miss the cutoff?Like David, I think Brady should be higher.Where's Housh and Colston? Too few years to properly mesh with the others in the study?"best value" or "best picks" don't often make me think of first rounders. They're (in theory) locks to be good so, because of that, I'm thinking you need to tweak the list that begins with Zach Thomas. Q about Joe Horn and your system. If I'm understanding it correctly, the Saints probably are earning the Chiefs credit here. That doesn't seem right. Could you plug in a minimum stats with original team to qualify? Really fascinating great work, just suggesting tweaks it's "sharp" already

Brown was a '92 draft pick, but he was the 14th pick. The 14th pick, on avearge, has about 40 career points in approximate value; Brown had 12. So he was a bust of -28.Colston was an '06 pick, so he's too late. Housh was a pretty nice boom pick; he will certainly shoot up there in the next few years. Current AV of 45.Agreed on Brady.I disagree about first rounders. If a guy is the best 18th pick in the last ten years, that's pretty impressive. Everyone is compared to everyone else. Value picks and "boom" picks are different; Peyton Manning was most certainly an awesome pick, even if he went #1. And that list still has a late guy (Thomas) on the top of it.Horn is definitely helping the Chiefs out, which might seem a bit whacky. I've got another system that fixes that a bit, but I just didn't feel like running the data twice. Good point, though.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think this list came out pretty good. Most of the teams that are widely regarded as good drafting teams actually come out as such here.

I remember arguing that I had faith in Indy's rating of Addai when they picked him because of their great history in drafting under Bill Polian, which many people did not seem to really buy into. It's nice to be able to put some numbers to it.

 

[Marauder]

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow.

You're free to think that. It's a fine line between getting complete data and getting recent data. Your post says my numbers are too recent, a few other posts say my numbers don't include enough recent drafts.I think ten years from '96 to '05 is a pretty good compromise, but YMMV.

First let me say this is really excellent work. You've been doing some fantasic analysis lately and this is a great start towards what you are trying to accomplish.That said, I tend to agree with Getinthemix here. The problem is not just that one or two years are undervalued but that he data gets increasingly worse starting from the second year in the study to the point where there is a huge disparity in the value of the numbers between the early years and the later years which makes the end result almost worthless. Obviously for teams like Indy, GB and Balt who have been consistently excellent drafters (and for Detroit who has been a consistently poor drafter) it evens out but for many other teams it could be very misleading. San Diego stands out because it is obvious that they were one of the worst drafting teams in the 90's and one of the best since 2000. I think you need to come up with some way of normalizing the data by length of career to date.Let me ask you this. If Luis Castillo has a career ending injury tomorrow, do you think that will make him a bad draft choice?

 

[Pickle Rody]

Indianapolis Colts

Green Bay Packers

Baltimore Ravens

Pittsburgh Steelers

Philadelphia Eagles

These first five teams come as no surprise to me. All of these franchises have great front offices that usually don't make too many mistakes on draft day. There will always be some (Jerome McDougle) but they are few and far between.

 

[Bri]

I disagree about first rounders. If a guy is the best 18th pick in the last ten years, that's pretty impressive. Everyone is compared to everyone else. Value picks and "boom" picks are different; Peyton Manning was most certainly an awesome pick, even if he went #1. And that list still has a late guy (Thomas) on the top of it.

Thanks for clarifying the others.I agree on the 18th pick being better than all the other 18th picks is impressive.Peyton IMO is on his way to the hall so sure I think that's a smart pick with great rewards. However (and I do realize you said he doesn't qualify really yet but just for discussion) the Colston pick wows me. That's more like "what a find" while Peyton was more like "Leaf or Manning"? There's a bit more excitement to it for me. Not quite sure how you could plug in this wow factor, assuming you agree, just felt like there might be something there to further dig into.

 

[radballs]

Chase, I love the analysis that goes into studies like this. I just think in this case, there are a ton of variables that aren't being accounted for that might skew the results. Not sure what is necessarily missing but it does appear that there needs to be more variables controlled. And even then, I'm not sure what might be drawn from it to determine causal links with all of the turnover that occurs within NFL management and personnel.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow. 33 games started by a first round pick is really bad. Like I said a few times, guys in the '05 draft will be undervalued here.

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow.

You're free to think that. It's a fine line between getting complete data and getting recent data. Your post says my numbers are too recent, a few other posts say my numbers don't include enough recent drafts.I think ten years from '96 to '05 is a pretty good compromise, but YMMV.

Chase - the push you're getting is that there should be a "performance curve" that is almost year-by-year. So you would expect a different level of cumulative production for each year of experience. Sounds like what you're saying is that this would be too complicated. But why? Shouldn't there be a way to give a point-in-time assessment of each draft pick vs. expectations? Anyway, this is great stuff. The results are certainly intuitive - Packer fans, for example, know that our history of 1st rd picks sucks. And we make up for it in rounds 4-7. And Detroit has been terrible at drafting basically post-Barry Sanders/Herman Moore.Threads like this are why I keep coming back to FBG.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow.

You're free to think that. It's a fine line between getting complete data and getting recent data. Your post says my numbers are too recent, a few other posts say my numbers don't include enough recent drafts.I think ten years from '96 to '05 is a pretty good compromise, but YMMV.

First let me say this is really excellent work. You've been doing some fantasic analysis lately and this is a great start towards what you are trying to accomplish.That said, I tend to agree with Getinthemix here. The problem is not just that one or two years are undervalued but that he data gets increasingly worse starting from the second year in the study to the point where there is a huge disparity in the value of the numbers between the early years and the later years which makes the end result almost worthless. Obviously for teams like Indy, GB and Balt who have been consistently excellent drafters (and for Detroit who has been a consistently poor drafter) it evens out but for many other teams it could be very misleading. San Diego stands out because it is obvious that they were one of the worst drafting teams in the 90's and one of the best since 2000. I think you need to come up with some way of normalizing the data by length of career to date.

Let me ask you this. If Luis Castillo has a career ending injury tomorrow, do you think that will make him a bad draft choice?

You've got to be clear what you're valuing. This is an approximate value system, which grades a player based on performance. Not potential, not ability, but performance. Arguably that's the best thing to grade a draftee on, but arguably not, too.If Castillo never plays another game again, it wasn't a bad draft pick based on potential, it certainly wasn't a bad draft pick based on ability, but it probably was a bad draft pick based on performance. If JaMarcus Russell never plays a down in the NFL for some crazy reason, that would end up being a pick the Raiders really, really wish went differently. But it doesn't mean his potential or ability weren't sky high.

It's important to recognize the functions of your tools, and their drawbacks. Here, I'm comparing just the production of a player drafted with the expected career production of the player typically drafted in that spot. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not sure SD has been one of the best drafting teams since 2000. They're probably up there, but it's definitely a difficult thing to pin down. That's what my study tried to do, except to avoid a ton of young players whose careers are undefined, I looked at guys drafted in the mid-90s. Then, for the same reason, I had a cut-off of '05. If I did a study of players from 1990 to 1999, that would certainly be more accurate in the sense of measuring draft status to career performance, but less useful in the sense of people wouldn't care about it. Chargers fans would look at it and say, oh well, the last draft was nine years ago.

I do have one thought on normalizing by career seasons. Depending on my timeframe, I can get to that tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for all the comments, guys.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow. 33 games started by a first round pick is really bad. Like I said a few times, guys in the '05 draft will be undervalued here.

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow.

You're free to think that. It's a fine line between getting complete data and getting recent data. Your post says my numbers are too recent, a few other posts say my numbers don't include enough recent drafts.I think ten years from '96 to '05 is a pretty good compromise, but YMMV.

Chase - the push you're getting is that there should be a "performance curve" that is almost year-by-year. So you would expect a different level of cumulative production for each year of experience. Sounds like what you're saying is that this would be too complicated. But why? Shouldn't there be a way to give a point-in-time assessment of each draft pick vs. expectations? Anyway, this is great stuff. The results are certainly intuitive - Packer fans, for example, know that our history of 1st rd picks sucks. And we make up for it in rounds 4-7. And Detroit has been terrible at drafting basically post-Barry Sanders/Herman Moore.Threads like this are why I keep coming back to FBG.

The thing is, examining who the best player in the '05 draft is a lot different than the best player in the '96 draft. After three years, Terry Glenn looked like the better WR than Marvin Harrison. I'm a lot less concerned with ranking Marvin Harrison and Terry Glenn now, than Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers now. Arguably I should have nixed the '05 draft entirely, but it's more of a sliding scale thing than a binary thing.I've got a few thoughts on this, though, to try and at least keep us interested in the modern trends.One other key, key point. Approximate value is simply that: approximate. If we looked at two players with ten year careers, and Player X has 20 more points of AV than Player Y, I'm reasonably confident that Player X actually was the better player. Maybe 70% of the time that will be the case. But if we look at Player X having 6 more points of AV than Player Y after three years, I'm barely more confident than 50/50 that Player X was better. The beauty of AV is that it becomes more valuable over time; the downside, of course, is that it's rough when grading young players.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

I really do think that the Bills are excellent drafters (except Mike Williams). They are in the top 10 in all those categories.

So why the helk do we suck so bad?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

Wow. That raises real issues about the method. Jammer worse than Bryan Still? Castillo worse than Jermaine Fazande? Jammer and Castillo are both Pro Bowl caliber players. Still and Fazande were total busts.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow.

I don't think that's very realistic. And by that measure, Jake Long is the worst draft pick of all time, which doesn't seem accurate.

 

[radballs]

I really do think that the Bills are excellent drafters (except Mike Williams). They are in the top 10 in all those categories. So why the helk do we suck so bad?

I would normally just end it with, "Because you're the Bills." Ownership, management, and coaching have a lot to do with the rest. Take a page from my team, the Raiders. We have a commitment to excellence. And the results over the last few years have been astounding.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick.

Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year team id pos ovr av ev diff incl1998 sdg LeafRy00 QB 2 3 64 -61 12004 sdg MannEl00 QB 1 33 73 -40 22002 sdg JammQu20 DB 5 32 53 -21 31996 sdg StilBr00 WR 41 8 26 -19 42005 sdg CastLu20 DE 28 14 31 -17 51999 sdg FazaJe00 RB 60 5 22 -17 62003 sdg DaviSa21 DB 30 14 30 -16 71997 sdg HamiMi20 LB 74 3 19 -16 81996 sdg RochBr00 TE 81 2 18 -16 91996 sdg SappPa20 LB 50 9 24 -15 10

How in the world does Luis Castillo rate as the fifth worst Chargers pick in the decade you reference. I wish the Texans could pick so poorly.

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow. 33 games started by a first round pick is really bad. Like I said a few times, guys in the '05 draft will be undervalued here.

That kind of ruins all the work you did here. So everyone who is drafted at the end of the study (03-05) is terribly underrated as their career could end tomorrow.

You're free to think that. It's a fine line between getting complete data and getting recent data. Your post says my numbers are too recent, a few other posts say my numbers don't include enough recent drafts.I think ten years from '96 to '05 is a pretty good compromise, but YMMV.

Chase - the push you're getting is that there should be a "performance curve" that is almost year-by-year. So you would expect a different level of cumulative production for each year of experience. Sounds like what you're saying is that this would be too complicated. But why? Shouldn't there be a way to give a point-in-time assessment of each draft pick vs. expectations? Anyway, this is great stuff. The results are certainly intuitive - Packer fans, for example, know that our history of 1st rd picks sucks. And we make up for it in rounds 4-7. And Detroit has been terrible at drafting basically post-Barry Sanders/Herman Moore.

Threads like this are why I keep coming back to FBG.

The thing is, examining who the best player in the '05 draft is a lot different than the best player in the '96 draft. After three years, Terry Glenn looked like the better WR than Marvin Harrison. I'm a lot less concerned with ranking Marvin Harrison and Terry Glenn now, than Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers now. Arguably I should have nixed the '05 draft entirely, but it's more of a sliding scale thing than a binary thing.I've got a few thoughts on this, though, to try and at least keep us interested in the modern trends.

One other key, key point. Approximate value is simply that: approximate. If we looked at two players with ten year careers, and Player X has 20 more points of AV than Player Y, I'm reasonably confident that Player X actually was the better player. Maybe 70% of the time that will be the case. But if we look at Player X having 6 more points of AV than Player Y after three years, I'm barely more confident than 50/50 that Player X was better. The beauty of AV is that it becomes more valuable over time; the downside, of course, is that it's rough when grading young players.

Makes complete sense - great way of describing confidence intervals without using that terminology.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Also, Chargers fans, Eli is listed as a Charger for this exercise. He's got a negative score, which brings SD down. Of course, Rivers is a negative too, but his expected value was a bit lower as the 4th pick compared to the third pick. Anyway, here are the worst ten SD picks from '96 to '05:

year	team	id	pos	ovr	av	ev	diff	incl1998	sdg	LeafRy00	QB	2	3	64	-61	12004	sdg	MannEl00	QB	1	33	73	-40	22002	sdg	JammQu20	DB	5	32	53	-21	31996	sdg	StilBr00	WR	41	8	26	-19	42005	sdg	CastLu20	DE	28	14	31	-17	51999	sdg	FazaJe00	RB	60	5	22	-17	62003	sdg	DaviSa21	DB	30	14	30	-16	71997	sdg	HamiMi20	LB	74	3	19	-16	81996	sdg	RochBr00	TE	81	2	18	-16	91996	sdg	SappPa20	LB	50	9	24	-15	10

Wow. That raises real issues about the method. Jammer worse than Bryan Still? Castillo worse than Jermaine Fazande? Jammer and Castillo are both Pro Bowl caliber players. Still and Fazande were total busts.

Fifth picks in the draft typically produce four times as much as 41st picks in the draft. Jammer has "only" produced about twice as much value as Still. Part of that is because Jammer's career isn't over; after next season, Jammer is almost certainly going to look like a less bad pick than Still.Castillo and Fazande are tied. The reason, of course, is that Castillo has only started 33 games, and has a bit of a higher threshold to reach than Fazande, as the higher pick.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Pretend Castillo's career ended tomorrow.

I don't think that's very realistic. And by that measure, Jake Long is the worst draft pick of all time, which doesn't seem accurate.

But Jake Long has been less productive than any #1 pick in the last ten years.And the tool we're using here only measures production. More specifically, it measures team production, with that value dispersed among the individual players based on some key metrics.

I didn't include anyone from the '06, '07, or obviously '08 drafts for that reason. I included people from the '05 draft, because that's still just 10% of the data in the study. After that year, the results become progressively more reliable.

 

[Bri]

Jammer and Castillo are both Pro Bowl caliber players.

No they're not. That's a little homerism. There's very good and there's the best of a conference.Castillo isn't pushing Mario or VandenBosch or....Jammer isn't edging out Champ etc

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But Jake Long has been less productive than any #1 pick in the last ten years.

I understand that a system only measures what it measures. But what it's measuring in this case has very little to do, in some cases, with how well a team has drafted. Jake Long's score shouldn't be negative. It should be exactly neutral. He hasn't done any better or any worse, on the field, than could have been expected.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Jammer and Castillo are both Pro Bowl caliber players.

No they're not.

Yes they are.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Fifth picks in the draft typically produce four times as much as 41st picks in the draft. Jammer has "only" produced about twice as much value as Still. Part of that is because Jammer's career isn't over; after next season, Jammer is almost certainly going to look like a less bad pick than Still.Castillo and Fazande are tied. The reason, of course, is that Castillo has only started 33 games, and has a bit of a higher threshold to reach than Fazande, as the higher pick.

Fazande and Still really didn't have any value in an absolute sense. Plenty of free agents off the street would have been just as good. Since they were second-round picks, they had negative value relative to their draft position.Castillo and Jammer have both had positive value, and plenty of it.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Interesting piece of work. The goal here seems to be identifying which teams are best at locating talent that fits their scheme. Though not technically considered part of the draft the best teams also routinely indentify and recruit "street" free agents seconds after the draft that go on to become impact players for their team. To me this process is much more impressive than a 5th or 6th round pick that eventually becomes a starter.

 

[craxie]

maybe it would be better to look at average per year production?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Fifth picks in the draft typically produce four times as much as 41st picks in the draft. Jammer has "only" produced about twice as much value as Still. Part of that is because Jammer's career isn't over; after next season, Jammer is almost certainly going to look like a less bad pick than Still.Castillo and Fazande are tied. The reason, of course, is that Castillo has only started 33 games, and has a bit of a higher threshold to reach than Fazande, as the higher pick.

Fazande and Still really didn't have any value in an absolute sense. Plenty of free agents off the street would have been just as good. Since they were second-round picks, they had negative value relative to their draft position.Castillo and Jammer have both had positive value, and plenty of it.

If neither of them play another down, would you agree that Castillo and Jammer have had negative value relative to their draft position, too?

 

[Chase Stuart]

maybe it would be better to look at average per year production?

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. It simply depends on what you're trying to see.When assessing a player's career value, obviously you don't want to look at average per year production. A guy who plays well for 12 years is a lot more valuable than a guy who plays equally well for 6 years.

 

[Despyzer]

Alex Smith, assuming he starts another season, should pass Leaf. Ronnie Brown, Eli Manning, Braylon Edwards and Pacman Jones are simply too early into their careers to properly rate. Most of those guys were busts, though.

Why isn't Alex too early to properly rate? He came out with Edwards.

Because Edwards looks like he'll be a stud for a few more years, while Smith looks like he's going to stink. That's all.

These two are upgraded or downgraded on future projections, but Castillo is being rated on the chance that his career is ended tomorrow. This doesn't seem very consistent.

 

[Despyzer]

If neither of them play another down, would you agree that Castillo and Jammer have had negative value relative to their draft position, too?

Not when compared to Fazande/Still and the amount of production that club got out of them in relation to their draft position.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Would be interested to see how getting undrafted players would effect the outcome.

Player example: Kurt Warner

Also would be interested to see how getting a drafted player waived from another team would effect the outcome.

Player example: Raheem Brock, Al Harris