NFL Teams That Draft a WR in the First Round (1 Viewer)

[Rovers]

With a very promising group of WR's that will go high in this year's NFL draft, it seemed to me that over the past several years, many first round wide outs haven't often lived up to that lofty status of being a first rounder. A glance at WR's taken in the first round:

2000

Peter Warrick

Plax Burress

Sylvester Morris

RJ Soward

2001

David Terrell

Koren Robinson

Rod Garner

Santana Moss

Fred Mitchell

Reggie Wayne

2002

Donte Stallworth

Ashlie Lelie

Javon Walker

2003

Charles Rogers

Andre Johnson

Bryant Johnson

2004

Larry Fitzgerald

Roy Willaims

Reggie Williams

Lee Evans

Michael Clayton

Michael Jenkins

Rashaun Woods

2005

Braylon Edwards

Troy Williamson

Mike Williams

Matt Jones

Mark Clayton

Roddy White

By my count, that's 29, out of which I'm having trouble finding ten that at least so far, have lived up to what I would expect a first round pick to be, performance/value-wise. First round QB's run about 50-50, but it seems far worse for WR's that live up to my expectations. Sure, each player has his own story, like Michael Clayton being injury plagued for two years after a great rookie season, or a Koren Robinson with his set of problems, but drafting a WR this early seems risky to me based on recent history.

First, I'm not saying that the liklihood of finding a good WR in rounds 3 thru 7 improves, it doesn't. At least I'm not saying the odds improve on getting a good WR later in the draft, but I have to think I'd rather spend a first round pick on a positional player that is more likely to offer value than a WR.

The third round in fact, appears to be the best time to go WR, based on my "shoot from the hip" observations. Here is a partial list of WR's taken in the third thru 7th rounds fron 2000-2005, but note, most of these WR's were taken in the 3rd or 4th rounds of the NFL draft:

In no particular order: DJax, Berrian, Steve Smith, L Coles, Cotchery, Housh, K Curtis, Givens, Curry, Burleson, Chris Henry, Brandon Jones, Crayton. My gut feel is that projecting collgee WR's into the NFL may well be the most difficult position to evaluate. Given that, I think teams in general are better off using 3rd, 4th and even 5th round picks for WR's, with the understanding that one has to use two mid round picks to have the same chances of landing a good WR in the first round.

In other words, if a team (forgetting BaP for now) has 3 need positions, say an LB, and offensive lineman and a WR, I think they improve their chances of filling those needs by going LB in the first, O lineman in the second, and 2 WR's in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

Lastly, these are just some random thoughts I haven't backed up with tons of research, so keep the safeties on! Just thought it might make for a food off season discussion.

 

[Sabertooth]

Ron Wolf sure seems to think it isn't wise

 

[massraider]

You can go back a lot further than that. Not sure if there was ever a time when a WR in the 1st was a good bet.

Basically, they all come in the same sizes, and their speed is seperated by two-tenths of a second, so it comes down to work ethic, concentration, maturity, and a few other things NFL scouts can't measure.

 

[Sabertooth]

This is so true. Plus I think wide receiver is second only to quarterback in the need of understanding the defense.

Sure things bust out quite regularly.

 

[Rovers]

Ron Wolf sure seems to think it isn't wise

LOL, if i didn't know better, I'd think the thread starter had read that article and stole the idea. Swear, I never saw that article, but I certainly agree with it. You want a good WR? Spend two mid round picks instead of a one or a two. That about evens the odds of getting a good one.

 

[coolnerd]

Marking for the Ron Wolf article

 

[Rovers]

Marking for the Ron Wolf article

I am deeply hurt.

 

[coolnerd]

Marking for the Ron Wolf article

I am deeply hurt.

Actually, we had a similiar discussion at some point a few weeks back and I need to find it. Give me a few minutes.

 

[coolnerd]

Marking for the Ron Wolf article

I am deeply hurt.

Actually, we had a similiar discussion at some point a few weeks back and I need to find it. Give me a few minutes.

It is somewhere in this Calvin Johnson threadhttp://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...18&hl=draft

 

[Chaos Commish]

Parcells hates the idea.

 

[Phlash]

Few guys in the first have lived up to expectations. Guys like Fitzgerald and Moss are few and far between. I have high hopes for Calvin Johnson not only because of his freakish size and athletic skills but also for his work ethic and love for the game to complement that. Some of these guys are no good punks, and others are just lazy partyers, and others just are overwhelmed by the expectations.

 

[Rovers]

Marking for the Ron Wolf article

I am deeply hurt.

Actually, we had a similiar discussion at some point a few weeks back and I need to find it. Give me a few minutes.

It is somewhere in this Calvin Johnson threadhttp://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...18&hl=draft

Not sure how I missed that thread.... here I was thinkin I reinvented the wheel. Oh well! Thanks for the link!

 

[David Yudkin]

We've reviewed this in the past, and I rememebr wondering if the bust factor for first round WR was any greater than at other positions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There was an article a few years ago about this -- I was pretty sure it was at drafthistory.com but I can't find it now -- showing that OL had the lowest rate of busts in the first round, WR had the highest rate of busts, and QB was middle of the road.

 

[coolnerd]

Few guys in the first have lived up to expectations. Guys like Fitzgerald and Moss are few and far between. I have high hopes for Calvin Johnson not only because of his freakish size and athletic skills but also for his work ethic and love for the game to complement that. Some of these guys are no good punks, and others are just lazy partyers, and others just are overwhelmed by the expectations.

The final factor is that some of them are put in situations beyond their control. Andre Johnson who while not a bust, in fact has 2 pro bowl years, but has had his explosiveness limited by playing in an offense that has been largely conservative for 4 years, an inconsistent average QB, and below average OL play. In short, WR is the most dependent position on the field.

 

[Ozymandias]

With a very promising group of WR's that will go high in this year's NFL draft, it seemed to me that over the past several years, many first round wide outs haven't often lived up to that lofty status of being a first rounder. A glance at WR's taken in the first round:2000Peter WarrickPlax BurressSylvester MorrisRJ Soward2001David TerrellKoren RobinsonRod GarnerSantana MossFred MitchellReggie Wayne2002Donte StallworthAshlie LelieJavon Walker2003Charles RogersAndre JohnsonBryant Johnson2004Larry FitzgeraldRoy WillaimsReggie WilliamsLee EvansMichael ClaytonMichael JenkinsRashaun Woods2005Braylon EdwardsTroy WilliamsonMike WilliamsMatt JonesMark ClaytonRoddy WhiteBy my count, that's 29, out of which I'm having trouble finding ten that at least so far, have lived up to what I would expect a first round pick to be, performance/value-wise. First round QB's run about 50-50, but it seems far worse for WR's that live up to my expectations. Sure, each player has his own story, like Michael Clayton being injury plagued for two years after a great rookie season, or a Koren Robinson with his set of problems, but drafting a WR this early seems risky to me based on recent history. First, I'm not saying that the liklihood of finding a good WR in rounds 3 thru 7 improves, it doesn't. At least I'm not saying the odds improve on getting a good WR later in the draft, but I have to think I'd rather spend a first round pick on a positional player that is more likely to offer value than a WR. The third round in fact, appears to be the best time to go WR, based on my "shoot from the hip" observations. Here is a partial list of WR's taken in the third thru 7th rounds fron 2000-2005, but note, most of these WR's were taken in the 3rd or 4th rounds of the NFL draft:In no particular order: DJax, Berrian, Steve Smith, L Coles, Cotchery, Housh, K Curtis, Givens, Curry, Burleson, Chris Henry, Brandon Jones, Crayton. My gut feel is that projecting collgee WR's into the NFL may well be the most difficult position to evaluate. Given that, I think teams in general are better off using 3rd, 4th and even 5th round picks for WR's, with the understanding that one has to use two mid round picks to have the same chances of landing a good WR in the first round. In other words, if a team (forgetting BaP for now) has 3 need positions, say an LB, and offensive lineman and a WR, I think they improve their chances of filling those needs by going LB in the first, O lineman in the second, and 2 WR's in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Lastly, these are just some random thoughts I haven't backed up with tons of research, so keep the safeties on! Just thought it might make for a food off season discussion.

LB in the first round is relatively rare. O-linemen and D-linemen and cornerbacks are more usual.Actually, that's what happens when you go by memory. It looks like 4 LB's were taken in 2006, and 4 in 2005.

 

[Guzalot]

The final factor is that some of them are put in situations beyond their control. Andre Johnson who while not a bust, in fact has 2 pro bowl years, but has had his explosiveness limited by playing in an offense that has been largely conservative for 4 years, an inconsistent average QB, and below average OL play. In short, WR is the most dependent position on the field.

 

[Faust]

I agree that a first round WR is not a sure fire thing, but I found these points important:

"You can find a receiver in the later rounds," Wolf says. "It's been borne out. But the Pro Bowl guys usually are first-round picks."

Wolf has a point. The chances of a receiver being an enduring star in the league are much better if he is a first-round pick. Of the 25 receivers who have played in the Pro Bowl in the past five years, 13 have played in multiple Pro Bowls. Ten of the 13 were first-rounders: Marvin Harrison, Eric Moulds, Keyshawn Johnson, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Herman Moore, Rob Moore, Andre Rison and Irving Fryar. Two of the three who weren't first-rounders, Jimmy Smith and Isaac Bruce, were second-rounders.

 

[massraider]

The final factor is that some of them are put in situations beyond their control. Andre Johnson who while not a bust, in fact has 2 pro bowl years, but has had his explosiveness limited by playing in an offense that has been largely conservative for 4 years, an inconsistent average QB, and below average OL play. In short, WR is the most dependent position on the field.

Yep.And all the more reason not to take them in the first. In a great sitution, average WR's can be very good.

 

[Rovers]

I agree that a first round WR is not a sure fire thing, but I found these points important:

"You can find a receiver in the later rounds," Wolf says. "It's been borne out. But the Pro Bowl guys usually are first-round picks."

Wolf has a point. The chances of a receiver being an enduring star in the league are much better if he is a first-round pick. Of the 25 receivers who have played in the Pro Bowl in the past five years, 13 have played in multiple Pro Bowls. Ten of the 13 were first-rounders: Marvin Harrison, Eric Moulds, Keyshawn Johnson, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Herman Moore, Rob Moore, Andre Rison and Irving Fryar. Two of the three who weren't first-rounders, Jimmy Smith and Isaac Bruce, were second-rounders.

There is less of a disparity now however. Rod Smith was an original FA, Chad Johnson, C Chambers, Steve Smith and Boldin weren't first round picks, and each of them have gone to several pro bowls recently. It's now closed to 50% first rounders, 20% second rounders and 30% other. Colston looks like he could certainly be a guy that goes to several pro bowls. Coles, another second rounder was supposed to play as a replacement this year, but was notified too late to get there. Wolf's comment is still correct, but it was "more" correct a few years ago.

 

[Sabertooth]

I agree that a first round WR is not a sure fire thing, but I found these points important:

"You can find a receiver in the later rounds," Wolf says. "It's been borne out. But the Pro Bowl guys usually are first-round picks."

Wolf has a point. The chances of a receiver being an enduring star in the league are much better if he is a first-round pick. Of the 25 receivers who have played in the Pro Bowl in the past five years, 13 have played in multiple Pro Bowls. Ten of the 13 were first-rounders: Marvin Harrison, Eric Moulds, Keyshawn Johnson, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Herman Moore, Rob Moore, Andre Rison and Irving Fryar. Two of the three who weren't first-rounders, Jimmy Smith and Isaac Bruce, were second-rounders.

There is less of a disparity now however. Rod Smith was an original FA, Chad Johnson, C Chambers, Steve Smith and Boldin weren't first round picks, and each of them have gone to several pro bowls recently. It's now closed to 50% first rounders, 20% second rounders and 30% other. Colston looks like he could certainly be a guy that goes to several pro bowls. Coles, another second rounder was supposed to play as a replacement this year, but was notified too late to get there. Wolf's comment is still correct, but it was "more" correct a few years ago.

You could throw Donald Driver in there as well.

 

[Raging weasel]

the Lions tried it 3 years in a row and where has it got them?if they didn't already have so much money invested in WR it wouldn't surprise me if they took one this year.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

If you are letting workout numbers and looking for a "physical profile" do your scouting for you, its a horrible idea. If you are truly scouting the whole player and taking guys who are already somewhat polished and showing the whole set of skills necessary to succeed, its a good idea - Mark Clayton, Lee Evans, and Marvin Harrison are terrific examples of GOOD first round picks at WR.

I don't think its simple enough to just say it's a good or bad idea to take a WR in the first - that glosses over the real issue - how are you deciding who to take? - that's where the success will be determined, not simply by virtue of the position your draft pick plays.

 

[Rovers]

If you are letting workout numbers and looking for a "physical profile" do your scouting for you, its a horrible idea. If you are truly scouting the whole player and taking guys who are already somewhat polished and showing the whole set of skills necessary to succeed, its a good idea - Mark Clayton, Lee Evans, and Marvin Harrison are terrific examples of GOOD first round picks at WR.I don't think its simple enough to just say it's a good or bad idea to take a WR in the first - that glosses over the real issue - how are you deciding who to take? - that's where the success will be determined, not simply by virtue of the position your draft pick plays.

I agree.... that's why I loved Brandon Marshall so much last year. There isn't any replacement for watching how a player plays football. But, having said that, simply based on recent history, it remains my impression that there are more WR's drafted in the first round that don't live up to expectatipns than any other position. Based on my gleamings, a team is just as likely to get a #1 WR using a thrid and a fifth instead of a one.... and drafting to another position that tends to have fewer busts, maybe to say "safer" picks than WR's in the first round. There is that whole group of second tier WR's in this draft, and if history holds, only about a third of them will ever be #1 WR's. The rest will be the Kelly Washingtons and David Terrells or perhaps decent #2 or 3 WR's. There is really only one WR in this draft that I think is a sure fire can't miss WR. History says that NFL teams have done a poor job of predicting college WR's success in the NFL, more than any other position. That's pretty much a fact. One would think NFL teams would be getting better at it, but they are getting worse. Based on that, unless I thought I had the magic evaluation formula locked in the safe, I think there are other positions that are much less risky that will be more likely to work out in the long term, and in general, I'd take my chances looking for that Steve Smith, Colston or Boldin in a later round. If one looks at the draft pick value chart, a one isn't worth a 3 and a 5, but using a 3 and a 5 is as likely to produce a #1 WR as using a first rounder. That's what the track record indicates. Unless the NFL gets a lot better overnight at evaluating WR's, I do think that it's fair to say going WR in the first round remains a risky proposition.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

History says that NFL teams have done a poor job of predicting college WR's success in the NFL, more than any other position. That's pretty much a fact. One would think NFL teams would be getting better at it, but they are getting worse. Based on that, unless I thought I had the magic evaluation formula locked in the safe, I think there are other positions that are much less risky that will be more likely to work out in the long term, and in general, I'd take my chances looking for that Steve Smith, Colston or Boldin in a later round.

good call, that is one of the main points to take away from this. Its not necessarily that it's a good or bad idea in a vaccum, it's that it has become a bad idea because of the methodology most teams have used to pick WRs.Another factor is that WR seems to be among the deepest positions in the draft year-in year-out. Guys go undrafted that carry anywhere from 3rd to 5th round grades every single year.

 

[stevegamer]

I'd think lowest 1st round bust rate would be Kicker: Janikowski makes it 1 for 1, right?

Kidding aside, I've never understood why LB's seemed to get ignored in the 1st. Maybe it's that LB is more scheme dependent?

 

[Sweetness_34]

I found this hilarious in that Sporting News article:

In the first round of the draft last year, Peter Warrick was chosen by the Bengals, Plaxico Burress was chosen by the Steelers, Travis Taylor was chosen by the Ravens, Sylvester Morris was chosen by the Chiefs and R. Jay Soward was chosen by the Jaguars. Only Morris came close to playing like a first-round pick.

At least Travis Taylor, Burress and Warrick did SOMETHING

 

[Sweetness_34]

Jerry sure knows his draft stuff well

"So much is generated on 40 times that teams are trying to manufacture the receiver position," Bucs personnel director Jerry Angelo says. "It gives you a larger window to bust."

 

[gocats]

I found this hilarious in that Sporting News article:

In the first round of the draft last year, Peter Warrick was chosen by the Bengals, Plaxico Burress was chosen by the Steelers, Travis Taylor was chosen by the Ravens, Sylvester Morris was chosen by the Chiefs and R. Jay Soward was chosen by the Jaguars. Only Morris came close to playing like a first-round pick.

At least Travis Taylor, Burress and Warrick did SOMETHING

Morris had a career ending injury

 

[Chase Stuart]

I found this hilarious in that Sporting News article:

In the first round of the draft last year, Peter Warrick was chosen by the Bengals, Plaxico Burress was chosen by the Steelers, Travis Taylor was chosen by the Ravens, Sylvester Morris was chosen by the Chiefs and R. Jay Soward was chosen by the Jaguars. Only Morris came close to playing like a first-round pick.

At least Travis Taylor, Burress and Warrick did SOMETHING

The article was from 2001.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Another possibility (probability?) is that there's no league-wide overrating of wide receivers. That is, in the aggregate every GM might agree that WRs are being drafted too highly. You might have every GM rank 1 WR in his top 30 overall players, and 2 in his top 45, but could still see 3 or 4 first round draft picks.

Why? Wide receiver, as has been alluded to, is a very team dependent position. This cuts both ways, at the pro and collegiate level. It wouldn't surprise me if GMs differed more on WRs than most positions. One team might value speed and agility in scouting WRs, while another values height and strength, and yet a third values college production and hands. Additionally, when deciding how good a player was in college, some GMs might place a lot of weight on stats, others on how they performed in big games, and a third GM might just care about a player's measurables. Wide Receivers as a group are probably rated all over the board by GMs, and thus you see wide receivers taken very early, because each GM sees "his guy" still available.

 

[Rovers]

I'm not sure that WR is a very team dependent position. Horn has excelled on some bad teams. Adre Johnson still puts up respectable numbers on an awful team. Santana Moss made the pro bowl. Chris Chambers had some nice years on a lousy team. Carolina wasn't good this year, but Steve Smith still was. TO puts up numbers no matter what team he's on. Boldin and Fitzgerald too.

Then there are some good teams that don't have a real #1 WR, like SD, KC, NE and Philly. I think the cream still rises to the top... being in a WR friendly offense and being on a good team, especially with a good QB will help their numbers, but I don't see the team situation as a make or break proposition for a truely good WR.

To me there is still a bottom line, and that is that it's very difficult to project WR's into the NFL game, which makes them risky to take in the first round. If there is one team that does know how to evaluate WR's it's probably the Colts. Yes, Manning is a huge help, but I think it's more than that.

In my dynasty leagues, I now wait on drafting rookie WR's. Calvin Johnson is the only one I'd take in the first round in my 16 team IDP leagues. I'd rather trade for a proven WR, (traded for DJax this year) and let someone else take the Kelly Washingtons and Mike Williams' of the world with their first round pick.