Ranking NFL General Managers by Draft Success (1 Viewer)

[wadegarrett]

For you armchair GMs in the SP. After some recent banter where people were criticizing certain GMs (*cough* Phil Savage *cough*) and their picks...found this recent article on draft success...

Ranking NFL general managers by draft success

Dan Pompei

Chicago Tribune

April 24, 2008

If the draft is the lifeblood of every NFL team, then each organization is only as good as the person running it.

With that in mind, the Tribune conducted a study to rate each "drafter" based on his batting average—number of players taken who became starters out of their total picks. Starters were defined loosely as players who started the majority of games for at least one season. In some cases, players didn't become starters until they joined other teams.

This rating is not intended to be the definitive measure of drafters; there is no perfect way to quantify each body of work.

And the statistics aren't really fair to drafters who have not been in power long, like Jerry Reese of the Giants or Rick Spielman of the Vikings. And in some cases, the lines of authority within front offices are blurred — so it's difficult to determine who should be credited for what.

But these numbers are unquestionably revealing.

Here are the drafters, in order of batting average.

1. Rod Graves, Cardinals

Average: .545 (18-for-33)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 6.0

Surprise, surprise. The man who once helped run the Bears' drafts has selected 18 players who have become starters in five years. Given this outstanding record, it's surprising the Cardinals have not had more on-field success. During this period, Graves has worked with Dave McGinnis, Dennis Green and Ken Whisenhunt, so he has had to select players to fit different systems.

2. Mike Tannenbaum/Eric Mangini, Jets

Average: .500 (7-for-14)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Two years isn't long enough to reach any conclusions, except to say the Jets are off to a good start.

3. Bill Polian, Colts

Average: .481 (38-for-79)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 11.3

He's the king of the draft. Since 1998, when Polian selected Peyton Manning with his first Colts draft choice, he has not missed in the first round. And he consistently builds roster depth in the lower rounds. The Colts' philosophy of not adding veteran free agents from other teams helps them develop more starters from the draft.

4. Marv Levy/**** Jauron, Bills

Average: .437 (7-for-16)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Levy stayed for only two years as general manager before stepping down, but he made his mark by drafting seven players who became starters.

5. Ozzie Newsome, Ravens

Average: .416 (40-for-96)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 11.4

Newsome is in the Hall of Fame as a tight end, but he could make it as a drafter too. The Wizard has surrounded himself with great evaluators—Shack Harris and Phil Savage, who went on to run their own teams, and Eric DeCosta, who will be running his own team soon. But through a dozen drafts, Newsome has been the constant.

6. A.J. Smith, Chargers

Average: .390 (16-for-41)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 12.1

There is a reason many believe the Chargers have the most talented roster in the NFL. Smith hits the long ball—he has picked five players who have become Pro Bowlers in five years, and no other drafter has picked a higher percentage of Pro Bowl players.

7. Shack Harris/Jack Del Rio, Jaguars

Average: .386 (17-for-44)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 2.2

Their batting average is impressive, but not all of the players who became starters are considered great picks. As a result, college scouting director Gene Smith was recently given more juice in the draft room.

8. Tim Ruskell, Seahawks

Average: .347 (8-for-23)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 4.3

In just three drafts, Ruskell has made a significant impact. He has excelled at taking defenders, adding five starters.

9. Mike Nolan/Scot McCloughan, 49ers

Average: .344 (10-for-29)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 6.8

They have not drafted badly in three years, but ownership stripped Nolan of some of his personnel power this off-season, giving more to McCloughan. The problem is the 49ers might have whiffed on Alex Smith, the first pick of the 2005 draft.

10. Jerry Angelo, Bears

Average: .333 (17-for-51)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 7.8

It's interesting that seven of Angelo's draftees who became starters—Marc Colombo, Ian Scott, Bobby Wade, Justin Gage, Tank Johnson, Bernard Berrian and Chris Harris—are now with other teams. So the Bears are not benefiting from Angelo's impressive average as much as they could be.

11. Rich McKay, Falcons

Average: .322 (10-for-31)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 3.2

McKay was recently replaced by Thomas Dimitroff, but his draft picks were not as disastrous as they were made out to be. His best pick may have been Matt Schaub in the third round in 2004, but Schaub is starting in Houston, not Atlanta. Interesting note: the three drafters from the Tampa Bay tree—McKay, Angelo and Ruskell—have a combined average of .333.

12. (tie) Matt Millen, Lions

Average: .320 (17-for-53)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 1.8

Millen's average is a misleading read on his drafts. Though he has taken 17 players who became starters, very few of them have become good starters. His only Pro Bowler in seven years is wide receiver Roy Williams.

12. (tie) Phil Savage, Browns

Average: .320 (8-for-25)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 8.0

In three years, Savage has proved he knows how to work a draft. And we have yet to hear from Brady Quinn.

14. Tom Heckert/Andy Reid, Eagles

Average: .315 (18-for-57)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 10.5

This team has a clear vision of the type of player who fits the systems of Reid and Jim Johnson, and that has helped them pick the right players. The Eagles have fared exceptionally well at drafting high-end players, as evidenced by five Pro Bowlers.

15. Scott Pioli/Bill Belichick, Patriots

Average: .314 (22-for-70)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 10.0

The average is lower than expected, probably because the Patriots take some chances with lower-round picks. They hardly ever blow the high picks, though, and they have chosen seven Pro Bowlers in eight years.

16. Kevin Colbert, Steelers

Average: .306 (19-for-62)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 4.8

The Steelers average went down because they have produced only four starters from their last three drafts. But some of the players they drafted in recent years still could become starters.

17. Marvin Lewis/Mike Brown, Bengals

Average: .302 (13-for-43)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 2.3

They have had some bad luck and made some bad luck for themselves by taking players with shaky character, so the bottom line could have been worse.

18. Randy Mueller, Dolphins

Average: .300 (3-for-10)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Mueller only had control of the draft for one year even though he was in Miami for three years. He recently was fired by Bill Parcells.

19. Jerry Jones/Jeff Ireland, Cowboys

Average: .291 (7-for-24)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 8.3

This duo ran the Cowboys drafts for three years (two of them with Parcells) before Ireland left for the Dolphins this off-season. Their first draft, which yielded DeMarcus Ware and Marion Barber, was their best.

20. (tie) Bill Kuharich/Carl Peterson, Chiefs

Average: .285 (4-for-14)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Kuharich's two drafts could look a lot more impressive in a couple of years.

20. (tie) Rick Smith, Texans

Average: .285 (2-for-7)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

There isn't enough evidence to draw any conclusions.

22. Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden, Bucs

Average: .275 (11-for-40)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Allen's four drafts would look a lot better if a couple of his players ( Cadillac Williams? Barrett Ruud?) would break through as stars.

23. (tie) Mike Shanahan/Ted Sundquist, Broncos

Average: .266 (12-for-45)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 2.2

The Broncos fired Sundquist last week even though Shanahan had final say on personnel matters. Their drafting record over six years indicated something wasn't working quite right.

23. (tie) Mickey Loomis/Sean Payton, Saints

Average: .266 (4-for-15)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Two years isn't long enough to judge, but they may have had the best pick in the entire '06 draft in seventh-rounder Marques Colston.

25. (tie) Ted Thompson, Packers

Average: .264 (9-for-34)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Thompson's three drafts have the potential to look a lot better in a couple of years if players like Aaron Rodgers, Justin Harrell and Brandon Jackson can establish themselves.

25. (tie) Dan Snyder/Vinny Cerrato, Redskins

Average: .264 (9-for-34)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 5.8

The Redskins have valued free agency more than the draft, and it shows in the fact they have drafted only nine starters over six years.

27. (tie) Jerry Reese, Giants

Average: .250 (2-for-8)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Reese did well enough in his first year as general manager to help the Giants win the Super Bowl, but there isn't enough evidence to evaluate him.

27. (tie) Rick Spielman, Vikings

Average: .250 (2-for-8)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 12.5

Spielman has presided over only one draft, so we shouldn't read too much into it. But the Vikings' draft class — including Adrian Peterson, Sidney Rice, Marcus McCauley and Brian Robison—is as promising as any from 2007.

29. Marty Hurney/John Fox, Panthers

Average: .244 (12-for-49)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 2.0

This is a disappointing record for a group that has been together for six years.

30. Tony Softli/Scott Linehan, Rams

Average: .125 (1-for-8)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Softli shouldn't be judged on one year, but the Rams already have hired Billy Devaney to run the 2008 draft.

31. Mike Reinfeldt, Titans

Average: .100 (1-for-10)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

Reinfeldt took over for Floyd Reese last year.

32. Al Davis/Lane Kiffin, Raiders

Average: .090 (1-for-11)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 0

They have worked together for only one draft. If JaMarcus Russell fulfills his potential, the Raiders' 2007 draft will look wonderful.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

12. (tie) Matt Millen, Lions

Average: .320 (17-for-53)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 1.8

Millen's average is a misleading read on his drafts. Though he has taken 17 players who became starters, very few of them have become good starters. His only Pro Bowler in seven years is wide receiver Roy Williams.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

Ranking NFL general managers by draft success

Dan Pompei

Chicago Tribune

April 24, 2008

12. (tie) Matt Millen, Lions

Average: .320 (17-for-53)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 1.8

Millen's average is a misleading read on his drafts. Though he has taken 17 players who became starters, very few of them have become good starters. His only Pro Bowler in seven years is wide receiver Roy Williams.

14. Tom Heckert/Andy Reid, Eagles

Average: .315 (18-for-57)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 10.5

This team has a clear vision of the type of player who fits the systems of Reid and Jim Johnson, and that has helped them pick the right players. The Eagles have fared exceptionally well at drafting high-end players, as evidenced by five Pro Bowlers.

How does Matt Millen rate higher than Heckert/Reid???I'm quite surprised the Eagles brass didn't rank a lot higher on this list. For what it's worth.....I think this list is a bunch of bogus crap.

 

[David Yudkin]

Not sure I can fully agree with the evaluation methodology. For example, you can be a good GM and use your picks in other ways than purely drafting college players. Last year, NE traded 2nd, 4th, and 7th round picks that netted them Randy Moss and Wes Welker. They got way better and immediate production than they could have gotten out of their picks.

Similarly, the Pats don't have the roster space to even roster most of their draft picks, so of course they would miss on most of their picks when they have to release most of them before they even had a chance to do anything. They have opted to try to fill certain needs instead of taking the BPA, so that in itself makes it had to detrmine if they were successful or not.

 

[BassNBrew]

Number of starters drafted is meaningless. If you've assembled a crappy team it's easy to find starters. That said, the speaks volumes...

29. Marty Hurney/John Fox, Panthers

Average: .244 (12-for-49)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 2.0

This is a disappointing record for a group that has been together for six years.

 

[Banger]

Hmmm....so crappy teams with no depth that drafts average players that happen to start > a very deep team looking to add 1-2 bodies to the roster?

Any draft ranking that puts the Cards #1, 9'ers #9, Falcons #11 and Lions #12 is HIGHLY flawed.

 

[css2373]

Way too skewed, just like everyone else has said...the Cards had no one starting worth much, so Graves could draft Star Jones and get her to start.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Obviously the architect of the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants is too low on the list.

Oh, I see, he has Super Bowl Champion Matt Millen higher. Huh? Oh, no titles? Ok.

Well, he has Super Bowl Champion Mike Brown...... no, huh?

Who made this list?

 

[IndyHavoc]

Yeah, he really should have given his rankings the sniff test. Cause they be smellin'. This would be a hard thing to do, you'd really have to look at:

1. Everything done with draft picks

a. used in trade for another player(s)

b. used for player

c. used in trade up/down

2. Success rate of player; it's not awful to use "starter" as a nice metric. BUT...

3. Success of team; somewhere you MUST differentiate between starters on a 3-13 team and starters on a 13-3 team.

*this would replace or augment Pro-Bowlers.

4. Pro-Bowls; I like this metric to be part of the equation. Whatever window you're looking at (3-year, 5-year), there's a nice total of probowl players, and any team near 10% is doing very well.

Anyway, a metric/equation could be done and tweaked. I might take sometime to throw something together; unless someone beats me to it

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Ranking NFL general managers by draft success

Dan Pompei

Chicago Tribune

April 24, 2008

12. (tie) Matt Millen, Lions

Average: .320 (17-for-53)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 1.8

Millen's average is a misleading read on his drafts. Though he has taken 17 players who became starters, very few of them have become good starters. His only Pro Bowler in seven years is wide receiver Roy Williams.

14. Tom Heckert/Andy Reid, Eagles

Average: .315 (18-for-57)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 10.5

This team has a clear vision of the type of player who fits the systems of Reid and Jim Johnson, and that has helped them pick the right players. The Eagles have fared exceptionally well at drafting high-end players, as evidenced by five Pro Bowlers.

How does Matt Millen rate higher than Heckert/Reid anyone???

Fixed.

 

[puckalicious]

Here's a better look at it. I took the starter average, and added 2x the pro-bowl average to it. Like people have said, it is easier to draft a starter on a crappy team, so I think the pro-bowl % is a much better metric so I gave it twice the weight as the starter %. The * notes teams with less than 3 years of drafting under the current regime. Looks like the Jets and Vikings are off to a great start.

Sorry for the crappy formatting.

Name Team New Avg

Bill Polian Colts 0.707

Rod Graves Cardinals 0.665

Ozzie Newsome Ravens 0.644

A.J. Smith Chargers 0.632

Tom Heckert/Andy Reid Eagles 0.525

Scott Pioli/Bill Belichick Patriots 0.514

Mike Tannenbaum Jets 0.5 *

Rick Spielman Vikings 0.5 *

Jerry Angelo Bears 0.489

Mike Nolan/Scot McCloughan 49ers 0.48

Phil Savage Browns 0.48

Jerry Jones/Jeff Ireland Cowboys 0.457

Marv Levy/**** Jauron Bills 0.437

Tim Ruskell Seahawks 0.433

Shack Harris/Jack Del Rio Jaguars 0.43

Kevin Colbert Steelers 0.402

Rich McKay Falcons 0.386

Dan Snyder/Vinny Cerrato Redskins 0.38

Matt Millen Lions 0.356

Marvin Lewis/Mike Brown Bengals 0.348

Mike Shanahan/Ted Sundquist Broncos 0.31

Randy Mueller Dolphins 0.3 *

Bill Kuharich/Carl Peterson Chiefs 0.285 *

Rick Smith Texans 0.285 *

Marty Hurney/John Fox Panters 0.284

Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden Bucs 0.275

Mickey Loomis/Sean Payton Saints 0.266 *

Ted Thompson Packers 0.264

Jerry Reese Giants 0.25 *

Tony Softli/Scott Linehan Rams 0.125 *

Mike Reinfeldt Titans 0.1 *

Al Davis/Lane Kiffin Raiders 0.09 *

 

[azgroover]

The Pro Bowl metric should also be weighted to reward those teams that select Pro Bowl players later in the draft too. I'm not just talking late rounds either. I would guess it's easier to take a Pro Bowler when you're picking 1-10 in the first round every year vs. a team like the Colts or Ravens that constantly have to make their selections later in the first round.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

How does Matt Millen rate higher than Heckert/Reid anyone???

Fixed.

Thank you Tony.

 

[IndyHavoc]

The Pro Bowl metric should also be weighted to reward those teams that select Pro Bowl players later in the draft too. I'm not just talking late rounds either. I would guess it's easier to take a Pro Bowler when you're picking 1-10 in the first round every year vs. a team like the Colts or Ravens that constantly have to make their selections later in the first round.

Yeah, I like that too. So, don't just count Pro-Bowl appearances, but weight that by a multiplier inverse to draft position. Noted.

 

[wadegarrett]

Yeah, he really should have given his rankings the sniff test. Cause they be smellin'. This would be a hard thing to do, you'd really have to look at:1. Everything done with draft picks a. used in trade for another player(s) b. used for player c. used in trade up/down2. Success rate of player; it's not awful to use "starter" as a nice metric. BUT...3. Success of team; somewhere you MUST differentiate between starters on a 3-13 team and starters on a 13-3 team. *this would replace or augment Pro-Bowlers.4. Pro-Bowls; I like this metric to be part of the equation. Whatever window you're looking at (3-year, 5-year), there's a nice total of probowl players, and any team near 10% is doing very well.Anyway, a metric/equation could be done and tweaked. I might take sometime to throw something together; unless someone beats me to it

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

matt millen and al davis should be dead last, keep working the numbers until this is bore out

 

[Doug Drinen]

Yeah, he really should have given his rankings the sniff test. Cause they be smellin'. This would be a hard thing to do, you'd really have to look at:

1. Everything done with draft picks

a. used in trade for another player(s)

b. used for player

c. used in trade up/down

2. Success rate of player; it's not awful to use "starter" as a nice metric. BUT...

3. Success of team; somewhere you MUST differentiate between starters on a 3-13 team and starters on a 13-3 team.

*this would replace or augment Pro-Bowlers.

4. Pro-Bowls; I like this metric to be part of the equation. Whatever window you're looking at (3-year, 5-year), there's a nice total of probowl players, and any team near 10% is doing very well.

Anyway, a metric/equation could be done and tweaked. I might take sometime to throw something together; unless someone beats me to it :X

You guys might be interested in my Approximate Value system. It doesn't address your point #1 at all, but covers 2, 3, and 4 in more detail than anything else I'm aware of.

 

[Koya]

I think this methodology is awful.

A few thoughts:

If you come into GM a team like the Cards with a long history of suckitude, then your team has ####ty players. Better chance for meh draftpicks (or worse) to become starters. If you do a poor job in your first couple years, you then need to replace the starters you drafted with new drafties.

Some teams, especially those without huge needs, may prefer to go higher risk high reward. They have 7 picks and dont need 7, or 5, or even 3 starters - but they will gladly take two starters who become stars and additional foundation pieces. Pro Bowl appearances may mean more than just being able to start.

Some teams are more free agent oriented and may use the draft for depth or for the future.

Obviously Reese has way too small a sample size, but out of last year, you had a draft that was as much a reason for winning the SB as anything. Starting CB, a soon to be starting WR, a non starting but very key RB (in the 7th), key special teams and other players.

It would be cool to come up with some objective measure to rate GMs... but anything with Millen in the top third is a pathetic excuse of an attempt to do so.

What SHOULD be the determining factors?

Number of Starters

Key Contributors

Number of players still with the team (or at least in the league) 2-5 years down the road

# of Pro Bowls

Winning percentage (um, duh, isnt that what a GM is really about)

Change in Winning percentage before and after GM took over

 

[IndyHavoc]

You guys might be interested in my Approximate Value system. It doesn't address your point #1 at all, but covers 2, 3, and 4 in more detail than anything else I'm aware of.

Wow, nice work Doug. I took a peek, but will give me something to read tonight. Thanks.

 

[switz]

12. (tie) Matt Millen, Lions

Average: .320 (17-for-53)

Percentage of Pro Bowlers: 1.8

Millen's average is a misleading read on his drafts. Though he has taken 17 players who became starters, very few of them have become good starters. His only Pro Bowler in seven years is wide receiver Roy Williams.

Funny - the guy is trying to prove a point about Phil Savage, but Savage received the same grade as Millen And the argument in the other thread had Savage hovering at 17... in this he's only ranked 12/13... hard to use that as an argument.

 

[switz]

Here's a better look at it. I took the starter average, and added 2x the pro-bowl average to it. Like people have said, it is easier to draft a starter on a crappy team, so I think the pro-bowl % is a much better metric so I gave it twice the weight as the starter %. The * notes teams with less than 3 years of drafting under the current regime. Looks like the Jets and Vikings are off to a great start.

I think you've weighted it a bit too much. Probably worth 1.6, not 2. Simply because the guy at least 8th best out of 32. Not twice the player.

 

[Bri]

I think this methodology is awful.A few thoughts:If you come into GM a team like the Cards with a long history of suckitude, then your team has ####ty players. Better chance for meh draftpicks (or worse) to become starters. If you do a poor job in your first couple years, you then need to replace the starters you drafted with new drafties.Some teams, especially those without huge needs, may prefer to go higher risk high reward. They have 7 picks and dont need 7, or 5, or even 3 starters - but they will gladly take two starters who become stars and additional foundation pieces. Pro Bowl appearances may mean more than just being able to start.Some teams are more free agent oriented and may use the draft for depth or for the future.Obviously Reese has way too small a sample size, but out of last year, you had a draft that was as much a reason for winning the SB as anything. Starting CB, a soon to be starting WR, a non starting but very key RB (in the 7th), key special teams and other players.It would be cool to come up with some objective measure to rate GMs... but anything with Millen in the top third is a pathetic excuse of an attempt to do so.What SHOULD be the determining factors?Number of StartersKey ContributorsNumber of players still with the team (or at least in the league) 2-5 years down the road# of Pro BowlsWinning percentage (um, duh, isnt that what a GM is really about)Change in Winning percentage before and after GM took over

Average NFL career lasts somewhere between 3 and 4 years.One site used to figure if a GM drafted someone to play longer than 4 years, it was a success. It might have been contribute more than 4 years.Can't find the link though. I just mentioned it because that worked out fairly well when it was applied. Just in this thread, for example, Charles Rogers and Mike Williams and some lineman I can't think of probably would knock Millen off the list as you'd expect. Eh...FWIW

 

[Interseptopus]

My Green and Gold is going to shine real bright here but...

Ted Thompson is NOT in the lower 10 GMs in the league... that's ridiculous. He took a MESS left by Sherman and turned a 3-13 team into a 13-3 team in a couple years.

Yes, his drafts haven't produced miles of probowlers, but Rodgers was behind Favre, Harrell sat last year, Jackson hasn't panned out...

He did wonders for that team building through the draft. They don't have a probowl OL, but it's one of the best in the league. They only have 1 probowl WR in Driver (Although I think Jennings should have made it over Driver last year), but they have the best talent in terms of WR 1-5 of any team in the NFL.

He's definately one of the TOP 10 GMs in the league.

To say GMs like Millen (DET), Graves (ARI), Angelo (CHI), Newsome (BAL) are better GMs than some of the younger guys near the bottom of the list is just ridiculous. They have been GMs forever and have almost 3 times as many picks as some of the younger GMs, so of course they'll have more starters.

How about instead of looking at the draft, look at FA, trades, and WINS!

Ted Thomspon brought in Pickett, Grant, Woodson, Chillar (should start this year), Hall (FB). He brought in a trip to the NFC Championship game. When's the last time DET was there? ARI? BAL? This ranking is ridiculous