10yr history of top-10 picks at CB, RB, WR

[dbair1967]

I did the thread for these positions in the 20's, and here's the work on top-10.

1998

4 Charles Woodson CB
5 Curtis Enis RB
9 Fred Taylor RB
10 Duane Starks CB

1999

4 Edgerrin James RB
5 Ricky Williams RB
6 Torry Holt WR
7 Champ Bailey CB
8 David Boston WR
10 Chris McCalister CB

2000

4 Peter Warrick WR
5 Jamal Lewis RB
7 Thomas Jones RB
8 Plaxico Burress WR
10 Travis Taylor WR

2001

5 LaDainian Tomlinson RB
8 David Terrell WR
9 Koren Robinson WR

2002

5 Quinten Jammer CB

2003

2 Charles Rogers WR
3 Andre Johnson WR
5 Terance Newman CB

2004

3 Larry Fitzgerald WR
7 Roy Williams WR
8 Deangelo Hall CB
9 Reggie Williams WR
10 Dunta Robinson CB

2005

2 Ronnie Brown RB
3 Braylon Edwards WR
4 Cedric Benson RB
5 Carnell Williams RB (cant grade, too many injuries)
6 Pac Trash Jones CB
7 Troy Williamson WR
8 Antrell Rolle CB
9 Carlos Rogers CB
10 Mike Williams WR

2006

2 Reggie Bush RB

2007

2 Calvin Johnson WR
7 Adrian Peterson RB
9 Ted Ginn WR

So there were 35 picks in the top-10 from 98-05, I didnt grade Cadillac Williams because eh has spent so much time injured, but I didnt grade Adrian Peterson because its obvious in even just one yr that he is a special player. So that makes 36. Bolded (or good to excellent players) totaled 21 of the 36, or just under 60%. Players that clearly were busts (italics) totaled only 8 of the 36 (or only 22.2%) which means 7 are in the middle of the road, average player grade. Thats a HUGE difference between the percentages of the players drafted 20 or later. And its one of the reasons the Cowboys would be well served to move up and get a player like a Darren McFadden rather than sit tight or move down more from where they are and then basically hope the guys they draft work out.

People can argue till they are blue in the face against moving up, but its clearly the safer bet to getting an outstanding player. Again, I dont surpport any deal where we give up a quality starter plus the picks, but if we can swing the deal to get to 4-8 and only give up the two 1sts and a 3rd, and maybe a bit player like Ayodele or Carpenter, it'll be a great move for us.

David

 

[tomson75]

It isn't clearly the safer bet. Assuming we're giving up picks to get to the top ten, you have to take into account the number of opportunities you're giving up to select another possible good player. Even if it is just our #22 and our #28 we're giving up to get to the top ten, we're losing one more opportunity to "hit" on a good player. It's one opportunity versus two opportunities...NOT clearly the safer bet IMO.

 

[Daudr]

It isn't clearly the safer bet. Assuming we're giving up picks to get to the top ten, you have to take into account the number of opportunities you're giving up to select another possible good player. Even if it is just our #22 and our #28 we're giving up to get to the top ten, we're losing one more opportunity to "hit" on a good player. It's one opportunity versus two opportunities...NOT clearly the safer bet IMO.

Not only that, but you are also paying a LOT more money for the top 10 player that could be better spent on multiple players.

Jerry - just say NO to McFadden.

 

[tomson75]

Not only that, but you are also paying a LOT more money for the top 10 player that could be better spent on multiple players.

Jerry - just say NO to McFadden.

True dat.

This article pretty much sums up how I feel about this.

 

[Hoofbite]

While there are some good players on the list, how many of those players are actually worth the price of multiple picks and a bigger contract. Way fewer then there are that are bolded.

And are people really forgetting that dallas has 3 definite needs. CB, WR and RB. You can't fill all 3 with players you are confident in by trading up.

 

[dbair1967]

It isn't clearly the safer bet. Assuming we're giving up picks to get to the top ten, you have to take into account the number of opportunities you're giving up to select another possible good player. Even if it is just our #22 and our #28 we're giving up to get to the top ten, we're losing one more opportunity to "hit" on a good player. It's one opportunity versus two opportunities...NOT clearly the safer bet IMO.

well we tried the other way numerous times too, it didnt work out in the mid 90's did it? Even if you want to credit bad drafting as the main culprit, poor drafting teams still hit on some...we missed on way too many, and the main reason was is we were selecting from lesser players to begin with

the numbers dont lie...its a safer bet you'll find a quality player in the top-10...the odds are far more likely you'll bust on both picks in the 20's and hit on the one pick in the first 10 than vice versa

David

 

[dbair1967]

Not only that, but you are also paying a LOT more money for the top 10 player that could be better spent on multiple players.

Jerry - just say NO to McFadden.

I would like to see some of the contracts signed by guys drafted between 5-10 compared to those in the 20's...then add the two in the slots where we're drafting and compare

I really dont think its that big a difference...top 3 picks maybe, but not after that...plus you are signing those guys to longer deals...guys drafted in the 20's and 30's of the first rd are typically signing 4 or 5yr deals

David

 

[tomson75]

well we tried the other way numerous times too, it didnt work out in the mid 90's did it? Even if you want to credit bad drafting as the main culprit, poor drafting teams still hit on some...we missed on way too many, and the main reason was is we were selecting from lesser players to begin with

the numbers dont lie...its a safer bet you'll find a quality player in the top-10...the odds are far more likely you'll bust on both picks in the 20's and hit on the one pick in the first 10 than vice versa

David

Those numbers are simply the ones you've fabricated to support your opinion...and while that's all well and good, I just happen to agree with Vela's point of view on the same subject matter.

I don't see how you can possibly believe that having two chances to hit on a player is a worse proposition than having one. The ratio of hits between the top ten and bottom ten players in the first round would have to be more than double the percentage, and it just isn't.

 

[Hoofbite]

I would like to see some of the contracts signed by guys drafted between 5-10 compared to those in the 20's...then add the two in the slots where we're drafting and compare

I really dont think its that big a difference...top 3 picks maybe, but not after that...plus you are signing those guys to longer deals...guys drafted in the 20's and 30's of the first rd are typically signing 4 or 5yr deals

David

LaRon Landry - 6th pick. Absolute Lowest anyone can see McFadden Falling right now.

Commanders signed first-round S LaRon Landry to a five-year, $41.5 million contract. The deal includes $17.5 million in guarantees

Spencer from last year - 26th Pick

Cowboys signed first-round LB Anthony Spencer to a five-year, $9 million contract. The deal includes a signing bonus of roughly $6 million

Aaron Ross - 20th Pick

signed a five-year deal worth $13 million, with $8 million guaranteed

 

[tomson75]

I would like to see some of the contracts signed by guys drafted between 5-10 compared to those in the 20's...then add the two in the slots where we're drafting and compare

I really dont think its that big a difference...top 3 picks maybe, but not after that...plus you are signing those guys to longer deals...guys drafted in the 20's and 30's of the first rd are typically signing 4 or 5yr deals

David

#6 Laron Landry signed a 5 year 41.5 million dollar contract with 17.5 guaranteed last year, making him the highest paid safety in the league.

#26 Anthony Spencer signed a 5 year, 9 million dollar contract with 6 million guaranteed last year.

I'd say that is a pretty significant difference.


I see the hoofbite has beaten me to the punch...

 

[dbair1967]

Those numbers are simply the ones you've fabricated to support your opinion...and while that's all well and good, I just happen to agree with Vela's point of view on the same subject matter.

I don't see how you can possibly believe that having two chances to hit on a player is a worse proposition than having one. The ratio of hits between the top ten and bottom ten players in the first round would have to be more than double the percentage, and it just isn't.

fabricated? do you see players on either of those lists I compiled that you'd strongly disagree with what I thought about them? There were 40 players picked at CB, RB and WR in the 20's and 18 of them busted, only 12 turned into yr in and yr out good to excellent players...on the other hand 21 of the 36 at the same positions during the same time frame were good to excellent in the top-10, and only 8 of the 36 busted...thats a substancial difference

further, I've already seen what "quantity" over "quality" did first hand with our drafts from 1993-1996...we traded down in 3 of 4 of those years and ended up passing on far better players for a multititude of average guys

David

 

[dbair1967]

#6 Laron Landry signed a 5 year 41.5 million dollar contract with 17.5 guaranteed last year, making him the highest paid safety in the league.

#26 Anthony Spencer signed a 5 year, 9 million dollar contract with 6 million guaranteed last year.

I'd say that is a pretty significant difference.


I see the hoofbite has beaten me to the punch...

it is a bigger difference than I thought it was

but I still feel the same way...McFadden is worth it IMO, and I'd love to have an offense with a 1-2 punch of MBIII and McFadden, especially now that we have Hudson Houck coaching the OL...the impact would easily be felt on our offense and the defense, because we should be able to control games with our running, then put games away late by keeping the ball away...I also like the big play dimension McFadden adds...other than Owens, we dont have that now

I'd get my CB in the 2nd rd...WR can wait till next yr in free agency or the draft...we did just fine until Owens got hurt this yr, I'll gamble he'll be fine for 2008...no WR drafted in the 20's is likely to make any impact whatsoever anyway

David

 

[tomson75]

fabricated?

Yes. You did create those numbers using your evaluation of the last ten drafts, correct? If so, then you fabricated those numbers, albeit not in the way you may think I'm suggesting.

do you see players on either of those lists I compiled that you'd strongly disagree with what I thought about them? There were 40 players picked at CB, RB and WR in the 20's and 18 of them busted, only 12 turned into yr in and yr out good to excellent players...on the other hand 21 of the 36 at the same positions during the same time frame were good to excellent in the top-10, and only 8 of the 36 busted...thats a substancial difference

further, I've already seen what "quantity" over "quality" did first hand with our drafts from 1993-1996...we traded down in 3 of 4 of those years and ended up passing on far better players for a multititude of average guys

David

I don't disagree with your analysis of most of these top ten guys, however, I do disagree with your evaluation of the bottom ten guys. It's just how you feel. I understand.

It's not like we're comparing one tope ten guy to two third rounders here. The drop off in "quality" isn't that drastic from the top of the first round to the bottom...in general. This year's draft in particular seems to justify staying in the bottom third. There will be some excellent football players to chose from well into the second round.

Like I said, I just happen to agree with Vela here. I'll take my two guys in the twenties, you take your player in the top ten....I like my odds of coming out of it with two good players as opposed to your one. I certainly like my odds of getting at least one player out of it more so than your odds of selling it all for one guy.

...and I'll have loot left over to sign some key players at the end of the year.

 

[dbair1967]

Yes. You did create those numbers using your evaluation of the last ten drafts, correct? If so, then you fabricated those numbers, albeit not in the way you may think I'm suggesting.



I don't disagree with your analysis of most of these top ten guys, however, I do disagree with your evaluation of the bottom ten guys. It's just how you feel. I understand.

It's not like we're comparing one tope ten guy to two third rounders here. The drop off in "quality" isn't that drastic from the top of the first round to the bottom...in general. This year's draft in particular seems to justify staying in the bottom third. There will be some excellent football players to chose from well into the second round.

Like I said, I just happen to agree with Vela here. I'll take my two guys in the twenties, you take your player in the top ten....I like my odds of coming out of it with two good players as opposed to your one. I certainly like my odds of getting at least one player out of it more so than your odds of selling it all for one guy.

...and I'll have loot left over to sign some key players at the end of the year.

I guess we'll see...we obviously wont know until way after the draft

talent laden teams like ours dont get many chances to add true impact players who can dominate games...Bobby Carpenter cant get on the field at all...Anthony Spancer showed some potential, but was basically an afterthougt when Ellis returned...and those guys were drafted ahead of our 22nd and 28th picks respectively...I'd rather get me an Adrian Peterson type talent than a Carpenter/Spencer type duo any day of the week

David

 

[TNCowboy]

5 Curtis Enis RB
9 Fred Taylor RB

1999
4 Edgerrin James RB
5 Ricky Williams RB

2000
5 Jamal Lewis RB
7 Thomas Jones RB

2001
5 LaDainian Tomlinson RB

2005
2 Ronnie Brown RB
4 Cedric Benson RB
5 Carnell Williams RB (cant grade, too many injuries)

2006
2 Reggie Bush RB

2007
7 Adrian Peterson RB

You indict your opinion in your own post. We're talking about McFadden here, so I'm not sure why you include CBs and WRs. We all know that trading up into the top 10 would be for McFadden.

Ricky Williams was talented and able to play at the top level. But considering the trouble that came with him and what NO gave to get him, was he worth it for them? I doubt you could find anyone to say he was a good pick. He had one phenomenal year for Miami, but was mediocre otherwise.

Thomas Jones? I doubt you'll find anyone who'll defend that draft choice. Above average for a few years, but that's about it.

Cadillac Williams' injury figures into it. He wasn't exactly setting the world on fire prior to his injury. And now he might not ever be the same. That's probably not a pick you'd do again. That he's injured adds to the argument of not taking McFadden, instead of taking him. RBs get hurt often. That shouldn't be ignored.

Reggie Bush? 2 years and he hasn't proved he's anything more than a complimentary player. Jacksonville appears to have gotten a better player in the 2nd round.

Ronnie Brown? Obviously talented, but often injured. I'd say Miami would rethink their choice of him if they knew then what they know now.

And in spite of Peterson's obvious ability, it can't be discounted that he was hurt in college, and hurt again as a rookie.

What your post shows is that drafting RBs early is probably a 50/50 proposition. I like our odds much better with 2 picks than with one RB. Especially when RB is such an easy position to find a quality player at later in the draft.

 

[gbrittain]

well we tried the other way numerous times too, it didnt work out in the mid 90's did it? Even if you want to credit bad drafting as the main culprit, poor drafting teams still hit on some...we missed on way too many, and the main reason was is we were selecting from lesser players to begin with

the numbers dont lie...its a safer bet you'll find a quality player in the top-10...the odds are far more likely you'll bust on both picks in the 20's and hit on the one pick in the first 10 than vice versa
David

I often wonder if someone got to be GM for just one pick and the success of that pick meant life or death.

I wonder if that person would want the #32 pick or the #1 pick?

 

[TNCowboy]

I often wonder if someone got to be GM for just one pick and the success of that pick meant life or death.

I wonder if that person would want the #32 pick or the #1 pick?

That's just it. We don't have one first rounder, we have 2.

If I had to find one good player, I'd rather have 3 shots at finding him, than trading 2 #1s and a 3rd and turning those 3 picks into only one shot at finding him.