2005 Showed Once Again WR in the First Is a Bad Idea

[theogt]

why do you think phillips says that he doesnt like to draft WR in the first?

He explained why. He said it's because it takes them a while to develop in the NFL.

 

[peplaw06]

if you dont think that front office people dont look at the number of draft picks that bust from certain schools, positions, backgrounds etc youre deluding yourself. why do you think phillips says that he doesnt like to draft WR in the first? i guess its because you think hes dumb or something like that.

there is a trend and it differs by over 10% from other positions and that is statistically significant. if you want to just disregard that then youre going to end up with a higher chance of missing.

I didn't say they don't look at the numbers, did I?

I said they probably don't put much stock in them.

I have a feeling if it came down to it, they're going to put more weight upon their actual scouting of one guy, rather than numbers applied to an entire set of guys at one position.

If it were such a statistical certainty that held as much weight as you think it does, then no one would ever pick a first round WR. And we all know that there are plenty of WRs taken in the first every year.

So I guess the contrast to your little question to me ("whether I just thought Philips was dumb"), is do you really think you're smarter than everyone that works in the front office of an NFL team?

Purely guessing here, but I'd bet that they rank in the Top 3 of positions drafted for in the 1st Round. Even in down years, there are probably 5 taken out of 32 picks. Pretty high percentages. Anyone know the numbers? I know this isn't a great year for WRs, but most people are projecting Manningham, Jackson, Sweed, Hardy, Doucet, and Kelly as possible 1st round guys.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say they don't look at the numbers, did I?

I said they probably don't put much stock in them.

I have a feeling if it came down to it, they're going to put more weight upon their actual scouting of one guy, rather than numbers applied to an entire set of guys at one position.

If it were such a statistical certainty that held as much weight as you think it does, then no one would ever pick a first round WR. And we all know that there are plenty of WRs taken in the first every year.

So I guess the contrast to your little question to me ("whether I just thought Philips was dumb"), is do you really think you're smarter than everyone that works in the front office of an NFL team?

Purely guessing here, but I'd bet that they rank in the Top 3 of positions drafted for in the 1st Round. Even in down years, there are probably 5 taken out of 32 picks. Pretty high percentages. Anyone know the numbers? I know this isn't a great year for WRs, but most people are projecting Manningham, Jackson, Sweed, Hardy, Doucet, and Kelly as possible 1st round guys.

actually thats something thats somewhat a changing of the guard in professional sports in general. the difference between classic scouting and looking at statistics. in baseball for example certain front offices put a major emphasis on statistics like beane and the a's while other clubs like the brewers prefer a more clasic 5 skills approach.

im usre the same dichotomy is in professional sports when you hear guys like parcells talk about how certain statistics correlate with winning. but really you are talking about a league that puts a HUGE emphasis on the numbers that are generated at the combine and how you can come tot he conclusion that they wouldnt put stock into other statistics that correlate with success is frankly beyond me.

i dont say to speak what certain front offices are thinking or what there decision calculus is so no i cannot come to the conclusion that i know better. on the other hand considering what i do, i have a lot of faithin statistics especially when there is a good sample size to work with. if certain statistics correlate with an outcome i think its smart to heed that. nothing more and nothing less.

now i am not saying that you should ignore classical scouting by any means but rather a synthesis of the two. if there is equal value on your board stay away from the offensive skill positions is all that im saying. if you value a WR top on your board and nothing is close then go for it.

you can callit fear but if something correlates there is usually a relation and its folly to simply discount that.

 

[theogt]

The idea that teams would say "Well, 45% of WRs have busted in the past so we better not draft a WR" is laughably juvenile.

It's amazing that you can't even realize how dumb you sound.

Well golly, I said "success percentage." That sure sounds like a statistic people might look at!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The idea that teams would say "Well, 45% of WRs have busted in the past so we better not draft a WR" is laughably juvenile.

It's amazing that you can't even realize how dumb you sound.

Well golly, I said "success percentage." That sure sounds like a statistic people might look at!

youre still smarting after your trade proposal was exposed as a paramount of low intelligence?

look ive already said that i used terms that were too absolute. see, i can admit when i make a mistake. see how it works? really for someone that is emotionally incapable of doing the same, you have no business talking about someones maturity.

im just saying that it should at least be used as a tiebreaker and perhaps be given more weight but of course using that as a straightforward calculus is foolish.

and you once again resort to ad hominem. sorry dude but giving up the farm in every context for any player much less a guy with some issues from a team with no leverage is dumb. and fwiw success is actually a very attractive word that people do pay attention to prima facia but you keep up with the lame ad hominem tactics to sum your arguments. you have more grammar smack perhaps?

 

[silverbear]

WR bust at a significantly higher rate than other positions drafted in the first round and 2005 was no exception. Here are the WR drafter in the first 32 picks of 2005 and after 3 years the vast majority of them have busted.

Braylon Edwards
Troy Williamson
Mike Williams
Matt Jones
Mark Clayton
Roddy White

Edwards turned it around and had one of the best seasons in the NFL last year but rest ranged from serviceable in Jones to outright horrible in Mike Williams.

And you guys thought the Carpenter pick was bad....

Now I realize that Wade has said this but I think it bears repeating that in no way shape or from should we use one of our first two selections on a WR.

LOL... talk about careful selection of stats, to the point where the truth is distorted...

Last year, there were 6 WRs drafted in the first round... Robert Meachem spent the year on IR, Craig Davis was a disappointment with just 20 catches... but the other 4 all put up respectable to good numbers, especially for rookies... Calvin Johnson had 48 catches for 756 yards and 4 TDs... Ted Ginn Jr. had 34 catches for 420 yards and 2 TDs, and another 1663 yards in returns... Dwayne Bowe had 70 catches for 995 yards and 5 TDs... Anthony Gonzalez had 37 catches for 576 yards and 3 TDs...

So of 6 WRs drafted in the first round last year, 4 did well, 1 did not, 1 gets an incomplete... the year before, only Santonio Holmes was drafted in the first round, and he had 52 catches for 942 yards and 8 TDs... he has 101 catches for 1766 yards and 10 TDs in his first 2 years in the league... clearly, he grades out as a successful draft pick...

In the year you chose to cite, Braylon Edwards put up 80 catches for 1289 yards this year, with 16 TDs, giving him 173 catches for 2635 yards and 25 TDs in his first 3 years in the league... Williamson, Williams and Jones have been rather disappointing so far, but Mark Clayton had 48 catches for 531 yards this past season, and has 159 catches for 1941 yards and 7 TDs in his first 3 years in the league... Roddy White had 83 catches for 1202 yards and 6 TDs this past season, 142 catches for 2154 yards and 9 TDs in his first 3 years in the league... so even in the year you cite, 3 of the 6 WRs drafted in the first round have become reasonably successful pros...

Then in the year before that, well, let's just say that Larry Fitgerald and Roy Williams were the first two WRs drafted; do I need to dig up their stats for you, or are you willing to concede that they have been pretty successful as pros?? After those two, Reggie Williams had 38 catches for 629 yards and 10 TDs this year, and has had 152 catches for 1958 yards and 15 TDs in his first 4 years in the league... Lee Evans had 55 catches for 849 yards and 5 TDs in 07, and has 233 catches for 3725 yards and 29 TDs in his first 4 years in the league... Michael Clayton was brilliant his rookie season, hasn't been worth jack since then... is this because of an injury issue?? We'll call him a bust, regardless... Michael Jenkins is the opposite story, he didn't do much as a rookie, but has gotten steadily better... he put up 53 catches for 532 yards this past season, giving him 135 catches for 1595 yards and 14 TDs in his first 4 years in the league... Rashaun Woods has been nothing but a bust, and is now out of the league... so of 7 first round WRs drafted in 2004, 5 have been successful...

In the 2003 draft, Charles Rogers was a huge bust, Andre Johnson has been pretty close to dominant (60 catches in just 9 games played this year, for 851 yards and 8 TDs, 371 catches for 4804 yards and 25 TDs in 70 career games played)... Bryant Johnson had 46 catches for 528 yards and 2 TDs this past season, and has 210 catches for 2675 yards and 9 TDs in 77 games played... so two of the three have been at least reasonably successful pros...

In the 02 draft, Donte Stallworth had 46 catches for 697 yards and 3 TDs in 06, and has 279 catches for 4213 yards and 31 TDs in 84 games played... Ashley Lelie has been kind of up and down, for his career he has 206 catches for 3552 yards and 13 TDs, in 94 games played... Javon Walker has battled injuries, but he has also put up 2 1000 yard receiving seasons...

So in the past 6 drafts, there has been a total of 26 WRs drafted in the first round... 17 of those 26 have been successful to this point in their NFL careers, 9 of them put up 750 yards or more receiving this year, 3 of them were in the top 10 for receiving yards... 9 of them had at least 52 catches, ranking them in the top 55 receivers in the league (this includes TEs and RBs)...

So the odds are that if you draft a WR in the first round, it's pretty close to 2 to 1 that WR will be at least semi-successful, and it's close to 1 chance in 3 that he'll be rather good, actually...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bear you sit there and babble about misrepresenting statistics and then turn around and cherry pick only the successful WR to try and prove your point. Search for Adams post in this thread where he links an article on ESPN that corroborates my conclusion.

Fact is I included all WR and I also allowed for at least three years to develop before coming a conclusion. Of course a player like Meacham can turn it around.

And the number of WR busts is about half not 2:1. Sorry but your cherrypicking a small sample size is worthless in the face of review of ALL WR drafted in the last 15 years with corroboration.

 

[silverbear]

Bear you sit there and babble about misrepresenting statistics and then turn around and cherry pick only the successful WR to try and prove your point.

LOL... I "cherry picked" every receiver drafted in the first round over the past six seasons...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL... I "cherry picked" every receiver drafted in the first round over the past six seasons...

its a small sample size and you picked last years draft and then decided to skip a few. thats called cherry picking.

read this http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kluck/receivers/070425

 

[silverbear]

its a small sample size and you picked last years draft and then decided to skip a few. thats called cherry picking.

I included every draft for the last six years... no cherry picking there...

Unlike the poster who isolated on ONE draft, and suggested that proved something about ALL drafts...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I included every draft for the last six years... no cherry picking there...

Unlike the poster who isolated on ONE draft, and suggested that proved something about ALL drafts...

I guess you missed my post from last year where i went back twenty years.

Oh and btw doing last years (07) and then doing 05 through 02 is neither every year for the last 6 or even 6 years.

Its really immaterial as calling someone a bust or not before 3 years have gone by is pointless.

Plus your whole thing about thinking less than 500 yards a season means they were any good is laughable. Clayton, Jenkins R Williams, and Lelie have all failed especially when you consider how high some of them were picked. Oh and you think Ginn's performance was respectable? By all accounts he has struggled mightily in Miami.

 

[silverbear]

I guess you missed my post from last year where i went back twenty years.

Oh and btw doing last years (07) and then doing 05 through 02 is neither every year for the last 6 or even 6 years.

I repeat, I did the last 6 years worth of drafts... no years were skipped...

Try working on your reading comprehension... in 06, the only first round wide receiver was Santonio Holmes, who is discussed...

 

[jackrussell]

So of 6 WRs drafted in the first round last year, 4 did well, 1 did not, 1 gets an incomplete... the year before, only Santonio Holmes was drafted in the first round, and he had 52 catches for 942 yards and 8 TDs... he has 101 catches for 1766 yards and 10 TDs in his first 2 years in the league... clearly, he grades out as a successful draft pick...

And returns kicks.

I begged...but our resident experts touted him as a bust.:bang2:

We'd have been sooooo set at WR, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

 

[peplaw06]

actually thats something thats somewhat a changing of the guard in professional sports in general. the difference between classic scouting and looking at statistics. in baseball for example certain front offices put a major emphasis on statistics like beane and the a's while other clubs like the brewers prefer a more clasic 5 skills approach.

Nah Fuzz, this isn't a moneyball approach you're taking here. Moneyball extrapolates the statistics of the players solely based on their performance on the field. You're using stats that are taken which are dependent on the success (or lack thereof) of a group of people as a whole, and which have nothing to do with the actual player you're scouting.

Moneyball scouting is about looking past the physical limitations of a player to their actual performance on the field. You're actually putting forth an argument that's the opposite of that. You look at the limitations of a group as a whole, and expect it to outweigh the skills of the player.

im usre the same dichotomy is in professional sports when you hear guys like parcells talk about how certain statistics correlate with winning. but really you are talking about a league that puts a HUGE emphasis on the numbers that are generated at the combine and how you can come tot he conclusion that they wouldnt put stock into other statistics that correlate with success is frankly beyond me.

Combine numbers relate directly to a specific player's skillset. You're suggesting that one player should be downgraded not on his performance or skillset, but based on the performance of a group of guys which he is not a part of. I really don't see how you can't recognize that disconnect.

i dont say to speak what certain front offices are thinking or what there decision calculus is so no i cannot come to the conclusion that i know better. on the other hand considering what i do, i have a lot of faithin statistics especially when there is a good sample size to work with. if certain statistics correlate with an outcome i think its smart to heed that. nothing more and nothing less.

now i am not saying that you should ignore classical scouting by any means but rather a synthesis of the two. if there is equal value on your board stay away from the offensive skill positions is all that im saying. if you value a WR top on your board and nothing is close then go for it.

you can callit fear but if something correlates there is usually a relation and its folly to simply discount that.

I discount it, because I believe it's a superficial statistic, or an anomaly. Maybe I don't remember everything from the threads last year, but as I recall there is no indication as to why that's the case... is it coaching, is it the maturity of the players, etc.

You have not put forth a reason why, there are simply numbers.

 

[sonnyboy]

To bad they didnt start that historical WR analysis one year earlier.
1988 was an all-timer. You had Al Toon, Sterling Sharpe, Tim Brown, Michael Irvin and one other WR I'm forgetting, probably the bust!
That's a strong group! Would certainly have skewed the numbers for the positive.

OMT- Thomas Lewis, Indiana Ewwwwwwwwwwwww! OMG what a bad pick. I've been following the draft closely since grade school. Early 80's.
If you were a first round pick in the last 25 years and have almost zero name recognition with me. You really suck.

 

[joseephuss]

To bad they didnt start that historical WR analysis one year earlier.
1988 was an all-timer. You had Al Toon, Sterling Sharpe, Tim Brown, Michael Irvin and one other WR I'm forgetting, probably the bust!
That's a strong group! Would certainly have skewed the numbers for the positive.

OMT- Thomas Lewis, Indiana Ewwwwwwwwwwwww! OMG what a bad pick. I've been following the draft closely since grade school. Early 80's.
If you were a first round pick in the last 25 years and have almost zero name recognition with me. You really suck.

Al Toon was drafted by the Jets #10 in the 1985 draft before (#13)Eddie Brown the Bengals and (#16)Jerry Rice to the 49ers.

1988 draft
#6 Tim Brown, Raiders
#7 Sterling Sharpe, Packers
#11 Michael Irvin, Cowboys
#15 Anthony Miller, Chargers
#20 Aaron Cox, Rams
#27 Wendell Davis, Bears

Brown, Sharpe and Irvin were great coming out of college. I don't think anyone should have passed on them because they played WR. They were easy to scout. I don't see an WRs in this years draft in their class and that is more a reason not to take a WR in the top half of the draft. Not because they play WR, but they don't look as good as Brown, Sharpe and Irvin.

 

[sonnyboy]

Al Toon was drafted by the Jets #10 in the 1985 draft before (#13)Eddie Brown the Bengals and (#16)Jerry Rice to the 49ers.

1988 draft
#6 Tim Brown, Raiders
#7 Sterling Sharpe, Packers
#11 Michael Irvin, Cowboys
#15 Anthony Miller, Chargers
#20 Aaron Cox, Rams
#27 Wendell Davis, Bears

Brown, Sharpe and Irvin were great coming out of college. I don't think anyone should have passed on them because they played WR. They were easy to scout. I don't see an WRs in this years draft in their class and that is more a reason not to take a WR in the top half of the draft. Not because they play WR, but they don't look as good as Brown, Sharpe and Irvin.

Nice catch on Toon. That 88 class had strong WR group. The 85 WR class was also strong. Toon was a real player before injuries cut his career short.