Article: Are First Round Picks Overrated?

[DandyDon1722]

I thought this was a pretty interesting article.

The Seahawks have only had two first round picks in the last four years but they've had the most picks (22 - tied with the Ravens) between picks 2-5.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/seahawks-verge-back-back-super-223013711.html

Some points of the article.

* Jimmy's grading system that many teams employed, has severely overestimated first round picks and undervalued middle picks over a five year period.

* Of the 32 teams, ten had their normal allotment of four first-round draft picks. Those teams averaged 8.1 wins in 2014. Five teams had more than four first-round picks, averaging 6.8 wins with only one team posting a winning record (Cincinnati Bengals, 10-6). Meanwhile, seven teams with fewer than four first-rounders averaged 8.3 wins, with four of the seven winning at least ten games in 2014.

* They have graphs comparing first round picks to 2-5 picks and how teams are overpaying for value from 2011 - 2014. It shows where teams are paying players and discusses how the 2-5 picks allow teams to not only save money but have more available for free agency.

* Of course, there is no guarantee that a team is going to win more games if they give up their first-round picks for middle-round picks, but on average, those teams tend to win more and the Seahawks are the perfect example.

For me, the assumptions might be a bit disingenuous. Correlation is not causation. For instance picks 1-10 probably have been very impactful but maybe not 17-32, so there probably is a line of demarcation where first round picks are not overrated.

Something to think about considering where we are drafting.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

After the first ten or twelve picks they are. I like the philosophy that you draft as many players in the top-ranked 100 available prospects. Not all those 100 prospects are always worthy but your odds are better if you get as many as possible.

 

[Idgit]

After the first ten or twelve picks they are. I like the philosophy that you draft as many players in the top-ranked 100 available prospects. Not all those 100 prospects are always worthy but your odds are better if you get as many as possible.

Really? I think it's the first 10 picks that are the most overrated. There are drafts where that #1 is worth its weight in gold (Luck), but then there are others, like 2011, where the best player in the whole draft somehow slipped to the 11th pick.

 

[Craig]

When you have more than 10 first rounders, youve given up something valuable to get those extra first rounders. Of course you have fewer wins.

1. You gave up something valuable
2 you were in a position where the "now" was dead, so you were improving your team's future

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Really? I think it's the first 10 picks that are the most overrated. There are drafts where that #1 is worth its weight in gold (Luck), but then there are others, like 2011, where the best player in the whole draft somehow slipped to the 11th pick.

The odds are higher those top ten to twelve picks will be impact players but I think each team should go by their own board of top 100; they'd be better off.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It's pretty well established that the first round is overrated and the second round is the sweet spot where investment and value are most likely to match up favorably.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

Generally speaking:

More Picks > Higher Picks.

 

[xwalker]

I thought this was a pretty interesting article.

The Seahawks have only had two first round picks in the last four years but they've had the most picks (22 - tied with the Ravens) between picks 2-5.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/seahawks-verge-back-back-super-223013711.html

Some points of the article.

* Jimmy's grading system that many teams employed, has severely overestimated first round picks and undervalued middle picks over a five year period.

* Of the 32 teams, ten had their normal allotment of four first-round draft picks. Those teams averaged 8.1 wins in 2014. Five teams had more than four first-round picks, averaging 6.8 wins with only one team posting a winning record (Cincinnati Bengals, 10-6). Meanwhile, seven teams with fewer than four first-rounders averaged 8.3 wins, with four of the seven winning at least ten games in 2014.

* They have graphs comparing first round picks to 2-5 picks and how teams are overpaying for value from 2011 - 2014. It shows where teams are paying players and discusses how the 2-5 picks allow teams to not only save money but have more available for free agency.

* Of course, there is no guarantee that a team is going to win more games if they give up their first-round picks for middle-round picks, but on average, those teams tend to win more and the Seahawks are the perfect example.

For me, the assumptions might be a bit disingenuous. Correlation is not causation. For instance picks 1-10 probably have been very impactful but maybe not 17-32, so there probably is a line of demarcation where first round picks are not overrated.

Something to think about considering where we are drafting.

That article sounds like a guy had an idea and made the data fit his theory.

There have been other studies that show that the probability of getting a starting caliber player is basically a linear slope downwards relative to where they were drafted.

 

[KJJ]

The top 10 picks are way overhyped and many of them can't live up to the lofty expectations which is why some go bust. They give the top picks the red carpet treatment and allow them to strut out on stage while fans go nuts over them. Some of the draft gurus are already putting a few of these players in the Pro Bowl before they even suit up for their first NFL practice. Lower draft picks are able to fly in under the radar and don't have all the pressure on them that the top picks do. Most of the players in the Hall of Fame weren't first round draft picks.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I'll have to read the entire article, but the general consensus is that the 1st round pick *was* overrated because of the salary cap hit versus their performance. Now with the change to the rookie salary cap pool making 1st round picks for affordable, I would imagine that they are not *as* overrated as they once were.




YR

 

[Wood]

it really depends on year. Some 1st rounders are weak on impact players (2015 kind of looking like that) but 2014 draft we already have about 10 impact players from 1st half of that draft. There is also alot of value in middle rounds and there will be pro-bowl players from rounds 2-4 in this draft. I think effective drafting is more about specializing in certain system and knowing it so well that when scouts go to Senior Bowl or Combine players jump out to them as being a fit. Its reason teams like Pitts and NE always seem to be in the running. They have absolutely masters their teams ethos.

 

[Risen Star]

Why were the Cowboys contenders this year?

They controlled the line of scrimmage on offense.

How?

By hitting on three 1st round picks along the offensive line. Their play got the team over the mediocre 8-8 hump into a playoff contender.

Yes. Totally overrated.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

tard up to the 5th overall an take a db

 

[Gameover]

Aikman, Irvin, Smith

Dez, T.Smith, Fredrick, Martin

Definitely overrated.

/sarcasm

 

[KJJ]

I remember an interview with Tony Mandarich a few years ago talking about how he lost his confidence after Kevin Green beat him on 2 consecutive plays as a rookie. The media built Mandarich up to be super human and it all went to his head. The bigger the draft has gotten the more hype we see with the red carpet and the confetti. The top 10 picks are made instant millionaires which adds to the pressure they'll be under as NFL players. Once the red carpet is rolled up and the confetti is swept away it's time to get to work and some aren't ready for the challenges and adversities they'll face in the NFL. Some of these players can't handle the criticism or the booing when they're not living up to the expectations everyone had of them coming out of college. Some have never experienced being booed it's a rude awakening for most and it causes some to lose their confidence.

Johnny Football found out playing in the NFL isn't like playing at A&M. The Seahawks 2012 draft class was graded an F by many and players like Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner went out to prove everyone wrong. While lower draft picks are trying to prove everyone wrong the top picks are trying to prove everyone right. Some top 10 picks enter the NFL feeling entitled and aren't ready to put in the hard work it takes to be great NFL players. Lower draft picks and free agents have had to scratch and claw at every level to get to where they're at. They show up at training camp trying to make a team while some of these top picks are being handed starting jobs due to their draft position and contract.

 

[Doomsday101]

Draft as a whole is a mixed bag but I would not go as far as saying the 1st rd is over rated I think the majority of HOF type player will come out of the 1st rd of a draft. I have always considered the 1st 3 round of a draft to be a key to building a successful team.

 

[jobberone]

That article sounds like a guy had an idea and made the data fit his theory.

There have been other studies that show that the probability of getting a starting caliber player is basically a linear slope downwards relative to where they were drafted.

This is correct. I've posted this multiple times in the recent past. Your odds of success generally decreases in linear fashion for each successive round. Odds are higher in a round for certain positions for all comers but of course is predicted by the player, team, coaches, injuries, etc.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I'm probably out of line doing this but i'm not even reading the article. Look at how much FAIL the Raiders and Browns have had in the 1st round. And look how much success.....even the Cowboys have had.

Seahawks are not the bar. They've missed on 1st round picks including trading one for Harvin but they're that rare occasion. Certainly not the bar. And while Chancellor and Sherman were GREAT finds...its sure a lot easier when you have a Earl Thomas in your secondary who btw was a 1st round pick.

 

[USMarineVet]

Difficult to say, There are busts in the first round every year. Just as there are players in the later rounds that eventually pan out to be a player that should have been drafted in the first round. Bottom line... it's a crap shoot. That's why it's so important to rate a player as much on his character, intelligence and work ethic as it is on his talent. There's truth on both sides of the debate. Coaching has a great deal to do with the maturation process and what kind of player he will become. Injuries have a lot to do with it also. Are they temporary or long term? Look at Clowney. Most say he will never be the same. Does that make him a bust? Sure, but an injury related bust if in fact he doesn't return to form. All you can really do is do your homework, take your shots, train them the best way you know how and hope he avoids injury and gels into your system with the production that merits the pick. Every year we see hits and misses in the top and later rounds. *shrug* That's football.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

It is all In the scouting department and front office. High picks can work well if the front office is on point. Smith, Mo, Fred, Martin is hard to argue with.