Drafting WRs by conference?

[superpunk]

I was looking down the list of yardage leaders at the WR position from last season, and a few things jumped out at me.

1. The ACC and Big 10 are very well represented. Florida State, Miami, Ohio State just produce NFL-caliber WRs. The other teams from those conferences had some significant contributions as well.

The SEC and Big 12 are decently represented. Very few stars from the SEC, but alot of solid players. The Big 12 has produced quite a few stars.

2. The PAC-10 is very poorly represented. Outside of last year's yardage champ Chad Johnson and teammate TJ Houshmanzedah (both out of Oregon State), you have to drop the whole way down to Keyshawn Johnson before finding another WR in the top 40.

The Big East is also very poorly represented. Outside of Marvin Harrison and Larry Fitzgerald, their production of WRs is almost nonexistant.

This is a decent sampling of WRs in the NFL. And clearly, if we're taking one in round 1, it's our hope that eventually he's at least a top 40 guy.

What conclusions can you draw from this? Nothing absolutely concrete, but I would say for sure stay away from PAC 10 and Big East guys. Particularly Dwayne Jarrett. Playing in a conference where defense isn't exactly the name of the game, your QBs play behind dominant lines and have plenty of time to throw the ball, and you can shake your way free doesn't translate well to an NFL career where you need to be open in a second. They're not allowing anymore CB mugging, and they're not going to allow anymore of Michael's patented mugging. Given Jarrett's sloth, the level of comp played against and the history of his conference and school for producing receivers, I'd say run as far and as fast as possible from him AND Steve Smith.

In addition, I'd say taking Ted Ginn is a pretty safe bet. Ohio State simply cranks out these small receivers who are simply excellent at the NFL level. Joey Galloway, Terry Glenn playing well. He can contribute immediately on special teams. He and Calvin Johnson are probably the two surest bets at receiver in this draft. That lends me to believe that neither will be available when we pick.

Which leaves us with Meachem and Bowe. Neither come from schools with a decent record of producing WRs from recent data. The plus side for them is that they are decent physical specimens, and their conference has done pretty well at pumping out NFL receivers. The SEC, even though I despise listening to the SEC elitists drone on about it, is indeed the best conference in the nation by far, top to bottom. These guys have been facing the toughest competition out there on defense.

The question we'll have to answer, come draft day, is whether we take a chance on what might be a decent SEC receiver, or try looking for a dominant player available at the position we're drafting in, regardless of current need.

Anyhow, just a few thoughts, things researched. The WR angle has been beaten to death, I know, but this is just another take on it. I think, and I'm not sure on this, but teams tend to have a better chance of drafting stars at the non-skill positions around 22. Guards, centers, Linebackers and safeties - we might stand the best chance of getting a guy who is going to be great at one of those positions.

 

[masomenos]

That's very interesting.

 

[CoachHodnett]

I definitely like where you're going with this, but like you said, it's nothing concrete. 10-20 years ago, I would go with this argument as a solid evaluation, but with the ever-changing of offenses and defenses, and most especially coaches, it's just too hard to use this a solid evaluator.

Now, if someone had the time to track WR's in the league to college coaches and/or offenses, that would be much more reliable in today's NFL.

 

[superpunk]

I definitely like where you're going with this, but like you said, it's nothing concrete. 10-20 years ago, I would go with this argument as a solid evaluation, but with the ever-changing of offenses and defenses, and most especially coaches, it's just too hard to use this a solid evaluator.

Now, if someone had the time to track WR's in the league to college coaches and/or offenses, that would be much more reliable in today's NFL.

That's another factor. Players from gimmick offenses rarely translate all that well to the NFL. Or players that have gotten by just by being faster than the competition they're going against. I think for the most part, you're seeing the some of the best pure athletes coming from the ACC, with the SEC also being a major contributor. The overall level of competition in the SEC is alot stronger, too, so the guys coming out of there seem more NFL ready. Of course, the Big 10 just litters the NFL with prospects, particularly OSU and Michigan.

I think it's a pretty decent start, and just looking at the almost complete lack of NFL talent at Wr from the PAC-10 makes you even more wary of Dwayne Jarrett than you were already.

 

[masomenos]

I went through and found what the numbers were for each conference from the top 25 WRs (based on yards) and herethey are for everyone...

ACC- 7
Conf USA or Smaller - 6
Big 10 - 4
SEC, PAC 10, BIG 10, BIG 12 - 2 each

I really like the angle you took on this. Like you said the WR topic has been beaten to death, but this is a fresh way of looking at it. It's really surprising to me that so many in the 25 were from smaller schools. And then with small schools and the ACC put together that's where over half of the top 25 WRs come from. Really very interesting.

To go back to my WR rankings from a couple weeks ago, in the top 10 2 were ACC, 3 were Conf USA or smaller, 2 were Big 10, 2 were SEC and 1 was Pac 10. And again with that theres the same 50% coming from the combined ACC and Small Schools.

I don't really know what it shows, but I'm a firm believer in statistical tendencies so I think that it does show something and that there is a degree of truth to the information you found. As far as what you were saying we should do with pick 22 it is worth mentioning that of the top 25 WRs 13 of them came from the first round. The odds of finding a top flight WR after the 1st round drop significantly. Now it would be interesting to go through the years and look at how many WRs were drafted in each round compared to how many WRs from that round are represented in the top 25...I think if we did that then we'd have some sort of idea of a success rate. Maybe I'll do that a little later today.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah, maso - you stopped at 25 - I had gone to 40 (just because that's what ESPN had listed on their first page) and just below that 25 spot, there's a bunch of Big 10 players, like Holmes and Muhammad and Edwards.

I was surprised at the small schools, too - and the lack of top WRs from the SEC outside of Georgia. Floria's only contributor is D-Jack, IIRC.

 

[masomenos]

Yeah I stopped at 25 partially because I was lazy and just kind of curious what the numbers were and then because I saw after 25 there were a lot of TEs mixed in with the WRs.

Anyways, I did what I was talking about and here's the "success rate" that I calculated for each round using info from the past 10 years.
Rd 1 - 22%
Rd 2 - 5%
Rd 3 - 11%
Rd 4 - 2%
Rd 5 - 0%
Rd 6 - 0%
Rd 7 - 5%

Now it isn't a perfect statistical sample because Im sure some people a few players have been in the top 25 some years but not last year (like Randy Moss, Keyshawn, etc) and I should probably increase it from top 25 to top 40 like you did. But a lot of the guys left on the list were drafted in the 1st round and really it should only raise the success rate for the 1st round so I think the numbers are still somewhat reliable. It's easy to see that there's a huge drop off in success rate after the first round though. So, keeping that in mind, if we do need to draft a WR to eventually take over for TO and Glenn then if we go outside of the first round our gamble (in the draft) takes a huge hit in the odds that we'll find the player we need.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Interestingly enough, of the 17 current HOF WRs, the Big 10 and PAC10 are the biggest representatives with 4 each. Nex is the ACC and the old SWC with 2 each. The rest are scattered.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

When you guys break down players by conference, such as a WR from the SEC, how much do you consider the styles of the teams in the Conference. For example, the SEC has long been a Defensive Conference that features big time Running games on offense. It would make sense that the better WR's would come from conferences like the MAC Or USA that have more teams that feature the WCO or throwing offense's. I would think this would skew your stat's. A player from Auburn for example, may not have the opportunities to demonstrate his full ability because they run the ball 75% of the time. Does that mean is not the athelte that another guy is who plays for a WCO team??

 

[masomenos]

When you guys break down players by conference, such as a WR from the SEC, how much do you consider the styles of the teams in the Conference. For example, the SEC has long been a Defensive Conference that features big time Running games on offense. It would make sense that the better WR's would come from conferences like the MAC Or USA that have more teams that feature the WCO or throwing offense's. I would think this would skew your stat's. A player from Auburn for example, may not have the opportunities to demonstrate his full ability because they run the ball 75% of the time. Does that mean is not the athelte that another guy is who plays for a WCO team??

Actually we're taking the stats of the players in NFL, not college. So, for instance you look at the best WRs in the NFL and then see what conference they came from.

 

[Hostile]

Good stuff SP.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah I stopped at 25 partially because I was lazy and just kind of curious what the numbers were and then because I saw after 25 there were a lot of TEs mixed in with the WRs.

Anyways, I did what I was talking about and here's the "success rate" that I calculated for each round using info from the past 10 years.
Rd 1 - 22%
Rd 2 - 5%
Rd 3 - 11%
Rd 4 - 2%
Rd 5 - 0%
Rd 6 - 0%
Rd 7 - 5%

Now it isn't a perfect statistical sample because Im sure some people a few players have been in the top 25 some years but not last year (like Randy Moss, Keyshawn, etc) and I should probably increase it from top 25 to top 40 like you did. But a lot of the guys left on the list were drafted in the 1st round and really it should only raise the success rate for the 1st round so I think the numbers are still somewhat reliable. It's easy to see that there's a huge drop off in success rate after the first round though. So, keeping that in mind, if we do need to draft a WR to eventually take over for TO and Glenn then if we go outside of the first round our gamble (in the draft) takes a huge hit in the odds that we'll find the player we need.

That's what I've noticed too. If you're going to pick a WR, and be counting on him to be a real good player, you better pick him in the first.

If that's our goal this year, I would expect us to follow these trends. They aren't concrete, by any means, but they don't exist for no reason, either. Take one in the first, take one from a major conference (preferably the ACC or Big 10, and considering the recent level of competition - the SEC) or don't do it at all until later.

That said, the question still is - Are we more likely to get more value from another position at that spot, like LB, S, G, or C?

Interestingly enough, of the 17 current HOF WRs, the Big 10 and PAC10 are the biggest representatives with 4 each. Nex is the ACC and the old SWC with 2 each. The rest are scattered.

Well, the hall is a very select group, and the trends that these players' schools followed would have happened at least 15 years ago. So that probably doesn't apply as much as current players, and current conferences.

Good stuff SP.

gratsi....the draft needs to get here soon - there's only so many ways to look at this thing.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, the hall is a very select group, and the trends that these players' schools followed would have happened at least 15 years ago. So that probably doesn't apply as much as current players, and current conferences.

On the contrary. IMO, it says that it doesn't matter what conference you come from if your good enough. Historically, Big10 has not been a passers conference. They run the ball in the Big10. SWC was strickly a running conference. "Only three things can happen when you throw the ball and two of them are bad" was the SWC motto. In fact, only the PAC10 is known as a passing conference for a long period of time. Lots of guys from schools like Grambling, Texas Western (UTEP), Tulsa, Alabama A&I, not exactly power programs or conferences. Doesn't matter if you have what it takes.

 

[superpunk]

On the contrary. IMO, it says that it doesn't matter what conference you come from if your good enough. Historically, Big10 has not been a passers conference. They run the ball in the Big10. SWC was strickly a running conference. "Only three things can happen when you throw the ball and two of them are bad" was the SWC motto. In fact, only the PAC10 is known as a passing conference for a long period of time. Lots of guys from schools like Grambling, Texas Western (UTEP), Tulsa, Alabama A&I, not exactly power programs or conferences. Doesn't matter if you have what it takes.

Your view is too narrow and out of date, looking at HOF members only. Clearly anyone can succeed, from any school.

But that is not what this is about. It's about recent statistical trends. So HOF members is really irrelevent, given when they were drafted and the changing nature of the conferences.

 

[masomenos]

Your view is too narrow and out of date, looking at HOF members only. Clearly anyone can succeed, from any school.

But that is not what this is about. It's about recent statistical trends. So HOF members is really irrelevent, given when they were drafted and the changing nature of the conferences.

Agreed.

 

[masomenos]

That said, the question still is - Are we more likely to get more value from another position at that spot, like LB, S, G, or C?

Well it seems like a pretty weak class for C and LB. I know some people are clamoring for Jarvis Moss but I don't really see him as the type of guy that we need, at least not at this point. I do like Spencer though. I guess is would be interesting to go through and see what round the top LBs in the NFL were drafted and see if there's a higher success rate outside of the first round. Right now, to me, it makes more sense to draft a guy like Brian Robinson and have him rotate. I think we will end up drafting a LB, but I really doubt its early. I'm tempted to go but one of those Football Prospectus deals so that I could try and come up with a list of the top 25 Guards and stuff, cause I don't know how else I would come up with a list like that otherwise.
I'll try and get a list of LBs together though and see where the value is.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your view is too narrow and out of date, looking at HOF members only. Clearly anyone can succeed, from any school.

But that is not what this is about. It's about recent statistical trends. So HOF members is really irrelevent, given when they were drafted and the changing nature of the conferences.

Don't you mean, In Your Opinion?

Statistically, you have to consider a lot of things. One, how many WRs were drafted from each of these conferences? For example, if OSU has 5 WRs in the league that are playing right now and the next best is 3 from XYZ college, does that mean that OSU is the best source for Pro WRs? You can't say that if you haven't considered how many players were actually drafted from each school. Lets say 20 WRs have been drafted from OSU and only 7 were drafted from XYZ, does that still mean that OSU is the best?

2006

Top 10 Rec
Johnson Miami
Furrey Northern Iowa
Harrison Syracuse
Holt NCSt.
Driver Alcorn St.
Coles FSU
Houshmandzadeh Oregon St.
Chad Johnson Oregon St.
Reggie Wayne Miami
Owens Chattanooga

4 ACC teams but two from Oregon St. What does that mean?

Top 10 Yds
Chad Johnson Oregon St.
Harrison Syracuse
Wayne Miami
Williams Texas
Driver Alcorn St.
Evans Wisconsin
Boldin FSU
Holt NCSt.
Owens Chattanooga
Steve Smith Utah

3 ACC guys but also three guys from none power schools like Chattanooga, Alcorn St. and Utah.

Top 10 TDs
Owens Chattanooga
Harrison Syracuse
Jackson Florida
Burress MSU
Holt NCSt.
Wayne Miami
Henry WV
Houshmanzandeh Oregon St.
Evans Wisconsin
Walker FSU

Three ACC guys but two Big East guys as well and really, if you stop to think about it, Miami was part of the Big East when Reggie Wayne played there so does that reallymean that the Big East produces more good WRs?

I'm not saying your analysis is invalid. I'm just saying you have to be careful when you start drawing conclusions based on this kind of analysis. It can sometimes be miss leading.

Lastly, for the record, my original post was nothing more then a statement of fact. It was not ment to validate or invalidate your post. Simply a BTW kind of thing.

 

[superpunk]

Well it seems like a pretty weak class for C and LB. I know some people are clamoring for Jarvis Moss but I don't really see him as the type of guy that we need, at least not at this point. I do like Spencer though. I guess is would be interesting to go through and see what round the top LBs in the NFL were drafted and see if there's a higher success rate outside of the first round. Right now, to me, it makes more sense to draft a guy like Brian Robinson and have him rotate. I think we will end up drafting a LB, but I really doubt its early. I'm tempted to go but one of those Football Prospectus deals so that I could try and come up with a list of the top 25 Guards and stuff, cause I don't know how else I would come up with a list like that otherwise.
I'll try and get a list of LBs together though and see where the value is.

Well, at LB, we have so much "talent" there already, I really think some of those guys are ready for a shot. Wade made stars of Phillips and Foley, I have a sense that he can do the same for a guy like Burnett. Guard, I'm not sure of. Blalock is a popular name. Safety seems unnecessary at this point, but if a true gamechanger is tehre, how do you pass it up with the crap we've been trotting out to play FS?

I agree that Robison would be a nice pick later.

 

[superpunk]

Don't you mean, In Your Opinion?

Statistically, you have to consider a lot of things. One, how many WRs were drafted from each of these conferences? For example, if OSU has 5 WRs in the league that are playing right now and the next best is 3 from XYZ college, does that mean that OSU is the best source for Pro WRs? You can't say that if you haven't considered how many players were actually drafted from each school. Lets say 20 WRs have been drafted from OSU and only 7 were drafted from XYZ, does that still mean that OSU is the best?

2006

Top 10 Rec
Johnson Miami
Furrey Northern Iowa
Harrison Syracuse
Holt NCSt.
Driver Alcorn St.
Coles FSU
Houshmandzadeh Oregon St.
Chad Johnson Oregon St.
Reggie Wayne Miami
Owens Chattanooga

4 ACC teams but two from Oregon St. What does that mean?

Top 10 Yds
Chad Johnson Oregon St.
Harrison Syracuse
Wayne Miami
Williams Texas
Driver Alcorn St.
Evans Wisconsin
Boldin FSU
Holt NCSt.
Owens Chattanooga
Steve Smith Utah

3 ACC guys but also three guys from none power schools like Chattanooga, Alcorn St. and Utah.

Top 10 TDs
Owens Chattanooga
Harrison Syracuse
Jackson Florida
Burress MSU
Holt NCSt.
Wayne Miami
Henry WV
Houshmanzandeh Oregon St.
Evans Wisconsin
Walker FSU

Three ACC guys but two Big East guys as well and really, if you stop to think about it, Miami was part of the Big East when Reggie Wayne played there so does that reallymean that the Big East produces more good WRs?

I'm not saying your analysis is invalid. I'm just saying you have to be careful when you start drawing conclusions based on this kind of analysis. It can sometimes be miss leading.

Lastly, for the record, my original post was nothing more then a statement of fact. It was not ment to validate or invalidate your post. Simply a BTW kind of thing.

This is all valid analysis, but again a top 10 list is really too narrow, considering the small schools alot of these guys were coming from. I agree a ratio would be another way of looking at it, but going strictly from a "Where is the highest concentration of quality WRs coming from" standpoint, I think this analysis gives you a pretty good idea. Your plan would give you more of a bust ratio, than a where are these guys coming from idea. Which is good, it's just not what I was looking for.

 

[the big 88]

Interesting thought