Historical Odds of becoming a starter by Draft Round

[Jumbo075]

A few years ago, I did a comprehensive study on draft picks by round, and how many eventually became starters for the team that drafted them. I looked at the draft picks for every team in the NFL over a 10 year span. I lost the data when my computer crashed, and I didn't have a backup, but here are the overall general results I discovered.

Note: Starter is defined as someone who is 1st on the depth chart by their 4th year in the NFL, for the team that drafted them, or signed them as a College free agent.

• 1st round - about 70%
• 2nd round - about 50%
• 3rd round - about 25%

The vast majority of starters in the NFL were drafted in the first 3 rounds of the draft. That is why there is a deliniation between 1st & 2nd day picks vs. 3rd day picks

• 4th round - about 15%
• 5th round about 5%
• 6th round about 7%
• 7th round - about 5%
• Undrafted players - I don't have exact stats because there are simply too many undrafted players each year. But, teams have more starters that began their careers as undrafted free agents than 5th, 6th or 7th round players. That is a little bit unfair to compare, because each team will cycle through about 15-30 undrafted players every season. So, if each team has 1-3 undrafted players starting, that could come from a pool of up to 300 players that participated in off-season work over a 10 year span. The hit rate is much lower, but the sheer quantity of undrafted players means each team ends up having more eventual starters that came from the undrafted ranks, and it skews the averages - because in theory, each team only gets 8 draft picks (on average) per year, but can sign 4x as many undrafted players during an off-season.

The point of this post is that when someone says something like "so and so 4th round pick was a waste, the reality is that only about 1 in 6 4th round players ever even becomes a regular starter, much less a coveted player that can cash in during free agency - like Hitchens just did. Kyle Wilbur and Damien Wilson are also recent 4th round picks. Wilbur never became a front-line starter, but he did give 6 good years of backup and special teams contributions to the team, and that makes him a quality 4th round pick. Wilson actually won a starting job for a while during his rookie contract - which makes him an above average 4th round pick, even if he loses his position as a starter, and drops back into a backup/special teams role.

Also, if you really think Terrance Williams is such a bum, then go back to the 2013 NFL draft, and tell me how many of the 3rd round players selected in that draft are still starting for the team that drafted them. I dare you. (I'll tell you. 9 out of 35 picks are currently starters for the team that drafted them in 2013 - right around that 25% hit rate I was mentioning.) You may not like Williams, but he's been a starter for the Cowboys since his rookie season for 5 seasons, and that is a helluva lot more than most teams get from their 3rd round picks.

Note: I'm not sure why the hit rate in the 6th round is higher than the 5th or 7th rounds. Maybe that is why the Cowboys are so prone to trading their 5th round picks, but seem to load up on 6th round picks lately. It's a statistical mystery...

 

[RodeoJake]

Excellent breakdown. I do get a good chuckle when a player taken in the 4th round or later is labeled a bust. I hope those folks ain't baseball fans. The odds of even those first rounders making it to the show are less than 50 50.

Conversely, it's just as curious when people want to use a first round pick on someone who will be mostly a backup or think it's an easy task to plug them into a different position.

 

[Cattle_Rancher]

Interesting how it spikes 2% in the 6th round.

 

[waldoputty]

A few years ago, I did a comprehensive study on draft picks by round, and how many eventually became starters for the team that drafted them. I looked at the draft picks for every team in the NFL over a 10 year span. I lost the data when my computer crashed, and I didn't have a backup, but here are the overall general results I discovered.

Note: Starter is defined as someone who is 1st on the depth chart by their 4th year in the NFL, for the team that drafted them, or signed them as a College free agent.

• 1st round - about 70%
• 2nd round - about 50%
• 3rd round - about 25%

The vast majority of starters in the NFL were drafted in the first 3 rounds of the draft. That is why there is a deliniation between 1st & 2nd day picks vs. 3rd day picks

• 4th round - about 15%
• 5th round about 5%
• 6th round about 7%
• 7th round - about 5%
• Undrafted players - I don't have exact stats because there are simply too many undrafted players each year. But, teams have more starters that began their careers as undrafted free agents than 5th, 6th or 7th round players. That is a little bit unfair to compare, because each team will cycle through about 15-30 undrafted players every season. So, if each team has 1-3 undrafted players starting, that could come from a pool of up to 300 players that participated in off-season work over a 10 year span. The hit rate is much lower, but the sheer quantity of undrafted players means each team ends up having more eventual starters that came from the undrafted ranks, and it skews the averages - because in theory, each team only gets 8 draft picks (on average) per year, but can sign 4x as many undrafted players during an off-season.

The point of this post is that when someone says something like "so and so 4th round pick was a waste, the reality is that only about 1 in 6 4th round players ever even becomes a regular starter, much less a coveted player that can cash in during free agency - like Hitchens just did. Kyle Wilbur and Damien Wilson are also recent 4th round picks. Wilbur never became a front-line starter, but he did give 6 good years of backup and special teams contributions to the team, and that makes him a quality 4th round pick. Wilson actually won a starting job for a while during his rookie contract - which makes him an above average 4th round pick, even if he loses his position as a starter, and drops back into a backup/special teams role.

Also, if you really think Terrance Williams is such a bum, then go back to the 2013 NFL draft, and tell me how many of the 3rd round players selected in that draft are still starting for the team that drafted them. I dare you. (I'll tell you. 9 out of 35 picks are currently starters for the team that drafted them in 2013 - right around that 25% hit rate I was mentioning.) You may not like Williams, but he's been a starter for the Cowboys since his rookie season for 5 seasons, and that is a helluva lot more than most teams get from their 3rd round picks.

Note: I'm not sure why the hit rate in the 6th round is higher than the 5th or 7th rounds. Maybe that is why the Cowboys are so prone to trading their 5th round picks, but seem to load up on 6th round picks lately. It's a statistical mystery...

it depends on position and round for becoming multi year starter
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

 

[jrumann59]

A few years ago, I did a comprehensive study on draft picks by round, and how many eventually became starters for the team that drafted them. I looked at the draft picks for every team in the NFL over a 10 year span. I lost the data when my computer crashed, and I didn't have a backup, but here are the overall general results I discovered.

Note: Starter is defined as someone who is 1st on the depth chart by their 4th year in the NFL, for the team that drafted them, or signed them as a College free agent.

...

While all this is interesting and the work you did superb. It seems to be more correlation between drafting and how teams develop lesser talent. The better teams in the league are better at drafting "lesser" talent and developing them to be "serviceable" starters. Look around the league and I will use Dallas as an example plenty of their drafted castoffs from the later rounds are actually starting or were starting. That there shows that the scouts were right but the coaches were doing something wrong, or that player eventually "got" it.

 

[robjay04]

This is a very interesting breakdown.

While being a starter is a good judgement on the success of the player, some players never start a game in their life but stick around for years as a solid rotational Player.

I would also be curious what qualifies as a starter. Just because you start a game and stink doesn’t mean it’s a successful pick.

 

[Longboysfan]

This would work well with team breakdowns.
But only with showing the GM and or chief scout for the time periods.

Yes. Too many moving parts.

 

[Sydla]

Great research.

Also points out the folly of those saying it’s OK the Cowboys skip FA because they build through the draft and we have 10 picks.

If you get 2 or 3 starters immediately that’s a HR but unlikely. So LOL when someone tells me we will find a starting OG, starting DT and starting MLB in this draft.

 

[waldoputty]

Great research.

Also points out the folly of those saying it’s OK the Cowboys skip FA because they build through the draft and we have 10 picks.

If you get 2 or 3 starters immediately that’s a HR but unlikely. So LOL when someone tells me we will find a starting OG, starting DT and starting MLB in this draft.

not really.
use the stats i provided, you have a 70% chance of landing an LB starter in the 1st and a 70% chance of landing an OL starter in the 2nd.
you can then add the remaining stats together, and statistically you should get another starter out of them.

 

[diefree666]

shows that basically the safest picks are OL. Followed by TE and LB. Which you look at it makes sense in our last ten years.

 

[Sydla]

not really.
use the stats i provided, you have a 70% chance of landing an LB starter in the 1st and a 70% chance of landing an OL starter in the 2nd.
you can then add the remaining stats together, and statistically you should get another starter out of them.

Only if the draft lines up where you have a LB at 1 and a good OL at 2.

The reality is sitting out FA thinking you will land a bunch of starters in the draft is folly.

 

[waldoputty]

Only if the draft lines up where you have a LB at 1 and a good OL at 2.

The reality is sitting out FA thinking you will land a bunch of starters in the draft is folly.

it is not folly because we had good to great drafts in the last 2 years.
it is definitely higher risk and not the way to win a championship.

 

[TNCowboy]

Not sure how accurate it is, but it blows away the notion of trading down in most circumstances.

 

[Sydla]

it is not folly because we had good to great drafts in the last 2 years.
it is definitely higher risk and not the way to win a championship.

You can't go into any draft needing 3 starters, especially for a team that apparently has playoff aspirations, and think you will definitely get three immediate starters (who can actually play).

That's the type of ******* logic that has us where we currently are......... a team that is either not close or on the cusp but never able to get over the hump.

 

[cowboyblue22]

the more picks you have in the top three rounds the better chance of drafting good players 4 thru 7 are mostly marginal players

 

[northerncowboynation]

A few years ago, I did a comprehensive study on draft picks by round, and how many eventually became starters for the team that drafted them. I looked at the draft picks for every team in the NFL over a 10 year span. I lost the data when my computer crashed, and I didn't have a backup, but here are the overall general results I discovered.

Note: Starter is defined as someone who is 1st on the depth chart by their 4th year in the NFL, for the team that drafted them, or signed them as a College free agent.

• 1st round - about 70%
• 2nd round - about 50%
• 3rd round - about 25%

The vast majority of starters in the NFL were drafted in the first 3 rounds of the draft. That is why there is a deliniation between 1st & 2nd day picks vs. 3rd day picks

• 4th round - about 15%
• 5th round about 5%
• 6th round about 7%
• 7th round - about 5%
• Undrafted players - I don't have exact stats because there are simply too many undrafted players each year. But, teams have more starters that began their careers as undrafted free agents than 5th, 6th or 7th round players. That is a little bit unfair to compare, because each team will cycle through about 15-30 undrafted players every season. So, if each team has 1-3 undrafted players starting, that could come from a pool of up to 300 players that participated in off-season work over a 10 year span. The hit rate is much lower, but the sheer quantity of undrafted players means each team ends up having more eventual starters that came from the undrafted ranks, and it skews the averages - because in theory, each team only gets 8 draft picks (on average) per year, but can sign 4x as many undrafted players during an off-season.

The point of this post is that when someone says something like "so and so 4th round pick was a waste, the reality is that only about 1 in 6 4th round players ever even becomes a regular starter, much less a coveted player that can cash in during free agency - like Hitchens just did. Kyle Wilbur and Damien Wilson are also recent 4th round picks. Wilbur never became a front-line starter, but he did give 6 good years of backup and special teams contributions to the team, and that makes him a quality 4th round pick. Wilson actually won a starting job for a while during his rookie contract - which makes him an above average 4th round pick, even if he loses his position as a starter, and drops back into a backup/special teams role.

Also, if you really think Terrance Williams is such a bum, then go back to the 2013 NFL draft, and tell me how many of the 3rd round players selected in that draft are still starting for the team that drafted them. I dare you. (I'll tell you. 9 out of 35 picks are currently starters for the team that drafted them in 2013 - right around that 25% hit rate I was mentioning.) You may not like Williams, but he's been a starter for the Cowboys since his rookie season for 5 seasons, and that is a helluva lot more than most teams get from their 3rd round picks.

Note: I'm not sure why the hit rate in the 6th round is higher than the 5th or 7th rounds. Maybe that is why the Cowboys are so prone to trading their 5th round picks, but seem to load up on 6th round picks lately. It's a statistical mystery...

Nice break down.

 

[Sandyf]

Good breakdown and interesting stats. Would like to see how it breaks down for just Dallas over the last five years. Also some of those guys that go on to other teams and make it are because a team drafts them on talent and tape but most teams do not do so on scheme. It is like drafting a LB that has only played in the 3-4 scheme and making him a DE or 4-3 LB, sometimes it works but often times they go from being a great talent to an average player.

Some believe that Quentin Nelson, who is a great guard and probably an All-Pro guard soon, that he will be drafted as an OT at LT for the Browns. Watch the tape on Notre Dame when he had to play OT. He was okay to good but when they moved him inside, he was great. IMO, if Browns draft him and move him to LT, he will be a guy you can get in a trade in 3 years because he isn't an NFL LT.

 

[waldoputty]

You can't go into any draft needing 3 starters, especially for a team that apparently has playoff aspirations, and think you will definitely get three immediate starters (who can actually play).

That's the type of ******* logic that has us where we currently are......... a team that is either not close or on the cusp but never able to get over the hump.

oh i never said championship.
that stats is not for an immediate starter.
i am just saying our chance of getting 3 multi-year starters is good during their rookie contract.
we threw away 2017 and it looks like 2018 will be the same.
there is no hump to get over.
i think we will be a very good team but no real contender.

 

[northerncowboynation]

You can't go into any draft needing 3 starters, especially for a team that apparently has playoff aspirations, and think you will definitely get three immediate starters (who can actually play).

That's the type of ******* logic that has us where we currently are......... a team that is either not close or on the cusp but never able to get over the hump.

That's good because we don't NEED three starters. We don't need a LB'er to start right away but we do need one or 2. We don't need a WR to start right away but we do need one. We MAY need a G to start right away depending on what happens with Cooper. We don't need a swing tackle to start right away but we do need one. We don't need a S who can start right away but we may need another. Figuring out the ones we have would be a nice start. We don't need a TE to start right away, but we MAY need one

 

[DanA]

it depends on position and round for becoming multi year starter
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

Interesting. I wonder how the 1st round looks though if you take out the top 5 picks.