How important is a first round pick? Depends on the position...

[Angus]

The Ourlads article by Joe Landers breaks down the liklihood of finding star players for certain positions in particular rounds of the draft:

Importance of Day One NFL
Two-Deeps Tell Us Where to Find Talent
http://www.ourlads.com/dayone.cfm


The conclusion:

It’s truly shocking that so much great talent is found in undrafted free agency. A lot of that talent doesn’t walk into rookie camp and take a two-deep spot right away. No, they become good because of coaching, hard-hat determination, and a drive to succeed. Nevertheless, udfas come at a much cheaper price than any pick before the 6th round – they need to be cultivated.

What’s not shocking is the obvious need to find your cornerback, running back, tight end, and wide receiver talent in the first two rounds. For each of those positions, 1st and 2nd round were the rounds with the highest rate of two-deep talent over the last three NFL seasons: 47%, 50%, 37%, and 45% of the two-deep talent at each position, respectively, was acquired in the first two rounds. Those are sizeable numbers not to be ignored. Get talent at CB, RB, TE, and WR early or you’ll be waiting for them to develop into contributors.

 

[Eddie]

Linebacker
#1 LB Source: Undrafted Free Agency (20%)
Examples: Bart Scott, James Harrison, Gary Brackett, Stephen Cooper, Antonio Pierce, London Fletcher, and Chase Blackburn.

#2 LB Source: 3rd Round (17%)
Examples: Joey Porter, Angelo Crowell, Mike Vrable, Tedy Bruschi, Lance Briggs, Jeff Ulbrich, and Antwan Peek.


Wow, if such a large portion of LB's come from URFA and 3rd rounders ... why are we spending so many top tier picks on LB's???

 

[THUMPER]

Wide Receiver
#1 WR Source: 1st Round (25%)
Examples: Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald, Joey Galloway, Calvin Johnson, Roy Williams, and Plaxico Burress.

#2 WR Source: 2nd Round (20%)
Examples: Chad Johnson, Chris Chambers, Amani Toomer, Reggie Brown, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin, and Sidney Rice.

So with 45% of the starting & 2nd string WRs taken in the 1st 2 rounds, what does that do to all the folks around here who say we shouldn't take a WR in round-1?

I think it would be foolish to pass on a WR in the 1st round simply because there have been so many busts over the years. The same is true for every position and we aren't going to get a good young WR by sending in enough box tops people.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

this does leave some very tough decisions between now and the Apr draft

 

[jimmy40]

The Ourlads article by Joe Landers breaks down the liklihood of finding star players for certain positions in particular rounds of the draft:

Importance of Day One NFL
Two-Deeps Tell Us Where to Find Talent
http://www.ourlads.com/dayone.cfm


The conclusion:

It’s truly shocking that so much great talent is found in undrafted free agency. A lot of that talent doesn’t walk into rookie camp and take a two-deep spot right away. No, they become good because of coaching, hard-hat determination, and a drive to succeed. Nevertheless, udfas come at a much cheaper price than any pick before the 6th round – they need to be cultivated.

What’s not shocking is the obvious need to find your cornerback, running back, tight end, and wide receiver talent in the first two rounds. For each of those positions, 1st and 2nd round were the rounds with the highest rate of two-deep talent over the last three NFL seasons: 47%, 50%, 37%, and 45% of the two-deep talent at each position, respectively, was acquired in the first two rounds. Those are sizeable numbers not to be ignored. Get talent at CB, RB, TE, and WR early or you’ll be waiting for them to develop into contributors.

Probably has a lot to do with guys getting some money and losing interest in all the hard work it takes to stay in the NFL. Those undrafted and low round guys are still trying to get their money.

 

[IronCowboy]

SO what should we do? Trade all our picks away and turn into the Commanders?

This thread is bull****.

 

[peplaw06]

Shhh. Don't tell Fuzzy.

 

[Kangaroo]

Well it looks like the skill position RB;TE;WR,CB have 2 rounds where most the talent is found

QB; dt;de look like it is 1st round or you go after a young guy and hide him and develop him for a few years the guys that are Hungry



The 3rd round and UDFA seem to be close on some spots and a cliff on others.

What I find is amazing after the 3rd round you have better luck with a UDFA and I have a theory on this.

The 4th round on is where teams gamble on guys that have all the measure ables 40 times; track athlete etc etc or come from the big name programs.

When you look at a lot of the UDFA they come from the small Div 1a or div1aa schools guys that produced at a high level at those schools but get overlooked in favor of guys with better 40 times or come from a Big Time conference. They guys usually have a chip on their shoulder and just go out and just ball and play special teams and fight and make themselves better and just outwork the other guys.

 

[AdamJT13]

So with 45% of the starting & 2nd string WRs taken in the 1st 2 rounds, what does that do to all the folks around here who say we shouldn't take a WR in round-1?

I think it would be foolish to pass on a WR in the 1st round simply because there have been so many busts over the years. The same is true for every position and we aren't going to get a good young WR by sending in enough box tops people.

It would be nice to have the raw numbers they came up with in their two-deep study. For wide receivers, for example, if they looked at four wide receivers per team (two starters and two backups), it would mean an average of 32 out of 128 were drafted in the first round. But maybe they took into account the teams that use three starting receivers, which could make it, say, 35 out of 140.

Anyhow, the numbers only verify the "bust percentages" posted in the other thread. In the past 10 years, 47 wide receivers have been drafted in the first round, and only 32-35 or so are even on two-deep rosters. That means 26 to 32 percent of them aren't even on two-deeps. Compare that to linebackers, of which 38 have been drafted in the first round over the past 10 years. Extrapolating the numbers from Ourlads' study, about 31 of them are on two-deeps, leaving only about 18 percent who aren't on two-deeps. At tight end, only one or two out of 15 isn't on a two-deep (the one is David LaFleur, by the way).

Some of these numbers are a little fuzzy because Ourlads doesn't give the raw numbers, some guys might have changed positions from when they were drafted, and some positions might have more first-rounders drafted more than 10 years ago than other positions. But here's about what the numbers would show for the percentages of first-round picks who are on two-deeps --

K 1 out of 1 = 100 percent
OL 44.8 out of 46 = 97.4 percent
TE 13.4 out of 15 = 89.3 percent
LB 31.2 out of 38 = 82.1 percent
QB 23 out of 29 = 79.3 percent
DT 23.5 out of 32 = 73.4 percent
DB 44.8 out of 64 = 70.0 percent
DE 28.2 out of 41 = 68.8 percent
WR 32 out of 47 = 68.1 percent
RB 19.2 out of 29 = 66.2 percent

Now compare those to the "non-bust" percentages from the ESPN.com study --

LB -- 84 percent
DB -- 76 percent
OL -- 69 percent
DE -- 69 percent
DT -- 67 percent
WR -- 55 percent
RB -- 51 percent
QB -- 47 percent
(TE, K not listed)

Obviously, there are quite a few "busts" who still are on two-deeps (especially at quarterback), but when you look at both lists, you see the positions that are safer and which positions are bigger risks.

As has been pointed out, this doesn't mean you don't draft riskier positions in the first round -- if you hit on the pick, you could end up with a perennial Pro Bowl player. But it does mean that there's a higher risk of getting an out-and-out bust or a disappointing backup.

 

[AdamJT13]

What I find is amazing after the 3rd round you have better luck with a UDFA and I have a theory on this.

The 4th round on is where teams gamble on guys that have all the measure ables 40 times; track athlete etc etc or come from the big name programs.

When you look at a lot of the UDFA they come from the small Div 1a or div1aa schools guys that produced at a high level at those schools but get overlooked in favor of guys with better 40 times or come from a Big Time conference. They guys usually have a chip on their shoulder and just go out and just ball and play special teams and fight and make themselves better and just outwork the other guys.

The numbers most likely reflect nothing more than the quantity of players available. Sixth- and seventh-rounders should be more likely to succeed than UDFAs, but not by THAT much. And there are far fewer of them. Let's say that each season (hypothetically), there are five linebackers drafted in the sixth round, five drafted in the seventh round and 80 signed as UDFAs (two or three per team). In five years, you might have two of those sixth-rounders, two of the seventh-rounders and 10 of the UDFAs still on two-deeps (again, hypothetically). Does that mean the UDFAs were more successful? No, it just means there were more of them -- 40 percent of the sixth- and seventh-rounders were successful, compared to 12.5 percent of the UDFAs.

 

[ndanger]

Adam must have numbers running rampant in his brain.

 

[THUMPER]

Obviously, there are quite a few "busts" who still are on two-deeps (especially at quarterback), but when you look at both lists, you see the positions that are safer and which positions are bigger risks.

As has been pointed out, this doesn't mean you don't draft riskier positions in the first round -- if you hit on the pick, you could end up with a perennial Pro Bowl player. But it does mean that there's a higher risk of getting an out-and-out bust or a disappointing backup.

Good stuff as usual Adam. My point is that many here are saying we should not spend a 1st rounder on a WR because there have been so many busts but that is also where you hit on the top players so we have to take a chance at some point or continue hoping to fill the position via FA.

Since Jerry bought the team we have drafted only one WR in the 1st round, Alvin Harper in 1991, and only 4 guys in the 2nd round: Alexander Wright in 1990, Jimmy Smith in 1992, Kevin Williams in 1992, and Antonio Bryant in 2002. Wright was fast but couldn't catch. Smith went on to have a HoF career with the Jags. Kevin Williams was a 3rd string guy, and Bryant had talent but a bad attitude.

The only other day-1 pick was Stepfret Williams in the 3rd round in 1996.

That's 6 WRs taken on day-1 since 1989. No wonder we have yet to develop a young WR in Jerry's time as owner. Michael Irvin is the only WR we drafted who was a top player for us and he was a 1st rounder in 1988, the last draft under Brandt & Landry.

How would anyone know whether or not we would draft a bust at WR if we haven't taken a chance on one since 1991? And only 4 times have we spent a day-1 pick on a WR since then.

We need to get young talent at the WR position and let them develop into starters while we still have Owens and Glenn (maybe) on board, not wait until they are retired before we start looking for younger guys.

 

[jobberone]

Linebacker
#1 LB Source: Undrafted Free Agency (20%)
Examples: Bart Scott, James Harrison, Gary Brackett, Stephen Cooper, Antonio Pierce, London Fletcher, and Chase Blackburn.

#2 LB Source: 3rd Round (17%)
Examples: Joey Porter, Angelo Crowell, Mike Vrable, Tedy Bruschi, Lance Briggs, Jeff Ulbrich, and Antwan Peek.


Wow, if such a large portion of LB's come from URFA and 3rd rounders ... why are we spending so many top tier picks on LB's???

We are paying for pass rushing 3-4 OLBs which cost dearly. And you do need to draft those high.

You can find MLBs more easily. I think we should try to get a vet FA with one to two years of very good to better play in him to play here next year.

 

[Kangaroo]

The numbers most likely reflect nothing more than the quantity of players available. Sixth- and seventh-rounders should be more likely to succeed than UDFAs, but not by THAT much. And there are far fewer of them. Let's say that each season (hypothetically), there are five linebackers drafted in the sixth round, five drafted in the seventh round and 80 signed as UDFAs (two or three per team). In five years, you might have two of those sixth-rounders, two of the seventh-rounders and 10 of the UDFAs still on two-deeps (again, hypothetically). Does that mean the UDFAs were more successful? No, it just means there were more of them -- 40 percent of the sixth- and seventh-rounders were successful, compared to 12.5 percent of the UDFAs.

I am surprised how many UDFA make it in the league now days. Weird stuff I would never have guessed 12.5% made it in this league I would have guessed lower than that. I am also surprised how many do well in the league now days. The amount of money put in the draft process and how they scout are night and day from what use to go into it. Also I have to wonder how much Expansion and Salary Cap have played into this.

 

[dmq]

Way to keep the percentages down Carp!

 

[AdamJT13]

I am surprised how many UDFA make it in the league now days. Weird stuff I would never have guessed 12.5% made it in this league I would have guessed lower than that.

Like I said, those numbers were just hypothetical. But I can tell you that there are a lot more UDFAs than drafted players. In 2005, for example, there were 468 UDFAs signed and only 255 players drafted.