NFL.com's GM List of Highest Success with Rookies

[Frizzy350]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000481917/article/which-gms-have-the-best-success-rate-with-rookies

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

"Carolina has to be excited about the future. Dave Gettleman, a long-time disciple of Ernie Accorsi -- who built two Super Bowl teams of his own -- has had a strong first two drafts highlighted by the talented Kelvin Benjamin. Can he build a team around Cam Newton?"

[Galvatron]

Off to a good start; a small sample size, but the best percentage. Hope he can maintain.

[Lumps]

So this is based of rookie years rather than careers? This really doesn't mean anything.

It'd be nice to see ranking GMs in order of overall success of the player based on other factors other than an all-rookie year.

[rmoneyg35]

Gettleman has done well the past two years, especially with UDFA rookies. I hope it wasn't luck and it continues.

Last year we had Horton, Lester and White contribute as UDFA rookies

This season we had Philly Brown, Darrin Reaves and Norwell contribute as UDFA rookies.

If Gettleman keeps finding UDFA rookies to contribute we will be very successful in the future especially when we have to sign guys like Cam, Luke, Star and KB to long term deals.

[CarolinaNCSU]

The only two knocks I still have on Gettleman were picking Boston (just too early for me), though he may turn out well and I'll eat my crow. And also for not drafting Hurst late. Hard to fault much of his drafting or UDFA pick-ups so far, though. 

[t96]

The only two knocks I still have on Gettleman were picking Boston (just too early for me), though he may turn out well and I'll eat my crow. And also for not drafting Hurst late. Hard to fault much of his drafting or UDFA pick-ups so far, though. 

 

 Tre played ridiculously well already for a 4th rounder and that was after missing all of the offseason. Not sure how he hasn't already made you eat crow... As for Hurst, it would've been nice if he could've gotten him and tried to develop him here, but he was actually pretty damn bad last year.

[CarolinaNCSU]

 Tre played ridiculously well already for a 4th rounder and that was after missing all of the offseason. Not sure how he hasn't already made you eat crow... As for Hurst, it would've been nice if he could've gotten him and tried to develop him here, but he was actually pretty damn bad last year.

 

Hurst had stretches he played well I thought, against us for instance. Then teetered off into poo it seems, my bad. Boston played well, and also struggled at times, but it's a small sample size. I just personally thought it was too high in the draft for such an up and down player (though UNC's secondary may have been to blame). But, I'm not the GM. 

[t96]

Hurst had stretches he played well I thought, against us for instance. Then teetered off into poo it seems, my bad. Boston played well, and also struggled at times, but it's a small sample size. I just personally thought it was too high in the draft for such an up and down player (though UNC's secondary may have been to blame). But, I'm not the GM. 

 

I wasn't happy with the Bene or Boston pick at the time, but after this year I think we got steals in both of them. Some re-drafts have had Boston going in the 1st round to the Eagles and pretty much all of them have Bene in the 1st. Boston definitely struggled, particularly against the Seahawks, but overall I think he definitely outplayed his draft position. Literally the only pick of Gettleman's that I don't like at this point is Barner. And that was a 6th rounder, so no big loss. Kugbilla has been injured his entire career so we can't really evaluate that pick, and Gaffney was hurt and then stolen so once again, can't evaluate. The rest were all ridiculously good picks in my opinion. Still a fairly small sample size, but I'm really confident in Gettleman as our GM.

[EMSMedic79]

He is the reason I get excited about the draft every year. He doesn't sell his soul for picks and what he does draft usually turns to gold.

[Squirrel]

So this is based of rookie years rather than careers? This really doesn't mean anything.

It'd be nice to see ranking GMs in order of overall success of the player based on other factors other than an all-rookie year.

If they did that, you would have half the gm's off the list.

[L-TownCat]

So this is based of rookie years rather than careers? This really doesn't mean anything.

It'd be nice to see ranking GMs in order of overall success of the player based on other factors other than an all-rookie year.

Well yeah that was the premise behind the article. You just changed the subject completely nullifying the legitimacy of your argument. WTF?

Hey guys how has g-mans record been for the guys he didn't draft? That's the burning question we all want to know.

Pep had a good career, does Gets get credit?

[Lumps]

Well yeah that was the premise behind the article. You just changed the subject completely nullifying the legitimacy of your argument. WTF?

Hey guys how has g-mans record been for the guys he didn't draft? That's the burning question we all want to know.

Pep had a good career, does Gets get credit?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I just don't see the point in ranking a GM based on whether their picks make 'all-rookies'. I get that was the basis of the article in just a not sure it means all that much.

And I was suggesting perhaps there is a different way to 'rank' GMs that might be a bit more meaningful, I'm not entirely sure how, but I'm sure there's a more interesting way. As squirrel pointed out some might not be on the list...

As I said, this article and ranking really doesn't mean anything. Despite sample size there's a lot of misleading issues with it, so I don't really understand the value.

[pantherphan96]

I'd like to take this time to point out how bad Belichick is at drafting talent. I think that stat should answer that Brady is much more important to the Patriots success than Belichick is. Master strategist? Yes. Master talent evaluator? God no.

[L-TownCat]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I just don't see the point in ranking a GM based on whether their picks make 'all-rookies'. I get that was the basis of the article in just a not sure it means all that much.

And I was suggesting perhaps there is a different way to 'rank' GMs that might be a bit more meaningful, I'm not entirely sure how, but I'm sure there's a more interesting way. As squirrel pointed out some might not be on the list...

As I said, this article and ranking really doesn't mean anything. Despite sample size there's a lot of misleading issues with it, so I don't really understand the value.

the point is the point. He took an angle at how to judge a GMs success by how their draft class can contribute immediately. Why would that not be a good barometer of how good of a talent evaluator is? Gets is smashing drafts and this author think that may be a tell-tale sign of a good GM. Why is that hard?