A statistical look at how average draft picks work out

[Doc Holiday]

In this article I found a interesting statistic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/#16358d1e7495

 

this is an excellent break down of NFL Starters, of the 2010 draftees 15% are current starters, the rest of the numbers are the breakdowns by the round they were drafted.

by this first round talents have a 67.5% chance of succeeding, Rounds 2 and 3 have nearly equal chances of starting at 33.8% and 36.3 percent. and after round 3 its pretty much pure luck.

edit:

i will say this doesn’t account for different draft pools, I’d love to see a year by year breakdown if anyone can find it, this is just 2010.

Not all Draft Pools are equal, like how last year it was a QB draft and this year was DL draft. A multi- year sample size would yield more accurate results.

[Khyber53]

100 plus college teams feeding into just 32 teams... there's a lot of competition. And figure in how many long-term vets there are among starters and that pro-NFL career is a pretty rare thing.

Wonder what the breakdowns are for players with over three years of pro career time?

[LinvilleGorge]

There's a reason why there's such a focus on top 100 picks and that's why. I didn't realize the drop-off was this drastic, but this is why I didn't want to trade one of our 3rds to move up.

[BrianS]

16 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

There's a reason why there's such a focus on top 100 picks and that's why. I didn't realize the drop-off was this drastic, but this is why I didn't want to trade one of our 3rds to move up.

That depends though.  If you're getting a first round talent, then according to this you are nearly doubling your chances that he'll succeed.

For example, let's say Burns wasn't there at 16.  There have been reports that we were ready to select Little at 16 in that scenario, making him a first round choice.  Does that mean he's suddenly twice as likely to succeed?

What these numbers show me is that Hurney did exactly what he should have done.  Hurney felt that Little was first round talent, meaning he felt that Little has that corresponding high chance to succeed.  In which case, he basically got one player with a 66% chance to succeed instead of two players with (approximately) 33% chances to succeed.  In his eyes, it was pretty much a wash.

Obviously, we won't know for a couple years in all likelihood.  But these numbers don't make me second guess the trade at all.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, BrianS said:

That depends though.  If you're getting a first round talent, then according to this you are nearly doubling your chances that he'll succeed.

For example, let's say Burns wasn't there at 16.  There have been reports that we were ready to select Little at 16 in that scenario, making him a first round choice.  Does that mean he's suddenly twice as likely to succeed?

What these numbers show me is that Hurney did exactly what he should have done.  Hurney felt that Little was first round talent, meaning he felt that Little has that corresponding high chance to succeed.  In which case, he basically got one player with a 66% chance to succeed instead of two players with (approximately) 33% chances to succeed.  In his eyes, it was pretty much a wash.

Obviously, we won't know for a couple years in all likelihood.  But these numbers don't make me second guess the trade at all.

How many of those other 67% of 2nd rounders were considered "1st round talents" though? According to Gettleman, virtually everyone he drafted in the 2nd round with us was a 1st round talent.

[BrianS]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

How many of those other 67% of 2nd rounders were considered "1st round talents" though? According to Gettleman, virtually everyone he drafted in the 2nd round with us was a 1st round talent.

Who knows?  The point is that these statistics are hindsight.  A GM has to decide whether he thinks the prospect is a first rounder in the moment.  That's what they get paid for.  If he thinks the prospect is that good, then giving up a pick like we did makes complete sense.  We of the internet forum GM's club can debate stats and prospects endlessly, but it's the real GM's who matter.  If they believe in a prospect, they should go get him.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Who knows?  The point is that these statistics are hindsight.  A GM has to decide whether he thinks the prospect is a first rounder in the moment.  That's what they get paid for.  If he thinks the prospect is that good, then giving up a pick like we did makes complete sense.  We of the internet forum GM's club can debate stats and prospects endlessly, but it's the real GM's who matter.  If they believe in a prospect, they should go get him.

I hope it works out, but Hurney's already been fired by this organization once and I can't recall a single time hes ever traded up for a player when it actually has worked out. Everette Brown, Armanti Edwards, Jeff Otah were all trade ups. He was trying to trade up for Jimmy Clausen. 

[Basbear]

37 minutes ago, BrianS said:

That depends though.  If you're getting a first round talent, then according to this you are nearly doubling your chances that he'll succeed.

For example, let's say Burns wasn't there at 16.  There have been reports that we were ready to select Little at 16 in that scenario, making him a first round choice.  Does that mean he's suddenly twice as likely to succeed?

What these numbers show me is that Hurney did exactly what he should have done.  Hurney felt that Little was first round talent, meaning he felt that Little has that corresponding high chance to succeed.  In which case, he basically got one player with a 66% chance to succeed instead of two players with (approximately) 33% chances to succeed.  In his eyes, it was pretty much a wash.

Obviously, we won't know for a couple years in all likelihood.  But these numbers don't make me second guess the trade at all.

My favorite teacher of all-time had a saying "Consider the source". All that you said was true, Gettleman also had Ealy and funchess as 1st rounders too. Little gave me an Eric Flowers vide, fairly bad. We're all hoping old herniay hits, cause if he does it could be a franchise-changer. 

@LinvilleGorge  I HATED funchess and HATED trading up for at best late 3rd rounder player. I know you felt similar, give little at least one full year & offseason. I believe he has a decent shot, feel he will be a gamer while looking rough at practice. 

 

[AU-panther]

56 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

There's a reason why there's such a focus on top 100 picks and that's why. I didn't realize the drop-off was this drastic, but this is why I didn't want to trade one of our 3rds to move up.

We had 4 picks in the top 100 of a draft class that seemed to have some depth at positions of need for us.  For this reason I was hoping we would find at least 3 starters out of those 4 picks and possible get lucky and find 4.

I'm not convinced we did.

 

[steven8989]

Wow Brady greatest of all time 

[GoobyPls]

Main reason I hated using the pick on a QB

[cookinbrak]

Have no problem with the QB at 100 if we hadn't given away the 77th pick.

[Waldo]

That's a very enlightening break down. 1-3 is huge and should be valued and trading 4-7s away is not as dramatic as some think. Trading away those 1-3 picks puts an extra burden on the prospect they were used to obtain. 4-7^th round picks used in trades or player acquisitions look really solid from this information. Even if they are a marginal player or only are useful post trade for a year or two, they still beat the odds.

This whole 1st round grade on a non-1^st round prospect is just an evaluators way of justifying their evaluation. It does not A) make the prospect a 1^st rounder or B) make their evaluation a good one.  Given our history, there is room for healthy speculation when we hear this phrase.

[Doc Holiday]

11 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

There's a reason why there's such a focus on top 100 picks and that's why. I didn't realize the drop-off was this drastic, but this is why I didn't want to trade one of our 3rds to move up.

This is not just a reply to this post only, but you’re clearly sour about the Trade. 

 The question about whether the trade was worth it or not cannot be answered today.  But simply if Little works out to be a starter or not, which I think he will be. If he is a starter the trade was 100% worth it, if he is a bust it wasn’t. It’s that simple.

you can scream it till you’re blue in the face that it was a terrible trade but right now we simply don’t know.

I’ve seen several people state on here that they loved the player but hate the trade, you can’t have it both ways,  there was a run on Offensive linemen when we made the trade.  I don’t care what you or anyone thinks about the chances of him being there at 47, the run on the OL proves he wasn’t going to be and the trade was the right move to get him.

I've closely followed every draft by the Panthers since 2004, there have been plenty of trades and picks that I had issues with, this isn’t one of them.