Drafting Quality From 2019-2023(It could actually be worse)

[kungfoodude]

Here are some breakdowns for how we stack up to the rest of the NFL in terms of "Draft Quality." 

This is from 2019-2023, so basically the "Tepper Era." Tepper took over in May 2018, so our 2018 draft was completely without his input at all so it was not included. The current year cannot be included as the wAV/AV is not generated until after the postseason. 

wAV is Pro Football Reference's Weighted Approximate Value. I didn't do a DrAV breakdown which would isolate for how the drafted players performed for the team that drafted them but this is really a look at overall talent evaluation and not development. 
 

[kungfoodude]

In short, we have the 31st ranked average playing time for draft picks(can be interpreted as career length and/or injury related).

We have the 26th rated Approximate Value per player in this era. So there are actually 6 teams that have arguably performed worse in the NFL Draft than we have.

[LinvilleGorge]

It's not great metric to be honest. We just suck so bad that our drafted trash sticks around where as they'd just get cut most other places with better rosters.

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's not great metric to be honest. We just suck so bad that our drafted trash sticks around where as they'd just get cut most other places with better rosters.

That actually not really true. If you look at the raw data, it's far more common for lower round picks to stick around far longer on the teams at the top of that list.

Largely because they do a better job of talent evaluation and also utilizing players more effectively, IMO. 

It's also that the "hits" are much bigger and/or much more frequent.

Edited October 7 by kungfoodude

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

That actually not really true. If you look at the raw data, it's far more common for lower round picks to stick around far longer on the teams at the top of that list.

You know you're staying the obvious here, right? Yeah, the teams with the highest number of games played per draft pick are naturally going to have late round picks that hung around longer.

What I'm saying is as bad as our ranking looks it's still skewed by the reality that our trash roster means that drafted guys who are mega ass still hang around longer than they would on a decent roster 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You know you're staying the obvious here, right? Yeah, the teams with the highest number of games played per draft pick are naturally going to have late round picks that hung around longer.

What I'm saying is as bad as our ranking looks it's still skewed by the reality that our trash roster means that drafted guys who are mega ass still hang around longer than they would on a decent roster 

Again, completely untrue.

We have drafted 43 players from 2019 to 2024, only 18 have stepped onto an NFL field in 2024.

This is what I am saying, even in our situation, those guys are typically out of the league very quickly.

From 2019-2022(31 picks), only six of those drafted players remain on our roster. Only 9 are still active in the NFL.

Our low amount of games per player is indicating that we don't even have drafted guys stay in the league more than a couple of seasons. 

Feel free to look, I already looked at all 32 teams.

[LinvilleGorge]

9 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Again, completely untrue.

We have drafted 43 players from 2019 to 2024, only 18 have stepped onto an NFL field in 2024.

This is what I am saying, even in our situation, those guys are typically out of the league very quickly.

From 2019-2022(31 picks), only six of those drafted players remain on our roster. Only 9 are still active in the NFL.

Our low amount of games per player is indicating that we don't even have drafted guys stay in the league more than a couple of seasons. 

Feel free to look, I already looked at all 32 teams.

I get what you're saying. You're not getting what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that number of 18 would be significantly lower if we had a decent roster because a lot of them are straight trash and would be cut on a better team.

[jb2288]

Horrendous. Fitt is the worst thing to ever hit this franchise 

[kungfoodude]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I get what you're saying. You're not getting what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that number of 18 would be significantly lower if we had a decent roster because a lot of them are straight trash and would be cut on a better team.

From 2023 and 2024, yes. For the most part that has already happened to the 2019-2022 guys. 

Hence why I say that the data is probably a pretty decent look at the overall. It includes all those guys on all these rosters that had the different trajectories. 

If I extended it out further by a few years, I don't suspect it is going to drastically change much. Usually the thing that moved the needle the most was teams with a ton of guys that played for 30+ games(across the board, not just in the first 3 rounds) or 1 or 2 massive drafts of high wAV players.

One of the very obvious differences between us and some of the top teams is that we don't get many of the 4th to 7th round journeymen backups that you see on better teams. That is literally almost nonexistent for us.

Edited October 7 by kungfoodude

[45catfan]

56 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Here are some breakdowns for how we stack up to the rest of the NFL in terms of "Draft Quality." 

This is from 2019-2023, so basically the "Tepper Era." Tepper took over in May 2018, so our 2018 draft was completely without his input at all so it was not included. The current year cannot be included as the wAV/AV is not generated until after the postseason. 

wAV is Pro Football Reference's Weighted Approximate Value. I didn't do a DrAV breakdown which would isolate for how the drafted players performed for the team that drafted them but this is really a look at overall talent evaluation and not development. 
 

If I'm not mistaken, the Rams and Pats had a TON of day 3 picks the past several drafts.  We all know those guys generally don't pan out.  That would skew those number significantly.

I mean, we have done worse with the fewest picks in the bottom 1/4 of that list in the League.  The Vikings nearly doubled our picks and are only a couple spots below us.

[45catfan]

I'm not sure where you got that data, but I would love to see just days 1 and 2 (rounds1-3).  I'm certain that list would change a good deal.

[kungfoodude]

7 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

If I'm not mistaken, the Rams and Pats had a TON of day 3 picks the past several drafts.  We all know those guys generally don't pan out.  That would skew those number significantly.

I mean, we have done worse with the fewest picks in the bottom 1/4 of that list in the League.  The Vikings nearly doubled our picks and are only a couple spots below us.

Well, the Rams are more toward the middle of the pack in GPPP. That's without any first round picks too. If you look at then specifically, it's just not many hits in general. They have had a BUNCH of 2nd and 3rd round picks that didn't pan out either(14 total).

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

I'm not sure where you got that data, but I would love to see just days 1 and 2 (rounds1-3).  I'm certain that list would change a good deal.

Honestly, maybe not as much as you would think. I lot of the guys that are crushing it do so fairly across the board. The amount of long tenured day three picks was eye opening, even if they were just backups.

[Basbear]

Thanks for the leg work kungfudude, i truly believe the scouts are the worst along with whoever is picking.