Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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


Recommended Posts

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. 
 

gamesPPP.thumb.PNG.b05ee04f38530cb78a21fc834078bdb7.PNG

wavPP.thumb.PNG.2fc07b530a6268d2ad2146f90b6c9209.PNG

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by kungfoodude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by kungfoodude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
 

gamesPPP.thumb.PNG.b05ee04f38530cb78a21fc834078bdb7.PNG

wavPP.thumb.PNG.2fc07b530a6268d2ad2146f90b6c9209.PNG

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • i think i go in the opposite direction of most. my ideal retirement is living in some old downtown area in a flat above some shop or something.  life out in the country was just something i got real tired of. My kids actually miss some of living out there, which i understand. that was where they grew up for the most part. 40 acres with a 2.5 acre pond. it was beautiful, but also way too much (and too expensive) for me to keep up with. 
    • FLASHBACK: I remember back when ESPN was just starting--he was their anchor.  They used to show stuff like Rodeo and field hockey--I remember laughing when he went to a commercial mocking a cycling competition in Utah (or something similar--I made that up) and I laughed.  I told my dad, "We may have us a new anchor when we get back from commercial."  When they came back from commercial, Berman was looking very serious and he said, "Any comments by me do not reflect the views of ESPN....The men and women who cycle are dedicated athletes and we are honored to shine light on their sport." (Paraphrasing).  Dad laughed hysterically. My first memory of him--and that was like 1980.
    • Might not have a team without them. Although that probably applies to the Panthers, too.
×
×
  • Create New...