PDA

View Full Version : 2000-2009 1st round choices, by position


killxswitch
04-12-2010, 01:20 PM
Out of general interest, here's what I found over the last decade:

WR - 43
CB - 37
LB - 36
DE - 35
OT - 34
DT - 32
RB - 32
QB - 27
S - 16
TE - 15
OG - 6
OC - 5
K - 1
P - 0

Not sure what, if any, conclusions can be drawn from this but I thought some might find it interesting.

It would appear WRs are important but also bust a lot, and that teams are constantly searching for the answer at that position. Also, you can tell teams are trying harder than ever to stop the pass, the first 3 defensive positions off the board are responsible for defending receivers or pressuring the QB. I bet these numbers are a lot different for 1980 - 1989.

I'm surprised OT was so far down the list. Outside of 08, when there were 8 taken, there were generally only about 3 taken in the 1st round each year.

Splat
04-12-2010, 01:23 PM
K - 1

This always makes me smile. :)

A Perfect Score
04-12-2010, 01:54 PM
This always makes me smile. :)

Haha thats the first thing I thought when I looked at the stats.

TheSlinger
04-12-2010, 02:21 PM
It would appear WRs are important but also bust a lot, and that teams are constantly searching for the answer at that position.

Or there are just more of them.

killxswitch
04-12-2010, 02:27 PM
Or there are just more of them.

Compared to LBs (3 or 4 starters per team), for example, there shouldn't be. Or OLmen: 5 starters per team, a total of 45 taken in the 1st round the last decade, vs. 2 starting WRs per team, with 43 taken in the 1st round the last decade.

DcmRulz
04-12-2010, 02:35 PM
I love Al Davis and his draft skills. also, i have a feeling this will skew toward LBs more since the 3-4 wasn't really widespread in the early '00s

Halsey
04-12-2010, 02:57 PM
People laugh at the Raiders for taking a kicker in rnd 1. but Janakowski(sp?) turned out to be a better use of that pick than many of the other players selected in the first that year.

Halsey
04-12-2010, 02:59 PM
People laugh at the Raiders for taking a kicker in rnd 1. but Janakowski(sp?) turned out to be a better use of that pick than many of the other players selected in the first that year.

As far as WRs: it probably doesn't hurt that they sell tickets. That can make them extra attractive to a team whose needs include WR.

MidwayMonster31
04-12-2010, 03:41 PM
The low number of safety selections interests me, seeing as how I had a lot of trouble figuring out where Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas will go. It also knocks Eric Berry's value down, thanks to the low position value of safeties. He can still be a top 10 pick, but I'm not sure what kind of impact he will have in winning, unless he becomes one of the best defensive backs in the league.

baronzeus
04-12-2010, 04:02 PM
People laugh at the Raiders for taking a kicker in rnd 1. but Janakowski(sp?) turned out to be a better use of that pick than many of the other players selected in the first that year.

As far as WRs: it probably doesn't hurt that they sell tickets. That can make them extra attractive to a team whose needs include WR.

Having a kicker like Janikowski who can attempt the longer field goals with consistency is extremely underrated.

Texas Homer
04-12-2010, 04:06 PM
I would have thought that there would be more Offensive Tackles. Interesting though, thanks for posting.

ALP1987
04-12-2010, 04:09 PM
Having a kicker like Janikowski who can attempt the longer field goals with consistency is extremely underrated.

Yep especially for the Raiders.

yourfavestoner
04-12-2010, 04:21 PM
Out of general interest, here's what I found over the last decade:

WR - 43
CB - 37
LB - 36
DE - 35
OT - 34
DT - 32
RB - 32
QB - 27
S - 16
TE - 15
OG - 6
OC - 5
K - 1
P - 0

Not sure what, if any, conclusions can be drawn from this but I thought some might find it interesting.

It would appear WRs are important but also bust a lot, and that teams are constantly searching for the answer at that position. Also, you can tell teams are trying harder than ever to stop the pass, the first 3 defensive positions off the board are responsible for defending receivers or pressuring the QB. I bet these numbers are a lot different for 1980 - 1989.

I'm surprised OT was so far down the list. Outside of 08, when there were 8 taken, there were generally only about 3 taken in the 1st round each year.

Makes sense for OT when you think about it...usually there is a couple of top prospects who go in the top 10 and a huge drop off after that.

killxswitch
04-13-2010, 08:33 AM
The low number of safety selections interests me, seeing as how I had a lot of trouble figuring out where Taylor Mays and Earl Thomas will go. It also knocks Eric Berry's value down, thanks to the low position value of safeties. He can still be a top 10 pick, but I'm not sure what kind of impact he will have in winning, unless he becomes one of the best defensive backs in the league.

Yeah, it really makes you wonder if 3 safeties are actually going to go in the 1st round, with an average of less than 2 being picked in the 1st every year before this. This year is different because there's so much depth at the upper levels of almost every position. There aren't a ton of A+ players, but there are a lot of B+ players.

Makes sense for OT when you think about it...usually there is a couple of top prospects who go in the top 10 and a huge drop off after that.

With all the stuff about how the LT is so much more important now I just kind of expected to look back and see a big increase in OTs taken in the 1st round. It's been fairly steady. It's just interesting when my perceptions suddenly don't match reality.