Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Percentage of Busts in the first round

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Percentage of Busts in the first round

    I was searching for this article I read last year detailing the percentages of busts and safe picks for each position over the last X years. I found this article which is close but not the one I was thinking of:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...5&sportCat=nfl

    Its interesting reading but the article I read before this was more detailed and a much better read. I think its interesting given the current debates over what should be done with the #1 and #20 picks.

    I'll keep looking for the original article I read and post it here if I find it.

    EDIT: Actually that is the article. Its a few years old, but still interesting. The "more detail" i was speaking of is contained within the links to each position. Again, a nice article for draftniks and numbers guys.
    Last edited by tblain1; 02-27-2009, 10:20 AM.

  • #2
    So basically what the article is saying is that QB's have a 53% "bust rate" when being drafted in the first round, yet of the remaining 47% who don't bust, something like 70% of them go on to make the Pro Bowl (33% of the remaining 47%). Using rough numbers in a bust to Pro Bowl Ratio, it would be some like 60/40.
    [

    Crazyass sig by BoneKrusher

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by noondog View Post
      So basically what the article is saying is that QB's have a 53% "bust rate" when being drafted in the first round, yet of the remaining 47% who don't bust, something like 70% of them go on to make the Pro Bowl (33% of the remaining 47%). Using rough numbers in a bust to Pro Bowl Ratio, it would be some like 60/40.
      Its the epitome of boom to bust. Its an interesting article and study the guy did. Id like to see an update on it. Curently he has guys like Rex Grossman listed as NOT BUST...that could probably flip-flop.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sorry but stats used by this article are basically useless garbage in determining whether or not to draft a QB in round 1, never mind with a top 10 pick.
        It gives zero weight to the people who made the choices, the GM's who assess talent and then act on their appraisal. They simply aren't all up to the task and this fact alone accounts for a high % of the QB's who flopped.
        Beside a very high percentage of QB's who flopped were drafted by GM's who made it a habit to draft flops at every position, why, because they were extremely weak talent evaluators and took QB's other top notch GM's probably wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole. That's the beauty of the draft process, the better GM's will remain mum when they see a QB prospect ranked high who they don't think has a chance at success, because they know if a team drafting before them makes the mistake of drafting that weak QB, a better prospect drops closer to their own pick. Just because a lot of QB's flopped who were drafted high doesn't mean their was a consensus among the better GM's that this QB was actually a decent prospect, to a man, they might all have predicted his failure because they are simply better evaluators.
        This article assumes a heck of a lot. They treat each QB like his is equal in talent therefore there must be another reason for failures, they also assume again that they all deserved to be drafted where they were which is highly doubtful. People who get caught up in this type of garbage and lose track that each individual player must be judged on his own merit, are just looking for formulas that will never be used by any competent scout or GM(well, maybe Matt Millen was the exception). Tom Brady was drafted in round 6, the success rate for QB's drafted in round 6 is likely under 1%, did that stop NE from drafting him, no because their talent evaluator treated Brady as a unique person and judged him on his talent and didn't worry about the odds and that is exactly how you judge each prospect in the draft. Formulas are basically rubbish in the end.
        And proud of it!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Iamcanadian View Post
          Sorry but stats used by this article are basically useless garbage in determining whether or not to draft a QB in round 1, never mind with a top 10 pick.
          It gives zero weight to the people who made the choices, the GM's who assess talent and then act on their appraisal. They simply aren't all up to the task and this fact alone accounts for a high % of the QB's who flopped.
          Beside a very high percentage of QB's who flopped were drafted by GM's who made it a habit to draft flops at every position, why, because they were extremely weak talent evaluators and took QB's other top notch GM's probably wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole.
          That's the beauty of the draft process, the better GM's will remain mum when they see a QB prospect ranked high who they don't think has a chance at success, because they know if a team drafting before them makes the mistake of drafting that weak QB, a better prospect drops closer to their own pick. Just because a lot of QB's flopped who were drafted high doesn't mean their was a consensus among the better GM's that this QB was actually a decent prospect, to a man, they might all have predicted his failure because they are simply better evaluators.
          This article assumes a heck of a lot. They treat each QB like his is equal in talent therefore there must be another reason for failures, they also assume again that they all deserved to be drafted where they were which is highly doubtful. People who get caught up in this type of garbage and lose track that each individual player must be judged on his own merit, are just looking for formulas that will never be used by any competent scout or GM(well, maybe Matt Millen was the exception). Tom Brady was drafted in round 6, the success rate for QB's drafted in round 6 is likely under 1%, did that stop NE from drafting him, no because their talent evaluator treated Brady as a unique person and judged him on his talent and didn't worry about the odds and that is exactly how you judge each prospect in the draft. Formulas are basically rubbish in the end.
          I agree with some of what you said, and disagree with quite a bit as well.

          I agree there are more factors. This article doesn't set anything in stone. There are so many factors that go into a players success, that it would could take several man hours to determine the reasons some of these players were rated high yet busted.

          I think in dismissing the article you are missing something. It does show how hard it is for GMs in general to evaluate some positions over others. Why do so many QBs bust? GMs do have a problem evaluating their talent as do draft experts.

          One more thing I thought of when reading what you wrote....

          Most evaluations that are made at this point are based off of some expert opinion on who will land in what round based on talent. And in a lot of cases its shocking to me how little the "experts" differ when it comes to their mock drafts. Oh we talk about the uproar when McShay says Stafford isn't a super talent (OH THE OUTRAGE! HOW COULD HE SAY THAT !?!). But really these guys are usually pretty close to each other and usually pretty close to the draft itself.

          Think about it. When it comes down to it, how much do GMs really waiver from Mel Kiper's 1st round mocks? Especially on QBs, not that often. And when it comes down to the top 10 even less. Sure some guys like Leinart fall 10-15 spots but its not as if he went from being #3 overall to 2nd or 3rd round. So, I would argue that when it comes to the first round especially, this type of work is NOT garbage because in general, the picks in the round are generally agreed upon + or - a few spots.

          Since you talk about QBs, lets take Joey Harrington for example. The lions took him at #3. Bust right? Lions were dumb for picking him right? Huge reach at #3?
          http://www.draftcountdown.com/archiv...op-Overall.php

          Scott's final breakdown had Harrington as #5 overall. The #1 overall pick, David Carr was rated at #9.

          I looked for Mel Kiper's mock draft and didn't find a direct link, only a cut and past of some forum that had him rating Harrington at #4.

          Its not as if some people had Harrington as a 3rd round pick or worse. He was consistently thought of as the 1st or 2nd QB and a top ten pick. So lets assume the Lions passed on him. Where would he have gone? Probably still in the top 10. Maybe fallen to the top 20 but no later. So he would have been within that group of three QBs in the article above. The big unknown is how his career would have played out in another uniform. From what we know of him know...likely the same.

          I think the point of that article is to illustrate (of course with some grey areas) any trends of success or failure in predicting positional success. Its not golden but its not garbage either.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
            I agree with some of what you said, and disagree with quite a bit as well.

            I agree there are more factors. This article doesn't set anything in stone. There are so many factors that go into a players success, that it would could take several man hours to determine the reasons some of these players were rated high yet busted.

            I think in dismissing the article you are missing something. It does show how hard it is for GMs in general to evaluate some positions over others. Why do so many QBs bust? GMs do have a problem evaluating their talent as do draft experts.

            One more thing I thought of when reading what you wrote....

            Most evaluations that are made at this point are based off of some expert opinion on who will land in what round based on talent. And in a lot of cases its shocking to me how little the "experts" differ when it comes to their mock drafts. Oh we talk about the uproar when McShay says Stafford isn't a super talent (OH THE OUTRAGE! HOW COULD HE SAY THAT !?!). But really these guys are usually pretty close to each other and usually pretty close to the draft itself.

            Think about it. When it comes down to it, how much do GMs really waiver from Mel Kiper's 1st round mocks? Especially on QBs, not that often. And when it comes down to the top 10 even less. Sure some guys like Leinart fall 10-15 spots but its not as if he went from being #3 overall to 2nd or 3rd round. So, I would argue that when it comes to the first round especially, this type of work is NOT garbage because in general, the picks in the round are generally agreed upon + or - a few spots.

            Since you talk about QBs, lets take Joey Harrington for example. The lions took him at #3. Bust right? Lions were dumb for picking him right? Huge reach at #3?
            http://www.draftcountdown.com/archiv...op-Overall.php

            Scott's final breakdown had Harrington as #5 overall. The #1 overall pick, David Carr was rated at #9.

            I looked for Mel Kiper's mock draft and didn't find a direct link, only a cut and past of some forum that had him rating Harrington at #4.

            Its not as if some people had Harrington as a 3rd round pick or worse. He was consistently thought of as the 1st or 2nd QB and a top ten pick. So lets assume the Lions passed on him. Where would he have gone? Probably still in the top 10. Maybe fallen to the top 20 but no later. So he would have been within that group of three QBs in the article above. The big unknown is how his career would have played out in another uniform. From what we know of him know...likely the same.

            I think the point of that article is to illustrate (of course with some grey areas) any trends of success or failure in predicting positional success. Its not golden but its not garbage either.
            There is a huge disparity among GM's talents for appraising talent and pro potential. They couldn't give a damn about Kiper or any other so called guru. Maybe a Matt Millen might glance at their list but the top teams and their GM's have no problem finding talent in any round. The laugh all the way to the bank when a Matt Millen makes a pick, or a Nolan or a Butch Davis etc.
            The vast majority of serious flops occur to the same teams year after year who led by men who just don't belong in their jobs.
            It amazes me how few flops the solid GM's actually have although they aren't perfect by any means in a process that is a crap shoot at best. However, bad GM's produce flop after flop without any problems while the star GM's find talent way past round 1 on a consistent basis.
            Bill Pollian can have a 95% success factor with his day 1 picks while a Matt Millen drafting far earlier with a real opportunity to draft impact players has a 1% success rate. Has the positions have anything to do with it or is it simply a matter of talent and ability to assess people.
            I'm sorry but for me this article is a lame excuse for the reality, which is the ability to judge each prospect on his own individual merit and having somebody with real aptitude make the decision. NE found Tom Brady in the 6th round, luck maybe but when you add in Cassel who never started in college, you have to put aside luck and look at the people who were sent to judge these prospects, they obviously had real talent as appraisers. These scouts/GM's like Pollian and NE's group won't be found among the types who draft a lot of flops and it is an insult to their abilities to suggest they too would produce a 53% success rate in drafting successful QB's. These stats are warped in so many ways and so much is ignored that they really are garbage to a really solid GM who has to make a decision on the next QB he has an opportunity to draft.
            And proud of it!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              the problem with hte QB bust rate is people don't take into account outside factors. was Harrington a bust? yes. but he didn't have anyone to throw to early on.

              Owner of ScarDraft
              Atlanta Falcons and NFL Draft Featured Columnist for Bleacher Report

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Iamcanadian View Post
                There is a huge disparity among GM's talents for appraising talent and pro potential. They couldn't give a damn about Kiper or any other so called guru. Maybe a Matt Millen might glance at their list but the top teams and their GM's have no problem finding talent in any round. The laugh all the way to the bank when a Matt Millen makes a pick, or a Nolan or a Butch Davis etc.
                The vast majority of serious flops occur to the same teams year after year who led by men who just don't belong in their jobs.
                It amazes me how few flops the solid GM's actually have although they aren't perfect by any means in a process that is a crap shoot at best. However, bad GM's produce flop after flop without any problems while the star GM's find talent way past round 1 on a consistent basis.
                Bill Pollian can have a 95% success factor with his day 1 picks while a Matt Millen drafting far earlier with a real opportunity to draft impact players has a 1% success rate. Has the positions have anything to do with it or is it simply a matter of talent and ability to assess people.
                I'm sorry but for me this article is a lame excuse for the reality, which is the ability to judge each prospect on his own individual merit and having somebody with real aptitude make the decision. NE found Tom Brady in the 6th round, luck maybe but when you add in Cassel who never started in college, you have to put aside luck and look at the people who were sent to judge these prospects, they obviously had real talent as appraisers. These scouts/GM's like Pollian and NE's group won't be found among the types who draft a lot of flops and it is an insult to their abilities to suggest they too would produce a 53% success rate in drafting successful QB's. These stats are warped in so many ways and so much is ignored that they really are garbage to a really solid GM who has to make a decision on the next QB he has an opportunity to draft.

                I'm definitely not saying its a crap shoot and I'm definitely not saying that certain GMs aren't better evaluators of talent.

                Also this looks purely at 1st round picks. I think Millen, for as much as everyone talks about his 1st round flops, really shot himself in the foot on 2-7th round picks. Those are where good GMs build their team. 1st round is where you get your future stars. Later rounds is where you establish your core. Because this article looks at 1st round picks (again, how different are the final 1st round selections from the mock drafts...not very) I do think its decent reflection of what, in general, most people in football thought were good picks.

                Even beyond "good and bad" GMs, there are more factors that come into play. There is head coaching, player personel around that drafted player, off/def schemes that play to strengths, personal work ethic, etc.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
                  I'm definitely not saying its a crap shoot and I'm definitely not saying that certain GMs aren't better evaluators of talent.

                  Also this looks purely at 1st round picks. I think Millen, for as much as everyone talks about his 1st round flops, really shot himself in the foot on 2-7th round picks. Those are where good GMs build their team. 1st round is where you get your future stars. Later rounds is where you establish your core. Because this article looks at 1st round picks (again, how different are the final 1st round selections from the mock drafts...not very) I do think its decent reflection of what, in general, most people in football thought were good picks.

                  Even beyond "good and bad" GMs, there are more factors that come into play. There is head coaching, player personel around that drafted player, off/def schemes that play to strengths, personal work ethic, etc.
                  I completely agree that in rounds 2-7 Millen demonstrated zero ability to draft. However I disagree to some extent that there is a general consensus among GM's on where players are rated. What the good GM's do is hope that other less talented GM's follow the supposed consensus while they compile their own list. They encourage other teams to draft players they themselves wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole realizing that every time a team drafts a player they wouldn't touch, that a better player slips closer to their team. Therefore, you are never going to hear from a superior GM any criticism of the so called general consensus no matter how silly it may look to them, in fact in public they will agree whole heartily with the consensus to enable other weaker GM's to make mistakes.
                  Ask yourself, what makes a great GM and the answer always comes back to the draft and their ability to interview a player and tell if he has what it takes to reach greatness or at least a level of competence based on their athletic abilities. I don't think they are necessarily better at breaking down a player's game and deciding if it is good enough for the NFL. Their strength is their ability to judge people's desire to work toward reaching their potential and tell if they have the intangibles needed to succeed in the NFL(character, mental toughness, strength of will etc. etc.). This is the major difference between a successful GM and a Matt Millen. I'd be willing to bet money that their draft lists completely exclude numerous prospects rated in the top 5, the top 10 etc. etc. who are on all the consensus lists making the rounds. They have their own lists which they keep very private.
                  And proud of it!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    scary thought.
                    1. we don't have polian drafting for us so add 20% bust.
                    2. our organization does not have a history of developing talent. and vince young and bulger did not thrive under our HC and OC. add 15% bust.

                    so basically we have an 88% bust rate which would be about right looking at our draft history. it may even be generous. other teams should feel free to grab freeman and sanchez since odds are that our guy will bust.

                    yeah these numbers don't mean a thing. might as well just say that half the GMs in the league need to be fired. its less trickier logic.
                    SCA Prowler is my Xbox Live Gamertag
                    Fire Caldwell!!!

                    Prowler's Newb Guide

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Prowler View Post
                      scary thought.
                      1. we don't have polian drafting for us so add 20% bust.
                      2. our organization does not have a history of developing talent. and vince young and bulger did not thrive under our HC and OC. add 15% bust.

                      so basically we have an 88% bust rate which would be about right looking at our draft history. it may even be generous. other teams should feel free to grab freeman and sanchez since odds are that our guy will bust.

                      yeah these numbers don't mean a thing. might as well just say that half the GMs in the league need to be fired. its less trickier logic.
                      The only thing you didn't account for is the fact that we also have the worst scouting department in the NFL. Add 35% bust factor. So realistically, we do have at least a 55% chance of any pick busting if you ignore coaching and just concentrate on day 1. There is a reason we have only made the playoffs once under Ford's regime.
                      And proud of it!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Iamcanadian View Post
                        The only thing you didn't account for is the fact that we also have the worst scouting department in the NFL. Add 35% bust factor. So realistically, we do have at least a 55% chance of any pick busting if you ignore coaching and just concentrate on day 1. There is a reason we have only made the playoffs once under Ford's regime.
                        By that philosophy we should go with the consensus "safest" pick in the top 5.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Detroit shouldn't draft anyone, that way you can be sure you don't get a bust.
                          Originally posted by SNIPER26
                          fwiw, i amz deunks ofs myt ass. ilo vez drinmoinz befotre i post. wha t a hreat ideas.z.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X

                          Debug Information