Draft Probabilities

Digging deeper into draft probabilities | National Football Post

interesting article. i'm sure there are flaws, such as teams hanging on to early draft picks longer than they should lots of times because they don't want to look like total idiots for drafting them. a couple quick thoughts:

how funny is it that we just miss the first group 1 -13? my take is that we should pray for someone to fall and a team to want them bad enough to trade up with us)

no wonder Hurney like picking LBs early - very safe bets

WRs - chances of success between picking one at 13-40 and picking one at 41-66 drops by 20% and then your chances for finding one after #87 are almost nil

DTs - chances of success between picking at 1-13, 14-40 or 41-66 are almost all identical (very small decrease in your chances of finding a good one waiting until the 2nd round)

if you have lots of needs, it seems like you would definately gamble on finding a OT and or/G in the later rounds -- about a 15% chance of hitting; safety about 10% and CB about 8%. Even DTs have an 11%.

 

That's a neat link. Thanks.

It certainly makes an argument for picking the WR first, I agree.

 

This analysis is interesting but there are some obvious problems with it. For instance, a lot of WRs and CBs chosen in the middle and late rounds are simply roster fodder. The amount of those players on the field at any one time fluctuates pretty dramatically depending upon what you're doing, so a lot of those guys are drafted simply as warm bodies to jump in for those circumstances where you need a lot of them. So even though pick 67-86 WRs only started for three years 23.8% of the time, they were on the roster for three years 81% of the time, which is actually a lot higher than OT or DT. Meanwhile pick 67-86 CBs only started for three years 15.4% of the time, lowest of any position except quarterback, and yet their 92.3% of being on the roster for 3+ years was highest of any position except fullback. That's one of the bad things about using percentages, in that they create a lot of noise.

 

Picking at 14 we're right on the bubble.

Those stats for OT in the 1-13 range are mighty impressive.

In the 14-40 range decent stats for G and DT, arguably our biggest needs.

 

i'm sure there are all sorts of problems with the analysis and I didn't spend much time with it yet but it did lend so support, even if it is weak, to a couple of my loose theories and those are:

after the first half dozen picks where you might be able to get an obvious great one, DTs are a bit of a tough analysis and you're as likely to hit on one in the 2nd as you are in the first. i don't know why that would be other than maybe it's tuff to know which big fat boy is going keep working once he gets enough money to support his appetite.

most of the starter quality WRs are going to be gone by the 10 picks or so of the second. if you want/need one, you need to grab one in the first 40 picks. if this draft unfolds so that we get a chance to pick the 1st WR taken, it might be a wise move. with the supposed depth, if we get a chance to trade down several spots in the 1st and pick up an extra second, i would be on board with that decision.

i've stated this before about Hurney, one of the biggest reasons he failed was that he lacked the nerve to bet big on landing a good WR in the draft. i think you gotta be willing to throw dart early in the draft at WR. you may go bust on the WR pick but you will definately bust if you're too scared to ever bet big.

 

Being a "starter" doesn't necessarily mean you're any good. For picks 1-13, the 33.3% WR rate for making one Pro Bowl is tied for the worst of any position. The 18.5% rate for making 3+ Pro Bowls is second worst behind only safety. So actually your link shows that WR might be the absolute worst thing you can pick early in the first round.

 

But Hurney did draft Jarrett and Colbert as 2nd rounders. Unfortunately, they were both shit.

But Hurney is now gone and so ends the 2nd round curse (touch wood).

 

both were drafted lower than the 40th pick. jarrett was 45 and colbert was 62. so those picks kinda support the idea that if you don't grab one in the top 40, your chances of getting a good one decrease significantly.

 

it does show that it seems to be tough to pick which WRs are going to be good ones ... but you i think you only have 1 of 3 choices. you can try to pick 'em, you can pay out the wahzoo for them in FA, or you can try to play without them (which we have basically been doing for the last few years). your chances of picking a good one decreases significantly after those first 40 picks. maybe your better off not gambling on a WR when you have other needs that are safer (Hurney's theory) but at some point you gotta start rolling the dice (I think).

another interesting thing i noticed is that there were more picks of WRs than any other position (except for DE which it tied with) in the first 40 picks, and it is the position most often picked in the first 66 picks. so how many times did Hurney use a top 40 pick on a WR? zero. and only twice on a top 66 pick - both of which busted. so while other teams are throwing darts at WR we were too scared and made "safe" picks -- and it shows in our roster. what the analysis doesn't show, but i'm betting that we are at the bottom of the pile in taking bets on WRs, and that the better teams have all drafted at least a couple of WRs high in the draft ... they may have had to draft 2-3 times high before hitting on a good one (a 46% rate of WRs drafted in the top 40 being starters 5+ years would support the idea that you might have to take a chance 2-3 times high to get a good one). i know it sucks, but i thinking you gotta be willing to do it. if you go into the draft knowing that's probably what you want to do and that you might get your pick of the litter and therefore you spend quality time with each of them and research the hell outa them, hopefully you better your odds.

 

Which is true for pretty much every position.

Except that your link shows the complete opposite because picking a WR early was arguably the worst thing a team could do.

Huh? WR definitely isn't in the top 5 when it comes to problems with this roster, and probably not even in the top 10.