The NFL Draft by Numbers: Do the Cowboys draft well?
By now, you've immersed yourself so thoroughly in all things to do with the draft, little could surprise you anymore. You've scoured all the mocks, you've looked at all the footage you could find, you've read all the scouting reports - and like me, you've most assuredly fallen prey to the NFL's hype machine.
This is the deepest draft ever! Studded with future hall of famers! This draft will turn that franchise around! Tebow a first rounder! All offensive linemen are instant starters! You get the drift.
Like every year, a handful of "future Hall of Famers" will turn out to be busts, some late round picks will turn out to be franchise players, and a draft class that gets a mediocre grade immediately after the draft may turn into an excellent draft class after a couple of years.
The truth will eventually come to light, and it'll start with the first minicamps where every team begins to find out whether their draft picks can actually play football.
But is the draft really such a crap shoot? Today we take a quantitative look at some of the Cowboys' recent drafts to find out.
In my recent post Building through the Draft? I showed that there was little to no correlation between a teams' winning record and its roster make-up, i.e. how many players on a team were drafted by that team and how many were UDFAs and how many joined as free agents. But the findings did not answer the questions of whether teams that draft well also have better W/L records.
To answer that question, we will first have to define what constitutes a good draft versus a bad draft. To do that, I will once again the "Approximate Value" (AV) metric developed by Doug Drinen at Pro-football-reference.com (PFR).
In my own words: Approximate Value is an attempt to assign a value to any player at any position for any given year, by weighting position specific metrics (i.e. yards or points scored/allowed) with an indicator for durability (total games played and seasons as their team's primary starter) and quality (Pro Bowl and All Pro nominations) and then normalizing all this at a team level. Read up on it at PFR if you need to know more.
Career Approximate Value (CarAV) then sums up the AV per season for the entire NFL career of a given player. This means that an average player who starts for 12 years could end up with a higher CarAV than a two-time Pro Bowler whose career ends after 5 years.
If you're still with me so far, now would be a good time to prepare yourself for some statistical mumbo jumbo. I've tried hard to make the data visually self-explanatory without going into more mathematical detail than is suitable for an NFL blog. Still there's no avoiding the number crunching if you want to evaluate drafts.
I've chosen to look at the draft classes from 1980 through 2008. This gives me 29 years worth of data, which I think is large enough to draw some fairly robust conclusions from. The analysis covers all 8,321 players drafted in those 29 years, and each one has his own CarAV.
1. Draft class value by year
In the graph on the left, I've plotted the total value of a draft class by year for the 29 years we're looking at. You'll notice that the values hover roughly between four and five thousand from 1980 to about 2001, where they then start to decline. The decline is simply due to the fact that the players drafted e.g. in 2005 have an NFL career of 'only' 5 years so far, whereas a player drafted in the 80s could easily have had a 10 year or longer NFL career in which to accumulate AV 'points'. In time, the later draft classes will all move up close to the mean.
I've also highlighted four years in red, which the data says were standout drafts. You've always heard that the '83 draft was the strongest draft in recent history? Well, here's the proof: in terms of AV, the class of 1983 is the best draft class of the last 30 years. Leading the AV rankings are six Hall of Famers, Dan Marino, John Elway, Bruce Matthews, Darell Green, Jim Kelly and Eric Dickerson. The 1993 and 1996 classes also stand out. Four of the top ten players of the class of '96 (Ray Lewis, Terrell Owens, Brian Dawkins and Muhsin Muhammad) are still active as of today, as are many others, so that AV number may still move up. I'll get to the 2006 class a little later.
For these yearly numbers, I've summed up every single draft pick, which means the number of draft picks by year is significantly different, from a high of 336 in '84 and '85 to a low of 222 in '94. If I were to limit the draft picks to only 222 per year, the numbers in the graph would not change significantly, an indication that on average there is little value left towards the end of the draft.
2. The value of recent drafts
The graph on the right shows the AV of the draft classes from 2003 through 2008. I've excluded the 2009 class from this whole analysis because the values after one year are too low to even begin any type of coherent analysis.
Importantly, to keep these numbers as comparable as possible, I've limited this analysis to 224 picks per year (7 rounds with 32 picks each).
A linear regression (the black line) across these six data points shows two things: A) an astonishingly high R², meaning that the model is highly accurate, and B) early indications are that the class of 2006 could turn out to be an exceptionally good draft class.
In terms of AV the class of 2006 is already 20% better than the other 5 years along the regression line. The Dallas draft class in 2006? The top four picks were: 1st round: Bobby Carpenter, 2nd: Anthony Fasano, 3rd: Jason Hatcher, 4th: Skyler Green. There is no question that the Cowboys whiffed on this draft. Whiffing and a draft is bad enough, whiffing on a draft that has above average value is even worse.
3. The Approximate Value of each draft pick
To understand if some teams draft better than others, we first need to understand the historical value of each draft pick. The assumption here obviously is that the no. 1 pick generates more value than the no. 5 pick, which in turn generates more value than the no. 10 pick, and so on.
Taking a quarter century of data from 1980-2004 (I left out 05-08 because the low numbers screw up the data too much), and looking at the first 224 picks (the equivalent to 32 picks in 7 rounds), we get the result we see in the graph on left. The graph clearly shows that there is a very high correlation between the Career Approximate Value of a player and the position in which he was picked, and the very high r squared of 0.92 confirms it.
What this data means is that we can now predict, with a fairly high degree of certainty, how high the CarAV of a player will be, simply based on his position in the draft. There is one minor caveat here though. If you look closely, you'll see that at the end of the first and second rounds (around picks 32 and 64), there seems to be a higher level of fluctuation than elsewhere. We will correct for this by doing a regression by rounds.
4. The Approximate Value of each pick in each round
Ok, bear with me here. I've broken down the seven rounds into four chunks, and ran a linear regression against them.
I needed to do this to get a better fix on the value of each pick. You'll see that the angle of the regression line is different by round, most pronounced between the first and second round.
As described in a previous post (Moving up by trading down?), on average, the picks at the top of the second round generate more value than the picks at the end of the first.
Also, rounds one, two and three-through-five still have a fairly high r squared, but there is no correlation whatsoever between the pick number and the eventual AV in rounds six and beyond (160-244). For round 6 and beyond, the mathematically precise formula is: Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't.
5. What now?
I now know the average expected AV of each draft pick. I also have the actual AV of each draft round in each year. I can now compute the 'Draft Success' of each draft pick by comparing the actual AV against the expected AV for each round and year. Here's an example:
Over 25 years, the average Career AV for the no. 25 pick in the draft is 27 AV points out of a total of 1,340 AV points for the first 32 picks in a draft, or 2.5%. Now let's take the no. 25 pick in 2008, the Cowboys' Mike Jenkins. The first 32 picks in 2008 have a combined Career AV of 387 so far. 2.5% of 387 are 9.6 AV points. Mike Jenkins has already accumulated 10 Career AV points. Dallas has therefore gotten 0.4 more points for this pick than could have been historically expected. The 'Draft Success' for Dallas is therefore 4% (0.4 divided by 9.6). The positive 'Draft Success' percentage means Dallas so far has gotten slightly more value than they could have historically expected from their 25th pick.
By looking at 'Draft Success' in the way described, I can tell how good each team was at maximizing the draft picks it had available. Draft Success does not evaluate how many picks a team had, simply how efficient they were in getting value for the picks they did have. Similarly, it doesn't matter which slots a team had in a draft. By only comparing the same slot numbers, it doesn't matter if you had the first or tenth pick.
Finally, I didn't adjust what percentage of the player's career value was accrued with the team that drafted him. The Cowboys get full credit for drafting Anthony Fasano (incredibly, the player with the best AV out of Dallas' 06 draft class), although he's playing for Miami now.
So without further ado, here are the ten Dallas Cowboys drafts from 1999 through 2008:
The figures here should not come as a big surprise for anybody familier with the Cowboys' recent drafts.
The 2005 class with DeMarcus Ware, Marcus Spears, Marion Barber, Chris Canty and Jay Ratliff is a stand-out draft any way you measure it.
The 2004 class may seem a bit surprising given that the Cowboys did not have a first rounder that year, but relative to the picks they had, the Cowboys actually did a pretty good job of getting value for their money.
In terms of value for money or bang for buck, the Cowboys drafts have been a hit and miss affair. In the years in which they had a positive Draft Success figure the Cowboys ranked in the top third of the league in terms of Draft Success every time (99: 11th, 02: 12th, 03: 8th, 04: 8th, 05: 2nd, 08: 9th). Conversely, when the Cowboys had a negative number, they ranked at the very bottom of the NFL: (00: 30th, 01: 28th, 06: 29th, 07: 26th).
Do the Cowboys draft well? The Cowboys had a positive Draft Success number in six out of the ten years I looked at. That's tied for sixth in the NFL with five other teams. Not bad at all. It's when they miss that they miss badly.
Two teams had a positive Draft Success number in nine out of ten years. One team had a negative number in nine out ten years. Care to take a guess who these teams are?
All will be revealed in the next and final part of this NFL Draft by Numbers series in which we'll look at how Draft Success correlates with winning across the whole NFL.
113 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Gooed Stuff
Right off hand I’d probably say Indy and N.E. on the positive side and oakland on the negative!!
I would say
those are good guesses. I may throw the Eagles in there as a surprise pick. Or possibly the Ravens.
The Eagles drafting prowess has been overrated in recent years
They’ve done a lot of their acquisitions via FA and trades. Look at their draft record at Pro Football Reference.com— one Pro Bowler from the last 5 drafts.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
+1
I have a hard time thinking of a non-wr high draft pick whose performed consistently well for Philly. Bradley could be one. Bunkley and Patterson are decent, but nothing spectacular. They also have a black mark in the form of Jerome McDougle.
on the negative
Oakland is my first choice, followed closely by the Lions. Calvin Johnson may be the only player keeping them in the positive.
Fantastic research and write-up
Yeah, the 2006 draft was excruciating. A significant percentage of us were berating the picks as they were occurring. Pat Watkins was the only sensible pick. Way too much reaching. Hope it does not replicate this year.
As you alluded OCC, but did not expound upon as part of your intro, is the hype factor. (Not a criticism of the piece as you already went into great detail on your primary point) I’m somewhat dubious about the offensive tackle hype, in that I fear the team will reach for one. The supposed “depth” could lead to one of two situations in my estimation. There will either be a run of lineman in the late 1st to early 2nd round, or sliders with teams determining that there is quality depth at the position and good prospects can be found later. It’s funny, but a part of me believes that the “Moneyball” position this year in the draft may turn out to be wide receiver. Seems draftniks are not buzzing the position a great deal this year.
Completely Agree About OT
Recent history has shown a big run on OTs in the early part of drafts. And where are we? Right back where we started with every team looking for an OT.
I have faith that the ‘boys won’t reach for a tackle. I think the worst thing I could hear on Thursday is “Dallas Cowboys select XXX, Offensive Tackle from YYYYY”
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions
we need the middle three more than a tackle
having some big uglies in the que of interior linemen would make me more comfortable.
our depth at OL is ass-trocious!!! I wouldn’t mind 4 OL in this draft.
Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK
Completely Agree
I think Gurode and Len are our biggest liabilities. We gave up too many sacks through that part of the line and couldn’t get any push in run support (See: Barber running right at them 3 times against San Diego and getting stuffed)
It’s time to get young in the interior
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Excellent Work
That must haven taken a lot of effort to put together and the results certainly pass the “smell” test.
If I understand the way you put this together, the evaluation of a draft only looks at the quality of picks made with draft choices (original or those for which a team traded), and does not measure the quality of trades made within the draft. So, if a team were to trade a pick for a player that is not really assessed. And if a team trades for picks in a future year, the assessment of those picks would be assigned to the year in which the picks were made. And finally, if a team trades down in the same year for multiple picks, this method analyzes the resulting picks, but not whether the trade was a good trade. [I am not in any way trying to diminish the approach – just trying to understand a few minor limitations.]
by doomsdayreturns on Apr 19, 2010 11:14 AM CDT reply actions
Your assumptions are all correct.
Most of the draft analysis I’ve seen are simple count ‘em exercises, i.e. number of Pro Bowls per class, number of games etc. This is of course a valid approach, but they leave me slightly uneasy. Give a team enough top ten picks, and if they’re not Oakland, they’re bound to hit some pretty good prospects along the way.
The question I was more interested in, particularly given that Dallas is drafting 27th, is how do teams do that consistently draft in the late 20s and 30s, as some of the more successful teams of the last decade (NE, IND, PIT, PHI) have had to do. By comparing expected AV pick by pick, I get a better sense of which teams make the most out of their picks, and which don’t.
by One.Cool.Customer on Apr 19, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Impressive Approach
Your approach solves the hard problem of objectively measuring the quality of picks taken. I think there are already fairly simple ways of assessing the few other components of a draft I pointed out (especially for trades of picks – like comparing to the infamous trade value chart) or by extension of your approach (for a player received for a draft pick, you just just use the AV of that player’s career from the time he was traded).
by doomsdayreturns on Apr 19, 2010 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Off topic
Another offseason trade, this one a 3-way featuring the Eagles, Broncos, and Lions. As Raf predicted, with a lot more RFAs this year, teams are resorting to trades much more frequently than in the past to acquire players. I like it, I think it makes for an exciting environment, and it frees you a bit from the bad contracts which were flying around in the early days of recent free agency.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
seems like a good trade for everyone but denver
players are going for very low picks this offseason. But as you say, it gets guys who aren’t performing up to standards off payroll
Amazing Deal for Philly
They get a starting linebacker for a 5th round pick.
Terrible deal for Detroit. They get a #2 tight end that isn’t all that good and they lose a solid starting linebacker? Wow…
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure his draft position matters at this point
But for a 5th, yea thats a good deal.
On that note, almost all of these trades seem to favor the team trading away the draft pick.
Sims only costs $1M this year
Seems like a pretty good deal.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
Goose has Dez falling and the Cowboys taking him at #27 in his latest mock.
I don’t think he will fall that far, but if he does should the Cowboys take him?
In an interview Willie was ask if he was thinking about retiring. He paused for a moment, smiled and replied " I play music and golf, which one do you think I need to give up"?
Ridiculous
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 20, 2010 4:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Jerry probably would
I think it was McShay who said the other day that if Dez falls to around #20, look for Jerry to move up and snatch him up. Personally, I wouldn’t be opposed to it so long as we didn’t have to give up too much. I also wouldn’t mind standing pat and taking Pouncey either.
by DallasFanSince1983 on Apr 19, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
I sure hope Jerry doesn't move up for him.
I would also like to see OL help in the first round. I wouldn’t mind at all if Jerry moved up for a blue chip OT if one happens to slip out of the top 15.
In an interview Willie was ask if he was thinking about retiring. He paused for a moment, smiled and replied " I play music and golf, which one do you think I need to give up"?
This I agree with
WRs spook me a little – too much bust potential. And even if Dez is all we ever wanted, first year is often a wash out and lastly, you could have all the WRs in the HOF and it won’t help if the QB is seeing the world through his ear hole…
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
PLEASE SAY YES TO DEZ, JERRY
I think he has no chance to fall to 27, but if he does I hope we take him.
Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK
I would draft Dez Bryant
Rick Gosselin’s second mock always focouses on need, so it’s not a real indicator; his first is based on his board – so its straight BPA. Second is need, so it’s highly skewed to vertical rankings (teams will draft a safety if they need one, ignoring better rated CBs). The second one is the least likely. His 3rd is the one I’d pay most attention, where he tries to navigate need and BPA.
One thing I’ve noted, Mike lupati to dallas in Mock 1, Dez Bryant in Mock 2; Dallas keeps getting terrific players at important spots in each mock so far by him
by AustonianAggie on Apr 19, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
If the #1 at any position falls to 27
You take him.
But he DEFINATELY won’t. WRs are like ex-GFs that are good in bed. Every team knows they should stay away, but there they are in the same room for many hours on a Thursday night and… well… things happen.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
LMAO
so accurate and hilarious at the same time….u sir…get a rec
by nicholas.rodriguez on Apr 19, 2010 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions
i have the feeling
the 2007 draft will be a standout if we wait a couple of years, felix jones, marty b, mike jenkins, scandrick and t. choice
Agree
and I hope we keep them Cowboys. I’d hate to see Choice be dealt a half-season before Barber busts up his knee. Marty B is still in the “potential” category.
That's the 2008 class, which has the potential to be 2005-esque
2007 is still in limbo, with Spencer who is now just coming on, Free who also has good potential, Folk we all know his story, Alan Ball could stick around for a couple more years and Deon Anderson has been decent. The disappointments were OT James marten (3rd round) and our old friend Isaiah Stanback (4th round). Of course, the trade with Cleveland that draft led to picking Felix in 2008, so that has to count for something. Either way, the2007 draft is way better than 2006. Yikes.
Your posts make my head swim sometimes, OCC
Mostly because I’m usually still half asleep while trying to read them. Good stuff though. May this draft turn out to be one of the good ones.
Let the chips fall where they may
Insanely Amazing Research
I think sometimes we take for granted just how much time you have to put in and how much number crunching you have to do to make these posts a reality. This is truly top notch work.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
Guesses
Two teams had a positive Draft Success number in nine out of ten years. One team had a negative number in nine out ten years. Care to take a guess who these teams are?
Postive Draft Success: New England and Indianapolis
Negative Draft Success: Detroit
by Fan in Thick and Thin on Apr 19, 2010 12:31 PM CDT reply actions
Yea I'd guess SD instead of NE
NE’s had a few questionable drafts recently
Another mock
Terrible Mock
I could see CBs go that high… I’m a little shocked at how low most mocks have them.
But Denver taking an ILB at 11? The Gians pushing a RB? Brownies, Buffalo, Oakland, Jacksonville and the 49ers TWICE passing on Clausen? And I can’t imagine Jerry gambling on Taylor “Roy Williams 2” Mays.
I just don’t see it playing out like that at all.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I love it, OCC!
GREAT ANALYSIS!!!!!!!! Just fun to dig into the numbers like this!
As for guesses, how about:
Indy and NE as the best..
Detroit as the worst.
ha ha ha, still two out of three. hmmm this reminds me of mastermind, with three pegs only.
by One.Cool.Customer on Apr 19, 2010 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Grrrrrr
Ok, I’m confident about Indy and Detroit.
So we’ve eliminated NE, Tenn, and SD. My next best guess would be Philly.
Quoth the OCC: Nevermore!
there’s your hint in the title :-)
by One.Cool.Customer on Apr 19, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions
The Oregon Ducks?
In an interview Willie was ask if he was thinking about retiring. He paused for a moment, smiled and replied " I play music and golf, which one do you think I need to give up"?
Great Job
This is your best yet OCC.
I guess this means that if Jerry is smart he’ll trade back. The value in the early second round teeters off after pick 48. So for those first 15 picks in the second or so is where Jerry should look to move back
2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it
Good work, sir.
NE and SD as the best? Oakland as the worst.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
Parcells and Ireland
It’s interesting to overlay that final graph versus the tenures of Bill Parcells and Jeff Ireland in Big D. Parcells from 2003-2006 (2 good draft classes, 1 fantastic, and 1 bad). Ireland from 2001-2007 (3 good, 1 fantastic, 3 bad).
I agree
And I also don’t think the ship has sailed yet on the 07 and 08 classes. Spencer and Free from the 07 class are just coming into their own – better late than never – and like ratware said above, the 08 class with Jones, Jenkins, Bennett, Choice and Scandrick might in time come to rival the 05 class.
by One.Cool.Customer on Apr 19, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I Agree
I think the 07 class will appreciate towards the mean over the lifetime of the players but never go above it.
I think the 08 class will strongly appreciate. Especially when Barber is let go and Choice and Felix are allowed to be the most fearsome tandem in the NFL.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Is It Fair to Put Felix and Jenkins in Same Draft
When we sacrificed in a prior year to gain an extra one? O8 is not as good as advertised because of this and it was the deepest running back draft in recent history . . . so Choice is discounted a bit here as well (relatively speaking)
It's apparent Indy is one of the best and detroit is one of the worst.
Alot of people were guessing New England but they haven’t been great the last couple of years in the first round.
Let’s just guess that it might be…. Pittsburg?
Anything said above is purely the opinion of AFB unless said otherwise.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Apr 19, 2010 4:14 PM CDT reply actions
Indy and Tennesse on the plus side of the equation and Detroit on the woeful side
I don’t watch enough Tennesee to put them there without the hints…
by Behind the lines on Apr 19, 2010 4:25 PM CDT reply actions
Really a great article, Sir
and I suck at math but you made this so easy to understand. Good stuff.
"Let me not mourn for heroes who have died fighting but rather let me be glad such heroes have lived." G.S. Patton
+11111111111
Great article and thanks for writing it in a way those without a brain for statistics could readily understand.
"Everybody wants something but nobody wants to pay the price" - Michael Irvin
One more caveat: correct me if I'm wrong
Your final graph showing teams’ success measures value against the expected value for that pick.
However, value for each pick, statistically, declines as the picks go on.
Therefore, according to this, trading down too often can hurt you in the long run. You can be getting good value for those picks, but giving up a higher value overall.
The counter-argument would be that although each pick has less value, you get more picks, so you can end up w/more total value overall.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
Yes and no
trading down is a tricky issue, if only because what is historically true may not be so in the next draft. Also, careful with the graphs, as they contain a boatload of information but lack granularity at the individual pick level.
The key to trading down is to find equivalent value further down. Quincyyyyy makes an excellent observation above. “The value in the early second round teeters off after pick 48. So for those first 15 picks in the second or so is where Jerry should look to move back”. In the next post I’ll show that this is actually quantifiably true.
And your counterargument obviously holds. If you can get of the same value per pick for two picks as you would have had for one, you’ve obviously doubled the value of that one original pick.
by One.Cool.Customer on Apr 19, 2010 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I was thinking more along the lines of the value of the 2 picks would equal the one you gave up
but it could surpass it.
Talking actual value, not comparative.
But everything you said makes sense.
Still, although there point value may be equal, it’s more subjective to say 2 lesser players equal one better player. No right or wrong, just an interesting discussion!
Good work on this, it’s well-done!
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on Apr 19, 2010 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Assuming there are 2 picks for 1...
One would have to weigh the odds of hitting on the two lesser probabilities versus the one higher probability. While each lower pick isnt as likely to succeed, it would be curious to see if the extra tries make up the difference. I actually suspect it might work out as a way to hedge risk.
you lost me at hello
just kidding. I am an engineer by trade and love this kind of mathematical breakdown. however, these things aren’t indicators of what will happen, but give you a mathematical probability of what could happen.
positive draft success
actually I don’t think its new england. I would venture to say its Indy and Pitt.
negative is probably Raiders, Detroit and Washington (or is that too obvious)
Yeah, I live in metro-Detroit
and I can attest Detroit has made an art out of drafting badly, but I think the new coach and general manager they have here may actually have a clue.
"Let me not mourn for heroes who have died fighting but rather let me be glad such heroes have lived." G.S. Patton
Arrgggghhh...........
just got the news about the Shegals getting Ernie Simms. That’s bad news. That guy can play linebacker.
"Let me not mourn for heroes who have died fighting but rather let me be glad such heroes have lived." G.S. Patton
Eagles
Are having an amazing offseason.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions
But do they have a QB?
In an interview Willie was ask if he was thinking about retiring. He paused for a moment, smiled and replied " I play music and golf, which one do you think I need to give up"?
That's the Crux of it
For every NFL team, isn’t it?
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep Sims is good...
but he’s extremely fragile.
He generally plays hurt but it seems like he’s dinged up quite frequently.
And he’s just good, he isn’t anything spectacular. A 5th rounder was probably the most they were going to get for him.
Anything said above is purely the opinion of AFB unless said otherwise.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Apr 19, 2010 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions
They are?
They have signed a bunch of low tier, low cost guys (Marlin jackson, ernie sims, alex mack), but have significant holes at: SLB, DE, OT, C, CB, backup RB, and FS.
They’re pruned a lot of dead wood, but the Eagles will only be okay if they draft well this weekend. They have a ton of picks, and they need to spend them very well.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
how exactly?
their whole offseason is this draft. If this draft tanks, the team is set back 3 years minimum.
They have so many needs that all this talk about trading up for a guy like Berry really surprises me. Their CB position is terrible and I’ve read asante likely won’t be back in 2011
Yeah......
that’s true Blue……..and unfortunate for us.
"Let me not mourn for heroes who have died fighting but rather let me be glad such heroes have lived." G.S. Patton
Aargh
Its an OCC doppelgänger.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 20, 2010 4:02 AM CDT up reply actions
You know........
I really don’t think so. Kolb reminds me alot of Scott Mitchell. Have a feeling his career is going the same way. Least I hope so.
"Let me not mourn for heroes who have died fighting but rather let me be glad such heroes have lived." G.S. Patton
if Kolb is pretty decent
the Eagles are going to be a b!t%h to deal with for the next several years.
Here’s hoping they bust with all of their picks.
Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK
Am I The Only One That's Afraid...
That one day some major publication is going to discover our BTB writers and steal them away from us?
Raf’s knowledge, OCC’s stats, Aaron’s insights. They’re all so amazing, we have to keep them our secret! :-D
by Blue Eyed Devil on Apr 19, 2010 5:17 PM CDT reply actions
I heard that they make the big bucks at BTB,
so I don’t know if anyone else can afford them.
In an interview Willie was ask if he was thinking about retiring. He paused for a moment, smiled and replied " I play music and golf, which one do you think I need to give up"?
You forgot Dave's management and his harem of Blog Groupies
The groupies are a key benefit for these writers…
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
And all of OCC's dates w/those girls who get their pictures in his posts.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on Apr 20, 2010 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Redskins
Apart from Orakpo, the Skins have been having some fairly putrid drafts for quite a while.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
One Thing I Just Checked
Is the number of Pro Bowl appearances of NFC players drafted in the last five years. Dallas has 13, the Giants have four, the Eagles three and the Redskins one (Orakpo). Everyone thinks the Eagles are brilliant drafters, but the record says otherwise.
the eagles are going Jimmy Johnson style with this draft and gonna pick like 20 dudes!
Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK
Draft Chart
Nice work. Looks like you’ve got the data to update the old Cowboys chart for trading draft picks.
Yeah I especially found it really interesting the early second is better value than the late first
That is quite a find.
2009 BTB Fantasy Champ... Deal with it
Great drafters
New England and Indy
Worst – Buffalo
by nicholas.rodriguez on Apr 19, 2010 8:47 PM CDT reply actions
Great Post OCC
but a question; which 2005 draft class is better than ours?
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
In terms of the way the Draft Success is calculated,
New England. Remember the Draft Success number is not a quantitative measure, but a qualitative one that looks at how successful a team was with the picks they had available. NE’s 2005 Draft:
1st round: Logan Mankins (32nd), 2 Pro Bowls, 46 CarAV, 80 games started
3rd round: Ellis Hobbs (84th), 25 CarAV, 71 games
3rd round: Nick Kaczur (100th), 35 Car AV, 68 games
4th round: James Sanders (133rd), Car AV 19, 69 games
7th round: Matt Cassel (230th), Car AV 25, 45 games
5 starters with late round picks, that is a very good draft.
by One.Cool.Customer on Apr 20, 2010 4:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Quick response
Thank you.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 20, 2010 5:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Very Interesting
The only point I’d disagree with is utilizing simple regression to pluck out 2006 as an outlier year. Clearly, the slope is being driven by the “aging” effect, which may or may not be linear. Do players get a jump in playing time and the approximate value calculation in their third year of professional play? I think, at certain positions, this is pretty likely to be the case, so while we can look at 2006 against ‘05 and ’04 and say that it was better than those drafts, I don’t know that we can draw the same conclusion for ‘07 and ’08. There may be an artificial bump in Year 3 of a career that they haven’t experienced yet.
The end-of-the-first round question is the most interesting output of this, though. What’s driving this behaviorally? Is it the propensity of teams that did very well to think they have “luxury” picks, or that they are one “skill player” away? Is it an increased willingness to trade back, inducing others to trade forward and reach for less skilled players? And how will moving the second round to a new day, where teams can recharge their analysis, execute trades and rethink strategy, effect everything? Very interesting.
Also...
I wonder what the median looks like on some of these charts. I suspect if I looked at #1 picks, I’d see some big tails on that.

by 





















