Ultra-Fantastic Article on FootballOutsiders.com

[Archimedes Owl]

This brilliant article on footballoutsiders.com (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/04/24/ramblings/nfl-draft/3828/) explores statistically which round starting calibre players at several different positions are routinely drafted.

In doing so, they hope to explore which positions should be considered in which round.

One flaw to keep in mind with this study was that they didn't seem to adjust for exactly how many players of each position was taken in each round. And they didn't attempt to adjust for different schemes, but overall the information was valuable and the theory behind it is reasonable. It quantifiably shows some of what all of us know.

They classified positions in three categories:

Top Heavy -- These positions are most often successfully filled in the early rounds and there is a big dropoff in the later rounds. These positions include quarterback, defensive tackle, #1 wide reciever, running back and offensive tackle.

The theory behind the defensive tackle position is that players talented enough to be NFL starters are far and few between and will display the measurables even if they don't have the type of production necessary. This makes them easy to scout in some ways, so the best ones are taken early and the latter round picks are replaceable and can be found in many different rounds. Good defensive tackles should be drafted early.

While all of these positions are top heavy to one degree or another, some are more top heavy than others. I advise actually reading the article and taking a look at the distribution.

Normal -- These positions seem to decline regularly as you go down the rounds. First rounders are most likely to succeed as starters. Second rounders are slightly less likely. Third rounders slightly less likely than that and so on.

Normal positions are defensive ends, (inside and outside) linebackers, cornerbacks, tight ends, second wide recievers.

These positions are aided by having good measurables, but there are other factors in determining success. Things such as instinct and hard work are important, so these positions are a bit more difficult to predict. They are good positions to look for good value in.

Early Round Peak -- These positions peak after the first round. Presumably because players at these positions are less talented than their counterparts at other positions. A talented safety may be moved to corner back, so it makes sense that there would be fewer first round safeties playing in the league.

Flat -- These positions seem to be found in any round in the draft. Guards, Fullbacks, Kickers and punters are in this category. And, indeed, most people regard these positions as those that can be found in any round.

--------


Something that was interesting to me was how highly the first wide recievers were drafted. Of course, we're all aware of how often first round recievers bust, but according to their research, they also found that first wide recievers are most often found in the first or second round.

I also found their including defensive tackle as a position that is top heavy as interesting. It kind of lends credence to the criticism of Shanahan by some of the folks on these boards. I found it interesting that defensive tackle was actually quite a bit more top heavy than defensive end. This kind of fuels my desire to nab a defensive tackle with one of our early picks.

I'd like to see this type of study redone with consideration of how many of each type of player was drafted in each round.

[Fan in exile]

Great article, well worth the read.

[Archimedes Owl]

Make a non-Javon Walker/Ashley Lelie thread and see how quickly it gets ignored.

Well, this article was an excellent read, so I bump this thread. I'd love to hear some discussion on it.

[Jared]

Make a non-Javon Walker/Ashley Lelie thread and see how quickly it gets ignored.

Well, this article was an excellent read, so I bump this thread. I'd love to hear some discussion on it.


I'm trying to read it. Numbers get me dizzy.


I will say that I am impresssed at the sheer amount of work for one article.

[Dub-DeuceKnight]

That is an interesting analysis but it doesn't discount for teams drafting on need (which most 1st round picks are made upon) and BAP in the following rounds.

That being said I think Ko Simpson might make a good 2nd round safety.

[Amigo_Bronco]

Yes, it's a good article, I was about to comment something a while ago but I had to leave.

I think that the article has a couple of things missing that would have helped to show a better picture: the author is showing, among the starters, what's the proportion of players drafted in the different rounds, by position. So according to that, for example, pretty much half of the starting QBs are first round picks... but, there are two important points: overall, how many QBs are picked in the different rounds? And also, the hit/miss nature of some of these picks: somehow is sending the message "if you need a QB, use a first round pick", but an important piece of information is missing, what if, even on the first round, only one of each 5 (to say a number) picks become starters? (And I think that this is your point, Owl). That is, what do you prefer, drafting a left Tackle (knowing that most of the players in the position are 1st round picks) with a success probabilty of .5 or a Center, knowing that recently 4 out of 5 have become solid players?

Another point, a little bit more technical, due to the nature of talent in the NFL, the talent distribution is very, very skewed. Just as he recognizes, differences between 6th, 7th rounders and UFA are negligible, maybe he should divide the first round (or even the first two rounds) in two, early and late.

Last year I took the time to review career stats of DLinemen, and you could see a significant difference depending on how early the player was taken. I bet that you 'd reach similar conclusions for other positions .

I have to say that the Tackles conclusions look a little bit fishy.. I bet that in the case of the Broncos, he considered Foster the T1 and Lepsis T2, when it's the other way around; probably something similar happens with the Raiders, and maybe other teams.

On a side note... I had this feeling, gut feeling, no brain involved... if the Center, Mangold is available, the Broncos will pick him... I don't know why, I had the "vision"... :eek:

[Archimedes Owl]

I agree with all that you say Amigo. If teams draft more players at a particular position in a particular round, you'd expect there to be more players in the NFL drafted in that round. It would have been nice if they made such an adjustment.

Besides that, they could have broken down which rounds the best players and not just the starters in the league were taken in the draft. They made a mention of the fact that defensive ends had a normal distribution when it came to the number of players playing the position, but that the elite players were usually taken early. They said that with that position, you get what you pay for. In other words, despite the "normal" distribution (Keeps messing with my idea of a normal distribution in statistics), it still seems like it's wise to look for defensive ends in the early rounds. Starters can be found later, but the elite prospects are found in the first round.

[dare2bme]

I agree with all that you say Amigo. If teams draft more players at a particular position in a particular round, you'd expect there to be more players in the NFL drafted in that round. It would have been nice if they made such an adjustment.

Besides that, they could have broken down which rounds the best players and not just the starters in the league were taken in the draft. They made a mention of the fact that defensive ends had a normal distribution when it came to the number of players playing the position, but that the elite players were usually taken early. They said that with that position, you get what you pay for. In other words, despite the "normal" distribution (Keeps messing with my idea of a normal distribution in statistics), it still seems like it's wise to look for defensive ends in the early rounds. Starters can be found later, but the elite prospects are found in the first round.


that says absolutely nothing. It is only significant in that it demonstrates what value the current NFL style places on each position.

For example, if coaching staffs were to start running wishbone or three-back sets, rely on 50+ yard field goals and 3 safety defenses, there would be a higher value placed on kickers, fullbacks, guards and centers. That investment would result in more players in those positions being selected higher and a higher rate of return at earlier rounds.

Conversely, if we were to start drafting running backs based solely on their pass blocking skills, we would see a decrease in their value in the first round and an increase in WR2 value.

All this study did is show that the current offensive scheme in the NFL is a trio (QB, 1st WR, and RB), and the current defensive scheme is ILB and S as the brains with DT, OLB and CB as the brawn.

Just my $.02

[Archimedes Owl]

that says absolutely nothing. It is only significant in that it demonstrates what value the current NFL style places on each position.

For example, if coaching staffs were to start running wishbone or three-back sets, rely on 50+ yard field goals and 3 safety defenses, there would be a higher value placed on kickers, fullbacks, guards and centers. That investment would result in more players in those positions being selected higher and a higher rate of return at earlier rounds.

Conversely, if we were to start drafting running backs based solely on their pass blocking skills, we would see a decrease in their value in the first round and an increase in WR2 value.

All this study did is show that the current offensive scheme in the NFL is a trio (QB, 1st WR, and RB), and the current defensive scheme is ILB and S as the brains with DT, OLB and CB as the brawn.

Just my $.02
Well, I wouldn't say that it shows nothing. A study of where the types of players that are playing in the current NFL schemes can be found is valuable information if you ask me. Of course, if there are drastic changes in scheme, all dynamics could change. A good example of this is how Denver has been able to successfully draft quality offensive linemen in the draft because of our zone blocking scheme that other teams didn't pick up right away.

Another example is how New England was able to pick up players that were undesirable to other teams to fit their 3-4 when pretty much only they were running it because the players that fit their scheme were considered "tweeners" to other schemes. They could look for defensive ends that were fast, but undersized and use them as outside linebackers in the 3-4.

Yeah, there are certainly other factors at play, but if you want to get a number one wide reciever, this study shows that you would be wise to address the position in the first round. Most of the teams in the league have found their number one wide reciever in the first round. And not many have had success finding number one wide recievers in other rounds.

It doesn't consider how deep any particular draft may be at any particular position and other such factors specific to a particular draft, but overall, I think it would be foolish to simply disregard this data. There is much that can be gleamed by this type of data.

[dare2bme]

Well, I wouldn't say that it shows nothing. A study of where the types of players that are playing in the current NFL schemes can be found is valuable information if you ask me. Of course, if there are drastic changes in scheme, all dynamics could change. A good example of this is how Denver has been able to successfully draft quality offensive linemen in the draft because of our zone blocking scheme that other teams didn't pick up right away.

Another example is how New England was able to pick up players that were undesirable to other teams to fit their 3-4 when pretty much only they were running it because the players that fit their scheme were considered "tweeners" to other schemes. They could look for defensive ends that were fast, but undersized and use them as outside linebackers in the 3-4.

Yeah, there are certainly other factors at play, but if you want to get a number one wide reciever, this study shows that you would be wise to address the position in the first round. Most of the teams in the league have found their number one wide reciever in the first round. And not many have had success finding number one wide recievers in other rounds.

It doesn't consider how deep any particular draft may be at any particular position and other such factors specific to a particular draft, but overall, I think it would be foolish to simply disregard this data. There is much that can be gleamed by this type of data.


I overstated my point. It is just basically a compilation of the statistics for draft success based on current drafting strategy. Similar to any self-fulfilling prophecy, if you think you are going to get a better value from drafting a RB high then you probably will. Largely due to the fact that you will place much greater value on the research of that player and the "tangible" data.

I agree that the Broncos O'line is a good example of the irrelevance of this data to any change in schema. Denver uses a zone-blocking scheme and therefore doesn't require the size, but intellect and athleticism are more highly regarded. I would venture to bet that NO sub-300 lbs OT's have been taken in the first round in the last 10 years, but the Broncos are very successful with these "sub-standard" players (standard being large, wide wingspan, slow players).

BTW, this is a much more interesting discussion that the guessing game of "Who will Mike pick?"

[Archimedes Owl]

I overstated my point. It is just basically a compilation of the statistics for draft success based on current drafting strategy. Similar to any self-fulfilling prophecy, if you think you are going to get a better value from drafting a RB high then you probably will. Largely due to the fact that you will place much greater value on the research of that player and the "tangible" data.

I agree that the Broncos O'line is a good example of the irrelevance of this data to any change in schema. Denver uses a zone-blocking scheme and therefore doesn't require the size, but intellect and athleticism are more highly regarded. I would venture to bet that NO sub-300 lbs OT's have been taken in the first round in the last 10 years, but the Broncos are very successful with these "sub-standard" players (standard being large, wide wingspan, slow players).

BTW, this is a much more interesting discussion that the guessing game of "Who will Mike pick?"
The Broncos O'Line is a good example of an exception to the rule to be sure. Having a good scheme is important in the NFL, but also pretty important is having a unique scheme. Having a unique scheme gives you a direct advantage in drafting because you will be able to find players that fit your scheme later as other teams pass on players that don't fit their scheme, but that fit yours.

Your idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy is important. If every team believes that they have to draft a WR in the first round to get a first WR, it would naturally follow that these players would be drafted higher. If universally this perception changed, teams may be willing to wait on recievers. Then perhaps some other position would instead by to heavy.

I'd still contend that the same positions would still be to heavy to a degree, but that the top-heaviness would be spread between more than just the first round. Perhaps some of those first round recievers would go in the second round instead, but teams would still have more luck finding number one recievers high in the draft. And teams would still be able to find fullbacks in any round.

And yes, I've enjoyed this discussion.

[In-com-plete]

Great article and find. I haven't made it through the whole thing, but the members of ABWRFRC (Anything But a Wide Receiver in the First Round Coalition) should take a look at the bar graph for WR1.