Boring is beautiful

by Nineraguan on Apr 30, 2008 2:35 PM PDT

My other favorite 49er blogger, Vince Chhabria at the Merc, headlined his latest post, "Boring is not necessarily bad." I've found some numbers that support Vince's theory. To summarize the findings, the teams that improved the most in the course of one off-season were also teams who had relatively boring drafts prior to their improved year. Here are the details.

Since realignment in 2002, there are 10 teams that have made the leap from not-very-good to division winner in the course of one year. Each of these teams won their division after posting a record at or below .500 in the preceding season. These teams are:

'07 Packers
'06 Ravens and Saints
'05 Bears, Panthers, and Bengals
'04 Chargers and Falcons
'03 Chiefs and Rams

I looked at the first 4 rounds of each team's pre-breakout draft with an eye toward the "boringness" of the position selected. Instead of trying to define boring, I'll just give you the key numbers, then follow up with some half-baked conclusions.

Defensive Backs: 11
Offensive LIneman: 8
Linebackers: 7
Wide Receivers: 7
Defensive Lineman: 6
Running Backs: 3
Quarterbacks: 0

Conclusion 1: These are boring drafts

No matter how you define boring, these were some boring draft classes. The most striking figure is the number of offensive skill positions selected. The guys who get the ball made up about 23% of the picks. Normally, over 33% of the players taken in the first four rounds are offensive skill position players.

Conclusion 2: Trenches over edges

The less flashy Defensive Tackles were selected over Defensive Ends 5-1. If I had only considered the first 3 rounds of the draft, that number would have been 5-0. The same is only sort of true on the offensive side of the ball, with Guards/Centers being chosen over Tackles 5-3. The positions usually split 50-50 in the first 4 rounds of the draft. This is surprising considering the importance (and salary) of Tackles compared to Guards and Centers.

Conclusion 3: Defense over offense

This is iffy because of the sample size, but the 10 teams I looked at did favor defense over offense, especially in the first two rounds where defensive players were chosen over offensive players 16-6. This is notable because the league average is 50-50.

Caveats Galore

FIrst, a draft does not an off-season make. All kinds of things happened to these teams in addition the draft that bumped them up, including earlier drafts, free agency, strength of schedule, new coaching staffs, etc. Second, don't take this to mean that teams that won did so because of their conservative draft. There are probably plenty of teams that drafted more conservatively and still either continued to loose or lost more. A more likely explanation is that the teams that don't make flashy picks feel they are sufficiently strong in the skill positions and are bolstering the rest of the roster. Finally, the data is based on a teeny, tiny sample of 10 teams over the course of 6 years. I'm not Doug Farrar and don't pretend I am. If you want to find flaws in the data, you will.

So what does this all mean for the 9ers? I'll leave that as a question for anyone who took the time to read this post.

5 recs | Comment 23 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

good insight

This is a great FanPost. Normally I’d move it to the front page, but I want to use it to explain recommending FanPosts. I’m gonna throw together a post shortly describing recommending FanPosts (among other things). There are a lot of cool little features people probably don’t know as much about so this will hopefully help.

And as far as your info goes, I definitely think the proverbial “boring draft” is one of many factors going to an improved team, as you say.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Apr 30, 2008 2:55 PM PDT reply reply 0 recs

interesting

but…....wouldnt it be the draft from 2 or 3 years prior that would have the most impact on a team, rather than the immediate preceeding draft? perhaps these teams drafted the “boring” positions because they knew they had capable young players at the sexier or maybe even more important positions from the 2,3, or 4 previous drafts. Like the ‘07 Packers, who knew they had solid OT’s, DE’s and WR’s, as well as a QB of the future, and knew, based on the way they finished the ‘06 season, that a few minor adjustments would be enough to produce a much better year. I dont mean to discount your argument, but I’m not nearly ready to say this is the draft that turns the team into a contender, based on that evidence. Nice work though, obviously I have no data to back up my argument, so dont take my criticism too seriously…just a thought really.

by sam23 on Apr 30, 2008 6:34 PM PDT reply reply 1 recs

good point

You make a good point about looking at the draft a couple years prior. Considering all the free time I’ll have this summer, that might be a fun little project to take on. Look at teams that made a 1 seasons turnaround and look at their previous couple years drafts.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Apr 30, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

So does this apply to the 9ers?

sam23, you nailed it. As Rocktopus points out (below) these teams all had the skill players, DEs, and Tackles in place. Many of these guys probably came in the drafts 2, 3, and 4 years prior.

What’s interesting (to me, anyway) is that the teams that made the leap from mediocrity did so immediately after dull drafts. The draftniks probably gave these teams Cs and not As, as they are giving the 49ers Cs this year.

So do the 49ers have the guys in place to do what these other teams did? It would appear that they think so.

I would argue the answer is yes and no. (Fooch, remember this, in law school finals, the answer is always yes and no.) I think they have the Tackles, Running Backs, and Quarterbacks (one or the other) to make the jump. But I have big doubts about their receiving corps and their Outside Linebackers. All their receivers fall into one of two categories – 3rd receivers or old fogies (the latter really only applying to Issac Bruce). Their OLBs will be the same this year as they were last year. Last year, Manny Lawson went down and the pass rush evaporated into thin air. How can a team so dependent on one player wait until the 7th round to draft a Linebacker? And it sounds like he’s a Ted at that. In my opinion, someone will have to step up at both positions for the team to have any success.

by Nineraguan on Apr 30, 2008 10:15 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

yea i think

the Niners think they have those positions filled as well. I’m not so certain at all. Gore is obviously a great RB. I think Staley will be a solid LT. And thats about it.
- Jonas’ injury problems scare me at RT, I think he could be very good there, but I’m worried we didnt at least grab a guy who couldve been groomed for that position and fill in when/if Jonas goes down again. (maybe Chilo can/will but he’s going to have to show a bit more athleticism)
- I’m not sold on Hill or Smith, and I wouldve felt a lot better had we grabbed Dixon late in the draft.
- The receiving corps is a huge ?. I like the Bruce and Johnson signings but we still lack a number 1 guy. Hill could be a good player, especially in the Martz system, but I dont think he has the potential to be a number 1. If this group were an MLB rotation we’d have Maddux (Bruce) and a bunch of soft tossing lefties. I’m not gonna jump on McNolan for this because if they didnt think there was a game breaker in the draft, its better they not reach for one, and I’m glad we didn’t outbid the Raiders for Javon Walker.
-OLB is another mess. theres plenty of depth at LB now, but Lawson is beginning to rival Jonas with injury issues and the rest of the outside guys are rather uninspiring. Thomas probably has the most talent, but it looks like he might get the TED job. TBC was a big disappointement, BMoore seems to be a square peg with a bunch of round holes, and JMoore is still completely unproven, and Haralson has shown only slightly more. None of these (outside of Lawson) seem to be the type of OLBs that strike fear into opposing offenses, like all great 3-4s feature.

Bottom line is I totally understand the argument for building from the trenches out, but I dont really see us in position to make the jump like some of those teams did last year. Its going to take some serious development (Smith or Hill, VD, one of the young D-Linemen, and 2 of the younger O-linemen) some luck with health (Jonas, Gore, Walt, Lawson) and some really good scheming (by Martz to hide the lack of pure talent at receiver) to make this team a serious contender. I’m not saying it was a bad offseason, just that we are maybe a few sexy pieces short still.

by sam23 on May 1, 2008 12:58 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

RT

It shouldn’t be very hard to find a RT in next years draft or via free agency as it’s a lot easier to find a RT than it is to find a LT.

by methodrampage on May 1, 2008 7:49 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Lawson

I don’t think it’s fair at all to lump Lawson in with Jennings. Jennings won’t play because he’s got a bruised ear. Lawson’s injury was a serious one that actually took a year to rehab. That’s all I have to say about that, though.

by sfgfan on May 1, 2008 9:10 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

+1

Not only was Lawson’s injury legit, but it’s been his only one—his rookie year, he played in all 16 games. Kind of tough to say Lawson has injury issues (plural) when he’s only had one, or that he resembles Jennings, who is always hurt, and has never played in all 16 games in a season for the Niners.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on May 1, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

RT

Jennings isn’t the only player capable of playing RT though. If Rachal doesn’t have the athleticism to play RT (which I think he does), he could move to LG and Snyder can bounce outside to RT (where he’s played plenty before). By taking Wallace and Rachal, there’s plenty of depth inside to where Snyder can become the RT if Jennings goes down (again). That’s not to mention Wragge, who is the team’s jack-of-all-trades now, as he could play the interior fairly well too.

by sfgfan on May 1, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

RT, OLB

there is pretty good depth on the line. but didnt we have pretty good depth last year too? the depth is there, but we will need improvements from Bass, Heitman, and Snyder. I love Lawson, and I didnt mean to say he would sit out with iffy injuries like Jonas, just that a torn ACL to a guy who we counting on to bring speed to the position is scary, and I’m as skeptical about that as I am about counting on Jonas to fill the RT spot. In both cases the talent to be major contributors is there, but there are some injury concerns…different types, but still concerns. I didnt word it very well at all, I apologize for offending Lawson lovers by lumping him in with “big pussy” Jonas.

by sam23 on May 1, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Lawson

Before his ACL tear, I think he was probably one of the fastest linebackers in the league. Not 4.34 40 fast, but 4.40-something. That’s ridiculously fast for a LB as it is, and even with his injury he couldn’t have slowed THAT much.

While I understand that Lawson was counted on (by fans, mostly) to be the quick pass rusher that the defense needed, I don’t think the 49ers envision him in the same light. They’ll blitz him, which we saw a few times early last season, but he won’t be a primary pass rusher on most downs. The coaches have him lined up over the strong-side so that he can cover the TE (more times than not), which is kind of what Julian Peterson was doing (I think) before he left here. The 49ers seriously need Haralson and Banta-Cain to step it up though. They also seem to be pretty high on Jay Moore as a pass rusher from the OLB spot.

I think Baas did well after he replaced Smiley last year. Snyder may benefit from finally getting to settle in somewhere, which is something he’s been lacking the last two or three years. Heitmann is, really, the only question mark in my book. He didn’t come out strong at all early last season after that freak injury of his, and I don’t know if he will come out strong this season either. That may be why they took two interior lineman, as in a pinch, Baas could slide inside if Wallace isn’t ready (which he probably won’t be).

by sfgfan on May 1, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

O-line

Wouldnt Wragge get first shot at the center gig if Heitmann doesnt bounce back? I hope Snyder settles in somewhere….but where will it be? LG? RT? Right now it seems like a clutter other than Staley at LT, but I guess thats ok considering its May.
I’d like to see- (from left to right) Staley, Baas, Heitmann, Rachal, Jennings. I like Snyder but I’m fairly certain we will need him to play a lot of RT this year and theres not much depth at Tackle. Wragge and Wallace would provide interior depth. I’m still not opposed to trying to bring Allen back. If we let him tutor Rachal and start at RG we’d have a massive right side for Gore to run behind and more depth. Does Baas have the pass protection skill to handle the left side or is he a run blocking specialist?

by sam23 on May 1, 2008 3:18 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Baas

I think the 49ers like him at RG. I don’t remember for sure, but I seem to recall that before the draft, he was regarded as a player who was good at getting to the next level and clearing room for his back. I doubt that the 49ers would move him to LG. It’ll either be RG or C.

As for Wragge getting first shot at C if Heitmann shows he doesn’t have it, I highly doubt it. His versatility is best served as a bench player. Then again, I suppose it really depends on when the swap occurs. If Heitmann falls out of favor the next few months (i.e. training camp and preseason), it’s conceivable that Baas will step in to play center. If it happens during the season and Baas is already starting at RG, then Wragge may get the call. I forget that Heitmann is also a fairly versatile lineman, so he can backup anywhere along the interior, too.

My “ideal” lineup would probably be one of the following: (1) Staley/Snyder/Heitmann/Baas/Jennings, or (2) Staley/Rachal/Heitmann/Baas/Snyder. Talent-wise, option 1 is probably better, but I’m just not a very big fan of putting Jennings in a starting role (making others depend on an undependable player), hence option 2.

by sfgfan on May 1, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

thanks

for the info on Baas. I really had never seen much about him, I just always lumped he and Smiley together and thought of him as the “other guy.” I like your second option as well, and Maioco or someone said something about that being the o-line of the futur. (with Wallace at C instead of Heitmann) I know Snyder has been a valuable depth guy with the ability to play almost anywhere on the line but does he have the talent to man one of the tackle spots full time? Are the Niners high enough on him that thats why they passed on an OT in the first or Carl Nicks late in the draft? I hope so, I’d like to see them put a bunch of the young pieces on the line out there and let them gel together so we can have a solid line for a long time like we did in the days of Sapolou and Barton.

by sam23 on May 1, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Snyder

I think the team is really high on him. When Jennings went down last year, the 49ers went with Snyder at LT instead of shifting him over to RT and moving Staley to LT. While that may have something to do with not wanting to flop Staley around, it says quite a bit that the team feels he can play LT. This is not to mention, he did a fairly decent job at coving for Jennings. Hopefully an entire offseason at working at ONE position may help him be more solid at it.

by sfgfan on May 2, 2008 8:56 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Great post

Although the teams you mention mostly had “conservative” drafts in the year of their respective improvement, nearly all of them had major contributions from the sexier, skill positions (QB, RB, and WR) that were not there in the year prior. The Green Bay Packers in 2007, for instance, saw a much better Favre on the field than in 2006 and also received a stellar season from unexpected RB star Ryan Grant. In 2006, Ravens added Steve McNair (a huge improvement over ‘05’s Boller) and the Saints added Drew Brees, Reggie Bush and Marques Colston. In 2005, the Panthers came off a disappointing season where WR Steve Smith, RB Stephen Jackson, and DT Kris Jenkins all missed significant time due to injury. With those players back, they returned to the playoffs just as they had in 2003, their superbowl season. In 2004, both Drew Brees and Michael Vick came off injuries from the previous year to take their teams to the playoffs, with Brees winning Comeback Player of the Year.
For the most part, these teams all received significant contributions from QB, RB, and WR. That these contributions were not there the previous year is most likely the reason for the jump in performance.
As sam23 pointed out, the influence of newly drafted players is rarely felt immediately, so the fact that they had “boring” drafts likely had little effect on that season’s standings. It is more likely that their success was a result of improvements of the team from other sources.
Nonetheless, this is a very good post, and I would have recommended it even without Fooch’s nudging.

by Rocktopus on Apr 30, 2008 7:26 PM PDT reply reply 0 recs

Improved play

Thanks for the endorsement. Your point is a good one – all these teams had players at the sexier positions who stepped up. It seems like the most common thread is a Quarterback coming back from an off year. This is an interesting issue for the 9ers. Who is the real Alex Smith? Is it the guy who flourished (albeit moderately) under Norv Turner? Or is it the guy who averaged 150 yds/game last year (before the injury). If it’s the latter, is Shaun Hill the guy?

In an earlier response, I said I think the team will get solid play from the QB position this season. Reason being, Mike Martz QBs don’t have bad years. Jon Kitna looked like John Elway for the first half of last season. If Martz can do that with the Lions, he can do it here.

by Nineraguan on May 1, 2008 1:04 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

There was still a ton of defensive skill players taken.

I wouldn’t exactly qualify that as boring. None of these teams were in the same situation as the Niners and I bet there are plenty of teams who were sub .500 teams whom had “boring” drafts and failed to win their division. So in short it means abosultely nothing for the Niners.

by methodrampage on May 1, 2008 9:46 AM PDT reply reply 0 recs

Good point

No doubt, having a boring draft is not the key to success. As I said in the post, “There are probably plenty of teams that drafted more conservatively and continued to loose or lost more.” However, the numbers show something different. All the teams that have gone from losing records to division championships did so following drafts that were light on marquee positions.

This gets to your other point – just because they didn’t take offensive skill players doesn’t necessarily make this a boring draft. You’re totally right. To be honest, I don’t know what a defensive skill position is. However, I do know that at some positions, good talent is hard to find. Other positions, it’s not as tough. There are all kinds of ways to analyze this (i.e. free agent salary). But since this is about drafts, I’ll use a draft statistic.

Here’s a breakdown of the top five picks by position in each draft since 2002:
QB: 8
WR: 5
OT: 5
RB: 4
DE: 3
All other positions: 5

To me, this says that these 5 positions are in the high demand. (FYI, salary numbers correlate pretty well for salary, although that’s a tougher number to pin down.) The 9ers took none of these positions in the first 4 rounds. Calling this a boring draft may not be accurate. But as Matt Barrows says, this was more Ford F-150 than Alfa GT.

by Nineraguan on May 1, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

The positions you want studs at in order to win...

...are the ones you have listed directly above, but with CB in for RB, especially those you need to draft high. Decent-quality RBs grow on trees. Even Adrian Peterson fell out of the top 5. Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams? No thanks. Cedric Benson? Ha!

You might also be able to change “DE” to “pass rusher” (could be OLB in a 3-4) and “WR” to “pass catcher”. The Chiefs’ offense was phenomenal for a few years, and the only receiver they had was Tony Gonzales.

by rufio on May 3, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Decent Running Backs

That’s an interesting point. Without going back to look at the numbers, I would say that if I changed “DE” to “Pass Rusher” to include 3-4 OLBs, the “All other positions” number would fall even more.

There’s another interesting point in your comment. “Decent-quality RBs grow on trees.” I would add one caveat. Good RBs grow on trees, but durable RBs are hard to come by. See the curse of 370. As the article famously states, Running Backs who had 370 touches one year fall into three categories: “guys who got injured the next year, guys who were never as good again, and guys who are Eric Dickerson.” Anyone who has watched football in the last 10 years knows that Denver can put pretty much anyone in their backfield and the guy will have 100 yards. I think that part of their success is their willingness to let last year’s phenom hit the open market. For that reason, I think teams are wise to draft Running Backs often. This is something the 49ers seem willing to do, taking Clayton last year in spite of Gore’s success.

Anyway, this was kind of a rambling post, but I agree with your comments.

by Nineraguan on May 4, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

I don't know...

In my honest opinion a RB has no business carrying the ball more than 300 times in a single season, and even then, that’s a lot. That’s why so many teams are going to a running-back by committee approach, as it allows their backs to be effective for longer. Of all the above listed positions where a “stud” is needed, I think running-back is one that DOESN’T need to be drafted high at all. If you draft and develop/coach offensive linemen well, as Denver tends to do, then you can make a 1000 yard back out of even a 4th or 5th round pick. It’s all in who’s surrounding the back.

by sfgfan on May 5, 2008 8:57 AM PDT up reply reply 0 recs

Durable backs are hard to come by, yes. sfgfan is correct in that no back has any business carrying it 370+ times, and that’s why you get 2 backs who can play and you play them both. Denver’s strategy is also an interesting one (one that obviously works), but because they keep releasing RBs or letting them hit free agency, they need to keep using draft picks on them.

The other reason a running back might be worth drafting high is in the case of a relatively extremely talented back. There are those special backs that can do so many things that other backs can’t…Jim Brown would have been worth a high pick. Draft grades should be weighted based on position, but the level of talent needs to be taken in to account. Take for instance the 2003 draft. Willis McGahee and Larry Johnson looked like pretty good prospects coming out of college. Both had their concerns, and were not considered locks to be pro-bowlers. Certainly, OT, especially LT, is considered a less-sexy but more stable pick with more longevity and value by people like you and me. But, if you look at the OTs drafted in the 1st round that year (Jordan Gross 8th, George Foster 20th, and our favorite Kwame Harris 26th) taking either RB before all three of those OTs sounds like the better pick. Granted, I didn’t pay attention to the draft in 2003 and don’t know a huge amount about the scouting reports that year, but in hindsight those RBs should have been taken first. Good-great RB over mediocre OT. Given the bright futures of both Joe Thomas and Adrian Peterson from last year’s draft, I’d take Thomas first, no doubt. He’ll play longer, and at a more valuable position.

by rufio on May 5, 2008 8:45 PM PDT up reply reply 0 recs