You Might As Well Just Flip a Coin: 20 Years of Draft History
Ok, so the title is a little bit of a lie--it's only 17 years of draft history. I've completed my exploration of busts and successes going back to 1990 which should give us a good sample. In this updated version I've also included school and conference, though I didn't tally the school totals as that was just too much work. Here's the methodology i used to determine bust status:
Criteria 1: Were they a starter by their third season. I don't expect them to start right away, but a first round pick should be able to be a starter by their third season.
Criteria 2: If they were a starter by their third season, were they still a starter by the last season of their original contract? (Generally 4th or 5th season). If they're not I considered them a bust.
Criteria 3: If they were a starter were they good? I figure a 1st round pick should be better than 30% of NFL players at his position. I tried to be as generous as possible with this.
Now I must admit to not being 100% comfortable with this scoring system. It has some inherent problems that I haven't sorted out yet. Is a guy a bust if he doesn't play well for his original team, but when he lands with another team he turns it on? What about a guy who ends up playing for ten years as a quality backup? Shouldn't longevity count for something?
A good example of what I mean is Desmond Howard. He was drafted 4th overall in the 1992 draft as a wide receiver. His best season as a receiver was in 1994 when he caught 40 passes for 727 yards. He became one of the best return men in the game though, so good in fact that the Packers went out of their way to bring him in for one season so they could go to the Super Bowl. By the three criteria I've listed above he's a bust because he wasn't in the top 1/3rd of all WRs. I need some ideas to work out a better formula
For those interested in the actual spreadsheet here it is. Busts.xls
Join me after the jump as we dig into this some more
The first thing I noticed after going through all that data is that most teams are fairly even when it comes to drafting in the first round. There are a few standouts and a few at the bottom of the barrel, but most are within 10 pts of each other.
Here are the 5 worst drafting teams between 1990 and 1997.
| Team | Bust? | Non-Bust | Bust Percentage |
| Texans | 6 | 1 | 86% |
| Falcons | 11 | 5 | 69% |
| Chiefs | 10 | 5 | 67% |
| Packers | 13 | 7 | 65% |
| Bucs | 10 | 6 | 63% |
The only team on this list that was on the last list is the Texans, which is not surprising given that they are a fairly recent expansion team.
Now on to the best drafting teams since 1990
| Team | Bust | Non-Bust | Percentage |
| Jets | 4 | 15 | 21% |
| Colts | 5 | 12 | 29% |
| Ravens | 4 | 9 | 31% |
| Chargers | 4 | 8 | 33% |
| Steelers | 6 | 11 | 35% |
The Jets, Colts, and Steelers were all on the best drafting list from last time. What's their secret? The Colts have only had 2 general managers since 1990. However the Jets have had 5.
What positions should you draft for in the first? Most of 'em are basically a coin toss but there's one you should stay away from at all costs, and that's WR
| Position | Bust | Non-Bust | Percentage |
| Center | 1 | 5 | 17% |
| CB | 34 | 33 | 51% |
| DE | 31 | 25 | 55% |
| DT | 22 | 28 | 44% |
| OG | 2 | 11 | 15% |
| LB | 17 | 40 | 30% |
| OLB | 6 | 7 | 46% |
| OT | 27 | 32 | 46% |
| QB | 23 | 15 | 48% |
| RB | 37 | 20 | 65% |
| S | 6 | 16 | 27% |
| TE | 7 | 13 | 35% |
| WR | 43 | 19 | 69% |
If you're a GM considering grabbing a WR in the 1st round I'd think long and hard about it. On the other hand if you're thinking about taking a guard jump on it because that's the safest pick you can make. LBs do very well as do safeties. Defensive line not so much. Offensive tackles and CBs it's pretty much a coin flip as to which will end up being success ful.
The data for the round itself has changed a bit. Before there wasn't much difference between picks in the top 3re and middle 3rd of the first round, but that's changed a bit.
| Pick Number | Bust | Non-Bust | Percentage |
| 1-10 | 74 | 106 | 41% |
| 11-20 | 91 | 89 | 51% |
| 20-32 | 105 | 84 | 56% |
As you can see if you're picking in the top 10 you should be doing mostly ok though the success rate is stil low. If yiou're outside the top 10 it's essentially a coin flip as to whether or not your guy will succeed.
Now onto some intersting findings about conference. As you'd expect the ACC and SEC are well-represented, but they aren't necessarily the best conferences to draft from.
There are actually several small conferences whith one draftee in the 1st round that didn't bust--I won't be putting them in here because there's not a large enough sample. (There's actually one player who didn't go to college and was still drafted in the 1st round).
| Conference | Bust | Non-Bust | Percentage |
| Big East | 2 | 15 | 12% |
| Mid America | 2 | 3 | 40% |
| WAC | 2 | 7 | 22% |
| Independent | 7 | 7 | 50% |
| CUSA | 8 | 8 | 50% |
| MWC | 13 | 13 | 50% |
| Big 12 | 25 | 18 | 58% |
| Pac-10 | 42 | 31 | 58% |
| ACC | 45 | 67 | 40% |
| Big 10 | 51 | 48 | 52% |
| SEC | 56 | 47 | 54% |
The ACC has drafted the most players, with the SEC a close second. If you're thinking about drafting a player from the Big East in the 1st, hop on it--only a 12% bust rate. The WAC is also a great conference to draft from. The Big 12 and the Pac-10 have a hgh bust rate, so you might want to avoid them.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting data.
There may not yet be enough (or reliable enough) data to chart this trend, but I’d be curious to see whether collegiate recruiting (rivals 100) ranking correlated to boom/bust potential. The reason I think it might be interesting is because even if high school recruiting information is totally flawed, it would still it would still be relevant to how they handled the pressure of being a top pick/ top recruit.
My guess is that especially at the top of the draft, if a guy has already been considered a top collegiate prospect that it will better prepare him to succeed in the NFL.
Unfortunately the Rivals Ranking data only goes back to 2002, so the 2006 draft is the first one where most of the draftees had Rivals info.
I know what I'm talking about, I started at right guard for the 1992 College Park Falcons.
Don't know
I do know that the further back you go the more you see multiple players from one school selected in the first round. This was especially prevalent in the 1990s but has diminished a bit since then. I think that the advent of the internet and the media super coverage of the draft has made it possible for teams to get more information on players than they otherwise would’ve been able to.
Member of the legendary David Carr thread, 6 March 2010
as always, great work
Intersting how the bust rate for RBs is also very high
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 17, 2010 10:32 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
I think it's because most RBs are a product of their system
and if they go to a team with a bad line or bad system they can’t perform.
Member of the legendary David Carr thread, 6 March 2010
Except C.J. Spiller, he doesn’t need blocking because he can just jump over the other team’s defense.
I know what I'm talking about, I started at right guard for the 1992 College Park Falcons.
by Johnnysixnut on Mar 17, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Didn't you hear?
He can fly too.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 17, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I think with your scoring system it’s going to be impossible to make rules that always make sense. Just in the example of Howard, you could add a rule that should a player win the Super Bowl MVP award he’s not a bust.
Reggie Bush and Devin Hester are other examples of pretty much the same thing. Maybe you just make an exemption for pro bowlers so that if a guy is valuable enough in the return game to make the pro bowl without being a starter he avoids the bust tag.
How did you treat injuries?
I know what I'm talking about, I started at right guard for the 1992 College Park Falcons.
Depends on the extent
if you have a guy who’s always injured than he’s pretty much a bust material. I think I gave one exception to a guy who played for 3 or 4 years and then developed a pretty serious medical condition (forget what it was), that caused him to retire early.
As far as the criteria I’m thinking of something like a sliding scale where each criteria is worth x amount of points. If a player is above a certain number of points he’s not a bust, if he’s below he is. I just don’t know how to work it out that way.
Member of the legendary David Carr thread, 6 March 2010
This adds more creedence to my draft Iupati as a G because he won't be a bust theory
I find it amusing that so many mocks say we’re taking him too high at 17 when plenty think he’s just right for the steelers at 18
I have no idea how to convert it
I’m running Windows Vista. I’ll poke around and see if I can find something
Member of the legendary David Carr thread, 6 March 2010
Ok after careful analysis of your data :-)
It is quite apparent we should move up both our #1’s into the top 10 and draft Iupati and Pouncey. Now if we drafted them at any point otherwise their bust possibility would increase. It is apparent thru a scientific appraisal of the data presented that if Pouncey is drafted in the top 10 his chances of busting will go down immensely versus beign picked up in the later rounds This must be the reason the Colts had a problem with Tony Ugoh.
\Mock seriousness
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Mar 18, 2010 6:00 AM PDT reply actions

by 



























