Generally, players are drafted in accordance with the pre-draft big boards you see floating around -- I like the one CBS has personally. And generally, players end up having a career approximate value in line with their draft position (obviously there's quite a bit of variance and luck there). And generally, teams that take that best player available and avoid reaching for dumb picks 2 - 3 rounds early are better at drafting.
So, I decided to take a look at draft performance based on how well teams stuck to value and avoided doing silly things like take a small school safety two rounds early. What you see below are net draft value chart points. I then curved the scored so that the average team gets a C.
Tm | RANK | Net Draft Points | Grade |
NYJ | 1 | 1,497 | A+ |
MIN | 2 | 821 | A |
ATL | 3 | 760 | A |
DAL | 4 | 748 | A |
BAL | 5 | 652 | A- |
CHI | 6 | 488 | A- |
PIT | 7 | 369 | B+ |
MIA | 8 | 354 | B+ |
GNB | 9 | 194 | B |
BUF | 10 | 161 | B |
HOU | 11 | 121 | B- |
CLE | 12 | 104 | B- |
CIN | 13 | 76 | C+ |
NWE | 14 | 33 | C+ |
IND | 15 | -4 | C |
NYG | 16 | -56 | C |
DEN | 17 | -245 | C- |
PHI | 18 | -276 | C- |
SDG | 19 | -281 | C- |
SFO | 20 | -281 | D+ |
JAX | 21 | -286 | D+ |
OAK | 22 | -325 | D |
SEA | 23 | -330 | D |
DET | 24 | -389 | D- |
TEN | 25 | -420 | D- |
KAN | 26 | -434 | F |
WAS | 27 | -501 | F |
ARI | 28 | -514 | F |
CAR | 29 | -539 | F |
STL | 30 | -611 | F |
TAM | 31 | -643 | F |
NOR | 32 | -802 | F |
Now, this is based on the draft value chart. I think this approach makes sense because missing in the top 10 is a much bigger blow than missing at pick 100.
But, what if I used the Approximate Value charts that PFR is using?
Tm | RANK | Net AV | GRADE |
MIN | 1 | 17.6 | A+ |
NYJ | 2 | 12.3 | A |
ATL | 3 | 11.1 | A |
PIT | 4 | 10 | A |
CHI | 5 | 7.6 | A- |
BAL | 6 | 7.3 | A- |
JAX | 7 | 6.2 | B+ |
CIN | 8 | 5 | B+ |
BUF | 9 | 4.7 | B |
MIA | 10 | 4.4 | B |
CLE | 11 | 4.1 | B- |
HOU | 12 | 3.9 | C+ |
DAL | 13 | 3.5 | C+ |
GNB | 14 | 1.1 | C+ |
NYG | 15 | -1.2 | C |
IND | 16 | -2.2 | C |
PHI | 17 | -2.7 | C- |
SDG | 18 | -4.8 | C- |
KAN | 19 | -5.4 | C- |
TEN | 20 | -5.5 | D+ |
DET | 21 | -5.7 | D+ |
DEN | 22 | -6.5 | D |
TAM | 23 | -7.4 | D- |
CAR | 24 | -7.5 | D- |
NWE | 25 | -8.1 | D- |
NOR | 26 | -8.9 | F |
SEA | 27 | -9 | F |
SFO | 28 | -9 | F |
OAK | 29 | -9.9 | F |
WAS | 30 | -11.5 | F |
STL | 31 | -13.5 | F |
ARI | 32 | -14.8 | F |
The first thing you see is that the Jets fall from clear #1 to clear #2 -- this is because while Leonard Williams is a steal, he's not **that** much of a steal if you look at career performance. However, you do see that the Vikings apparently absolutely crushed this draft -- and this is like the third in a row that they've done that. So hat's off to them. We have the pleasure of playing them week 1.
Moving on to the 49ers and the NFC west. As you can see, the 49ers fare poorly here I give the team an F...28th. Our 1st, 2nd, and 4th round picks (Smelter) all have large negative values. On the bright side, the rest of the division did just as bad: Arizona grades out as the worst, followed by the rams, and Seattle is 27th...so yay?
Bottom Line: those who reach usually miss (almost always miss), and teams who just go by the consensus do better than those who reach for a Tartt.