Draft hit rate by position

Just asking, are they rating Bradbury as a hit or the 1 miss?

To put the "calculation" in perspective, if JJ doesn't re-sign with MN he was a miss. While Bradbury was hit. Huh?

bigbone62 wrote:
To put the "calculation" in perspective, if JJ doesn't re-sign with MN he was a miss. While Bradbury was hit. Huh?

You can do this for any and every metric.  Eventually you just pick something and talk about it.

bigbone62 wrote:
To put the "calculation" in perspective, if JJ doesn't re-sign with MN he was a miss. While Bradbury was hit. Huh?

It's not perfect, but it's probably the only way to measure it. 8 times out of 10, a 2nd contract means you didn't miss.

StickierBuns wrote:
Its crazy how inexact this whole process is. Luck plays a roll in something it shouldn't. The Vikings don't have a history of being lucky.

The Vikings have a fantastic history of being lucky.  Our playoff appearance numbers is top 3 of 32 teams.  You don't get that far that often by drafting poorly over the years.  We just haven't gotten lucky and won a title.  KOC will get us there.  Have some faith.

I've made up my mind. I want to draft Murphy at 11 and Nix at 23. If we need to trade up from 23 a few spots for Nix go for it. Nix isn't the sexy pick but he has as good of a chance of making it as the rest.

Don't get me started on our luck. Yes, we've drafted well (comparatively), and we've enjoyed more playoff seasons than most fans, but we've also endured the untimely Teddy injury, the untimely Bradford injury, the Nate Poole thing, the wide left, the Favre pick, etc., etc., etc....

The one that might dig the most is the most recent. We finally build up our OL, we finally get the DC right, we have weapons for days and a top 10 QB running it all. And that guy, returning to the same offense for the first time in 7 years, looks fucking SPECTACULAR...and then...the most durable QB in the NFL...

It's not that bad things have happened. Bad things happen to all teams. But for the Vikings, it's the stabbing irony of it all...

• QB's never been hurt...
• Kicker hasn't missed all year...
• Two best teams in our history didn't even make the Super Bowl (push off, wide left)

Will our luck change on Thursday? I sure hope so.

MaroonBells wrote:
How crappy is the crap shoot? Pretty crappy. Basically, your chances of hitting on players in the 1st round, regardless of position, is 43%. Makes you wonder why these picks carry so much value 

Adam Schefter
@AdamSchefter
ESPN content producer
@PaulHembo
calculated the percentage of 1st-round picks that “hit” or “miss,” based upon whether that player signed a second contract with the team that drafted them. The data encompasses the 20 drafts spanning 2000-2019. Here are the positional hit rates:

This chart overwhelmingly lays out the case for drafting a punter in the first. 100% hit rate. Ray Guy

Its crazy how inexact this whole process is. Luck plays a roll in something it shouldn't. The Vikings don't have a history of being lucky.

So, we’ve already failed at the easiest choice, on the other hand we’ve excelled at the hardest!? Clear as mud, the draft is…  :angel:

I didn’t realize WR was that bad. You would think that would be one of the easier ones to project. It often makes me wonder how much the big paycheck impacts performance moving forward - how much it impacts the drive.

AGRforever wrote:


The Vikings have a fantastic history of being lucky.  Our playoff appearance numbers is top 3 of 32 teams.  You don't get that far that often by drafting poorly over the years.  We just haven't gotten lucky and won a title.  KOC will get us there.  Have some faith.

Oh I'm a big fan of KOC (that's what she said). And even more convinced he can make a rookie QB great in Minnesota. But the team being lucky? Other than the Minneapolis Miracle, not sure I'd ever consider the Vikings 'lucky'. But that doesn't mean they can't be moving forward: past performance is no indicator of future results. If it were, us long timers would have given up LONG ago.

MaroonBells wrote:

It's not perfect, but it's probably the only way to measure it. 8 times out of 10, a 2nd contract means you didn't miss.

Nah, there’s a million ways you could measure things.  PFF grade.  WAR compared to rest of position group.  % of Games started.  If they made the Pro Bowl X number of times.  There’s a ton of ways to measure how good a player is and they’re probably all equally as valid or more valid than if they were resigned by the team that drafted them.

medaille wrote:

Nah, there’s a million ways you could measure things.  PFF grade.  WAR compared to rest of position group.  % of Games started.  If they made the Pro Bowl X number of times.  There’s a ton of ways to measure how good a player is and they’re probably all equally as valid or more valid than if they were resigned by the team that drafted them.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But you know what never lies? The checkbook.

MaroonBells wrote:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But you know what never lies? The checkbook.

Ha! 

Truth....

I find the data-set misleading for QB...Too many of those kids come into the league with good tools, good brains and into horrible situations with crappy teams. Football is the most interdependent sport there is, especially @ QB.

Checkbook sometimes lies. You can’t resign every starting caliber player you want because of the salary cap. Coaching schemes change and guys lose their fit. Ezra Cleveland would have been ruled out of this metric, but he went to get $8M a year. Greenerd, our prized free agent, would have been a bust according to this metric, but he’s well paid, just not by the team that drafted him. Same with Van Ginkle (although maybe his 2023 $2M thing counts?)

If we’re talking checkbooks, it’d probably be better to see if they get a top 32 or 64 contract at their position from any team indicating that they are paid as a starter. The metric shouldn’t get flawed just because a team is tight against the cap or changes their schemes.

I did a much less exhaustive or well-researched post on this a while back. My conclusion was that first round QBs don't really bust at any higher rate than most other positions. If we're gonna roll the dice, may as well try to roll them for the jackpot.

I think they should just keep drafting CB's with top draft capital. that has worked well for them.