Picking higher isn't always better
Remember all the hand-wringing about the tackles in the 2021 draft? As bad luck would have it, the Vikings picked 14th. Not high enough for once-in-a-generation tackle Penei Sewell. I think people would've given their left arm to get him. We likely would've taken G/T Rashawn Slater if he'd fallen one more slot, but he was taken just ahead of us at 13. G/T Alijah Vera Tucker was there at 14, but the Vikings chose to pass on him, trading down to 23. Vikings then got lucky when the Mayock and Gruden braintrust(fart) took Alex Leatherwood at 17. Vikings got Darrisaw at 23.
PFF grades three years later...
Sewell - 82.4
Slater - 72.7
AVS - 71.7
Leatherwood - Released after rookie season. Now on Browns practice squad.
Darrisaw - 86.0
Outlier? Same year, 5 QBs were taken in the top 15. 4 of the 5 are busts. Year before, the best WR was the 5th WR taken (JJ). Year after, we may have taken a bust in Cine, but the player many wanted (Jameson Williams) is almost certainly a bust. And the best QBs from that draft appear to be Howell and Purdy. They were the 6th and 9th QBs taken. Last year the best WR (it's early, but so far it looks like Addison) was the last one taken in the 1st round. The next best (arguably Tank Dell) was the 9th taken.
Just sayin....this is why no one should lose their shit over the Vikings winning and dropping places in the draft.
Agreed. Making the picks count always has been and always will be the best formula for NFL success. Choose players that make the team, help the team and build consistency. I don't give a shit in what round.
Its all a big coin flip. The amount of money that gets stuck into evaluating picks and quite frankly its a dart throw.
I wonder if fans did all the drafting if teams would end up damn near the same? Did Spielman luck into Hunter and Diggs or did they have good scouting?
If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.
Lets not forget about Brian O'Neill drafted in the 2nd round at pick 62. The Vikings needed an offensive lineman and Rick thought he was smarter then other GM's but when the run of oline started it appeared he panicked and took O'Neill who after 4 years in the league has become what many say is the best right tackle in the league. Further proof the draft is a crap shoot.
It's all a crap shoot, but drafting earlier gives you more options. Whether that's in the player pool you get to select from, or potential trade down compensation (unless you are Kwesi).
@"JimmyinSD" said: If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops.Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
@"MaroonBells" said:and yet you seem to argue to the contrary quite often, or at least try to make a case that draft position doesnt matter, which if that is really the case then why have a scouting dept, and why pay a GM big money to build a roster when a trained monkey apparently would have the same results? why not trade out of the early rounds and own the last couple rounds every year? I am not sure what you are trying to argue when common sense says that your odds of hitting on a winner are better if you have a deeper pool to choose from. I can cherry pick as well, lets go back to 2007, if you needed a RB would you rather have AD, or would you have settled for Marshawn? I am fairly certain ( without looking ) that drafting higher typically leads to better results. although this doesnt take into account scheme fit, injury, position change, and other things which could have led to the the results you showed above which are often out of the players hands but yet get factored into the players rankings you posted.@"JimmyinSD" said: If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops. Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
@"JimmyinSD" said:Never mind.@"MaroonBells" said:and yet you seem to argue to the contrary quite often, or at least try to make a case that draft position doesnt matter, which if that is really the case then why have a scouting dept, and why pay a GM big money to build a roster when a trained monkey apparently would have the same results? why not trade out of the early rounds and own the last couple rounds every year? I am not sure what you are trying to argue when common sense says that your odds of hitting on a winner are better if you have a deeper pool to choose from. I can cherry pick as well, lets go back to 2007, if you needed a RB would you rather have AD, or would you have settled for Marshawn? I am fairly certain ( without looking ) that drafting higher typically leads to better results. although this doesnt take into account scheme fit, injury, position change, and other things which could have led to the the results you showed above which are often out of the players hands but yet get factored into the players rankings you posted.@"JimmyinSD" said: If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops. Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
@"MaroonBells" said:I rarely do.@"JimmyinSD" said:Never mind.@"MaroonBells" said:and yet you seem to argue to the contrary quite often, or at least try to make a case that draft position doesnt matter, which if that is really the case then why have a scouting dept, and why pay a GM big money to build a roster when a trained monkey apparently would have the same results? why not trade out of the early rounds and own the last couple rounds every year? I am not sure what you are trying to argue when common sense says that your odds of hitting on a winner are better if you have a deeper pool to choose from. I can cherry pick as well, lets go back to 2007, if you needed a RB would you rather have AD, or would you have settled for Marshawn? I am fairly certain ( without looking ) that drafting higher typically leads to better results. although this doesnt take into account scheme fit, injury, position change, and other things which could have led to the the results you showed above which are often out of the players hands but yet get factored into the players rankings you posted.@"JimmyinSD" said: If its all a crap shoot, why do we pay scouts and a gm? Why not just use one of the draft pundits big board and roll with that? If you trust your scouting depth it is crazy not to want the higher spots in order to have better chances at the guys you rank higher, of course shit doesn't always work out, but I would rather have my choice of the top 5 instead of hoping the other 4 teams fuck their selections up and my targeted guy drops. Wait, so you're saying picking higher is better? Yes, we all know that. No one would argue otherwise. My only point is to say that the evidence is pretty obvious that it doesn't help you nearly as much as people think. That the higher picks aren't worth nearly as much as the value NFL teams attach to them.
Teams pick higher when they suck. Pretty sure if nerds did their thing on drafts of non sucky teams, the historical high value would be mid first through mid second
lol, listen...its easy. Pick the fucking dudes that rock. Nothing else matters.
@"Bullazin" said: Teams pick higher when they suck. Pretty sure if nerds did their thing on drafts of non sucky teams, the historical high value would be mid first through mid secondIt's not even that uniform. Just look at any redraft. You'll see the replacement picks in the first round are a hodgepodge of picks from all over the draft. Now, obviously the higher picks tend to do better (no, this shouldn't need to be said), but not as much as one might think. The 2012 draft is a good example.
1. Luck - bust
2. Griffin - bust
3. Richardson - bust
4. Kalil - bust
5. Blackmon - bust
6. Claiborne - bust
7. Barron - bust
NFL.com's redraft 10 years later
1. Wilson - Picked 75th
2. Luck - Picked 1st
3. Cousins - Picked 102nd
4. Wagner - Picked 47th
5. Jeffrey - PIcked 45th
6. Gilmore - Picked 10th
7. Kuechly - Picked 9th
2015 is a very similar draft and redraft with Winston, Mariota, Fowler, White, Beasley and Flowers taken in the top 10. All busts. Interestingly, one redraft I saw has three Vikings in the top 5 in Hunter (3rd round), Diggs (5th round) and Kendricks (2nd round).
@"StickyBun" said: lol, listen...its easy. Pick the fucking dudes that rock. Nothing else matters.Honestly, it really shouldn't be as hard as it seems to be.
@"MaroonBells" said:Its hard. But fans think its easy.@"StickyBun" said: lol, listen...its easy. Pick the fucking dudes that rock. Nothing else matters. Honestly, it really shouldn't be as hard as it seems to be.
Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better
chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not
really what’s at question. The question
is “what should we do?” What is
the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same
time? Some things are pretty clear. A handful of players coming out of college are
so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go.
Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald. These guys would probably have succeeded
anywhere, even with the worst coaches.
We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust. A lot.
A lot of guys bust. The NFL draft
is not a science. The best people in the
world don’t have this figured out. The
NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.
Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys. I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster. If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.
I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top. Shitty
teams ruin players. Good players leave
shitty teams. I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before.
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.
@"medaille" said: Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not really what’s at question. The question is “what should we do?” What is the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same time? Some things are pretty clear. A handful of players coming out of college are so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go. Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald. These guys would probably have succeeded anywhere, even with the worst coaches. We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust. A lot. A lot of guys bust. The NFL draft is not a science. The best people in the world don’t have this figured out. The NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys. I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster. If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top. Shitty
teams ruin players. Good players leave
shitty teams. I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before.
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.
While there are exceptions, I don't agree that shitty teams ruin good players. I think for the most part, good players are good players and shitty players are shitty players wherever they are.
For example, if a majority of highly drafted players who failed with their original team moved on and did much better with their new team, you would have a good point. But it's not a majority. In fact, it's extremely rare. Just look at the busts above. Winston, Mariota, Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne, Beasley, Flowers, etc....all of them went on to other teams and weren't successful there either. Look at the ones we're familiar with: Kalil, Treadwell, Hughes, Dantzler, Elflein, Alexander, Ponder, Williamson...all played with other teams. All failed. I mean I don't think you could find even a handful of examples of players who moved on and then played up to their draft slot. I can't even think of one.
I suppose you might be saying that the 4 years spent with the shitty team ruined that player beyond repair? Possible I guess, but I don't buy that either.
@"medaille" said: Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not really what’s at question. The question is “what should we do?” What is the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same time? Some things are pretty clear. A handful of players coming out of college are so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go. Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald. These guys would probably have succeeded anywhere, even with the worst coaches. We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust. A lot. A lot of guys bust. The NFL draft is not a science. The best people in the world don’t have this figured out. The NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys. I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster. If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top. Shitty
teams ruin players. Good players leave
shitty teams. I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before.
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.
The cream rises, my man. Simple as that. No excuses. Getting into the weeds doesn't change that fact.
@"medaille" said: Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not really what’s at question. The question is “what should we do?” What is the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same time? Some things are pretty clear. A handful of players coming out of college are so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go. Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald. These guys would probably have succeeded anywhere, even with the worst coaches. We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust. A lot. A lot of guys bust. The NFL draft is not a science. The best people in the world don’t have this figured out. The NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys. I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster. If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top. Shitty
teams ruin players. Good players leave
shitty teams. I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before.
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.
please dont bring up Aaron Donald, its still to soon.
@"MaroonBells" said:@"medaille" said: Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not really what’s at question. The question is “what should we do?” What is the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same time? Some things are pretty clear. A handful of players coming out of college are so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go. Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald. These guys would probably have succeeded anywhere, even with the worst coaches. We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust. A lot. A lot of guys bust. The NFL draft is not a science. The best people in the world don’t have this figured out. The NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys. I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster. If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top. Shitty
teams ruin players. Good players leave
shitty teams. I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before.
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.
While there are exceptions, I don't agree that shitty teams ruin good players. I think for the most part, good players are good players and shitty players are shitty players wherever they are.For example, if a majority of highly drafted players who failed with their original team moved on and did much better with their new team, you would have a good point. But it's not a majority. In fact, it's extremely rare. Just look at the busts above. Winston, Mariota, Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne, Beasley, Flowers, etc....all of them went on to other teams and weren't successful there either. Look at the ones we're familiar with: Kalil, Treadwell, Hughes, Dantzler, Elflein, Alexander, Ponder, Williamson...all played with other teams. All failed. I mean I don't think you could find even a handful of examples of players who moved on and then played up to their draft slot. I can't even think of one.
I suppose you might be saying that the 4 years spent with the shitty team ruined that player beyond repair? Possible I guess, but I don't buy that either.
It gets murky here though.Kalil had a stellar first year. As did Elfein. After each players first year, we thought we had solid players for the next decade. Did something occur with our coaching for them to regress and never recover? I am sure there are many more examples from other teams. But those two players stand out as going from very good to waste of a roster spot in a short amount of time.
@"wiviking" said:@"MaroonBells" said:@"medaille" said: Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not really what’s at question. The question is “what should we do?” What is the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same time? Some things are pretty clear. A handful of players coming out of college are so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go. Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald. These guys would probably have succeeded anywhere, even with the worst coaches. We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust. A lot. A lot of guys bust. The NFL draft is not a science. The best people in the world don’t have this figured out. The NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys. I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster. If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top. Shitty
teams ruin players. Good players leave
shitty teams. I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before.
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.
While there are exceptions, I don't agree that shitty teams ruin good players. I think for the most part, good players are good players and shitty players are shitty players wherever they are.For example, if a majority of highly drafted players who failed with their original team moved on and did much better with their new team, you would have a good point. But it's not a majority. In fact, it's extremely rare. Just look at the busts above. Winston, Mariota, Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne, Beasley, Flowers, etc....all of them went on to other teams and weren't successful there either. Look at the ones we're familiar with: Kalil, Treadwell, Hughes, Dantzler, Elflein, Alexander, Ponder, Williamson...all played with other teams. All failed. I mean I don't think you could find even a handful of examples of players who moved on and then played up to their draft slot. I can't even think of one.
I suppose you might be saying that the 4 years spent with the shitty team ruined that player beyond repair? Possible I guess, but I don't buy that either.
It gets murky here though.Kalil had a stellar first year. As did Elfein. After each players first year, we thought we had solid players for the next decade. Did something occur with our coaching for them to regress and never recover? I am sure there are many more examples from other teams. But those two players stand out as going from very good to waste of a roster spot in a short amount of time.
I don't think at all that Kalil had a stellar year. He was way overhyped.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.