Link: It’s What You Draft, Not Where
I was surfing around this morning and saw an interesting article from Bryan Burwell, a columnist at the St. Louis Dispatch on the drafting, comparing the Rams to the Patriots. After talking about how many starters the teams had comparitively — Rams have eight starters in eight drafts while the Patriots have 13. Burwell makes an important point on first round picks and where they were taken in the first, and what’s most important.
How do the Jets stack up? Out of 58 players in the past eight years, 23 remain on the roster and 12 are starters — considering Mike Nugent and Dewayne as non-starters and Clemens & Pennington equaling one starter. I’d add that starting alone isn’t enough, it’s the true quality of that player and how they fit into the scheme, and so does Burwell.
It hardly mattered what position they chose, the Rams proved they could fail up high (Jimmy Kennedy was the 12th player selected in 2003 and is now on his fourth NFL team) or down low (Trung Canidate, selected 31st in 2000, is out of the league). The Patriots hit successfully high (Seymour was the sixth overall pick in 2001) and low (32nd overall selections Logan Mankins in 2005 and Benjamin Watson in 2004 were both key starters on the ’07 AFC champs).
That has to change. The scrutiny will be on the revamped Rams front office to alter that history. I honestly don’t care if they take Chris Long, Jake Long, Glenn Dorsey or trade the pick for greater value. I just want to be able to trust that whatever move they make is the right one. I just hope this new regime can alter that ugly past.
That’s similar to how I feel. There are players I’d rather the Jets not take or make me more concerned about “bust-potential,” but all-in-all, I don’t really care who the Jets pick in the first as long as he makes an impact for the next ten years on this team, then I’ll be happy.
12 Responses to Link: It’s What You Draft, Not Where
-
Actually the Westbrook example is a bad one. The draft is about value. Even if you got to draft with complete hindsight, you still wouldn’t take Westbrook in the 1st round, you’d take him in the third round because you know that no other team will be taking him in the first two rounds of the draft. This is like a headache inducing conversation about time travel. In 2002 the Eagles took Lito Sheppard in the first round and Westbrook in the third. If you take Westbrook in the first due to some kind of clairvoyance, then you miss out on Sheppard and you’re stuck looking at the likes of Dante Wesley, Mike Echols and Tony Beckham with your third round pick. Westbrook was a great draft pick precisely because where the Eagles got him. Yes his production would warrant a higher selection, but you’d be squandering a a first round pic (Sheppard a Pro Bowler) by not drafting him according to value.
-
Mike G says:
pet goat, you make a good point, but that still doesnt mean if that draft was re-done westbrook wouldnt be a top pick. I dont know off the top of my head what other players were in his draft class, but i would gaurantee if his draft was re-done he would be a top 5 pick.
-
true, but if all teams are operating with clairvoyance then the whole notion of draft pick value is moot as no team would make a mistake.
-
jvsvn says:
You kind of missed my point. Or maybe I wasn’t that clear (which is entirely possible). The Eagles did well because Westbrook AND Shepard turned out to be very good players. If Shepard’s a dog, the fact that Westbrook is a find doesn’t totally compensate because you’ve got a huge amount of money invested in a non-productive player and then you still have to find a top CB. My real point was that it is important not to whiff in the early rounds because then the fortunes of your team rest on getting a windfall in the mid or late rounds. How many Westbrooks are you going to find? Not many. I just don’t buy the argument that someone can be a very productive player but not be a good value. Drafting is an inexact science. There are a lot of busts and disappointments. If you pick a guy in the first round and he produces like you would expect a first rounder to produce, then you have gotten VALUE. If you do that consistantly, you are going to have a good team.
-
Najy says:
The draft is about percentages in terms of value. The higher up you draft, the higher the percentage of you having an elite and impact player.
First rounders are high percentage picks in terms of quality players. As an organization, you are expected to pick quality players in the first round due to the nature of the pick. However, as the rounds go on and you start reaching the 3rd and 4th round, you are making lower percentage picks so the chances of you finding a Westbrook are smaller due to percentages.
(Hypothetical situation) Say in this years draft, there are 100 players that will become starters in 2 years. No one knows who those hundred are but every time a player is selected out of that pool of a hundred, the percentages of selecting another one become smaller.
Tom Brady would be a great example. He was a second day pick and the chances of finding a QB like Tom Brady that late in the draft are very small.
Its all about playing the percentages and executing with the picks. The great teams will find good players later in the draft despite the low percentage of them doing so.
Value picks come from finding a good player, despite the low percentages and thats what seperates the Jets from other teams is that up until 2 years ago, we havent found much value in our picks and have missed on some of our high percentage picks. One of the reasons why we found ourselves 4 -12 last year.
-
dakar says:
1 way to protect teams would be to implement a cap on draft picks…but this is up to the owners and union to come to terms on…another way would be to put a production clause on the player…if the 1st player in the draft is awarded $30 million which is all-pro money without even playing a game in the nfl…then he should be expected to play like an all-pro…
EX: say c.long was the 1st player taken in this years draft…he gets the $30 mill. but not so fast…he will have to earn that $30 mill…how? well,thats where the clause comes in…take the top 5 de/olb in the leauge and round out what they did in 07…
take their sack totals,tackles behind the line of scrimage,their passes defensed,int’s,fumbles caused and recovered…
lets say sacks were 45,tackles for loss were 50,15 passes defended,10 int’s,15 fumbles caused and 10 recoveries…divide them by 5 and you will get your production clause amount…
long would have to produce 9 sacks,10 tackles at or behind the line of scrimage,3 pass defense,2int’s,3 caused fumbles and 2 recoveries…these numbers make him worth the contract he will sign if taken 1st overall…anyway,what are your thoughts…
-
i forgot to say this clause will protect the teams from a bust and other teams wont be so scared to trade up in the draft…and the players get their money if they earn it…just my thoughts…
-
Brandon "You're With Me"riweather says:
dakar – that contract that you suggested is just an incentive based contract. they’re already getting all-pro money without playing a down in the nfl….why would a player ever sign a deal like that if they’re a top pick in the draft? (surely no competent agent that would allow it).
-
brandon…your right…also it seems i dont know much about contracts…lol…but i do know no1 is worth 30 million no matter how good he was in college…a cap must be put on the draft…just my thoughts…
-
Reprocity says:
Westbrook was drafted in 2002
http://football.about.com/od/nfldrafthistory/l/bl_draft2002.htm
He wouldn’t be top 5 maybe not even top 10
-
I know this is kind of cruel but I should mention that same year Westbrook was drafted the bears selected a RB name Adrian Peterson… Woops wrong one!
I couldn’t agree more. I made a similar point on a previous discussion about DMac. The point was this:
It all about production on the field. You need your 1st rounders to produce. Yes. It is possible to find lower round picks that produce but what does that prove? A lot of people say this about RBs (that it is possible to get a good one later in the draft). Brian Westbrook was a third rounder they say. OK, but if the Eagles HAD used a 1st rounder to get Westbrook, it would have been a good pick because Westbrook produces. If you take a DMac at 6 (and I’m not saying you do or don’t – it depends what the other options are, etc.) and he produces results like a Westbrook, you’ve done pretty well for yourself. The fact that you had a 1 in 10 chance of maybe finding someone in a later round isn’t very relevant anymore. Using high draft choices on guys that don’t produce results on the field is what kills franchises. While getting guys that can produce on the NFL level is never a setback. Any Jets fan already understands this all too well.