Draft Success/Failure Article

[Mongo3451]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Which-...-NFL-Draft.html

[jason]

This pretty much validates my belief that we could have done a better job drafting during JA's tenure than he did. All of us don't have a handle on the finances - although some are very good at it, and I'd trust LT2's numbers over anyone's - the simply matter of fact is, the Bears have been one of the worst drafting teams in the NFL over the last ten years.

[AZ54]

Emery has 50% of our 10yr draft success in terms of Rd 1-3 players who made it to the Pro Bowl. (2 of 4) He has done that in just two drafts.

[Stinger226]

This pretty much validates my belief that we could have done a better job drafting during JA's tenure than he did. All of us don't have a handle on the finances - although some are very good at it, and I'd trust LT2's numbers over anyone's - the simply matter of fact is, the Bears have been one of the worst drafting teams in the NFL over the last ten years.

I always thought he did a good job at it, until you look at his track record and it sucks.

Also I think Lovie was in his ear too much and influenced picks.

[adam]

This pretty much validates my belief that we could have done a better job drafting during JA's tenure than he did. All of us don't have a handle on the finances - although some are very good at it, and I'd trust LT2's numbers over anyone's - the simply matter of fact is, the Bears have been one of the worst drafting teams in the NFL over the last ten years.

I agree that we probably could have done a better than JA and staff, but draft success does not correlate to anything. It in itself has no value unless coupled with good coaching, the right scheme, and an above average team to begin with.

 

Looking at the top 8 teams from 2004-2013 (top chart), there were only 4 SB appearances, and 1 SB win. The Giants, Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Saints, and Colts, all good to great teams during that stretch all finished in the bottom 12. So you have to question the value of "drafting your own". What seems more important is picking up other teams undervalued players on the cheap.

 

Now if you just take Pro Bowlers into account, the Bears drafted 7 in 71 picks, above the league average of 5 in 79 picks. Comparing that with the teams listed above: (NYG 5/71, NE 8/88, PIT 5/84, BAL 5/80, NO 9/60, and IND 4/82). Only NO had a better impact player ratio than the Bears. Again, the numbers don't really tell you much.

 

There are just too many variables to draw any conclusions. The only common sense fact is the earlier you draft, the better chance you have at getting a player that sticks. However, that player starting for you has little impact on your team's success.

 

Our offense is a great example, Cutler, Marshall, Bennett, Bushrod, Slauson, Garza, more than half of our offense was not drafted by us.

 

I bet if there was a Free Agent analysis done, that those players would have a bigger impact on team success than the drafted players.

[jason]

I agree that we probably could have done a better than JA and staff, but draft success does not correlate to anything. It in itself has no value unless coupled with good coaching, the right scheme, and an above average team to begin with.

 

Looking at the top 8 teams from 2004-2013 (top chart), there were only 4 SB appearances, and 1 SB win. The Giants, Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Saints, and Colts, all good to great teams during that stretch all finished in the bottom 12. So you have to question the value of "drafting your own". What seems more important is picking up other teams undervalued players on the cheap.

 

Now if you just take Pro Bowlers into account, the Bears drafted 7 in 71 picks, above the league average of 5 in 79 picks. Comparing that with the teams listed above: (NYG 5/71, NE 8/88, PIT 5/84, BAL 5/80, NO 9/60, and IND 4/82). Only NO had a better impact player ratio than the Bears. Again, the numbers don't really tell you much.

 

There are just too many variables to draw any conclusions. The only common sense fact is the earlier you draft, the better chance you have at getting a player that sticks. However, that player starting for you has little impact on your team's success.

 

Our offense is a great example, Cutler, Marshall, Bennett, Bushrod, Slauson, Garza, more than half of our offense was not drafted by us.

 

I bet if there was a Free Agent analysis done, that those players would have a bigger impact on team success than the drafted players.

 

The bolded is an interesting thought. It's nearly impossible to quantify. Where I think that concept is flawed, however, is in the long-term, franchise building guys. Those guys don't leave teams very often. They get resigned over and over until retirement. If you don't get that guy (i.e. Bears and QBs), it's very difficult to overcome. You end up trying to fill the hole over and over again, hamstringing your team for years and years.

[Mongo3451]

Looking at the top 8 teams from 2004-2013 (top chart), there were only 4 SB appearances, and 1 SB win. The Giants, Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Saints, and Colts, all good to great teams during that stretch all finished in the bottom 12. So you have to question the value of "drafting your own". What seems more important is picking up other teams undervalued players on the cheap.

 

Now if you just take Pro Bowlers into account, the Bears drafted 7 in 71 picks, above the league average of 5 in 79 picks. Comparing that with the teams listed above: (NYG 5/71, NE 8/88, PIT 5/84, BAL 5/80, NO 9/60, and IND 4/82). Only NO had a better impact player ratio than the Bears. Again, the numbers don't really tell you much.

 

There are just too many variables to draw any conclusions. The only common sense fact is the earlier you draft, the better chance you have at getting a player that sticks. However, that player starting for you has little impact on your team's success.

This really doesn't tell it all. If you are drafted on a team that has established stars, it is harder slower process to get your recognition. Those good teams seem to always have a guy ready to plug in though.

[adam]

The bolded is an interesting thought. It's nearly impossible to quantify. Where I think that concept is flawed, however, is in the long-term, franchise building guys. Those guys don't leave teams very often. They get resigned over and over until retirement. If you don't get that guy (i.e. Bears and QBs), it's very difficult to overcome. You end up trying to fill the hole over and over again, hamstringing your team for years and years.

I guess you would have to look at a player's performance after he goes to a new team, how many starts they make, and maybe how many Pro Bowls (I don't like the Pro Bowl voting though).

 

Guys like Marshall, Bennett, Slauson, Bushrod, Garza, and Cutler would all have to be considered successes for either their production, longevity (Garza), or accolades (Marshall). You could also use Pro Football Reference's AV or PFF's.

 

In reference to building a guy, I believe that is true, but the numbers do not support that at all. The great teams you would think of in the last decade all were on the bottom half of draft efficiency and success.

[adam]

This really doesn't tell it all. If you are drafted on a team that has established stars, it is harder slower process to get your recognition. Those good teams seem to always have a guy ready to plug in though.

They mentioned that it does not do a good job looking at recent years, but looking over 10 years you can still draw some conclusions. If those guys do get plugged in, then they would account for starts, and would show up in the numbers, and they don't.

 

NE seems to be the blueprint for success over the past 10-12 years, and yet they have one of the lowest draft success rates. However, they have had other things that are critical to success, a top notch coaching staff, the same system, and a true franchise QB. Everything else is almost interchangeable and variable, and just impacts how good they are and how far they go.

[Daventry]

This pretty much validates my belief that we could have done a better job drafting during JA's tenure than he did. All of us don't have a handle on the finances - although some are very good at it, and I'd trust LT2's numbers over anyone's - the simply matter of fact is, the Bears have been one of the worst drafting teams in the NFL over the last ten years.

 

 

I have to agree with you there Jason...no idea with the thinking of JA and LS etc...but the board here would have done better, I have no doubt. You guys know football!

 

[Chitownhustla]

This pretty much validates my belief that we could have done a better job drafting during JA's tenure than he did. All of us don't have a handle on the finances - although some are very good at it, and I'd trust LT2's numbers over anyone's - the simply matter of fact is, the Bears have been one of the worst drafting teams in the NFL over the last ten years.

 

Before Reading this article I would have said and have said it before on this board : JA missed way too many times in the first three rounds and did a good job in the later rounds. This article kind of confirms this.

 

 

What this study really cant do is show how bad the drafting was when it comes to needs. The Oline was talked about by most fans and most talking heads, JA chose to draft other positions. He thought he could plug in some vet and get good enough out of them. It didn't work, he neglected the Oline and we saw what it did to the offense. Even to go more into it, he traded for a QB then did nothing to put player makers around him and let the O line go to shit.

 

 

 

JA put too much faith in having a QB do it all. Our D even when great suffered because it was constantly on the field when the O would go 3 and out.

 

 

 

 

 

[adam]

What this study really cant do is show how bad the drafting was when it comes to needs. The Oline was talked about by most fans and most talking heads, JA chose to draft other positions. He thought he could plug in some vet and get good enough out of them. It didn't work, he neglected the Oline and we saw what it did to the offense. Even to go more into it, he traded for a QB then did nothing to put player makers around him and let the O line go to shit.

 

Yeah, I agree, he would completely skip a need and go for a position of strength, and then the guy doesn't start anyway.

 

Drafting needs vs BPA is an entirely different debate about which is better and when those drafting methods should be used. Can you afford to take a Safety at #20 when that is your biggest need when he is the 40th ranked player in the draft over a top 10 player that plays a position you do not need.