Batting Average - Drafting an EDGE in the 1st

[ztboiler]

We hear the numbers all the time...in general...and we know that draft numbers tend to favor failure...but rarely look at the specifics of draft success ratios.  

 

Most would agree that pass rush is our first (and probably second) most important need and are hoping the first round this year brings us our impact guy.  So....I went back thru the last 10 drafts to examine how first round EDGE rushers have done.  Unfortunately, its not good.

 

Since 2007, 47 EDGE types have been drafted in the 1st round.  17 of them have made signinficant impact in their 1st 2-3 years - 36%.  30 have not.  The numbers get a little better, if you look at players like Melvin Ingram and Nick Perry who started to make an impact in year 4.  But it is hard to see your way to a 50% hit rate with EDGE players in the first round if you look at the last 10 drafts.  Of course, there is a lot of subjectivity to any analysis of impact if you want to look deeper than the numbers. 

 

I didn't do the same analysis for other positions - and frankly, they are even more subjective - but I think we all know intuitively that hit rates of 50% in the first round across the league are reasonable.....many players simply do not make it.  Good teams seem to hit on their first round picks most of the time, bad teams don't.

 

The overarching meaning of this is that planning to draft your EDGE rusher of the future is recipe for failure....just like hoping to draft any position is.  Its hard enough to draft a great player....let alone a great player at a position of need.  If you can get an impact player at any position...an actual difference maker that could start for any team in the league....then you've done a great job in the first round.  If you can get 2 players out of your whole draft that fit that description 3 years from now, then you've had a great draft.  

 

Period.

[DaColts85]

12 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

We hear the numbers all the time...in general...and we know that draft numbers tend to favor failure...but rarely look at the specifics of draft success ratios.  

 

Most would agree that pass rush is our first (and probably second) most important need and are hoping the first round this year brings us our impact guy.  So....I went back thru the last 10 drafts to examine how first round EDGE rushers have done.  Unfortunately, its not good.

 

Since 2007, 47 EDGE types have been drafted in the 1st round.  17 of them have made signinficant impact in their 1st 2-3 years - 36%.  30 have not.  The numbers get a little better, if you look at players like Melvin Ingram and Nick Perry who started to make an impact in year 4.  But it is hard to see your way to a 50% hit rate with EDGE players in the first round if you look at the last 10 drafts.  Of course, there is a lot of subjectivity to any analysis of impact if you want to look deeper than the numbers. 

 

I didn't do the same analysis for other positions - and frankly, they are even more subjective - but I think we all know intuitively that hit rates of 50% in the first round across the league are reasonable.....many players simply do not make it.  Good teams seem to hit on their first round picks most of the time, bad teams don't.

 

The overarching meaning of this is that planning to draft your EDGE rusher of the future is recipe for failure....just like hoping to draft any position is.  Its hard enough to draft a great player....let alone a great player at a position of need.  If you can get an impact player at any position...an actual difference maker that could start for any team in the league....then you've done a great job in the first round.  If you can get 2 players out of your whole draft that fit that description 3 years from now, then you've had a great draft.  

 

Period.

I would completely agree and I like the numbers and effort.  The key thing is how you evaluate talent and are your drafting players that fit your scheme.  Grigson was not the best at either of these so we missed a lot.  Let's hope Ballard is better!  Also, drafting with the mentality of BPA works but that means you are looking at everything and going with the best player (RB, OL, whatever it may be).  Typically you might have a few players rated close enough that at your pick you can grab a guy that fits a suitable need.  Grigson could of done this with his Dorsett pick but I am not sure how his board looked.  The obvious response now is that we should have picked Landon Collins.  

[BProland85]

I'd rather draft a sure thing in CB Sidney Jones round 1 than reach a bit for Takk McKinley, Tim Williams, or Charles Harris. Then round 2 I go after Carl Lawson. My first choice would be to trade down with a team like Denver who would want OJ Howard and needs to move in front of Tennessee and Tampa Bay to do so.

[bananabucket]

100% of Leonard Fournettes will become perennial pro bowlers.

 

Sign Perry or Ingram, draft another OLB in rounds 2 or 3, and go get a real difference maker.

[DaColts85]

51 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

I'd rather draft a sure thing in CB Sidney Jones round 1 than reach a bit for Takk McKinley, Tim Williams, or Charles Harris. Then round 2 I go after Carl Lawson. My first choice would be to trade down with a team like Denver who would want OJ Howard and needs to move in front of Tennessee and Tampa Bay to do so.

So the Edge players are a reach but Sidney is a sure thing??  I am curious of how you know this.

[James Sturgill]

I agree 100%

[Superman]

2 hours ago, BProland85 said:

I'd rather draft a sure thing in CB Sidney Jones round 1 than reach a bit for Takk McKinley, Tim Williams, or Charles Harris. Then round 2 I go after Carl Lawson. My first choice would be to trade down with a team like Denver who would want OJ Howard and needs to move in front of Tennessee and Tampa Bay to do so.

 

I'm not a fan of Sidney Jones in the first. If he were healthy, I'd rather have McKinley.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ztboiler said:

We hear the numbers all the time...in general...and we know that draft numbers tend to favor failure...but rarely look at the specifics of draft success ratios.  

 

Most would agree that pass rush is our first (and probably second) most important need and are hoping the first round this year brings us our impact guy.  So....I went back thru the last 10 drafts to examine how first round EDGE rushers have done.  Unfortunately, its not good.

 

Since 2007, 47 EDGE types have been drafted in the 1st round.  17 of them have made signinficant impact in their 1st 2-3 years - 36%.  30 have not.  The numbers get a little better, if you look at players like Melvin Ingram and Nick Perry who started to make an impact in year 4.  But it is hard to see your way to a 50% hit rate with EDGE players in the first round if you look at the last 10 drafts.  Of course, there is a lot of subjectivity to any analysis of impact if you want to look deeper than the numbers. 

 

I didn't do the same analysis for other positions - and frankly, they are even more subjective - but I think we all know intuitively that hit rates of 50% in the first round across the league are reasonable.....many players simply do not make it.  Good teams seem to hit on their first round picks most of the time, bad teams don't.

 

The overarching meaning of this is that planning to draft your EDGE rusher of the future is recipe for failure....just like hoping to draft any position is.  Its hard enough to draft a great player....let alone a great player at a position of need.  If you can get an impact player at any position...an actual difference maker that could start for any team in the league....then you've done a great job in the first round.  If you can get 2 players out of your whole draft that fit that description 3 years from now, then you've had a great draft.  

 

Period.

 

My brain translates this as "don't reach for need, draft well several years in a row and you'll have a good roster." 

 

I'm curious what the split is for top 16 picks vs 17-32. I bet there's a dramatic drop off. It would be interesting to see where the major drop is, not just at edge, but every position.

[ztboiler]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My brain translates this as "don't reach for need, draft well several years in a row and you'll have a good roster." 

 

I'm curious what the split is for top 16 picks vs 17-32. I bet there's a dramatic drop off. It would be interesting to see where the major drop is, not just at edge, but every position.

That's exactly what it is....but when we forget specifically why... then we get over focused on need again as sideline GMs.

 

To the split, it's worth a closer look, but I was surprised....anecdotally I'd say the success rate was about the same.  

[SaturdayAllDay]

2 hours ago, bananabucket said:

100% of Leonard Fournettes will become perennial pro bowlers.

 

Sign Perry or Ingram, draft another OLB in rounds 2 or 3, and go get a real difference maker.

Seems like Trent Richardson didnt get the memo on that one. 

Also im not really sold on Gurley being a perennial pro bowler, although i think that is due in part to the lack of talent around him. 

At the end of the day, there is never a 100% chance at anything in the draft. 

[Colts_Fan12]

10 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Seems like Trent Richardson didnt get the memo on that one. 

Also im not really sold on Gurley being a perennial pro bowler, although i think that is due in part to the lack of talent around him. 

At the end of the day, there is never a 100% chance at anything in the draft. 

Gurley is one of the best back in the league if he was on Dallas he would have broke every record on earth and made Elliot look like a child 

[SaturdayAllDay]

Just now, Colts_Fan12 said:

Gurley is one of the best back in the league if he was on Dallas he would have broke every record on earth and made Elliot look like a child 

The point being, is it a 100% chance that he is a pro bowler where he is? That was what i was replying to. 

Also while i like gurley, he hasnt really produced. Sure he has nothing around him, but other good rbs have done more in similar situations. 

[Colts_Fan12]

21 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

The point being, is it a 100% chance that he is a pro bowler where he is? That was what i was replying to. 

Also while i like gurley, he hasnt really produced. Sure he has nothing around him, but other good rbs have done more in similar situations. 

Teams know all the rams can do is run the QBS suck the WRs suck even the TE isn't good plus the line is bad they have nothing on the O side of the ball like most other teams 

[jskinnz]

3 hours ago, BProland85 said:

I'd rather draft a sure thing in CB Sidney Jones round 1 than reach a bit for Takk McKinley, Tim Williams, or Charles Harris. Then round 2 I go after Carl Lawson. My first choice would be to trade down with a team like Denver who would want OJ Howard and needs to move in front of Tennessee and Tampa Bay to do so.

 

Dear God...

[SaturdayAllDay]

16 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Teams know all the rams can do is run the QBS suck the WRs suck even the TE isn't good plus the line is bad they have nothing on the O side of the ball like most other teams 

Yes but for a player being touted as the best thing since AP,  shouldnt he be able to at least come close to what AP did with nothing around him? In 2008 (APs 2nd season) he put up 1700 yds with tavaris jackson and john david booty at qb and sidney rice as the best offensive weapon. Gurley in his second year didnt have a single 100 yd rushing game. 

 

Correction: They had Bernard Berrian at WR, but he put up less than Kenny Britt did this year none the less.

[Colts_Fan12]

8 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Yes but for a player being touted as the best thing since AP,  shouldnt he be able to at least come close to what AP did with nothing around him? In 2008 (APs 2nd season) he put up 1700 yds with tavaris jackson and john david booty at qb and sidney rice as the best offensive weapon. Gurley in his second year didnt have a single 100 yd rushing game. 

Sidney Rice was better then any WR on LA imo and I'd take Jackson at that time over all the QBs on LAs roster also had a better O line in 2008 that is a RBs best friend 

[SaturdayAllDay]

Just now, Colts_Fan12 said:

Sidney Rice was better then any WR on LA imo and I'd take Jackson at that time over all the QBs on LAs roster 

Rams had more recieving yds than the vikings did that year. Sidney rice was hurt and only put up 141 yds that year. I was looking at the wrong column for his stats. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not a fan of Sidney Jones in the first. If he were healthy, I'd rather have McKinley.

 

If we were going to go for a CB in the first, I'd love it to be Quincy Wilson. I like his style a lot.

[Colts_Fan12]

3 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Rams had more recieving yds than the vikings did that year. Sidney rice was hurt and only put up 141 yds that year. I was looking at the wrong column for his stats. 

And I wasn't even saying he's the next AP just think he would be better then everyone in the league right now if he wasn't on that trash can roster 

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

My brain translates this as "don't reach for need, draft well several years in a row and you'll have a good roster." 

 

I'm curious what the split is for top 16 picks vs 17-32. I bet there's a dramatic drop off. It would be interesting to see where the major drop is, not just at edge, but every position.

I was looking into something related to this some time ago when I was arguing with someone about why we shouldn't tank for the sake of draft positioning, just to move up 4 or 6 spots in the draft.  You recall the threads devoted to this topic, I'm sure. 

 

Just a quick disclaimer, when I say "impact" I mean Pro Bowler.  It's not a perfect approximation, but for a short, somewhat on topic analysis, I figured it would suffice without a more in-depth review.

 

When I looked into it (had to do a quick review again to refresh), a Top 10 pick is in its own tier, you might be able to stretch that to the 12 in a year with a good class.  Depending on the draft class, you're likely batting over .500% (sans the 2009 and 2013 draft classes) if you're not drafting a QB.  

 

From there, its just a mixed bag.  There's plenty of years where there were less impact players drafted between 12-18 than between 18-24 and vice versa, but the probability of these picks are all about the same.  Not quite .500, yet close, and depending on the year in which you're viewing, generally a successful range to be in.  In the 12-24 range, I'd still say that I'd rather pick 14th than I would 20th, but there's enough distortion in success rates between any pick in this range that I'd be cool trading down from 14 to 20 and pick up a 3rd or something in the process and not feel like I've missed out.  Like anything, it always depends on teh circumstances and what you think your draft board looks like.  No reason to trade down if there's a guy there that you really like. 

 

With all that said, the most substantial drop off occurs somewhere around the 26th pick.  Probabilities from there are about what you'd expect from a 2nd round pick - 25% or so, give or take.

 

The 2009 and 2013 draft class are true outliers and nothing about it made sense.  Top 10 picks were practically useless, but there were several solid players drafted in slots 17-32.  

 

TL;DR - There's top 10 or 12, there's 12-24, then there's everything else.

 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I was looking into something related to this some time ago when I was arguing with someone about why we shouldn't tank for the sake of draft positioning, just to move up 4 or 6 spots in the draft.  You recall the threads devoted to this topic, I'm sure. 

 

Just a quick disclaimer, when I say "impact" I mean Pro Bowler.  It's not a perfect approximation, but for a short, somewhat on topic analysis, I figured it would suffice without a more in-depth review.

 

When I looked into it (had to do a quick review again to refresh), a Top 10 pick is in its own tier, you might be able to stretch that to the 12 in a year with a good class.  Depending on the draft class, you're likely batting over .500% (sans the 2009 and 2013 draft classes) if you're not drafting a QB.  

 

From there, its just a mixed bag.  There's plenty of years where there were less impact players drafted between 12-18 than between 18-24 and vice versa, but probability of these picks isn't quite .500, but it's close.  In the 12-24 range, I'd still say that I'd rather pick 14th than I would 20th, but there's enough distortion in success rates that I'd be cool trading down from 14 to 20 and pick up a 3rd in the process and not feel like I've missed out.  Like anything, it always depends on teh circumstances and what you think your draft board looks like.  No reason to trade down if there's a guy there that you really like. 

 

With all that said, the most substantial drop off occurs somewhere around the 26th pick.  Probabilities from there are about what you'd expect from a 2nd round pick - 25% or so, give or take.

 

The 2009 and 2013 draft class are true outliers and nothing about it made sense.  Top 10 picks were practically useless, but there were several solid players drafted in slots 17-32.  

 

TL;DR - There's top 10 or 12, there's 12-24

 

 

This is great stuff. I don't know if you still have your research available, but if so, please post it again.

[OffensivelyPC]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is great stuff. I don't know if you still have your research available, but if so, please post it again.

I don't anymore. Handwritten notes are now gone.  It took an evening to do, so maybe when I get time I'll put up exact numbers and get a little more in depth. If you got any other parameters you're curious about let me know.  It'll make it different and give it a new challenge and I'll incorporate it if it's possible.

[SaturdayAllDay]

5 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

And I wasn't even saying he's the next AP just think he would be better then everyone in the league right now if he wasn't on that trash can roster 

To be fair I was originally only saying that it isnt a 100% given that he is destined to be a perennial pro bowler, and clearly said due in part to where he is. I think that is pretty much a given and am not sure why you even chose to argue that. 

 

I was using AP as an example to point out that great RBs have a way of making plays even when the box is stacked against them. The same can be said of pretty much any RB that could be considered best in the league. Marshawn Lynch did more than Gurley with Trent Edwards at Qb in 2008 (receiving stats almost identical to the 2016 Rams). There are plenty of examples I could go through to explain this.

 

In all reality, the Rams QB stats to RB stats comparison is closer in stats to the 2010 Cardinals combo of Derek Anderson/Tim Hightower than it is to either of the examples I have given out. In 2010 the Cardinals had 3260 pass yds (vs 3313 for the 2016 rams) and their best rb was Tim Hightower, who churned out 736 yds (vs Gurleys 885). Thats literally been the closest comparison that I can find to Gurleys production combined with terrible QB play. Hightowers rush stats are a little worse, but then again so was the Pass offense. Plus Hightower was given significantly less carries than Gurley was given (153 vs 278). Definitely not promising news for Gurley fans (or really promising news for Hightower fans). 

 

All in all, I like Gurley. He is a good RB who is still young enough to prove the numbers wrong, unfortunately he hasnt hit the great level yet. He currently needs an offense around him to be successful, unlike most other great RBs. 

 

 

[Defjamz26]

I've actually cooled down on the idea of taking Tak or Harris at 14/15. But I'd be all over Thomas. If Reuben Foster drops, he's a no brainer. After that I like Wilson at CB. Perhaps McDowell. And of course Fournette and Cook.

[ztboiler]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

My brain translates this as "don't reach for need, draft well several years in a row and you'll have a good roster." 

 

I'm curious what the split is for top 16 picks vs 17-32. I bet there's a dramatic drop off. It would be interesting to see where the major drop is, not just at edge, but every position.

 

Just scrolled back through the last 10 drafts.  I count 12 of 17 impact players drafted in the top 16 (13 of 18 if you count Aldon Smith, which we should, and I didn't the first time - debatable given flash, crash and burn).  4 of those 12 drafted 11-16, so 9 of 18 are top 10 picks.  

 

These numbers include an impact projection for Joey Bosa (easy to support) and Floyd from 2016 as top 10 picks.  Their success actually skews the data a touch in favor of top 10 picks.  Overall I count (subjectively) 9/15 success rate on top 10 EDGE draft picks....so that supports the overall draft value of higher picks and higher success ratios.

 

Two different people would no doubt get different numbers, but they should be close.  For instance, I counted Dante Fowler as a failure for the purpose of this excercise, regardless of what he may still project to become.  I also counted Melvin Ingram and Nick Perry as failures, despite being in line to get big contracts, from a first round value perspective.  

 

No method is perfect, but the point is the same.

[Finball]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I don't anymore. Handwritten notes are now gone.  It took an evening to do, so maybe when I get time I'll put up exact numbers and get a little more in depth. If you got any other parameters you're curious about let me know.  It'll make it different and give it a new challenge and I'll incorporate it if it's possible.

 

I've some extra time this weekend and am interested in this stuff so I could help too.

[BOTT]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I was looking into something related to this some time ago when I was arguing with someone about why we shouldn't tank for the sake of draft positioning, just to move up 4 or 6 spots in the draft.  You recall the threads devoted to this topic, I'm sure. 

 

Just a quick disclaimer, when I say "impact" I mean Pro Bowler.  It's not a perfect approximation, but for a short, somewhat on topic analysis, I figured it would suffice without a more in-depth review.

 

When I looked into it (had to do a quick review again to refresh), a Top 10 pick is in its own tier, you might be able to stretch that to the 12 in a year with a good class.  Depending on the draft class, you're likely batting over .500% (sans the 2009 and 2013 draft classes) if you're not drafting a QB.  

 

From there, its just a mixed bag.  There's plenty of years where there were less impact players drafted between 12-18 than between 18-24 and vice versa, but the probability of these picks are all about the same.  Not quite .500, yet close, and depending on the year in which you're viewing, generally a successful range to be in.  In the 12-24 range, I'd still say that I'd rather pick 14th than I would 20th, but there's enough distortion in success rates between any pick in this range that I'd be cool trading down from 14 to 20 and pick up a 3rd or something in the process and not feel like I've missed out.  Like anything, it always depends on teh circumstances and what you think your draft board looks like.  No reason to trade down if there's a guy there that you really like. 

 

With all that said, the most substantial drop off occurs somewhere around the 26th pick.  Probabilities from there are about what you'd expect from a 2nd round pick - 25% or so, give or take.

 

The 2009 and 2013 draft class are true outliers and nothing about it made sense.  Top 10 picks were practically useless, but there were several solid players drafted in slots 17-32.  

 

TL;DR - There's top 10 or 12, there's 12-24, then there's everything else.

 

 

long story short, the colts should have tanked lol

[Superman]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I don't anymore. Handwritten notes are now gone.  It took an evening to do, so maybe when I get time I'll put up exact numbers and get a little more in depth. If you got any other parameters you're curious about let me know.  It'll make it different and give it a new challenge and I'll incorporate it if it's possible.

 

The "hit rate" when picking between 10-20 would be nice to see. And if you want to exclude or isolate QBs, that's fine. 

[OffensivelyPC]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The "hit rate" when picking between 10-20 would be nice to see. And if you want to exclude or isolate QBs, that's fine. 

I've done a little work so far and my ranges were off.  You'll see what I'm talking about when I post all the data.  I chose not to isolate QBs, because ultimately, almost every draft class, there's a QB in the top 10 or projected therein.  I wasn't far off in what I said, but it wasn't totally accurate either.  It was more accurate in what I argued however long ago it was that I did the research. 

 

But getting your request in there won't be hard at all.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I've done a little work so far and my ranges were off.  You'll see what I'm talking about when I post all the data.  I chose not to isolate QBs, because ultimately, almost every draft class, there's a QB in the top 10 or projected therein.  I wasn't far off in what I said, but it wasn't totally accurate either.  It was more accurate in what I argued however long ago it was that I did the research. 

 

But getting your request in there won't be hard at all.

 

I suggested isolating QBs because that's the position that teams obviously reach for. I think 2011 would throw all your metrics off -- Locker, Gabbert and Ponder were all top 12 picks, as hard as that is to believe. But it's fine either way. 

[OffensivelyPC]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I suggested isolating QBs because that's the position that teams obviously reach for. I think 2011 would throw all your metrics off -- Locker, Gabbert and Ponder were all top 12 picks, as hard as that is to believe. But it's fine either way. 

I'll try it and see what I come up with.  When its QBs drafted in the top 10, it doesn't skew the data as much as you might think (not sure where I got the idea, but I thought I had seen that somewhere).  It was about 50/50, but it probably would be different if I looked at all QBs drafted in the 1st.  I'll play around with it.  But as far as draft positions go, there are noticeable trends.  So while it wont' be exact science, its a fun experiment that will be a little bit useful, particularly when analyzing draft day trades in real life or with our mocks (perhaps even when we're talking about tanking for a couple of draft spots lol).

 

Even @ztboiler could use it in looking at more positions or a handful of us could take this as deep as we want to go and make it a series or something, by round, position, or whatever have you.  I wouldn't be surprised if a similar sort of data analysis already existed in some form with all 32 franchises.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar sort of data analysis already existed in some form with all 32 franchises.

 

I'm sure it does.

 

I've been wanting to do a research project like that for a while, but I get crazy with stuff like that. I'd go tumbling down the rabbit hole and might not ever come back up. 

[AZColt11]

Of course we ALL know the draft is a crap shoot.  Nobody is a "sure thing".  But the drafted players are cheap and the upside is larger in comparison to high-priced FA's.  Besides, they don't cost your team anything in terms of players in return, cash, etc.  And no player, I don't care what position, is a sure-fire difference-maker.  Nobody really knows anything until the bright lights come on and they take the field on the big stage.  But you gotta chop wood as Chuck would say.  LOL

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm sure it does.

 

I've been wanting to do a research project like that for a while, but I get crazy with stuff like that. I'd go tumbling down the rabbit hole and might not ever come back up. 

That's what makes it fun.  All you can really do is trust your instincts, be honest with what the data is telling you, open to what the data tells others, and probably be thankful that your career doesn't depend on making a science out of something as imperfect as the NFL Draft.

[OffensivelyPC]

13 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

Of course we ALL know the draft is a crap shoot.  Nobody is a "sure thing".  But the drafted players are cheap and the upside is larger in comparison to high-priced FA's.  Besides, they don't cost your team anything in terms of players in return, cash, etc.  And no player, I don't care what position, is a sure-fire difference-maker.  Nobody really knows anything until the bright lights come on and they take the field on the big stage.  But you gotta chop wood as Chuck would say.  LOL

Well, there are things that that can translate into success, things that go into scouting reports.  A DE who is explosive will stand a better chance than one who isn't.  Add up all the little checkboxes and you've got a better probability with Prospect 95 Grade than Prospect 65 Grade.  But once you start getting into the 3rd or 4th round, it really is a crapshoot at that point.  When youv'e watched hundreds of prospects, you recognize the top guys pretty quick, and then everyone else looks the same, with each of them doing a thing or two here or there that's a good NFL trait to have, but you rely on coaching and intangibles for the rest and heaven knows where they'll be in 3 years.

[Shive]

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of how "raw, but high upside" edge rushers have played out vs the "lower ceiling, but higher floor" type guys. That would tell you where, historically, how risky those types are or are not.

[SaturdayAllDay]

1 hour ago, Shive said:

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of how "raw, but high upside" edge rushers have played out vs the "lower ceiling, but higher floor" type guys. That would tell you where, historically, how risky those types are or are not.

I think it would also help to see if converted players (went from a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB, or vice versa) are riskier choices than players who stay in the same system.