Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NewColtsFan

Value of First Round WR's...?

Recommended Posts

 

So.....

 

We've had an on-going debate...   a number of fans here would like to see the Colts take a WR at pick 26.   They'd rather have a top WR than a DL who might be the 9th or 10th best DL in the class.      And some fans think there is real value with a 1st round WR.

 

I'm not one of them.

 

I've been posting for several years now articles on NFL.com talk about scouts saying there's no 1st round value in the most recent classes.   That the value mostly comes in RDs 2-5.     And scouts point to three problem area's for WR's coming out of college.

 

1.    They're not taught to run the full full route tree.

 

2.    They're not taught to read NFL defenses very well.

 

3.    They don't learn the complex language of a play.    The type of info you've heard from guys like Gruden and Mariucci when they put player on the white board to draw up a play.     What many WR's get for a play call,  is to look over on the sideline and see a big card with a picture of someone or something.     That's not done on the NFL level.

 

All of these add up to players who often aren't ready to contribute for their first few years while they learn on the job.

 

I'm going to list all the first round WR's taken in the last 7 years.    That's your most recent trend.    27 Wide Receivers have been taken in the first round.     11 have had a good level of success or more.   Some of that is open to some interpretation.    But 16 WR's can only be viewed as somewhere between a big disappointment to a bust.   Some are even out of the NFL altogether.    Remember this is just within the last 7 years.

 

2018:

24     DJ Moore           Car

26     Calvin Ridley    Atl

 

NOTES:  Two success stories.  

But note ONLY TWO WR's taken.

That's it.   Two.

 

2017:

5     Corey Davis     Tenn

7     Mike Williams   SD

9.    John Ross

 

NOTES:   Two success stories.

John Ross struggling badly his 

first two years.

 

2016:

15    Corey Coleman    Cle

21    Will Fuller            Hou

22    Josh Doctson        Was

23    Laquan Treadwell    Minn

 

NOTES:  All four misses.

Coleman on his 4th team.

 

2015:

4      Amari Cooper        Oak

7      Kevin White           Chi

14    DeVante Parker     Mia

20    Nelson Agholor     Phi

26    Breshard Perriman   Bal

29    Phillip Dorsett        Ind

 

NOTES:   Six picks.  Two hits.

Cooper & Agholor.   Four misses

Note the six pick class comes a year

after the historically great 2014 WR class.

 

 

2014:

4.     Sammy Watkins        Buff

7      Mike Evans                  TB

12   OBJ                               NYG

20   Brandin Cooks            NO

28   Kelvin Benjamin       Car

 

NOTES:  A five WR class and four 

are very successful.   Only Benjamin

is a miss.  He's on his 3rd team.  But note 

that two (Watkins & Cooks) are on their 

3rd team.   They're good players,  but are

you happy if your team took them only to 

see them get traded quickly?   Is that real value?

 

 

2013: 

8      Tavon Austin                 Stl

27    DeAndre Hopkins        Hou

29    Cordarrelle Patterson  Min

 

NOTES:  3 players.  One hit,  two misses.

 

2012:

5     Justin Blackman          J'Ville

13   Michael Floyd              Ari

20   Kendell Wright           Tenn

30   AJ Jenkins                     SF

 

NOTES:  Not only are all four misses,

but all are out of football.    Floyd was 

on five different teams.   Wright had 

three good years,  three disappointing years

and is out of the game.   Jenkins played just

three years and has been out of the game 

ever since.

 

So....    where is the value?    A 40 percent success rate and that includes players who are good,  but still got traded,  some traded twice,  and others allowed to leave via free agency.   Much of the success rate of the last 7 years is skewed by the famous 2014 class.   Otherwise....    The 60 percent fail rate includes guys who are OK,  but haven't come close to delivering first round value.  The rest are busts with some completely out of the game.

 

So, I personally don't see Ballard using a first tomorrow on a WR.    And most mocks seem to predict 2-3 WR's going in the first round.

 

Again,  this is just the last 7 rounds.    We can go back even further if you want.   This didn't just start magically in 2012.   

 

Here are some articles about the problems of having success drafting WR's in the first round.

 

Sports illustrated on the problem of colleges turning out poorly trained kids.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/10/draft-wide-receiver-wr-first-round-busts-kyle-lauletta-jimmy-garoppolo-chad-kanoff-princeton

 

CBS Sports pointing out the high bust rate for 1st Round WR's.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/where-have-the-wideouts-gone-explaining-the-recent-bust-rate-for-first-round-wrs/

 

A list of more than 30 first round wide receivers in the last 20 years that turned out to be very disappointing or busts.

 

https://thesportsdrop.com/

 

Hopefully lots of food for thought....    some good discussion points...     either way,  I hope we take a WR,  preferably by no later than R4.   

 

Looking forward to seeing what we do!       :colts:

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It prompts me to remember Polian's old comment about GMs doing well if they hit on 60% of their first round picks.  I think he said the NFL average was between 50 and 60%.  I'm not sure position has much to do with it as much as picking a player who can actually play.

 

Personally, I think wasting a first round pick sets a team back more so than failing to get a "potential" all-pro player with a first round pick, so I would lean towards taking a player who I thought was a sure thing NFL caliber player.

 

That could be WR as much as any position, although some positions still have higher value.  I think WR is one of those positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I published a few studies across all positions.  DL (iDL and Edge), and RB (and QB) had higher bust rates (10 and 25 year samples).

 

For the info above to have any legitimate meaning, it would need to include all positions and compare accordingly.

 

The last two years that you list have an 80% hit rate. That's probably pretty good vs other positions. It also counters your point about how much they may not be ready for the pro game.

 

In terms of average taken WRs in the first, just based on pure numbers (snap counts, positions needed including STs, standard depth by position/rotation, ), we should expect on average of 3.5ish WRs taken per year IIRC. 

 

I'd also add that years fluctuate (numbers of positions taken) based on talent available, league O or D trends, etc.. This year will likely skew Edge and iDL a bit, just like 2014 did for WR. It happens, and will continue to happen. And we also know many positions have been devalued and overvalued through the past 10 years.

 

In terms of being imperfect when they enter the league, most rookies are. All players can be limited by their systems in college.

 

As far as how you classify success, you don't define. You don't speak of injury impact either. Fuller for instance, who you call a miss, still has averaged 500+ yards a year with serious injury issues across multiple seasons. That's still a higher average than every Colts WR not named TY.

 

In short, if you're not comparing to other positions, or defining success criteria, not much to take from the above.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to add that 8 of the 14 receivers listed in the second half of round 1 (17-32) are labelled as misses, with 2 of them still unproven and 2 others being only somewhat hits, only Cooks and Hopkins have been clear hits. Higher first's have better odds, but after that it is a big issue finding a good player until rounds 2 and 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm with @Irish YJ on this one. In order to draw conclusions about the bust rates of the WR position and to make decisions about whether to draft one in the 1st round, you need to 1. get big enough sample for it to means something(eliminate noise) and 2. compare it to other positions because 50% bust rate(not a real number, just putting it here for demonstration purposes) means nothing if the bust rate for DL is 65(again not real number, just for demonstration purposes - I don't know what the real numbers are).

 

And even then like Irish mentioned, different draft classes have different strengths and at different stages of the draft... for example you can have a really strong DL draft in the 1st and have all of them go in the top 25 and a relatively weak WR class, but have a great WR drop to you to 26(lets say because of all the great DLs). So the question is do you draft the good WR or a sub-par DL? To me the answer is obvious... you draft the best value player... WR or not. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the reality of this draft is that it's very possible we are going to get wiped out from the EDGE-side at 26... We might have some good DL left but they probably will be the ones with issues/red-flags... So it's VERY possible Ballard won't have a highly enough rated DLineman available at 26(if he doesn't want to draft Simmons or Tillery). That range IMO will be great in this draft for:

1. DLinemen with issues(Tillery - too smart?, Simmons - violence/injury?, Lawrence - can he rush the passer?, Sweat - heart condition?)

2. WRs ... I really think some of the best WRs in this class will be available where we are picking

3. Secondary ... 2 premier zone corners might be there for us... and pretty much all the safeties too... 

 

IMO this will be the choice here... with an outside shot at an OLineman or ... *shudders with disgust* Josh Jacobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBs have had good success rates lately, at least since Todd Gurley and Melvin Gordon went in the top 15 in 2015. We had Zeke in 2016, Fournette and CMC in 2017, and Barkley/Michel in 2018. 

 

One thing that has always prevailed come playoff time is OL or DL earns its keep typically along with of course that elite QB.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

RBs have had good success rates lately, at least since Todd Gurley and Melvin Gordon went in the top 15 in 2015. We had Zeke in 2016, Fournette and CMC in 2017, and Barkley/Michel in 2018. 

 

One thing that has always prevailed come playoff time is OL or DL earns its keep typically along with of course that elite QB.

 

It's been a lot better, but still the biggest bust rate of any position in 10 and 25 year samples. Also the position reached for the most (QB is second)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So.....

 

We've had an on-going debate...   a number of fans here would like to see the Colts take a WR at pick 26.   They'd rather have a top WR than a DL who might be the 9th or 10th best DL in the class.      And some fans think there is real value with a 1st round WR.

 

I'm not one of them.

 

I've been posting for several years now articles on NFL.com talk about scouts saying there's no 1st round value in the most recent classes.   That the value mostly comes in RDs 2-5.     And scouts point to three problem area's for WR's coming out of college.

 

1.    They're not taught to run the full full route tree.

 

2.    They're not taught to read NFL defenses very well.

 

3.    They don't learn the complex language of a play.    The type of info you've heard from guys like Gruden and Mariucci when they put player on the white board to draw up a play.     What many WR's get for a play call,  is to look over on the sideline and see a big card with a picture of someone or something.     That's not done on the NFL level.

 

All of these add up to players who often aren't ready to contribute for their first few years while they learn on the job.

 

I'm going to list all the first round WR's taken in the last 7 years.    That's your most recent trend.    27 Wide Receivers have been taken in the first round.     11 have had a good level of success or more.   Some of that is open to some interpretation.    But 16 WR's can only be viewed as somewhere between a big disappointment to a bust.   Some are even out of the NFL altogether.    Remember this is just within the last 7 years.

 

2018:

24     DJ Moore           Car

26     Calvin Ridley    Atl

 

NOTES:  Two success stories.  

But note ONLY TWO WR's taken.

That's it.   Two.

 

2017:

5     Corey Davis     Tenn

7     Mike Williams   SD

9.    John Ross

 

NOTES:   Two success stories.

John Ross struggling badly his 

first two years.

 

2016:

15    Corey Coleman    Cle

21    Will Fuller            Hou

22    Josh Doctson        Was

23    Laquan Treadwell    Minn

 

NOTES:  All four misses.

Coleman on his 4th team.

 

2015:

4      Amari Cooper        Oak

7      Kevin White           Chi

14    DeVante Parker     Mia

20    Nelson Agholor     Phi

26    Breshard Perriman   Bal

29    Phillip Dorsett        Ind

 

NOTES:   Six picks.  Two hits.

Cooper & Agholor.   Four misses

Note the six pick class comes a year

after the historically great 2014 WR class.

 

 

2014:

4.     Sammy Watkins        Buff

7      Mike Evans                  TB

12   OBJ                               NYG

20   Brandin Cooks            NO

28   Kelvin Benjamin       Car

 

NOTES:  A five WR class and four 

are very successful.   Only Benjamin

is a miss.  He's on his 3rd team.  But note 

that two (Watkins & Cooks) are on their 

3rd team.   They're good players,  but are

you happy if your team took them only to 

see them get traded quickly?   Is that real value?

 

 

2013: 

8      Tavon Austin                 Stl

27    DeAndre Hopkins        Hou

29    Cordarrelle Patterson  Min

 

NOTES:  3 players.  One hit,  two misses.

 

2012:

5     Justin Blackman          J'Ville

13   Michael Floyd              Ari

20   Kendell Wright           Tenn

30   AJ Jenkins                     SF

 

NOTES:  Not only are all four misses,

but all are out of football.    Floyd was 

on five different teams.   Wright had 

three good years,  three disappointing years

and is out of the game.   Jenkins played just

three years and has been out of the game 

ever since.

 

So....    where is the value?    A 40 percent success rate and that includes players who are good,  but still got traded,  some traded twice,  and others allowed to leave via free agency.   Much of the success rate of the last 7 years is skewed by the famous 2014 class.   Otherwise....    The 60 percent fail rate includes guys who are OK,  but haven't come close to delivering first round value.  The rest are busts with some completely out of the game.

 

So, I personally don't see Ballard using a first tomorrow on a WR.    And most mocks seem to predict 2-3 WR's going in the first round.

 

Again,  this is just the last 7 rounds.    We can go back even further if you want.   This didn't just start magically in 2012.   

 

Here are some articles about the problems of having success drafting WR's in the first round.

 

Sports illustrated on the problem of colleges turning out poorly trained kids.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/10/draft-wide-receiver-wr-first-round-busts-kyle-lauletta-jimmy-garoppolo-chad-kanoff-princeton

 

CBS Sports pointing out the high bust rate for 1st Round WR's.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/where-have-the-wideouts-gone-explaining-the-recent-bust-rate-for-first-round-wrs/

 

A list of more than 30 first round wide receivers in the last 20 years that turned out to be very disappointing or busts.

 

https://thesportsdrop.com/

 

Hopefully lots of food for thought....    some good discussion points...     either way,  I hope we take a WR,  preferably by no later than R4.   

 

Looking forward to seeing what we do!       :colts:

 

wow   you are really going to * a couple of people off with these facts  HA!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DerekDiggler said:

wow   you are really going to * a couple of people off with these facts  HA!

perfect example of confirmation bias lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, chad72 said:

RBs have had good success rates lately, at least since Todd Gurley and Melvin Gordon went in the top 15 in 2015. We had Zeke in 2016, Fournette and CMC in 2017, and Barkley/Michel in 2018. 

 

One thing that has always prevailed come playoff time is OL or DL earns its keep typically along with of course that elite QB.

 

I package together Brissett and Mack and # 59  and find a trade partner in the 1st round and then take the best dlineman and also Josh Jacobs.....    Then sign Ajai to do exactly what Mack does now... except he can be used in the passing game too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Irish YJ said:

perfect example of confirmation bias lol

I am absolutely biased against wasting a top pick on a WR.   Maybe Dorsett #ed it up for everyone, but man it would have been nice to actually draft the BPA instead of draft for need... BPA would have been the safety we have been missing in Landon Collins... I hope Grigson still has nightmares about that stupid move    and in fact I hope he gets  explosive diarrhea  and an uncontrollable sneezing attach every time he is waiting in line anywhere....  forever... and ever

 

 

Take a receiver in the 3-5 round   or just bring back Inmann.   Our coaches are capable of coaching players    And Reich is pretty good at designing receivers open.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

perfect example of confirmation bias lol

 

Again, people miss the fact that the Patriots signed so many WRs in FA - Wes Welker, Chris Hogan, Randy Moss, Brandin Cooks, Philip Dorsett, and now Demaryius Thomas, some of whom were Round 1 WRs plus Gronk and several RBs in round 2 or earlier.

 

Giants got Plaxico Burress in FA (SB 2007), Hakeem Nicks through the draft in round 1 (SB 2011), Steelers got Santonio Holmes in Round 1 (SB 2008), Packers got Jordy Nelson in early round 2 (SB 2010), our Colts had Marvin and Reggie in Round 1, Ravens got Anquan Boldin in FA, drafted in round 2 (2012), Eagles got Alshon Jeffery (2015), drafted in Round 2 by Bears etc.

 

Lots of teams that won SBs have had skill position players drafted within the first 2 rounds. It is the supporting cast they built to go with it that helped them win SBs, but those skilled WRs did contribute. I understand it is "Round 1 WRs" we are talking about but I do think we can get a very good WR we can use well on Day 2. In fact, I think Day 2 is THE sweet spot for skill position players in this draft.

 

Our aversion to early round WRs/RBs primarily comes from Polian spending all that equity on Round 1 skill position talent (Edge, Clark, Wayne, Addai, Brown, Gonzo) and Grigson following it up with Dorsett and a trade for TRich, and only 1 SB to show for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DerekDiggler said:

I am absolutely biased against wasting a top pick on a WR.   Maybe Dorsett #ed it up for everyone, but man it would have been nice to actually draft the BPA instead of draft for need... BPA would have been the safety we have been missing in Landon Collins... I hope Grigson still has nightmares about that stupid move    and in fact I hope he gets  explosive diarrhea  and an uncontrollable sneezing attach every time he is waiting in line anywhere....  forever... and ever

 

 

Take a receiver in the 3-5 round   or just bring back Inmann.   Our coaches are capable of coaching players    And Reich is pretty good at designing receivers open.

I'm with you on Dorsett. I don't want a WR this year in the first either, I'm just not opposed to one in general. And I'm with you on Grigson too. 

 

Second round is a good spot for WR. Inman, although I like him for depth, isn't an answer to our problem. Reich didn't design good vs Buffalo, Jax, KC, and a few others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Again, people miss the fact that the Patriots signed so many WRs in FA - Wes Welker, Chris Hogan, Randy Moss, Brandin Cooks, Philip Dorsett, and now Demaryius Thomas, some of whom were Round 1 WRs plus Gronk and several RBs in round 2 or earlier.

 

Giants got Plaxico Burress in FA (SB 2007), Hakeem Nicks through the draft in round 1 (SB 2011), Steelers got Santonio Holmes in Round 1 (SB 2008), Packers got Jordy Nelson in early round 2 (SB 2010), our Colts had Marvin and Reggie in Round 1, Ravens got Anquan Boldin in FA, drafted in round 2 (2012), Eagles got Alshon Jeffery (2015), drafted in Round 2 by Bears etc.

 

Lots of teams that won SBs have had skill position players drafted within the first 2 rounds. It is the supporting cast they built to go with it that helped them win SBs, but those skilled WRs did contribute. I understand it is "Round 1 WRs" we are talking about but I do think we can get a very good WR we can use well on Day 2. In fact, I think Day 2 is THE sweet spot for skill position players in this draft.

 

Our aversion to early round WRs/RBs primarily comes from Polian spending all that equity on Round 1 skill position talent (Edge, Clark, Wayne, Addai, Brown, Gonzo) and Grigson following it up with Dorsett and a trade for TRich, and only 1 SB to show for it.

Agree on all accounts. Our last SB, Reggie and Marvin both had 1300+ yards, and were both taken in the second half of the 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling Fuller a miss is a bit harsh. He's been on fire when fit. You can't predict injuries when you draft a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well written. Thanks for the knowledge. I’m somewhat on the fence when it comes to a first round wr. All depends on what’s remaining at 26. I do think it would be wise to select one with our top three picks. This wr class is fairly deep imo so there should be some nice ones left at 59. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chad72 said:

RBs have had good success rates lately, at least since Todd Gurley and Melvin Gordon went in the top 15 in 2015. We had Zeke in 2016, Fournette and CMC in 2017, and Barkley/Michel in 2018. 

 

One thing that has always prevailed come playoff time is OL or DL earns its keep typically along with of course that elite QB.

 

Fournette has been a huge disappointment and Melvin hasn't lived up to his draft status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some colts fans sitting at home straight #triggered heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand some of the comments.  Bust rate at certain positions means nothing, other than the players selected were not good players.  What position they play is irrelevant.

 

Example: Montez Sweat is not going to have a better success playing in the NFL because the bust rate for EDGE players in the first round is low (as a hypothetical).  He will have success because he's a good player.  What every other EDGE player did before him doesn't matter.

 

If you say that GMs overvalue certain players because of position, and that perceived future ceiling (that never materializes) is valued over more marginal immediate abilities, that I believe.  And doing that is what would cause the bust rate to be high.  Using an after the fact bust rate to form an opinion about who should be drafted in the present, especially to lean towards or away from a certain position, is really not the way to do it. JMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like aj brown but this wr class is so so deep with talent.   There are guys projected in the mid to late rounds that have high ceilings like Antoine Wesley, Demarcus lodge, terry mxlaurin, etc.  

 

Id rather use the 1st to try to solidify pass rush than wr

 

still whatever Ballard does I’m going to trust over my own or any opinion elsewhere until it’s proven wrong.  He earned that last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

perfect example of confirmation bias lol

 

So when you don’t like it, it’s confirmation bias.   When you like it, it’s objective facts.   Got it!

 

The articles meant nothing to you that supported my “bias” meant nothing to you.   Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougDew said:

I don't understand some of the comments.  Bust rate at certain positions means nothing, other than the players selected were not good players.  What position they play is irrelevant.

 

Example: Montez Sweat is not going to have a better success playing in the NFL because the bust rate for EDGE players in the first round is low (as a hypothetical).  He will have success because he's a good player.  What every other EDGE player did before him doesn't matter.

 

If you say that GMs overvalue certain players because of position, and that perceived future ceiling (that never materializes) is valued over more marginal immediate abilities, that I believe.  And doing that is what would cause the bust rate to be high.  Using an after the fact bust rate to form an opinion about who should be drafted in the present, especially to lean towards or away from a certain position, is really not the way to do it. JMO.

 

Bust rates at positions mean....   nothing?

 

Tell that to GMs who are not drafting RBs because they don’t return value in the first round.

 

Tell that to GMs who are not drafting WRs in the first round because they’re returning value.

 

I didn’t offer this as my opinion.  I offered this as the views of people in the NFL who have these views.   So you aren’t disagreeing with ME, you’re disagreeing with NFL executives who are making the final decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So when you don’t like it, it’s confirmation bias.   When you like it, it’s objective facts.   Got it!

 

The articles meant nothing to you that supported my “bias” meant nothing to you.   Got it.

 

if your data provided any comparative stats across positions, or defined success criteria or metric, then one might be able to arrive at an objective conclusion. it did not. so it's very logical that his support of a non comparative and/or incomplete set of facts is confirmation bias based on his history. pretty simple logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Bust rates at positions mean....   nothing?

 

Tell that to GMs who are not drafting RBs because they don’t return value in the first round.

 

Tell that to GMs who are not drafting WRs in the first round because they’re returning value.

 

I didn’t offer this as my opinion.  I offered this as the views of people in the NFL who have these views.   So you aren’t disagreeing with ME, you’re disagreeing with NFL executives who are making the final decisions. 

RB has a higher bust rate because it's the highest reach position in the NFL in both 10 and 25 year samples. From a pure numbers perspective (law of averages), without reach or overvalue, you should expect 1 RB for every 22 players selected, or 1.45 taken in each round. Instead, you have 3.84 taken in the first round on average in the 25 year sample, and 3 in the more recent 10 year sample. Even though it's dropped by .84, which is significant, it's still twice what the pure average should be. That's an overvalue or reach.

 

Conversely, G and C have ratios of less than one, and both have the lowest bust %.

 

You say GMs aren't taking WRs in the first, but your own numbers contradict it (as do larger samples). On average, you have 2.5-2.7ish WRs on the field at any time (depending on scheme), so you should have around 3.6-3.9ish taken in any given round. The 10 year average was 4, the 25 year average 3.96. Slightly overvalued, but not near as much reach as RB.

 

These are just basic numbers and basic logic. Doesn't take a GM or expert to see the correlations. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

perfect example of confirmation bias lol

 

If you want a great example of confirmaiton bias,  I'd encourage you to look at YOUR OWN post a few weeks ago....

 

The one with the link to who does the best on mock drafts.    

 

That nonsense is in the Confirmation Bias Hall of Fame.

 

Goodness gracious what a train wreck that was....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been a while, but I’ve stated this in years past:  I don’t think “positional value” means the same thing to NFL personnel as it means to fans.  Stacking a draft board isn’t as simple as “we think this CB is better than that TE”.  And I really don’t think positional bust rates weigh much in the equation.  GMs need to approach drafts with total confidence in their information, and not fret about guarding against being wrong.

 

I strongly believe truly successful teams draft for value (or should), not necessarily BPA.  By that I mean they evaluate all available players, and consider the drop off in talent at each position round to round and pick to pick.

 

For argument sake, let’s suppose the Colts are deciding between a similarly graded possible DL pick or WR pick at 34.  And let’s say their info suggests the likely best DL available at their next pick represents a significant drop in talent, but there would be minimal fall off at WR... I argue that makes the DL pick the higher value choice, because you grab a similarly skilled WR later, and can therefor amass more talent overall.

 

Im NOT necessarily arguing for DL over WR at the first pick, or any.  But this WR class does seem pretty large and level, so I’d be surprised to see an early pick spent there, unless the Colts brass see a transcendent player that fits the team needs and culture perfectly.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

If you want a great example of confirmaiton bias,  I'd encourage you to look at YOUR OWN post a few weeks ago....

 

The one with the link to who does the best on mock drafts.    

 

That nonsense is in the Confirmation Bias Hall of Fame.

 

Goodness gracious what a train wreck that was....

 

they rated mock experts on 4 objective clearly defined sets of criteria IIRC. it was not opinion based, so how can it be confirmation bias. 

 

please explain how those ratings were poorly defined, were non-factual, or flawed. 

 

i think you may be unhappy that it showed that the experts that you've cited an propped up were rated poorly.

 

In the words of Bill Tobin (who sucked himself), "who is Mel Kiper" lol..... Kiper couldn't even keep his own promise to retire if he was wrong. And he was very wrong....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, schwamm said:

It’s been a while, but I’ve stated this in years past:  I don’t think “positional value” means the same thing to NFL personnel as it means to fans.  Stacking a draft board isn’t as simple as “we think this CB is better than that TE”.  And I really don’t think positional bust rates weigh much in the equation.  GMs need to approach drafts with total confidence in their information, and not fret about guarding against being wrong.

 

I strongly believe truly successful teams draft for value (or should), not necessarily BPA.  By that I mean they evaluate all available players, and consider the drop off in talent at each position round to round and pick to pick.

 

For argument sake, let’s suppose the Colts are deciding between a similarly graded possible DL pick or WR pick at 34.  And let’s say their info suggests the likely best DL available at their next pick represents a significant drop in talent, but there would be minimal fall off at WR... I argue that makes the DL pick the higher value choice, because you grab a similarly skilled WR later, and can therefor amass more talent overall.

 

Im NOT necessarily arguing for DL over WR at the first pick, or any.  But this WR class does seem pretty large and level, so I’d be surprised to see an early pick spent there, unless the Colts brass see a transcendent player that fits the team needs and culture perfectly.

 

exactly. 

 

i'd also add that BPA, value, and other terms are highly subjective. what does BPA mean. best player regardless of value or need? best player based on one of 32 GM's opinion?

 

of course they look at position depth, and of course they look at need. on a pure stack of 32, a team with Barkley isn't taking a BPA player if the best player available is a RB, just like we aren't taking a BPA QB. the teams will skip over BPA (as subjective as it is) when common sense applies. And a team with the worst QB in the league reaches for a QB way too often regardless of the XX players that are better than the QB they draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Bust rates at positions mean....   nothing?

 

Tell that to GMs who are not drafting RBs because they don’t return value in the first round.

 

Tell that to GMs who are not drafting WRs in the first round because they’re returning value.

 

I didn’t offer this as my opinion.  I offered this as the views of people in the NFL who have these views.   So you aren’t disagreeing with ME, you’re disagreeing with NFL executives who are making the final decisions. 

I think the way they are describing the situation is over simplistic.  Buried in these statements is the fact that GMs misevaluated the impact each of the busts would have.  That misevaluation created the bust rate data-set. Misevaluation is the cause of the busts and the data-set.  The bust-rate didn't appear from chance.  Improve the evaluation process, and the bust rate will fall.

 

I don't think the historical bust rate has anything to do with whether or not any particular running back in this year's draft is worthy of a 1st round pick.  If GMs continue to draft using the same circumstances, overvaluing or misevaluating the talent, then yes, the bust rate will continue. 

 

What the stats say is that GMs are somehow misevaluating RBs and WRs maybe more than other positions.  So they should go back and look at each case where they failed and see what they missed and fix it.  Simply saying that we are going to avoid drafting a WR or RB in the first round this year because of past busts doesn't address the cause of the problem.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

 

exactly. 

 

i'd also add that BPA, value, and other terms are highly subjective. what does BPA mean. best player regardless of value or need? best player based on one of 32 GM's opinion?

 

of course they look at position depth, and of course they look at need. on a pure stack of 32, a team with Barkley isn't taking a BPA player if the best player available is a RB, just like we aren't taking a BPA QB. the teams will skip over BPA (as subjective as it is) when common sense applies. And a team with the worst QB in the league reaches for a QB way too often regardless of the XX players that are better than the QB they draft. 

So I think BPA, as most fans understand it, is a unicorn.  Pretty in theory, but a myth.  My best guess is that the Colts board is a complex, flowing river of information, where players may be loosely sorted, but “BPA” is an on-the-spot evaluation of players remaining vs. a deep understanding of relative values at that draft spot.

 

I guess I consider needs as part of that value equation.  Drafting expressly for needs is foolish, IMO, but drafting around filled needs is common sense.  The Colts won’t draft a QB with early capital because they don’t have need, and therefore don’t have enough value assigned to the position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, schwamm said:

So I think BPA, as most fans understand it, is a unicorn.  Pretty in theory, but a myth.  My best guess is that the Colts board is a complex, flowing river of information, where players may be loosely sorted, but “BPA” is an on-the-spot evaluation of players remaining vs. a deep understanding of relative values at that draft spot.

 

I guess I consider needs as part of that value equation.  Drafting expressly for needs is foolish, IMO, but drafting around filled needs is common sense.  The Colts won’t draft a QB with early capital because they don’t have need, and therefore don’t have enough value assigned to the position.

yup, it is a unicorn. it's a little irritating hearing all the BPA talk, and most talking have their own subjective definitions. almost as irritating as the cult of Ballard folks. I love me some Ballard, but holy cow do people ooh and ahh over every word and every fart the guy produces. he's a new GM, and people that think he's perfect are setting themselves up a sadz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

yup, it is a unicorn. it's a little irritating hearing all the BPA talk, and most talking have their own subjective definitions. almost as irritating as the cult of Ballard folks. I love me some Ballard, but holy cow do people ooh and ahh over every word and every fart the guy produces. he's a new GM, and people that think he's perfect are setting themselves up a sadz.

I really appreciated when Polian was hired by the Colts, and I love that he was an integral part of bringing a culture of winning to Indy, but I grew frustrated by what I saw as a draft philosophy that relied too heavily on assigning values by position.

 

Grigson, on the other hand seemed to over-inflate his own scouting abilities, and seemed to imagine he knew definitively which player was the BPA, at the cost of good value.  I appreciated how he always seemed to look under every rock for FA talent, but he didn’t really get how to assemble a team.

 

I’m probably one who overvalues Ballard for the moment, because from limited samples, and from the outside looking in, he appears to almost perfectly implement what I’ve long argued is the ideal draft strategy.  I’m very excited by the way he approaches the draft and team building, and I can’t wait for tomorrow evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, schwamm said:

I really appreciated when Polian was hired by the Colts, and I love that he was an integral part of bringing a culture of winning to Indy, but I grew frustrated by what I saw as a draft philosophy that relied too heavily on assigning values by position.

 

Grigson, on the other hand seemed to over-inflate his own scouting abilities, and seemed to imagine he knew definitively which player was the BPA, at the cost of good value.  I appreciated how he always seemed to look under every rock for FA talent, but he didn’t really get how to assemble a team.

 

I’m probably one who overvalues Ballard for the moment, because from limited samples, and from the outside looking in, he appears to almost perfectly implement what I’ve long argued is the ideal draft strategy.  I’m very excited by the way he approaches the draft and team building, and I can’t wait for tomorrow evening.

agree on all parts. i'm trying not to fall in love with Ballard too early with such a small sample size. if he kills another draft like last year, i'll likely fall hopelessly in love though.

 

i think Chuck would have done much better had he had Ballard. I credit Grigson with 90% of our failures. The other 10% to injury of Luck lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I'm going to list all the first round WR's taken in the last 7 years.    That's your most recent trend.    27 Wide Receivers have been taken in the first round.     11 have had a good level of success or more.   Some of that is open to some interpretation.    But 16 WR's can only be viewed as somewhere between a big disappointment to a bust.   Some are even out of the NFL altogether.    Remember this is just within the last 7 years.2018:

 

So looking over your lists a little deeper (stats, history), and also identifying a bit of criteria.

 

For the sake of simplicity I'll use the following assumptions/critera

-2.5 WRs on average on the field at any time. In other words, 2.5 starters per team.

-32 teams X 2.5 starters = 80 total NFL starting WRs

 

Using the 2018 stats on WRs.... (removing TEs and RBs from stacks)

-Top 32 WRs (WR1) had at minimum 750 yards

-WR2s (33-64) had at minimum 500 yards

-WR3s (65-80) had at minimum 400 yards

 

-Injury can not be predicted (unless a GM ignored significant injury history)

-Most players regardless of position should get a year to acclimate

-A first round pick should be an assumed starter, and obtain starter production by year 2

 

If you are interested in injury likelihood/history per position

 https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-iv-variation-position

 

What you'll see below.

In short, many of your "misses" were obvious chronic injury situations.

Several of your misses were very questionable too. Not sure what your miss criteria is, but 500+ average or 700+ average over a 5 year contract should not be a miss. Those averages are better than any WR we have not named TY.

 

In the last couple years I've also included the R2 WRs and their hit/miss. 

 

All in all, if you remove injuries, WR has a great hit rate depending on your criteria (which you did not state).

 

Quote

 

24     DJ Moore           Car

26     Calvin Ridley    Atl

 

NOTES:  Two success stories.  

But note ONLY TWO WR's taken.

That's it.   Two.

 

DJ Moore - 788 yards last season as a rookie. Clear hit

C Ridley - 821 yards - clear hit

 

Other WRs

Sutton (2nd round / 40th) was the next WR taken - 704 yards. Starter's numbers in year 1

Dante Pettis (44th) - 467 yards. Starters (WR3) numbers in year 1

Christian Kirk (47th) - 590 yards. WR2

Anthony Miller (51st) - 423 yards. WR3

 

Note - The first 6 WRs taken obtained starter numbers WR1-WR3 in their rookie season. I'm sure some GMs wish they would have grabbed Sutton or the other 3 earlier... In other words, more than 2 WRs should have gone in the 1st based on 1st year numbers alone.

 

Quote

 

2017:

5     Corey Davis     Tenn

7     Mike Williams   SD

9.    John Ross

 

NOTES:   Two success stories.

John Ross struggling badly his 

first two years.

 

Corey Davis - 375 and 891 clear hit, great year 2 improvement (500+ yard jump) - hit

Mike Williams - 95 and 664 clear hit, another big year 2 gain - hit

John Ross - chronic injuries in from the combine through 2nd season. Should be eliminated from consideration

 

Other WRs

Zay Jones (37th) - 316 and 652 - WR2 hit

Curtis Samuel (40th) - 115 and 494 - WR3 hit

JuJu Smith-Schuster (62nd) - 917 and 1426 - clear WR1 hit (GMs got this wrong)

 

Note: Eliminating Ross due to injury. The first 5 WRs taken were hits.

 

 

Quote

 

2016:

15    Corey Coleman    Cle

21    Will Fuller            Hou

22    Josh Doctson        Was

23    Laquan Treadwell    Minn

 

NOTES:  All four misses.

Coleman on his 4th team.

 

Coleman - had starter numbers year one despite chronic injuries. Now healthy and with NYG. Should be eliminated due to 2+ years of injuries.

Will Fuller - averaged 500 plus yards in his first 3 seasons despite chronic injury - Hit

Doctson - 500 plus yards the last two seasons. That's WR2 numbers - Hit

Treadwell - Bust. Kiper and McShay loved him though.

 

Other WRs

Sterling Shepard 40th - 750+ 3 year average

Michael Thomas 47th - 1250+ 3 year average

Tyler Boyd 55th - 600+ 3 year average

 

Note: one eliminated due to injury, one bust, 2 hits. The next three WRs taken are clear hits. So really 5 of 6 were 1st round worthy from a pure numbers perspective that were taken in the first two rounds. 
 

Quote

 

2015:

4      Amari Cooper        Oak

7      Kevin White           Chi

14    DeVante Parker     Mia

20    Nelson Agholor     Phi

26    Breshard Perriman   Bal

29    Phillip Dorsett        Ind

 

NOTES:   Six picks.  Two hits.

Cooper & Agholor.   Four misses

Note the six pick class comes a year

after the historically great 2014 WR class.

 

 

 

 

Cooper - 950+ yard 4 year average - hit

White - chronic injury - eliminate from consideration

Parker 700+ 4 year average - hit

Agholor - 500+ average - hit

Perriman - chronic injury  - eliminate - didn't play his first year due to injury due to torn pcl, had 500 his second year, injured third year torn acl, hamstring, and concussion, went to Browns and had 340 yards

Dorsett - tracked well and had 500+ by year two (WR2 min) in Indy, went to NE and had hamstring issues in 17 and 18,. NE just resigned him to a one year 2.6M. 

 

Other WRs

Devin Smith 37 - two ACL injuries, retired, eliminated

DBG 40 - head case but averaged 470+ yards in his two years. had all kinds of pre-draft flags

Funchess 41 - 550 yard 4 year average

 

Note: 4 hits, 3 injury elimination, one clear bust, one borderline guy who had starter numbers before he left Indy.

 

Question - Not sure why you had Parker as a miss. Had an off year last year due to a couple injuries, but still averageing 700+ yards a year even even with the injury. 

 

 

Quote

 

2014:

4.     Sammy Watkins        Buff

7      Mike Evans                  TB

12   OBJ                               NYG

20   Brandin Cooks            NO

28   Kelvin Benjamin       Car

 

NOTES:  A five WR class and four 

are very successful.   Only Benjamin

is a miss.  He's on his 3rd team.  But note 

that two (Watkins & Cooks) are on their 

3rd team.   They're good players,  but are

you happy if your team took them only to 

see them get traded quickly?   Is that real value?

 

 

Not going to cover this in full because it's obviously a great class. Benjamin however wasn't a miss. He had 1000+ yards his first year. Tore his ACL his second and missed the season. Came back and had 900+ his third year. He had almost 700 yards the next year (17) despite playing through a torn meniscus. After waiting for off season surgery, his team rewarded him by releasing him in mid 18. Was signed by Chiefs. Currently a UFA. In short, great when healthy, and at minimum an injury elimination.

 

Quote

 

2013: 

8      Tavon Austin                 Stl

27    DeAndre Hopkins        Hou

29    Cordarrelle Patterson  Min

 

NOTES:  3 players.  One hit,  two misses.

 

Austin - Ankle, MCL, Pec, Wrist, Hamstring, Concussion, Groin tear

Hopkins - 1000 plus 6 year average

Patterson - might be a miss in terms of WR, but was used as a RB and KR as well. Still very much in demand. Had around 500 all purpose yards for the Pats last year at RB and WR. Just signed a 2 year 10M deal with da Bears

 

 

 

Quote

 

2012:

5     Justin Blackman          J'Ville

13   Michael Floyd              Ari

20   Kendell Wright           Tenn

30   AJ Jenkins                     SF

 

NOTES:  Not only are all four misses,

but all are out of football.    Floyd was 

on five different teams.   Wright had 

three good years,  three disappointing years

and is out of the game.   Jenkins played just

three years and has been out of the game 

ever since.

 

 

Blackman - great start 850+ yard rookie season. then booted from the league for substance abuse.

Floyd - averaged 700+ yards a season in his first 5 years with the Cards. Very successful contract for them as they exercised his 5th year option. He was released due to DUI late that season.

Wright - average 600+ yards over his 6 seasons. Led the Bears in receiving his last year (17)

Jenkins - big bust, but very late 1st round. He should have never been a first round guy. Most boards had him 50+ and some 80+. Bone head GM pick... 

 

On Mel Kiper and McShay in 2012 from the smart guys at Harvard.

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2012/05/equally-inaccurate-an-analysis-of-mel-kiper-jr-and-todd-mcshays-draft-rankings/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically, if there are always at least 32 players each year who will succeed in the NFL, and all 32 GMs were great at their jobs, these 32 would be picked in the 1st round and there would be no first round busts regardless of position. The problem isn’t the players but the GMs picking them.  They spend tons of money and time evaluating these guys and still get it wrong.  What if the league cloned Chris Ballard last year and gave each team one of the clones to be their GM. Each clone would have had a great 2018 draft like our Chris Ballard had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

They spend tons of money and time evaluating these guys and still get it wrong.

 

I wish I could get paid to be wrong.

 

free money GIF

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I wish I could get paid to be wrong.

 

free money GIF

My Memphis Grizzlies took Hasheem Thabeet over James Harden, Steff Curry and Demar  Derozan.  You could have put the names in a hat and drawn a better selection. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...