Unbalanced drafts don't work out that well

[Superman]

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/43600/little-payoff-from-unbalanced-draft-classes

The Indianapolis Colts (eight of 10) loaded up on offense.

...

Examining draft classes back to 2002, the first season there was 32 teams, there have been 18 instances of a team using 75 percent or more of its draft picks of offense and 15 instances of a team using 75 percent or more of its picks on defense.

When teams have gone mostly offense, their scoring has usually decreased the following year.

...

Twelve of the 18 teams that went this path saw their scoring decrease the following season by an average of nearly three points per game.

If anything, focusing on the offensive side of the ball in a draft harmed a team's defensive unit the following season. 13 of the 18 teams to take offensive players with at least three quarters of their picks allowed more points the following season. These teams allowed approximately three more points per game.

I think the big factor here for us is that we drafted a quarterback who is going to start right away. Our offense sucked so much last season that it's virtually impossible for our scoring to decrease from where it is now. And we gave up so many points that I can't imagine us give up more this year.

This study also doesn't look at the continuing effect in subsequent years, i.e., how does the offense improve as the drafted players continue to develop, etc.

But I did find it interesting.

[bavanlan]

http://espn.go.com/b...d-draft-classes

I think the big factor here for us is that we drafted a quarterback who is going to start right away. Our offense sucked so much last season that it's virtually impossible for our scoring to decrease from where it is now. And we gave up so many points that I can't imagine us give up more this year.

This study also doesn't look at the continuing effect in subsequent years, i.e., how does the offense improve as the drafted players continue to develop, etc.

But I did find it interesting.

I think that's really it though; teams that draft one-sided typically do so because they suck at that side. The next year, when you are starting a bunch of rookies, you will probably be worse. In 2-3 years though, you'll be better (if you did your job right),

[21isSuperman]

It's good to have balance and all, but we loaded up the defensive side of the ball via free agency. We brought over a few guys from Baltimore to help teach the defense. It's not like we completely ignored the defensive side of the ball all off-season. We used the draft for the offense and free agency for the defense. I think the moves we have made have been good ones. On offense, especially, you really want to have good chemistry. That's why it's important to have the guys play together as much as possible. So drafting 2 security blanket TEs for a rookie QB will be great a few years down the road

[bavanlan]

Three 'Superman' posts/logos/usernames.

Fellas, we may have jumped the shark.

[FireJimCaldwell]

[oldunclemark]

http://espn.go.com/b...d-draft-classes

I think the big factor here for us is that we drafted a quarterback who is going to start right away. Our offense sucked so much last season that it's virtually impossible for our scoring to decrease from where it is now. And we gave up so many points that I can't imagine us give up more this year.

This study also doesn't look at the continuing effect in subsequent years, i.e., how does the offense improve as the drafted players continue to develop, etc.

But I did find it interesting.

Not to doubt the validity of the facts...but the numbers are arbitrary....75%..

..and the survery onky goe dsbacy to 2002...10 years is probably what scientists call an illegitimate sample..

..finally,...every team has a different situation and a different cross to bear...

Our bar is very low for improvement on 2011

There is absoluutely no chance our points scored will decrease from last year when we avergaed about 14 points a game.

It will not happen.

[Fx Stryker]

It's all over.

[Superman]

Not to doubt the validity of the facts...but the numbers are arbitrary....75%..

..and the survery onky goe dsbacy to 2002...10 years is probably what scientists call an illegitimate sample..

..finally,...every team has a different situation and a different cross to bear...

Our bar is very low for improvement on 2011

There is absoluutely no chance our points scored will decrease from last year when we avergaed about 14 points a game.

It will not happen.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Just some points:

1) The study went back to 2002 because that's when the league went to 32 teams. Not sure how that's relevant, but that's how they chose to do it.

2) 75% is a pretty definitive marker. I don't know why you call that arbitrary.

3) If we decrease in points scored, we need to be disbanded by the NFL.

4) I've been meaning to ask: Why don't you use paragraphs?

[bavanlan]

[TKnight24]

I agree with 21SM, our defense came via free agency. We're fine. And for offense, we have a QB with the potential to score on every drive. Luck and the offense will be fine. Stop worrying and believing everything you read

[chad72]

One thing that has to be taken into account is how many of those teams had an offseason with a lot of cap room to add free agents. It would be worthwhile to know whether those drafts loaded on one side of the ball was done with free agency in mind, especially for a rebuilding/revamping team.

The Packers and Pats loaded up on the defensive side of the ball, it is different than the Rams loading up on the defensive side of the ball, isn't it? Where a team is in its winning/revamping process does matter to me to take the draft in its whole context.

[JoKeR]

Of course most teams became less scoring the following year after drafting 75% offense.

They obviously changed the offense completely to something different, something they had to develop over time.

In the Colts case, the offense changed a year early before the draft, so our offense should be greatly improved.

The Colts are working with a different set of circumstances than the teams the stat represents.

[funktacious2]

Twelve of the 18 teams that went this path saw their scoring decrease the following season by an average of nearly three points per game.

That's doesn't seem too terrible. It probably just has something to do with chemistry, and 3 points less per game on average makes this report much less interesting. xD

[ColtStrong]

Interesting, but in our case, we NEEDED offense badly. I agree with the FO about drafting mostly offense. To draft Luck and not give him weapons would be insane. The D will be addressed next year, especially with all the cap money we'll have.

[DoomOf21]

Twelve out of eighteen isn't statistically significant. Opponents change from year to year. Additionally, four of those only dropped a point per game over the course of a season. That is basically two touchdowns (and a field goal) over the course of a season.

I don't see what the issue is with drafting tools to put around Luck.

[dgambill]

There are too many variables in this situation to say that we will score less points this year than last. Usually when teams go this route they are overhauling an offense or defense. Meaning they move out a ton of starters or veterans. Bringing in rookies who likely take time to develop will usually mean the team will do worse in the beginning. Overall I will say though the qb will effect the offense much much more disproportionately then anything. Who is starting at qb has more to do with how good the offense will be then if we drafted a bunch of rookies. We upgraded at qb...had a terrible offense last year...and brought in a whole new system to fit the talents of our team. To me unless Andrew gets hurt...and even if he does Stanton is an upgrade over what we had last year...we will have a better offense.

[HGRekks]

A number of these miss the point. The 2002 Patriots draft produced Jarvis Green (only D pick), Deion Branch, Daniel Graham, and David Givens (in the 7th). Only Antwoin Womack and Rohan Davey (a backup QB, at that) didn't pan out. Sure, they went down a bit the next season, but 4 of the 6 players were at least solid role players on 2 Super Bowl teams.

The 2008 Colts just had a bad run of drafts prior (not that the 2008 draft was particularly good), and only lost one more game than the previous season.

The 2006 Falcons had 2 picks in the top 4 rounds, and only one was on offense. 3 of the 5 offensive picks were in the 6th and 7th rounds.

The 2004 Washington Redskins had 4 picks. Two of them were Sean Taylor and Chris Cooley. The other two were in the 5th and 6th.

A lot of these guys are just bust, regardless of who they play for. And most of them are 5th, 6th, and 7th round guys.

And that's what really gets me. The idea that guys in the 5th, 6th, and 7th should be counted as if they are equal to guys in the top 3. There are some very notable exceptions, but most guys selected in that range never become anybody, especially in the first year. Most rookies don't even get significant playing time in the first year, so it's almost trivial to look at these as a cause-effect relationship.

Most rookies take time, and a lot of them are taken as future investments. Sometimes it's because a guy is aging or coming on a contract year, and sometimes it's because a guy has already left. I don't think it's reasonable to judge any given year blindly by a rookie class.

[oldunclemark]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Just some points:

1) The study went back to 2002 because that's when the league went to 32 teams. Not sure how that's relevant, but that's how they chose to do it.

2) 75% is a pretty definitive marker. I don't know why you call that arbitrary.

3) If we decrease in points scored, we need to be disbanded by the NFL.

4) I've been meaning to ask: Why don't you use paragraphs?

Last question first........man of steel;

Its just the way things come out...There is not much of a keyboard here and I cant type.. I admit I feel free to use as little punctuation and spelling acumen here as I want to......

Bottom line: Old peole didnt grow up with computers and message boards like you young whipper snappers.

I do deal is numbers though and almost statistical analysis (like election polls) is semi-bogus because they either include an illegitimate (too small) or arbitratry (selected for no reason) sample, dont include the entire case history of the case it is studying or begin with a pre-conceived notion and look for evidence to confirm that notion.

For example: Folks say that Pierre Garcon was one of the league leders in 'drops' last year. Define a drop, exactly. Totally.

Does contact matter? Was it raining. Leaping or feet on the ground. Running or standing still? What if everyone does not agree and who decides?

Is spending a pick on a kick returner a pick spent for 'offense"?? How 'bout a punter?

There are no excuses in stats. You either analyze the entire thing or your conclusion is flawed and you have to have a concrete unwavering constant definition of what your 'thing' is.

75% is arbitratry because if you make it 60%, the results change. There has to be a reason the survey called 75% 'loading up'

And it cant be simply because 75% provides a more vivid focus on what the surveyor was trying to prove to begin with.

[Superman]

Last question first........man of steel;

Its just the way things come out...There is not much of a keyboard here and I cant type.. I admit I feel free to use as little punctuation and spelling acumen here as I want to......

Bottom line: Old peole didnt grow up with computers and message boards like you young whipper snappers.

I do deal is numbers though and almost statistical analysis (like election polls) is semi-bogus because they either include an illegitimate (too small) or arbitratry (selected for no reason) sample, dont include the entire case history of the case it is studying or begin with a pre-conceived notion and look for evidence to confirm that notion.

For example: Folks say that Pierre Garcon was one of the league leders in 'drops' last year. Define a drop, exactly. Totally.

Does contact matter? Was it raining. Leaping or feet on the ground. Running or standing still? What if everyone does not agree and who decides?

Is spending a pick on a kick returner a pick spent for 'offense"?? How 'bout a punter?

There are no excuses in stats. You either analyze the entire thing or your conclusion is flawed and you have to have a concrete unwavering constant definition of what your 'thing' is.

75% is arbitratry because if you make it 60%, the results change. There has to be a reason the survey called 75% 'loading up'

And it cant be simply because 75% provides a more vivid focus on what the surveyor was trying to prove to begin with.

Interesting stuff.

The 75% is the result, though. I don't know what's arbitrary there. I can nitpick a lot of those results, for similar reasons as you point out, but I don't see what's wrong with the 75% result.

[Superman]

Twelve out of eighteen isn't statistically significant. Opponents change from year to year. Additionally, four of those only dropped a point per game over the course of a season. That is basically two touchdowns (and a field goal) over the course of a season.

I don't see what the issue is with drafting tools to put around Luck.

I personally love our draft, with little exception. And I think our results will buck the trend for sure. Our team was so horrible offensively, mostly because of the quarterback, so I have no doubt we'll be better on offense.

But it is interesting that over the last decade, the answer to a bad offense or defense isn't to load up on that side of the ball in the draft. At least not for the next season.

[NewColtsFan]

I'm on record as really loving our draft.

But I also liked the draft of a couple of other teams that leaned heavily to one side...

I loved the drafts for Green Bay and Philadelphia. Both of those teams went heavily for defense. If they're OK going to heavy on one side of the ball, then I'm OK with Indy doing the same. I think there are precious few picks we made where anyone is playing Monday Morning QB and second guessing. There's an argument for Upshaw. But one for Fleener as well. There's an argument for any defensive player taken in the 3rd round instead of Allen. But getting the top-2 TE's in a draft, especially for a QB who loves the TE is an equally strong argument.

We stole Chapman at the top of 5th in my opinion.... and I suppose we could have taken Dennard, the corner from Nebraska as our 2nd 7th round pick, then taken Fuggar with the last overall pick and signed Harnisch as a Free Agent. That's all possible.

But we don't know what the FO knows. The health reports. The psychological profiles. The attitude they have. Were they going to be more trouble than they're worth? You just don't know.

So, all in all, I'm good with our draft. And I feel good enough about what we did to have me eager to see what we do with Free Agency next year as well as the next draft. Think we'll know a LOT more about our FO then. And I suspect we'll all be pretty darn happy.

[GoColts8818]

Our draft will be judged on how luck does. If he's as good as advertised it will be remembered as a good draft. If he busts out that's what people will remeber about it. Not unlike the 98 draft when Peyton was drafted but the rest of that class never really developed as hoped. The fact we got Peyton out of it made it a good draft in a lot of people's minds. Is that fair or how it should probably be judged? No but it's how most people will do it.

[Gavin]

Fortunately Im not one to consider 1 pick out of a single draft class a memorable draft

[HungarianColtsFan]

http://espn.go.com/b...d-draft-classes

I think the big factor here for us is that we drafted a quarterback who is going to start right away. Our offense sucked so much last season that it's virtually impossible for our scoring to decrease from where it is now. And we gave up so many points that I can't imagine us give up more this year.

This study also doesn't look at the continuing effect in subsequent years, i.e., how does the offense improve as the drafted players continue to develop, etc.

But I did find it interesting.

We had no chance to do an balanced draft with so many needs on the roster, so I think the conclusion cannot be applied to Colts. Besides we had a not really functioning O-line...so I agree with You i can't imagine that we could score less, than last year. But this article gives an interesting view to estimate draft-policy or draft strategy. I think, our draft will remain unbalanced next year also, as likely we will draft mostly to D next year.