View Full Version : What do draft grades really mean?
05-05-2006, 10:13 AM
So I was looking at all the accolades we've been receiving based on this years "great" draft, and was getting excited, except that I started to remember that last year the Cardinals were said to have had a fantastic draft and the year before that, the Lions were said to have picked well. Both finished with horrible records the following years. So it got me to thinking, what relevance do these "draft grades" actually have on your team? This then begs the question, are the highest rated players actually making the most impact?
Top 4 2005 Draft "winners"
Arizona Cardinals (6/10) -> (5/11)
Baltimore Ravens (9/7) -> (6/10)
Dallas Cowboys (6/10) -> (9/7)
Philadelphis Eagles (13/3) -> (6/10)
Total wins previous (34), and post (26)
Top 4 2004 Draft "winners"
Detroit Lions (5/11) -> (6/10)
San Francisco 49ers (7/9) -> (2/14)
Arizona Cardinals (4/12) -> (6/10)
Tennesse Titans (12/4) - > (5/11)
Total wins previous (28), and post (19)
Top 4 2003 Draft "winners"
Baltimore (7/9) -> (10/6)
Dallas (5/11) -> (10/6)
New England (9/7) -> (14/2)
Washington (7/9) -> (5/11)
Total wins previous (28), and post (39)
Top 4 2002 Draft "winners"
San Diego (5/11) -> (8/8)
Houston (N/A) -> (4/12)
New Orleans (7/9) -> (9/7)
Detroit (2-14) -> (3/13)
Total wins previous (14), Total wins post (20)
So what do all these useless stats mean? It seems like what the scouts at ESPN or SI or wherever deem to be the best players in the draft (and thus drafting BPA) isn't always the smartest solution. Look at the last two years, teams that had great drafts continually failed. I think the Texans draft will stand the test of time because we drafted according to need (for the most part). I still think we missed the #1 player for a very close #2, but lets not debate that here. The fact is, the other 6 rounds were great for us. I just hope all these accolades we are receiving now don't turn out to be false. Although, you can't really go anywhere from 2/14 but up, can you?
05-05-2006, 10:30 AM
Nothing. It's like a school winning the recruiting class in college...who knows how these players will pan out. It's something people pay attention to because were are so obsessed with football and this is the only thing we have to talk about.
05-05-2006, 11:04 AM
It means NOTHING . These so called experts for the most part are sports writers (Skip Clueless anyone?... Do you really value this guy's opinion ?) . They get paid to write this crap be it right or wrong . The whole point is to sell papers , magazines or comercial time . How many of these writers actually draw an NFL paycheck or have worked in the NFL ? ....
For what its worth , Three teams I think did very well in the top of this draft were the Jets , 49ers and Eagles.
The Jets probably solidified their line for the next ten years with Mangold and D-Brick.
The 49ers got a very versatile player in Vernon Davis and a really good pass rusher in Manny Lawson.
The Eagles ....Winston Justice in round two and Max Jean-Gilles in round 4 when many had him listed as a low first rounder . I think he could be the best value pick in the whole draft ..... Throw in Brodrick Bunkley in the middle of round one .
05-05-2006, 11:12 AM
So what do all these useless stats mean? It seems like what the scouts at ESPN or SI or wherever deem to be the best players in the draft (and thus drafting BPA) isn't always the smartest solution. Look at the last two years, teams that had great drafts continually failed.
It means zippo.
A lot of the times the teams that do the best draft wise are the ones that had poor records and so could pick good guys. Also, sometimes a team has a "bad draft" when they have trade away picks for free agents.
Every team has an individual situation and I am not sure you can deduce anything from previous draft grades. There are teams that have reputations for drafting well, and often those teams over time do well, but it's tough to win in the NFL.
You can't judge a draft before it's time. A lot of these teams, in fact probably most, draft for the future. For example, if the Titans finish just as poorly as they did last year and Young never makes it onto the field, that doesn't necessarily mean the drafts are "bad." You've got to wait for two, maybe even three years down the road. In essence, this means that the first draft of the Texans history is just now ready to be evaluated. Even the second draft may be too early (2003) since sometimes it takes a couple years for a drafted player to get used to the NFL and blossom.
05-05-2006, 11:34 AM
I could not agree more! Thats why it be so hard for fans to see the true value of the Williams pick. Not only is it far easier to judge Bush by his TD's and yardage numbers, while Williams could make a big impact on Defense by drawing double teams, and allowing other player to up their game. It takes years to know what you really have put together in the draft, thats what makes the immense hype that follows all top 10 picks so insane.
05-05-2006, 11:49 AM
There just statistics...Doesnt mean anything when it comes to game day
05-05-2006, 12:28 PM
When it comes down to it, the only definitive conclusion will be; Did the draft help your team to lay the foundation to either become a play-off contender or help maintain itself just as that?
With respect to our draft, it will be a few years before we can actually make a bonafide grade.
It is the personnel changes made in the off-season that will have the immediate impact this year, and also to have a positive transitional flow to the upcoming years.
Williams/Young/Bush will NOT make either of their respective teams contenders, unless there is a real team to begin with.
05-05-2006, 12:42 PM
Scott is making a good point. To look at the very next year to determine if a draft class was good or not is unreliable. It is hard for many rookies to crack the opening lineup the same year they are drafted. Look at us this year: likely, Winston and Spenser will not play on the offensive line, and Ryans will probably receive limited action as linebacker. In two or three years, we will see how good or bad these picks were. To look at the Cardinals' draft last year is pushing it, and the Lions is borderline.
In three or four years, if Williams, Ryan, Winston, and Spenser (possibly Daniels) are all starting and producing great numbers, then I will agree that this was the Texans' best draft to date. Until then, though...
05-05-2006, 01:49 PM
The NFL is all about coaching in so many cases. The teams at the top at the end are so often so familiar because of the coaching staff. Are we about to step on that door step, because of Kubiak? I think the answer is yes.
Its all about the team and how they come together as a unit. I think Young will help with the Titans, because he is a team player. Bush on the other hand will be about me and I think NO will not have the season they expect. Williams is a team player and he will have another vetern Team player (Weaver) to help him learn the game. My feeling is this team will finally become a team and that adds a value you can't measure. Teams become greater as a whole than individually when that happens. An example would be NE.
05-05-2006, 01:58 PM
Top 4 2005 Draft "winners"
Arizona Cardinals (6/10) -> (5/11)
High expectations for last year's draft class
All 14 of Dennis Green's previous Cardinals draft picks are still with the team, but he's made it clear that he expects more out of last year's draft class.
That group contributed little in its first year. Cornerback Antrel Rolle, the first-round pick, missed most of the year with a knee injury. None of the other six players made much of an impact.
"I think that is where the pressure is on them to really step up, because it is important with 21 players drafted in the last three years, we need all three classes to really perform," Green said.
05-05-2006, 03:34 PM
Win-Loss means more than anything else
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.