How best to grade a draft class?

[Citizen]

I’m not talking about the immediate, day-after grades that we see from the pundits every year. I mean waiting until every player in a team’s draft has retired and then quantitatively assessing how much the group contributed.

I would think you’d have to consider at least four factors in determining a draft crop’s value to the team that chose them:
- How many picks made the team
- The total number of years the picks were with the team
- How many of them went on to start a certain minimum number of games (10? More?)
- How many times picks made a Pro Bowl roster

What other factors should be considered? Participation in team accomplishments, such as making the playoffs? Bonus points for low-round steals? Penalty for high-round busts? Whether a preseason cut caught on with another NFL team?

Furthermore, what point values (say, from 1-5) would you put on each factor?

[Bryan]

I don't like the "how many picks make the team" criteria, because that rewards teams/GMs for turning over their roster on an annual basis and penalizes teams/GMs that are strong and only need to add a few new players. Its a tricky proposition.

In terms of high round busts and low round steals, I would say that, depending on the particular draft class, there are about 6-12 "blue chip" guys...players who are athletically superior or are "can't miss" guys...then after that, picks 13-130 are a crapshoot of players who have similar athletic ability/attributes. Picks 130+ are usually guys who were productive in college but have a "fatal flaw" athletic limitation that drops their draft status. I think too often a mid-late 1st round pick gets labeled a bust, when IMO that pick is not much different than a 4th or 5th rounder.

Just my $0.02

[Reaser]

The best draft classes are the ones that contribute towards winning - the point of the sport. The goal isn't to draft a player or two that will goto a pro bowl, it's to draft players that will help the team win. Finding a way to quantify that (how much they contributed) would be subjective but that's where I would lean if this was my project.

I wouldn't use Pro Bowl selections since they're flawed, less flawed as you go back in history but even then, still flawed.

Also wouldn't give too much credit to late round 'steals'. Some 'skill' in that - have to be aware of the player and pick him - but no one ever goes in saying: "Okay guys, the best player in the draft is Player A, we're going to take him in the 6th round. In the first five rounds we're going to pick players that won't contribute and/or will be interchangeable parts and/or that we'll cut." ...

... and along that line, can't give too much credit for a player having success with his next team. Can't say you were smart enough to draft a player if you aren't smart enough to keep him. Another fake quote: "This guy is obviously good so we're going to draft him, then we'll cut him in training camp and watch him be good with his next team."

You'll have to weight everything too, such as for "how many picks made the team" because a team with no talent it's easier to have draft picks make the roster. While for a team that's stacked, less will make the team. Obviously.

[oldecapecod11]

by Citizen » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:01 pm
"I’m not talking about the immediate, day-after grades that we see from the pundits every year. I mean waiting until every player in a team’s draft has retired and then quantitatively assessing how much the group contributed..."

It is an interesting prospective project but the only thing it might help determine is the effectiveness of the draft "team"
during a certain tenure.
Or... what team or teams historically draft well or poorly but we can see that by "Standings."
One would think the Patriots and the Seahawks use Nostradamus and the Browns, Jaguars and Cardinals use the three blind mice.

Perhaps a way to apply grades to such a system would be to actually do it for a few teams at random or whatever numbers
would fit the time you can devote to it?

As you do this, you might also find glaring criteria that could be added to the mix.
Some of these could be a team that seems to always favor or avoid a particular conference, e.g. Big 10, SEC, etc. then
you would be spurred to learn why?
The Steelers, for example - anyone who even resembled Irish or Catholic got a long look. So what if "Mean Joe" misspelled
his last name.
The Giants had a long-time leaning toward Mississippi dating back to the Pooles. Imagine if they had Archie from the start.
Their 1971-1975 record of 21-48-1 might be a helluva lot better?

Or, teams that draft for selfish or "protective" reasons - let's say they don't need a RB but draft an individual
so that a division rival does not get him and plan to trade him out of division as soon as possible.
Something like that has a tremendous impact on the player's income both at signing and in the future -
especially if he proves to be not much more than a journeyman back.

Lotsa possibilities and a good idea for an interested party.

[BD Sullivan]

It might boil down to whether quality or quantity is the main determinant. For example, in 1978, the Browns had two first round picks, which turned out to be Clay Matthews, who at least is in the conversation as a potential HOFer, and Ozzie Newsome, who is in the HOF. However, the rest of the draft was essentially a disaster, with just a few players lasting a couple of mediocre years and others not even making it out of camp.

[Gary Najman]

The best draft classes are the ones that contribute towards winning - the point of the sport. The goal isn't to draft a player or two that will goto a pro bowl, it's to draft players that will help the team win. Finding a way to quantify that (how much they contributed) would be subjective but that's where I would lean if this was my project.

I wouldn't use Pro Bowl selections since they're flawed, less flawed as you go back in history but even then, still flawed.

Also wouldn't give too much credit to late round 'steals'. Some 'skill' in that - have to be aware of the player and pick him - but no one ever goes in saying: "Okay guys, the best player in the draft is Player A, we're going to take him in the 6th round. In the first five rounds we're going to pick players that won't contribute and/or will be interchangeable parts and/or that we'll cut." ...

... and along that line, can't give too much credit for a player having success with his next team. Can't say you were smart enough to draft a player if you aren't smart enough to keep him. Another fake quote: "This guy is obviously good so we're going to draft him, then we'll cut him in training camp and watch him be good with his next team."

You'll have to weight everything too, such as for "how many picks made the team" because a team with no talent it's easier to have draft picks make the roster. While for a team that's stacked, less will make the team. Obviously.

One clear example are the 1981 New Orleans Saints. They were the worst team in the league the year before, and they had 17 picks in the 1981 NFL Draft, including the top one (RB George Rogers, but nearly every other team would've selected LB Lawrence Taylor). 14 of them made the roster, 11 started at least 2 seasons, 3 of them went to the Pro Bowl in their careers (Rogers, future Hall of Famer LB Rickey Jackson and TE Hoby Brenner). They also drafted QB Dave Wilson in the Supplemental Draft, costing the team their top pick in 1982. Although it was a very good draft, I wouldn't rank it very high, as the Saints only made the playoffs until 1987, and the only players that remained with the team by then were Jackson, Brenner, Wilson and DL Frank Warren and Jim Wilks, and DB Johnnie Poe.

[Citizen]

It might boil down to whether quality or quantity is the main determinant. For example, in 1978, the Browns had two first round picks, which turned out to be Clay Matthews, who at least is in the conversation as a potential HOFer, and Ozzie Newsome, who is in the HOF. However, the rest of the draft was essentially a disaster, with just a few players lasting a couple of mediocre years and others not even making it out of camp.

And that's what I'm thinking of -- a way to measure the tangible impact of a draft. Sometimes that impact is measured in playoff berths, other times in a trend of improvement that points to a causal relationship with a team's picks. Regardless of what the rest of the Browns' 1978 draft class looked like, Matthews and Newsome made that team better. The 1981 Saints picks that Teo mentioned didn’t propel them to the Super Bowl, but again, they made them better. One or two stars can have that effect, and so can half a dozen steady role players. Likewise, a flop at #1 can send a team into a tailspin.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

One thing I often do is look at the pick(s) in question, and compare the raw numbers -- All Pros, Pro Bowls, Games Started, Games Played -- with those of the five guys taken after him. That's a better reflection of the reality that every draft pick is a decision between the guy and the others on the board, and realistically, that's who you need to compare him to when deciding if it was a good decision.

Obviously there are issues with that (like every other approach), like the role that need plays, particularly in the first round. 23 teams passed on Aaron Rodgers, but 22 of them didn't think they needed a quarterback. It's hard to blame most of them for passing on the pick.

[Rupert Patrick]

One interesting tidbit I came across is that there wasn't a single future HOFer drafted in the 1984 NFL draft, although three were taken in the supplemental draft, Reggie White, Steve Young and Gary Zimmerman, all of whom had already been drafted by the USFL. In fact, among those drafted in the spring NFL draft in 1984, those who had the best careers were Boomer Esaison, Irving Fryar and Wilber Marshall, all very good but none quite a HOVG type.

[Bryan]

How would people "rate" Earl Morrall as a draft pick?