Top 12 picks and probowl

Discussion in 'Draft' started by ouchy, Apr 8, 2022.

  1. ouchy

    ouchy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    6,112
    This is just for fun and could mean a lot of different stuff, and I was bored.

    I just did some research on what percentage of the top 12 pick over the last 10 drafts have made the pro bowl. Not sure it means a lot but there are some interesting stats. Check it out. I'll rank them by number of pro bowlers by pick position.

    1. The most probowlers over the last 10 drafts have been the first overall. 7 out of 10 of the last top picks have made the probowl. 4 of them were QBs, and 3 positional players. This one is not a surprise. It always been the highest success pick. However...

    2. Tied with pick 1 is pick 5 with 7 out of 10 becoming probowlers, no QBs, all positional players. That is an interesting stat. Over the last 10 years pick 5 has returned as much value, minus at QB, as the 1st overall. 70%.

    3. In second place is a three way tie between picks 2, 4, and 6 - at 60% (6 out of 10). Out of the 18 probowlers, only 4 were QBs. Whats more, it shows picks 4 and 6 were as valuable as 2, and pick 5 was more valuable than all of them.

    4. Coming in 3rd is pick 12, with a 50% pro bowl rate. Don't discount the value of pick 12! Half of them have become probowlers.

    5. The next most successful picks are a four way tie between picks 7, 8, 10, 11 - with a 40% pro bowl rate. Of these 16 probowlers, 4 were QBs and 12 were positional players. But these picks have been sub 50% success rates, but a higher QB success rate than picks 2-6.

    6. Now were are entering pick zones that have been by far the least successful. First is pick 9, with only a 20% rate, both positional. Nine has been notably worse than 10, 11, and 12. But the biggest surprise is pick 3, which only has a 10% rate, and is by far the least successful position over the last 10 years. Two of those were us, Darnold and Q, and Q still has a chance to maybe one day make the PB. But for 7 other teams pick 3 has also been a dead zone.

    When we look at this we should expect, or hope, that we get as much value out of pick 10 as we do out of pick 4. In fact, 10 is only slightly less successful than 4 over the last 10 years - and less successful than 12. By these stats we'd be better off if we had picks 5 and 12. So we gotta get both 4 and 10 right and not leave anything on the board we regret.

    I wanted to ramble on about this stuff but now I'm getting called by the wife so I'll let you chew on it.
     
    #1 ouchy, Apr 8, 2022
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  2. WilsonJetsFan

    WilsonJetsFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2021
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    856
    Makes a good case for trading down for more picks.
     
    ouchy likes this.
  3. ouchy

    ouchy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    6,112
    Okay I got more time to take this further.

    The curse of pick 3.

    I've noted that over the last 10 drafts pick 3 has only produced one probowler - by far the worst in the top 12. Lets look at this history closer.

    In 2012 the Vikings swapped pick 3 to Cleveland for pick 4, plus a 5th and 7th.
    The Browns took Trent Richardson at 3, who never made the probowl. The Vikings took Matt Kalil who made the pro bowl and all rookie team.

    In 2013 Oakland swapped pick 3 to Miami for pick 12, and 42. Pretty cheap swap.
    The Dolphins took Dion Jordan, who is a perennial backup, and the Raiders took DJ Hayden, who wasn't a pro bowler but a solid starter for 8 years. Plus they got a 2nd. The Raiders actually traded down from 3 to 12 for just a 2nd, and won the trade!

    In 2014 the Jaguars held onto pick 3 and took Blake Bortles. Nuff said.

    In 2015 the Jaguars held onto pick 3 and took DE Dante Fowler who was okay but never a stand out. The skipped over DEs Leonard Williams (6) and Vic Beasley (8), who both would become pro bowlers.

    In 2016 the Chargers took Joey Bosa, a great all pro and the only pro bowler pick 3 has delivered the last 10 years. And, the first 7 picks that draft all became pro bowlers, so if they would have screwed that up it would have been epic.

    In 2017, (this is a fun one), The Bears swapped pick 3 with the niners for pick 2, plus a 3rd and 4th.
    The Niners took Solomon Thomas with pick 3, a good player but not a pro bowler (and now a Jet). The Bears took Mitchell Trabisky, who did make the pro bowl, but whose career has stilted. And of course, they passed on Mahomes and Jackson to trade up and take him.

    In 2018 (here we go) The Colts swapped pick 3 with the Jets for pick 6, and three 2nds.
    The Jets took Sam Darnold who never made the pro bowl. The Colts used pick 6 on Quinnen Nelson, who has made the pro bowl every year.
    Plus, they swapped our pick 49 to Phly, who took Dallas Goddart, the other on a very solid guard Braden Smith, and another of our 2nds on Rock Ya Sin. All of these guys are difference makers, and potential pro bowlers still. You cant make this up. Darnold was exchanged for Quenton Nelson, Dallas Goddart, Braden Smith, and Rock Ya Sin. All quality starters.

    In 2019, the Jets kept pick 3 and used it on Quinnen Williams. A solid player but not a pro bowler. However, the only DT whose made the pro bowl from that class was Jeffry Simmons who went pick 19. He was the 4th DT off the board.

    In 2020, the Lions held onto pick 3 and took CB Jeff Okadah. Not a pro bowler yet. He has missed 23 games in 2 season due to injuries.

    In 2021, the Miami Dolphins swapped pick 3 with the Niners, for pick 12, plus 2 firsts and a 3rd.
    The Niners took Trey Lance. Not a pro bowler yet, and also not a starter yet. While the dolphins traded out of pick 12, the pick ended up being Micah Parsons, probably the best player last draft. lol

    You gotta be careful with pick 3, its cursed and trading it is almost always the best solution.

    QBs taken with pick 2, the teases.

    Pick 2 is tied for the second most probowlers over the last decade with 6, and 3 of those 6 were QBs. They were:

    Mitchell Trubisky
    Carson Wentz
    Robert Griffen III

    The two other QBs taken with the 2nd pick:
    Marcus Mariota
    Zach Wilson

    You gotta be careful taking a QB 2nd overall. They may not bust, but they tease. Its up to Zach to break this streak.
     
    #3 ouchy, Apr 8, 2022
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  4. ColoradoContrails

    ColoradoContrails Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    14,407
    Likes Received:
    21,483
    A lot of nice work here Ouchy, and food for thought! What I get out of all of this is that I'm not a believer in "jinxed" numbers, nor that draft position alone determines whether a player succeeds or not. I think a lot has to do with the team/situation they're drafted into. As far as #3 being "jinxed", if you stop and think about it, very often the team picking third (barring a trade up by another team), is pretty bad, and while the same can be said for teams picking 1 and 2, they also get first crack at whatever talent there is. Some years (I'd be interested in seeing some stats on this) there really are only 2 "can't miss" prospects, and so Team #3 is left to take a player who might be very good, but they're bringing him into a talent-deprived situation and asking him to make the difference. That's usually too much to ask of a rookie who's good but not great. Darnold certainly fits this description. You didn't say how many picks at #3 are QBs but I'm guessing it's quite a few which magnifies the pressure - and chance for failure - all the more.

    I would also say that teams that have "earned" pick #3, need a lot of help, and my hunch is they don't trade back out of #3 very often, whereas teams at #5 - 12 may not need as much, and/or are more willing to trade back allowing a better team to use those picks, and so the players drafted there wind up in more favorable conditions to succeed.

    For the Jets this year, I'm hoping they can trade back out of at least one of those two picks and pick up additional prime picks. I think the only "can't miss" Edge is Hutch, and there's 4-5 others in the second tier that they can get with a later pick. Depending on what they really feel about Becton, if Ekwonu or Neal is there at #4 they might use that to take whichever one is there, otherwise if the Saints want to give up their two later firsts, plus another pick, or someone else offers more, trading back would be the best move IMO.
     
    ouchy likes this.
  5. KingRoach

    KingRoach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    Glad I’m not a Texans fan!
     
  6. WilsonJetsFan

    WilsonJetsFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2021
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    856
    I'm no statistician, but when you're dealing with this small of a sample, you have to expect radically different results from one draft position to the next. The variance just means that you don't have a large enough sample size to even out the randomness.

    With that said, your findings are a good reminder that there are no sure things at any draft position, and the only way to guarantee a good number of hits is to get yourself enough draft picks that the statistics work in your favor. Again, I see that as an argument in favor of trading down and getting more picks.
     
    ouchy and CotcheryFan like this.
  7. Rockinz

    Rockinz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    2,353
    Crazy how bad pick 3 has been… let’s 4 and 10 lol
     
  8. ColoradoContrails

    ColoradoContrails Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    14,407
    Likes Received:
    21,483
    I agree with everything you said up until the bolded part. Trading back and getting more picks is not an automatic good strategy. Just like taking BPA isn't. The best strategy relies on first having a blueprint that defines the type of team you want the players that best fit that team - think Steelers, Patriots, Packers, Ravens to name four consistent winners. Within that guideline, and combined with how the draft board shakes out, and trading partners become available, you can apply various approaches like BPA, trading back, trading up, etc.
     
  9. REVISion

    REVISion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,998
    Likes Received:
    8,650
    I think draft picks are better thought of as ranges than individual picks.

    Picks 1-5 are more likely to be good than others, 5-10 are slightly less likely than 1-5, 10-15 are slightly less likely than 5-10, so on and so forth. I don't think we can draw any meaningful conclusions from how single picks have historically played out.
     
    MaximusD163 likes this.
  10. ColoradoContrails

    ColoradoContrails Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    14,407
    Likes Received:
    21,483
    A few years ago I posted an article that provided the odds for success for the different rounds, but IDK if I can find it now. But IIRC, the odds of success with 1st round picks was way ahead of the 2nd round, which was somewhat ahead of the third round. That may seem like "No, duh!", but there was a lot of arguing back and forth then about trading back and finding success with later round picks. The reality is, people tend to remember the few exceptions and forget all the fails. As I think about the article a bit more, it might have actually given the odds by pick, not just rounds, but again, the higher the picks the much better chance of success. It doesn't mean you shouldn't trade back for more picks, but it means you'd damn well better know the players and you team needs.
     
    REVISion likes this.
  11. Trainer

    Trainer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    2,458
    This may be from the article you posted, it's from a Chiefs fan site. Success rate of each position by round. It's from 2015 but the data probably still holds true.
    Note: "success rate" is defined as the player being a starter for at least half a career.

    1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
    2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
    3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
    4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
    5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
    6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
    7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
     
    REVISion, ouchy and ColoradoContrails like this.
  12. ColoradoContrails

    ColoradoContrails Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    14,407
    Likes Received:
    21,483
    Yes, I believe that's it! Good find!

    I believe I actually posted it in the run up to the 2017 draft when I was arguing hard for them to take Mahomes or Watson. I was focused specifically on the big drop off for QBs after Round 1. As you said I think this chart is still useful even if some of the percentages for some of the positions may have changed due to how players are used today vs. 6-7 years ago.

    Thanks for finding this!
     
    REVISion and Trainer like this.
  13. ouchy

    ouchy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    6,112
    Great find.

    From a quick look these stats show a major drop off between the 2nd and 3rd round for every position - except d-line - which goes up!
     
    ColoradoContrails likes this.
  14. Trainer

    Trainer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    2,458
    Oddly enough, the 4th round seems to be the sweet spot for dline.
    My wild guess would be that it has something to do with post college physical development. These are always the biggest guys, but the college training regimen is very different from a pro training program. Seems to be the spot to draft a raw talent and "grow your own monster".
     
    ColoradoContrails and ouchy like this.
  15. GreenGreek

    GreenGreek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,185
    Likes Received:
    547
    These numbers really illustrate the scarcity & bust potential of elite DLine prospects. Based on this data, I'd argue that the focus should be on DLine quantity (mid to later rounds) & development more than gambling with premium picks. We should be assuming half of the highly touted DLinemen will flop. At WR, you need to grab one in the first 2 rounds for about a 50/50 shot (Moore/Mims). The success rate nose dives after that.

    On the flip side, it seems scouts really know a good OL, LB, and DB when they see one. There's a high success rate in the first couple of rounds, and then they're picked clean. Given our rebuilding status, perhaps we should be focusing on these "safer" positions rather than risk a highly drafted bust.
     
  16. KingRoach

    KingRoach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    Everyone says to find a RB in later rounds… That position has the biggest drop by far for the 1st couple rounds.
     
  17. REVISion

    REVISion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,998
    Likes Received:
    8,650
    Probably because they're so lowly valued that if one comes around who gets picked in the first round he's an absolutely elite RB prospect like Barkley. Still doesn't change the fact that the position is very unimportant in the modern game.
     
  18. KingRoach

    KingRoach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    Biggest drop has less to do with them as a prospect and more what they’ve done as a pro. I’d be surprised if the aforementioned Barkley wasn’t considered a bust.

    PS. It looks like you’re confusing the terms “fact” with “opinion”. I don’t know where you millineals picked up this habit but it’s horrible.
     
  19. Br4d

    Br4d 2018 Weeb Ewbank Award

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    36,670
    Likes Received:
    14,472
    Injury factor. A building team cannot afford to spend a high 1st round pick on a position that has a high injury factor. The contenders generally already have a RB or two that are good enough - which is why they are contenders.

    So everybody tries to get their backs as cheap as possible. Also, nobody wants to give a RB a big second contract because the injury factor only worsens as they go post-prime.
     
    ColoradoContrails likes this.
  20. KingRoach

    KingRoach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    3,437
    I agree with that whole heartedly.

    I was replying to a quote talking about a link that posted the % of busts per position per round. I didn’t do the study myself and I’m not accountable ring the “value” of any picks. Simply that the amount of busts grows exponentially per round. RB much more so than any other position.

    This draft is supposed to be incredibly strong at RB. I would love to have a strong run game and a OC who can utilize, 12, 21 and 22 packages. Hell through in some 23s and call it a party!!
     

Share This Page