Where does drafting in the first round get you? Let's find out!

by MonkeyBusiness on Apr 2, 2009 1:24 PM EDT Comment 8 comments

I posted this over on 18to88.com and thought I'd share it here too.

So, I went back and made a draft chart to figure out whether there's any correspondence to winning the Super Bowl, and where and how many times you draft in the 1st round.

The minimum number of draft picks was 5 (Colts, Dolphins, Eagles, Redskins), and the maximum was 9 (49ers, Lions). The 4 Super Bowl winners from this period drafted 8 (Steelers and Patriots), 6 (Giants) and 5 (Colts).

The teams that drafted the most in the top 8 picks (1/4th) are the Raiders (5), Lions/Browns (4), Cardinals/Jets/Saints/Falcons/Jaguars (3). The teams that did not draft at all in the top 8 picks are the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Broncos, and Colts. It should be noted that during the selected time period, the Colts didn't even draft in the top 16 picks, and only drafted ONCE in the top 24. The Giants drafted twice in the top 24, the Pats drafted 6 times, and the Steelers drafted 5 times.

2 Super Bowl participants (Cardinals and Bears) and the 2 multiple winners (Patriots and Steelers) were in the top half in number of first round picks. 3 participants and the other two winners were in the bottom half.

Only the Cardinals were in the top half of top 8 picks. The Bears, Panthers, Giants, and Seahawks had 1 each. and the Pats, Steelers, Colts, and Eagles had none.

So, here's my conclusion.
- There is a negative correlation between drafting multiple times in the top 8 picks and either making or winning the Super Bowl. Only the Cardinals drafted that much that high and made it. Single selections are unlikely but possible (Giants won; Bears, Panthers, and Seahawks lost)
- The Super Bowl winner and participant will most likely draft in the bottom 16 picks. Only 3 teams have come from outside this area (Pats, Cards, and Panthers).
- The Super Bowl winner will have a pick in the first round. The participant may not.
- There is a positive correlation between a high number of first round picks and winning the Super Bowl. The Patriots and Steelers both drafted 8 times in the first round, second most throughout the league.
- There is also a positive correlation between drafting little in the first round. The Giants and Colts drafted 6 times and 5 times, respectively.

And now, my commentary:
- Arizona's run last season was improbable, to say the least. They're tied for 3rd for most top 8 picks.
- The Colts need more first round picks. We drafted 3 less times than the Steelers or Patriots, both of whom won 2 Super Bowls during the selected time period.
- If you're a betting man, here are your "safe" bets for the Super Bowl winner: Jets, Bears, Bucs, Eagles, Vikings, Pats, Falcons, Dolphins, Ravens, Colts, Giants, Cardinals, or Steelers. I personally would eliminate the Jets, Bears, Bucs, and Dolphins, Ravens, and Cardinals. So, Eagles, Vikings, Pats, Falcons, Colts, Giants, or Steelers.

So, to answer the premise of the article, it's actually in Detroit's best interest to not even draft in the top 16. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but history has shown that if you're drafting that high, you're not winning the Super Bowl.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

1 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting Article...

I would be curious to see what time period you used to pull the information – the article doesn’t explicitly state that.

I would also bring up that the salary cap issue would be interesting to compare to high draft picks as well. I would argue that teams that pick a high skill position end up putting so much cash into an unproven rookie player that it negatively affects their ability to provide a roster around that skill player to build the team (i.e. Alex Smith and the 49ers). Yet another valid argument for a rookie pay scale.

I’m so glad we have one of the most logical front offices in the NFL!

GO HORSE!!!

by GoHorse88 on Apr 2, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

I like thinking outside the box and people who put in research to come up with their analysis and theories. This is an interesting observation. How much it actually impacts the winners may be affected by other things as well but the research and premise behind this post is intriguing at the very least. Well done.

by bamock on Apr 2, 2009 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm actually a bit more against this post

To begin with, 4 years is just a very short time to make any sort of judgment. How many starters from the super bowl winners were drafted in those 4 years? What if a team had 22 starters, all of whom were first round picks and had at least 5 years of experience? I would be much more likely to believe this analysis if it went back further (although I do commend you for putting in this much work which is still significant and more than I could do).

Secondly, and related to the first point, the teams who have drafted in the top 8 in the past 4 years have been bad in the past 4 years. The Colts haven’t had top draft picks because we’ve been good, which also happens to be the reason we won the super bowl. The Steelers and Pats had lots of 1st rounders but they’re not getting high picks from having bad records. When the analysis is only going back 4 years, the teams that get to the super bowl are obviously going to have worse picks.

Again, I do commend you for putting in the work and I think that maybe you are right on some of the stuff. It’s just that limiting this sort of analysis to a 4 year period when teams have players ranging from rookie to 15-year veteran doesn’t make sense.

"If you don't [draft me], I promise you I'll come back and kick your ass for the next 15 years."

by psvirsky on Apr 2, 2009 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm rec'ing for the effort

Not the scientific significance or relevance to what actually happens. And the novelty and thinking outside the box nature of the idea.

by bamock on Apr 2, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way,

the article that spawned the discussion on 18to88 is here

by Cassieper on Apr 2, 2009 5:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I went from 2009 to 2003, mostly because that’s when my innate laziness kicked in and I was tired of figuring it out.

So, 7 years, not 4. Seeing as the average NFL career is 3 years, on average the team would be almost completely different by the end of Year 7.

The point I was attempting to make was that limited drafting in the top half of the draft is fine, but when you start making a habit of it you get yourself in trouble. Moreover, the Colts draft the least in the first round, but are arguably the most successful franchise in doing so during the Polian era. So, there’s a possibility of an ideological shift where perhaps the Colts decide to possibly trade up or pick up more 1st round picks.

The two most successful franchises during the selected time period, the Steelers and Patriots, were both tied for 2nd overall in first round picks. Yet, the Lions drafted one more first round pick than they did, and the Raiders drafted the same amount. So, the real lesson is that it’s not so much when or where you draft, but who.

Bob Sanders eats a forest on Friday so he can lay the wood on Sunday.
http://sportscircuits.wordpress.com
http://monkeybiziu.deviantart.com

by MonkeyBusiness on Apr 2, 2009 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

my bad

Looking back, I have no idea why I thought it was 4 years of data. 7 years is definitely more appropriate.

I still feel like there’s a problem with the comment “when you start making a habit of [drafting in the top half of the draft] you get yourself in trouble”. To me it’s the other way around. When your team is in consistent trouble, you end up drafting in the top half more often.

Ultimately you’re right though in that it’s just about who you draft. Some teams are great at drafting and those teams tend to be the most successful overall. Other teams have to get a bit lucky to have any success (see, Cardinals)

"If you don't [draft me], I promise you I'll come back and kick your ass for the next 15 years."

by psvirsky on Apr 3, 2009 7:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a chicken and egg argument. Are these teams bad, so they keep drafting in the top half of the first round, or does the fact that they keep drafting in the top half of the first round make them bad? There’s certainly a case to be made that drafting in the first round isn’t a bad thing, as long as you don’t screw up. The problem is that some of these teams, like the Raiders and 49ers and Lions, screw up so much that each time they turn in a name to the Commish, it sets them back a year. And some of these guys are drafting multiple times in the first round!

Bob Sanders eats a forest on Friday so he can lay the wood on Sunday.
http://sportscircuits.wordpress.com
http://monkeybiziu.deviantart.com

by MonkeyBusiness on Apr 4, 2009 3:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs