Guest viewing is limited

Titans Talk - Home for all things Tennessee Titans

HurrayTitans! said:
spent some time researching a lot of different specific results from the draft. I will break this up to multiple posts to avoid 1 super long post.

I took every pick from 2000-2019 (20 years) and determined what the team that drafted the player got out of them. This includes:
-Team select top 5/ 6-10 x amount of times netting how many additional top 5/ 6-10/ 28-32 (bottom 5). This is through 2023 season.
-pro bowler
-1st team All pro (profootball reference doesn’t recognize 2nd team. Probably valuable info, just a lot deeper research)
-years on team (I saw argument of PB value and added years with team as just another stat do differentiate, not a great decider by itself)
-players gone at 3 or less seasons. Reason gone from team irrelevant as they no longer help the team that drafted them. A typical rookie contract even in early 2000’s would get 4+ years for a 1st rounder.

I compared groups as such:
1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-32. I think this is reasonable for argument’s sake of general value of draft pick area.

i also broke down positional results to compare if a QB top 5 fared better than 6-10 as ex.

I excluded 2020-2023 as it is difficult to compare among rest when initial contracts are not even completed although those numbers are added separately from the 20 year period.
Click to expand...
Boner?
 
By team, this is what the draft picks 1-5/ 6-10/ or bottom 5 and what the pick helped the team net overall. (By division 2000-2019)
Ex: team selected picks x times from each grouping and x they ended in each grouping.

MIA - 3 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
BUF - 3 top 5/3 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 2 top 5, 6 6-10 seasons.
NYJ - 3 top 5/3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.
NE - 0 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 14 bottom 5, 0 top 5, 1 6-10 seasons.

CLE - 5 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 10 top 5, 4 6-10 seasons.
PIT - 0 top 5/ 1 6-10 picks netting: 7 bottom 5, 0 top 5, 1 6-10 seasons.
BALT - 1 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 0 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
CIN - 4 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.

KC - 4 top 5/ 1 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 1 top 5, 1 6-10 seasons.
DEN - 1 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 5 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 2 6-10 seasons.
LAC - 4 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 1 6-10 season.
LVR - 5 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 7 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.

TEN - 2 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 3 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
JAX - 5 top 5/ 7 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 5 top 5, and 7 6-10 seasons.
IND - 1 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 8 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 0 6-10 seasons.
HOU - 4 top 5 (1 was exp pick)/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 4 top 5, 2 6-10 seasons.

DAL- 2 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
NYG - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
PHI - 2 top 5/ 1 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 1 6-10 seasons.
WAS - 6 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.

MIN - 1 top 5/ 5 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.
GB - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 7 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 0 6-10 seasons.
DET - 6 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 6 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.
CHI - 1 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 3 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.

SF - 1 top 5/ 5 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 7 6-10 seasons.
SEA - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 2 6-10 seasons.
LAR - 5 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 1 6-10 seasons.
ARZ - 4 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 5 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.

NO - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 1 6-10 seasons.
ATL - 2 top 5/ 5 6-10 picks netting: 1 bottom 5, 3 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.
CAR - 2 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
TB - 4 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 6 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.

this is team results with those picks. Can be used to determine top 5 vs, 6-10 vs another area draft pick, not necessarily by itself judging the specific player.
You can see, same teams pick early have more seasons ending poorly than teams that are ending well and just continuing that trend.
outliers like SF managed to go way up and way down.
Again, stopped at 2019, the 2020 selections have only had 3 years to make their impact, some definitely have (pos and neg) but still need more time to further make the overall judgements.
More posts still coming. I’ll get to the data you want to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is by position selected. I only compared the 1-5 and 6-10 since that was the heart of the argument. Positions might be generic in some cases, profootball reference doesn’t always help out and has added positions over time (EDGE vs DE or OLB as ex)

The positions are DE, DT, LB, DB for D and QB, RB, WR, TE (yes one was taken this early), G, T for offense. C for ex has 0 selections that early.

It reads like this:
Number of players of the position picked
Number of players achieving Pro Bowl (PB) (1+)
Number of player All Pro (AP) (1+ and 1st team only)
AVG number of years performing for the team that drafted them.

1-5 picks
DE - 11 players/ 6 PB/ 2 AP/ 6.9 yrs
DT - 6 players/ 3 PB/ 3 AP/ 5.83 yrs
LB - 6 players/ 3 PB/ 2 AP/ 5.83 yrs
DB - 5 players/ 4 PB/ 2 AP/ 7.4 yrs
QB - 21 players/ 13 PB/ 3 AP/ 7.05 yrs
RB - 9 players/ 4 PB/ 3 AP/ 5.67 yrs
WR - 10 players/ 6 PB/ 3 AP/ 6.9 yrs
G - 1 player/ 1 PB/ 1 AP/ 7 yrs
T - 15 players/ 8 PB/ 3 AP/ 6.8 yrs

6-10
DE - 9 players/ 4 PB/ 1 AP/ 4.45 yrs
DT - 10 players/ 5 PB/ 1 AP/ 5.9 yrs
LB - 10 players/ 5 PB/ 4 AP/ 7.3 yrs
DB - 16 players/ 5 PB/ 1 AP/ 4.44 yrs
QB - 5 players/ 0 PB/ 0 AP/ 4.2 yrs
RB - 4 players/ 3 PB/ 2 AP/ 5.75 yrs
WR - 15 players/ 3 PB/ 1 AP/ 5 yrs
TE - 3 players/ 2 PB/ 0 AP/ 6.33 yrs
G - 2 players/ 0 PB/ 0 AP/ 6 yrs
T - 10 players/ 6 PB/ 3 AP/ 7.9 yrs

First we can see the focus of positions teams seem to key in on. This is one thing that makes comparing 1-5 with 6-10 as apples to apples but it’s close.
Most of the positions get better results out of 1-5 picks outside of the average years a player may stay with a team.
Maybe LB, RB, and T from 6-10 were better.
DE, DT are pretty even.
QB, WR, DB, G fared better 1-5.

still more to come.
 
HurrayTitans! said:
This is by position selected. I only compared the 1-5 and 6-10 since that was the heart of the argument. Positions might be generic in some cases, profootball reference doesn’t always help out and has added positions over time (EDGE vs DE or OLB as ex)

The positions are DE, DT, LB, DB for D and QB, RB, WR, TE (yes one was taken this early), G, T for offense. C for ex has 0 selections that early.

It reads like this:
Number of players of the position picked
Number of players achieving Pro Bowl (PB) (1+)
Number of player All Pro (AP) (1+ and 1st team only)
AVG number of years performing for the team that drafted them.

1-5 picks
DE - 11 players/ 6 PB/ 2 AP/ 6.9 yrs
DT - 6 players/ 3 PB/ 3 AP/ 5.83 yrs
LB - 6 players/ 3 PB/ 2 AP/ 5.83 yrs
DB - 5 players/ 4 PB/ 2 AP/ 7.4 yrs
QB - 21 players/ 13 PB/ 3 AP/ 7.05 yrs
RB - 9 players/ 4 PB/ 3 AP/ 5.67 yrs
WR - 10 players/ 6 PB/ 3 AP/ 6.9 yrs
G - 1 player/ 1 PB/ 1 AP/ 7 yrs
T - 15 players/ 8 PB/ 3 AP/ 6.8 yrs

6-10
DE - 9 players/ 4 PB/ 1 AP/ 4.45 yrs
DT - 10 players/ 5 PB/ 1 AP/ 5.9 yrs
LB - 10 players/ 5 PB/ 4 AP/ 7.3 yrs
DB - 16 players/ 5 PB/ 1 AP/ 4.44 yrs
QB - 5 players/ 0 PB/ 0 AP/ 4.2 yrs
RB - 4 players/ 3 PB/ 2 AP/ 5.75 yrs
WR - 15 players/ 3 PB/ 1 AP/ 5 yrs
TE - 3 players/ 2 PB/ 0 AP/ 6.33 yrs
G - 2 players/ 0 PB/ 0 AP/ 6 yrs
T - 10 players/ 6 PB/ 3 AP/ 7.9 yrs

First we can see the focus of positions teams seem to key in on. This is one thing that makes comparing 1-5 with 6-10 as apples to apples but it’s close.
Most of the positions get better results out of 1-5 picks outside of the average years a player may stay with a team.
Maybe LB, RB, and T from 6-10 were better.
DE, DT are pretty even.
QB, WR, DB, G fared better 1-5.

still more to come.
Click to expand...
Now i have a boner! Continue please
 
Ain’t nobody in the same atmosphere at bringing the data, breaking it down, and able to feed it to a caveman like me than @HurrayTitans! . Just saying. You want to get in the ring with him, I will Joe Rogan the chit out of it!
 
Now the breakdown by year, position irrelevant. I also have 4 groupings here of 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-32. (In a couple occasions, pick 32 was actually pick 1 round 2 due to 31 teams years/ forfeited picks by punishment/ etc)
This reads as follows:
The year
Number of players achieving PB status
Number of player achieving 1st team AP
Average number of years on team
Number of players gone from team 3 years or less

2000:
1-5: 3 PB, 1 AP, 6.4 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 2 PB, 1 AP, 6.2 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 7 PB, 3 AP, 7.7 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 1 PB, 1 AP, 4.3 yrs, 6 gone

2001:
1-5: 2 PB, 1 AP, 6.4 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 1 PB, 1 AP, 5 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 4 PB, 1 AP, 6.7 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 6 PB, 1 AP, 6.16 yrs, 1 gone

2002:
1-5: 1 PB, 1 AP, 6.8 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 1 AP, 7.2 yrs, 0 gone
11-20: 4 PB, 3 AP, 5 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 2 PB, 1 AP, 5.83 yrs, 3 gone

2003:
1-5: 3 PB, 1 AP, 7.2 yrs, 1 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 3 AP, 9 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 2 PB, 1 AP, 6.1 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 3 PB, 3 AP, 5.41 yrs, 3 gone

2004:
1-5: 4 PB, 1 AP, 11.8 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 0 AP, 5 yrs, 0 gone
11-20: 5 PB, 1 AP, 7.6 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 2 PB, 1 AP, 5.5 yrs, 4 gone

2005:
1-5: 2 PB, 0 AP, 5.2 yrs, 1 gone
6-10: 1 PB, 0 AP, 3.6 yrs, 3 gone
11-20: 5 PB, 5 AP, 6.7 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 4 PB, 3 AP, 7.58 yrs, 1 gone

2006:
1-5: 3 PB, 0 AP, 7 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 1 PB, 0 AP, 6 yrs, 0 gone
11-20: 5 PB, 2 AP, 5.9 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 5 PB, 1 AP, 6.83 yrs, 0 gone

2007:
1-5: 2 PB, 2 AP, 6.2 yrs, 2 gone
6-10: 1 PB, 1 AP, 5.2 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 5 PB, 2 AP, 5.9 yrs, 3 gone
21-32: 6 PB, 1 AP, 5.58 yrs, 2 gone

2008:
1-5: 2 PB, 2 AP, 7.8 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 1 PB, 1 AP, 4.4 yrs, 3 gone
11-20: 4 PB, 1 AP, 6.3 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 3 PB, 2 AP, 5 yrs, 2 gone

2009:
1-5: 1 PB, 0 AP, 5.2 yrs, 2 gone
6-10: 1 PB, 0 AP, 5.6 yrs, 0 gone
11-20: 2 PB, 0 AP, 5.6 yrs, 1 gone
21-32: 4 PB, 1 AP, 5.67 yrs, 1 gone

2010:
1-5: 4 PB, 3 AP, 7.2 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 0 AP, 5.6 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 6 PB, 4 AP, 8.1 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 4 PB, 1 AP, 6.17 yrs, 3 gone

2011:
1-5: 5 PB, 4 AP, 9.2 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 3 AP, 6.8 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 4 PB, 2 AP, 6.6 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 4 PB, 2 AP, 6.75 yrs, 4 gone

2012:
1-5: 3 PB, 0 AP, 3.8 yrs, 3 gone
6-10: 2 PB, 1 AP, 5.4 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 3 PB, 1 AP, 6.5 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 5 PB, 3 AP, 6 yrs, 3 gone

2013:
1-5: 3 PB, 1 AP, 6.4 yrs, 1 gone
6-10: 0 PB, 0 AP, 3.4 yrs, 3 gone
11-20: 3 PB, 0 AP, 4.8 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 6 PB, 4 AP, 5.17 yrs, 2 gone

2014:
1-5: 2 PB, 1 AP, 4 yrs, 2 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 0 AP, 6.8 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 7 PB, 3 AP, 6 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 4 PB, 0 AP, 4.3 yrs, 5 gone

2015:
1-5: 3 PB, 1 AP, 4.8 yrs, 1 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 1 AP, 4.4 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 3 PB, 1 AP, 5.2 yrs, 3 gone
21-32: 2 PB, 0 AP, 4.25 yrs, 5 gone

2016:
1-5: 5 PB, 2 AP, 5.8 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 2 PB, 2 AP, 4.6 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 2 PB, 0 AP, 4.7 yrs, 3 gone
21-32: 1 PB, 0 AP, 3.17 yrs, 4 gone

2017:
1-5: 2 PB, 1 AP, 4.4 yrs, 1 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 3 AP, 5.4 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 4 PB, 1 AP, 5.6 yrs, 0 gone
21-32: 4 PB, 3 AP, 4.42 yrs, 5 gone

2018:
1-5: 3 PB, 0 AP, 4.8 yrs, 1 gone
6-10: 3 PB, 2 AP, 4.6 yrs, 1 gone
11-20: 8 PB, 2 AP, 5.4 yrs, 1 gone
21-32: 1 PB, 1 AP, 4 yrs, 4 gone

2019:
1-5: 4 PB, 2 AP, 4.8 yrs, 0 gone
6-10: 2 PB, 0 AP, 4.6 yrs, 0 gone
11-20: 4 PB, 0 AP, 4.4 yrs, 2 gone
21-32: 2 PB, 1 AP, 4 avg, 4 gone


Totals:
1-5: 57 PB, 24 AP, 6.16 yrs, 15 gone
6-10: 41 PB, 20 AP, 5.44 yrs, 21 gone
11-20: 87 PB, 33 AP, 6.04 yrs, 25 gone
21-32: 69 PB, 30 AP, 5.28 yes, 62 gone

going year by year it’s clear that not every year 1 can say that earlier is better.
Multiple seasons top 5 were clearly better than 6-10. A few were very even.
I noticed as I did this, there is a definite argument that picking 11-20 nets a better player than 6-10 and is closer to the 1-5 grouping.
it’s also maybe coincidence that years that 1-5 do not perform well, 6-10 generally perform poorly as well.

We obviously don’t know how things will pan out until a few years have gone by to include, maybe it was just one of the “down” years as a whole.

from my position, I will agree that 1-5 has a better percentage of “hit” over 6-10 and a slight edge over 11-20 HOWEVER, I don’t believe the difference is so significant and matched with the unknown of “down” year or not to ever consider tanking.
People would think I’m crazy to argue titans should win games if they were sitting at 8 to fall back a couple spots to 12 or 13 but there is definite evidence that would suggest that to be a good move.

so take it all however you like. Hopefully you have some data you didn’t before. Maybe after another 5 or 10 years the same research should be followed again to see IF or how the game is changing causing drafts to change.
Enjoy.
 
By the way, I take suggestions for crap to look up. I learn a lot and I enjoy the extrapolation of numbers into conversation.

I do have limitations though, not a PFF person and there are limitations on what I can do with some of the in game analytics like a W for any OL on a play or the titans case, L’s.
 
Didn't know where to put this... But Hopkins earned an extra 500K by reaching 75 catches (250k) and 1050 yards(250k) on the season during the Jags game. He was 1 TD away from another 250k for 8TDs on the season.

Tannehill said he was willing to go rogue and ignore the play call to get Hopkins the ball and the incentives if he had to. He said "I'm already out of here, what are they going to do?" Lol
 
HurrayTitans! said:
By team, this is what the draft picks 1-5/ 6-10/ or bottom 5 and what the pick helped the team net overall. (By division 2000-2019)
Ex: team selected picks x times from each grouping and x they ended in each grouping.

MIA - 3 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
BUF - 3 top 5/3 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 2 top 5, 6 6-10 seasons.
NYJ - 3 top 5/3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.
NE - 0 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 14 bottom 5, 0 top 5, 1 6-10 seasons.

CLE - 5 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 10 top 5, 4 6-10 seasons.
PIT - 0 top 5/ 1 6-10 picks netting: 7 bottom 5, 0 top 5, 1 6-10 seasons.
BALT - 1 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 0 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
CIN - 4 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.

KC - 4 top 5/ 1 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 1 top 5, 1 6-10 seasons.
DEN - 1 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 5 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 2 6-10 seasons.
LAC - 4 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 1 6-10 season.
LVR - 5 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 7 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.

TEN - 2 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 3 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
JAX - 5 top 5/ 7 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 5 top 5, and 7 6-10 seasons.
IND - 1 top 5/ 0 6-10 picks netting: 8 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 0 6-10 seasons.
HOU - 4 top 5 (1 was exp pick)/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 4 top 5, 2 6-10 seasons.

DAL- 2 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
NYG - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
PHI - 2 top 5/ 1 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 1 6-10 seasons.
WAS - 6 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.

MIN - 1 top 5/ 5 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.
GB - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 7 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 0 6-10 seasons.
DET - 6 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 0 bottom 5, 6 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.
CHI - 1 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 3 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.

SF - 1 top 5/ 5 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 4 top 5, and 7 6-10 seasons.
SEA - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 1 top 5, and 2 6-10 seasons.
LAR - 5 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 3 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 1 6-10 seasons.
ARZ - 4 top 5/ 4 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 5 top 5, and 5 6-10 seasons.

NO - 1 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 1 6-10 seasons.
ATL - 2 top 5/ 5 6-10 picks netting: 1 bottom 5, 3 top 5, and 4 6-10 seasons.
CAR - 2 top 5/ 2 6-10 picks netting: 4 bottom 5, 2 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.
TB - 4 top 5/ 3 6-10 picks netting: 2 bottom 5, 6 top 5, and 3 6-10 seasons.

this is team results with those picks. Can be used to determine top 5 vs, 6-10 vs another area draft pick, not necessarily by itself judging the specific player.
You can see, same teams pick early have more seasons ending poorly than teams that are ending well and just continuing that trend.
outliers like SF managed to go way up and way down.
Again, stopped at 2019, the 2020 selections have only had 3 years to make their impact, some definitely have (pos and neg) but still need more time to further make the overall judgements.
More posts still coming. I’ll get to the data you want to see.
Click to expand...

Team performance is irrelevant. There is a ton that goes into that. In determining value of these picks, you have to look at the quality of the players picked at these positions.

Take Calvin Johnson and Matt Stafford for instance. The Lions were never really great at any point with both of those guys. That doesn't mean they weren't amazing picks. The fact that Detroit couldn't hire a competent Head coach during this time is hardly their fault.
 
Carp said:
Team performance is irrelevant. There is a ton that goes into that. In determining value of these picks, you have to look at the quality of the players picked at these positions.

Take Calvin Johnson and Matt Stafford for instance. The Lions were never really great at any point with both of those guys. That doesn't mean they weren't amazing picks. The fact that Detroit couldn't hire a competent Head coach during this time is hardly their fault.
Click to expand...
Disagree it’s irrelevant but I certainly don’t think it points entirely to the quality of the player.

For example, the argument to tank this year was so the “team” will be better next year because of the “better” pick.

now I agree the lions squandered plenty but it’s not like Megatron and Stafford were their only top 5 picks.
 
HurrayTitans! said:
Disagree it’s irrelevant but I certainly don’t think it points entirely to the quality of the player.

For example, the argument to tank this year was so the “team” will be better next year because of the “better” pick.

now I agree the lions squandered plenty but it’s not like Megatron and Stafford were their only top 5 picks.
Click to expand...

OK let's take at the Lions pre-Stafford.

From 2001-2008, the Lions averaged 3.875 wins per year. They had a top 5 pick 4 times and a top 10 pick 7 times during this span.

After they drafted Stafford (and excluding his rookie year where he only started 10 games), they averaged 7 wins per year over the next 10 years and they finished with a top 5 overall pick only 2 times over that span. I would say Stafford and Megatron were pretty crucial into the improvement they saw as a franchise from the early 2000's. It isn't their fault the Lions organization hired horrible coach after horrible coach and/or failed to surround 2 generational talents with enough talent to make them SB contenders on a yearly basis.

I find it hard to believe they could have drafted a better player with their 1st pick in either one of those drafts, and certainly they wouldn't have been in position to draft either player if they picked any later in those drafts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carp said:
OK let's take at the Lions pre-Stafford.

From 2001-2008, the Lions averaged 3.875 wins per year. They had a top 5 pick 4 times and a top 10 pick 7 times during this span.

After they drafted Stafford (and excluding his rookie year where he only started 10 games), they averaged 7 wins per year over the next 10 years and they finished with a top 5 overall pick only 2 times over that span. I would say Stafford and Megatron were pretty crucial into the improvement they saw as a franchise from the early 2000's. It isn't their fault the Lions organization hired horrible coach after horrible coach and/or failed to surround 2 generational talents with enough talent to make them SB contenders on a yearly basis.

I find it hard to believe they could have drafted a better player with their 1st pick in either one of those drafts, and certainly they wouldn't have been in position to draft either player if they picked any later in those drafts.
Click to expand...
31 other teams to apply the logic too, but the opposite could be said for Joey Harrington and Charles Rogers. Mike Williams was also top 10. They were selected top 5 and the team continued to stink to the point they were able to get Megatron then Stafford.

Unless we’re talking about tanking multiple seasons for a potential long term gain, that would be the same tank idea but with failing team results.

to the point, it took 2 separate seasons of putrid play to net Stafford and Megatron.
Impossible to answer, but would Detroit have been better off taking Joe Thomas over Megatron?

again, a lot more factors go into the team so by itself, not really fair to judge an individual draft pick based on team success, I just don’t think it’s irrelevant.
Opposite example, but did Panda and Caleb Farley contribute to the downfall of Ten from 2021?
Individually certainly, as a team, plenty of other factors. I know they weren’t too 10 or anything but the principle can be applied.
 
Conversely, let's take a look at the Browns
HurrayTitans! said:
31 other teams to apply the logic too, but the opposite could be said for Joey Harrington and Charles Rogers. Mike Williams was also top 10. They were selected top 5 and the team continued to stink to the point they were able to get Megatron then Stafford.

Unless we’re talking about tanking multiple seasons for a potential long term gain, that would be the same tank idea but with failing team results.

to the point, it took 2 separate seasons of putrid play to net Stafford and Megatron.
Impossible to answer, but would Detroit have been better off taking Joe Thomas over Megatron?

again, a lot more factors go into the team so by itself, not really fair to judge an individual draft pick based on team success, I just don’t think it’s irrelevant.
Opposite example, but did Panda and Caleb Farley contribute to the downfall of Ten from 2021?
Individually certainly, as a team, plenty of other factors. I know they weren’t too 10 or anything but the principle can be applied.
Click to expand...

I get that. Misses certainly happen. Nothing is guaranteed. The point I am making is that statistically, you are significantly less likely to miss on that top 5 pick than you are at pick 9 or 13 or 29 (Panda). Comparing the track record of the teams with consistent top 5 picks is for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the point I am making.

Quite clearly the way to make your team better is by acquiring better players. The higher you pick in the draft, the more access you have to acquiring these better players. Whether or not the players you select turn into high quality players falls more under talent evaluation and development. And typically, teams that are bad at both of those things will continue to pick in the top 5.

Our talent evaluation and development has been shit since 2020. We haven't produced even 1 high quality starter during this time. Maybe Okonkwo, but that is stretching it. Hopefully Levis and Skronk turn out as they look promising. McCreary is ok.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carp said:
Conversely, let's take a look at the Browns


I get that. Misses certainly happen. Nothing is guaranteed. The point I am making is that statistically, you are significantly less likely to miss on that top 5 pick than you are at pick 9 or 13 or 29 (Panda). Comparing the track record of the teams with consistent top 5 picks is for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the point I am making.

Quite clearly the way to make your team better is by acquiring better players. The higher you pick in the draft, the more access you have to acquiring these better players. Whether or not the players you select turn into high quality players falls more under talent evaluation and development. And typically, teams that are bad at both of those things will continue to pick in the top 5.

Our talent evaluation and development has been **** since 2020. We haven't produced even 1 high quality starter during this time. Maybe Okonkwo, but that is stretching it. Hopefully Levis and Skronk turn out as they look promising. McCreary is ok.
Click to expand...
so tanking is dumb unless your scouting department is good cause they just gonna blow the GOAT


also if the scouting department is good then there should be no need to tank - just sayin'
 
GoT said:
so tanking is dumb unless your scouting department is good cause they just gonna blow the GOAT


also if the scouting department is good then there should be no need to tank - just sayin'
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. Even the best scouting departments only get it right a little more than half the time.

Again, if draft pick position doesn't matter, then why it does cost so much to move up the draft?
 
Carp said:
Sorry, but no. Even the best scouting departments only get it right a little more than half the time.

Again, if draft pick position doesn't matter, then why it does cost so much to move up the draft?
Click to expand...
seems to only cost the Titans a lot to move up... also Titans seem to not get shown that love when trying to move down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top