Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Football Outsiders

Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


Most Recent FO Features

AllenJar04.jpg

» 2011 Defeats

Who had the most Defeats in 2012? Well, nearly setting the all-time sack record puts you in a pretty good position to claim that crown.

04 May 2010

2010 NFL Draft Reader Poll Results

results compiled by Aaron Schatz

Thanks to all the readers who participated in our first annual NFL Draft Reader Poll. The results are below, and I'm sure everybody will enjoy discussing what their fellow readers got right (or wrong).

Which team had the best draft for value in 2010?

24.7% Seattle

16.4% Baltimore

8.3% Detroit

6.5% New England

6.2% San Francisco

5.4% Carolina

3.6% Philadelphia

2.9% New York Jets

Which team had the worst draft for value in 2010?

37.7% Jacksonville

29.2% Denver

8.8% Buffalo

3.9% Chicago		 3.5% New York Giants

2.0% Washington

1.6% Carolina

1.6% Dallas

Which first-round pick was the best value?

17.5% Dez Bryant, WR, DAL (24)

14.4% Dan Williams, DT, ARI (26)

11.6% Ndamukong Suh, DT, DET (2)

11.4% Bryan Bulaga, OT, GB (23)		 7.9% Kyle Wilson, CB, NYJ (29)

7.1% Jerry Hughes, DE, IND (31)

5.1% Russell Okung, OT, SEA (6)

4.3% Earl Thomas, FS, SEA (14)

Which first-round pick was the biggest mistake?

36.3% Tim Tebow, QB, DEN (25)

27.9% Tyson Alualu, DT, JAC (10)

11.9% Jason Pierre-Paul, DE, NYG (15)

7.8% C.J. Spiller, RB, BUF (9)		 3.2% Sam Bradford, QB, STL (1)

2.8% Ryan Mathews, RB, SD (12)

1.8% Demaryius Thomas, WR, DEN (22)

1.4% Dez Bryant, WR, DAL (24) 

Which Day 2 draft pick (Rounds 2-3) will play the biggest role in 2010?

20.9% Jimmy Clausen, QB, CAR (48)

10.5% Golden Tate, WR, SEA (60)

8.7% Ben Tate, RB, HOU (58)

7.9% Sergio Kindle, OLB, BAL (43)

7.2% Taylor Mays, FS, SF (49)		 6.2% Rob Gronkowski, TE, NE (42)

3.1% Arrelious Benn, WR, TB (39)

2.9% Colt McCoy, QB, CLE (85)

2.9% Dexter McCluster, WR/RB, KC (36)

2.7% Rodger Saffold, OT, STL (33)

Which Day 3 draft pick (Rounds 4-7) will play the biggest role in 2010?

11.7% Cam Thomas, DT, SD (146)

8.8% Bruce Campbell, OT, OAK (106)

8.0% Aaron Hernandez, TE, NE (113)

6.8% Zoltan Mesko, P, NE (150)

6.6% Mardy Gilyard, WR, STL (99)

6.3% Everson Griffen, DE, MIN (100)		 4.6% Jonathan Dwyer, RB, PIT (188)

4.6% Joe McKnight, RB, NYJ (112)

3.2% Corey Wootton, DE, CHI (109)

2.7% Mike Williams, WR, TB (101)

2.7% Myron Rolle, SS, TEN (207)

2.2% Phillip Dillard, MLB, NYG (115)

Who will be the best fantasy football rookie in 2010?

45.1% Ryan Mathews, RB, SD

13.3% C.J. Spiller, RB, BUF

10.9% Dez Bryant, WR, DAL

10.2% Jahvid Best, RB, DET		 5.7% Ben Tate, RB, HOU

4.9% Golden Tate, WR, SEA

2.3% Sam Bradford, QB, STL

2.0% Dexter McCluster, WR/RB, KC

Which team's disappointing 2009 draft is most likely going to look a lot better a year from now?

29.1% Atlanta

18.7% Denver

13.4% New Orleans

12.8% Kansas City		 11.6% Cleveland

10.4% Oakland

4.0% Dallas

Which network had the better draft coverage?

67.9% NFL Network

32.1% ESPN

Who was the most surprisingly informative draft analyst?

28.7% Corey Chavous

26.0% Jon Gruden

7.7% Steve Young		 5.6% Ron Jaworski

3.6% Trent Dilfer

3.3% Mack Brown

The final verdict on the new draft format?

46.3% Keep it

27.4% Do the first round on Friday night, the next two rounds Saturday, and the last four rounds Sunday

26.4% Go back to the old two-day weekend format

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 04 May 2010

91 comments, Last at 09 May 2010, 2:46pm by JDOE137

Comments

1
by lobolafcadio :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 11:05am

Had the Jags pass on Alualu, the Dolphins would have selected him with the 12th pick and the Tuna' Magic would have made Alualu worth of the pick and Parcells would have been a genius to have succefully hiden his interest in a player largely off the radar... The dolphins were s disapointed the jags picked Alualu the traded back almost immediatly.
You can't say the jags draft was bad because of a perceived reach... Morrison for a fourth rounder, Cox for a second round pick and already a fourth in next year draft, not a bad draft. An unexpected one, but not a bad one.

4
by big_jgke :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 11:17am

Couldn't agree more about the Jags, they saw a player they believed in and took him. I think Florio is right that they were afraid of drating in "Tebow Territory," but I don't see that as a bad thing, I actually think it was a reasonable move for a team with a weak fanbase.

I personally voted for the Bills as worst draft for value, not for CJ Spiller, but for their horrendous mismanagement of a deep 2nd round.

10
by Sean McCormick :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 12:33pm

Well, you could say that of every team--they liked their guy and they took him. I don't particularly fault Jacksonville for the pick, as they had no trade down options and no second round pick, which means that they had no other chance to acquire a player whose skill set they clearly liked. (Dallas' leaked board had Alualu clearly graded as a first round prospect.) And there is a decent chance that they picked a guy who will outperform either the #2 or #3 pick in the draft and get paid a lot less money in the process. Normally I agree that you have to be sensitive to perceptions of players if you are going to maximize your draft's efficiency, but in this case Jacksonville had no one interested in their pick and no other way to get their guy. So I don't have a problem with the selection.

The Tebow selection is entirely different. I have no problem with taking Tebow in the first round, and he went to the proper team to succeed--McDaniels will run an offense that has a lot of elements from Urban Meyer's. If they liked Tebow to run that scheme instead of Clausen, that's just fine. But they paid an exorbitant price to move up for a player who won't be ready to contribute in a serious way for 2-3 seasons. So that strikes me as a bigger issue.

21
by AlanSP :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:14pm

I don't really buy that they had no trade down options. The next 3 picks were all traded, so they likely could have gotten a deal in roughly the same ballpark as those trades had they really tried.

23
by tunesmith :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:34pm

I don't get it - I hear a lot of people saying that trading a 3rd and a 4th to move from 2nd to 1st is fine in terms of value, but that taking Tebow at that spot was bad. Then I hear a lot of others saying Tebow at #25 was fine, but that the price paid to get into that spot was bad. After a while it seems like people are just struggling to find a reason why it was a bad choice, because young McDaniels is just so gosh-darn brash.

48
by An Onimous (not verified) :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 12:04am

Denver probably won't be ready to compete in a serious way for 2-3 seasons, so drafting a player that won't be ready to contribute until then seems just about right to me. The defense is ANCIENT and needs to be rebuilt pretty much from the 3rd string up to the 1st, and the receiving corps is also going to require a lot of development before it's ready for primetime. It would seem far sillier, in my mind, if Denver was using "ability to contribute immediately" as part of its decision-making process.

53
by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:31am

However, McDaniels could be out pretty soon. Bowlen does not have tons of patience right now, I'm sure. That 2-8 finish is not exactly what he was looking for, and after Shanahan who always kept them, even in their darkest hour at .500 or above, if McNasty goes like 4-12 this season, which is a possibility, since Denver has to play the AFC South, the Jets and the Ravens in outside of division games, he might not last much longer.

59
by Podge (not verified) :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 8:00am

I had that thought, and I hope it doesn't happen. Not cos I like the Broncos or anything, just because I think if it did Tebow's career would be pretty much over. I don't know whether Tebow will be a success or not (I suspect he will be quite good), but I don't want his career just to fail cos he never had the opportunity.

70
by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 1:29pm

That's true. I'm pretty sure that if the Broncos are terrible and McDaniels is fired, then the incoming coach, if he can, picks Locker or Mallett and the Tebow-era is slammed shut.

Just because I want the guy to get some sort of chance, I hope McDaniels waits to fail one more year longer.

75
by An Onimous (not verified) :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 7:13pm

Bowlen comes from the Rooney School of Ownership. He prizes stability more than any other factor in terms of organizational success. If there's one thing he has plenty of, it's patience.

77
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:06pm

He also, thankfully, does not generally listen to fans' opinions. If he did, John Elway would have been traded long before he got a ring.

79
by dmstorm22 :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:23am

That's all well and good, but he fired Shanahan after an 8-8 season. If McDaniels goes 4-12 or worse, I don't think it is a huge stretch to see Bowlen fire him. The Broncos are an attractive job, and with Cowher/Billick/Gruden out there, why not?

Seeing Denver at 4-12 is not crazy. They have to play the AFC South which means three really tough games, and the Jets and Ravens. Also, the 49ers and Cardinals, and even Seahawks are all games they could plausibly lose.

80
by Shattenjager :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 11:49am

I think there should be a little more context to that 8-8 season. They had a losing record (7-9) the year before that and a 9-7 non-playoff season in 2006. He fired Shanahan after for the first time in his ownership the team missed the playoffs three straight years.

I also think that he was tired of the character problems (Travis Henry, Todd Sauerbrun, Maurice Clarett, Brandon Marshall, Jake Plummer, etc.) and maybe jealous of the attention the Rooneys have gotten for their ability to "run their team the right way."

That obviously doesn't mean Bowlen wouldn't fire McDaniels (ask Wade Phillips), but I don't think it's fair to him to say that he fired Shanahan for one 8-8 season as though that's all that happened.

81
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 4:02pm

I'm curious: which is the AFC South team you see as clearly the weakest? The Jags? I'd say it was more like one murderous game and three fairly tough ones. The overall point stands, of course - and there's every chance the Broncos' pass defense will collapse, given the age of the secondary. They absolutely could suck this year.

88
by Theo :: Fri, 05/07/2010 - 10:33am

If they keep throwing it over the middle, they will easily beat the Jaguars; Reggie Nelson is a very very bad tackler.

87
by loneweasel (not verified) :: Fri, 05/07/2010 - 10:24am

That's a crock of bull. He fired Wade Philips after two years.

51
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:16am

"I don't particularly fault Jacksonville for the pick, as they had no trade down options..."

Not true. The Niners acting GM (Trent Baalke) said they first offered the trade they made with Denver (the #13 overall pick and a 4th rounder for the #11 overall pick) to the Jags for their 1st rounder, but the Jags declined. Perhaps the Jags couldn't have gotten ideal pick value in a trade down, but there's no way they couldn't have traded down once or twice, picked up a few extra mid-roudn picks, and likely still have gotten Alualu.

54
by lobolafcadio :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:55am

But under the hypothesis I gave, Alualu would have been picked by the Dolphins, maybe the jags thought the drop-off in talent wasn't worth the extra-picks.

6
by TayloreatsBrady (not verified) :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 12:03pm

1. You have no idea that the Dolphins were going to pick Alualu. That's PURE SPECULATION.

2. The media ripped apart the Dolphins' draft last year for picking Pat White in the 2nd round and Patrick Turner in the 3rd round. Parcells is not free from criticism.

3. Get over it. Alualu was a reach.

8
by iapetus (not verified) :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 12:12pm

1. It's not PURE SPECULATION. It's based on information from a number of sources that you may or may not trust, but it's not speculation.

2. Whether Alualu was a reach is determined not by your judgement, but by how long he'd have remained available if not picked (which we'll never know) and how he performs (great so far, in entirely irrelevant practices from which almost no real conclusions should be drawn). Judging players as reaches at this stage (while tempting) is arrogance of the most Kiperesque form. All that 'reach' means here is 'someone who was drafted higher than my mock draft had them'.

3. As I pointed out before, had the Jags picked Clausen at #10 nobody would have said he was a reach - he'd been projected by most draftniks as going before they got the chance to pick, and speculation was that they were hoping he'd fall to them so they could take advantage of a bidding frenzy to trade up and take him. And yet, given that they didn't pick him, we know just how wrong the wisdom of crowds would have been, as he slipped a hell of a long way because no team actually valued him anywhere near as highly as draft gurus seemed to.

11
by dryheat :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:05pm

It's not PURE SPECULATION. It's based on information from a number of sources that you may or may not trust, but it's not speculation.

You know who those sources are? People who work for the Jaguars. It's a good play to make your front office look smarter for an obvious reach if you leak out that you knew that Miami was going to take Alualu with the next pick. Bogus. Maybe it's true, but if so, Jacksonville would never know it.

Because Parcells traded down right afterwards means nothing. Almost every draft day trade doesn't occur until the trading team is on the clock so the trading partner can be assured its target will be available.

Your two statements in point #2 seem to be at odds with each other. A player is a "reach" if he would have been available much later. If the Patriots took Tom Brady in the first round, he still would have been a reach, as obviously they could have taken him with the 199th pick. Subsequent career is irrelevant.

I agree with your third point.

14
by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:18pm

That all being said, there's a lot of information we, the general public, don't have.

Who knows where Alualu would have been picked if the Jags had passed on him or traded down? The fact that ESPN's analysts all said that Alualu was a reach doesn't necessarily make it so, any more than the fact that they all projected Clausen as a mid to late 1st rounder made him "undervalued" in the 2nd round.

Your Brady analogy is flawed, because it's made ex post facto. We now know that Brady was a 6th rounder, because it already happened. But if the Pats had taken him in the 3rd round that year, and his career had turned out the same, we'd still say he was a "steal" at that point. Subsequent career really is all we can use to judge the success of draft picks, because we have no idea where a player might otherwise have been picked.

As we now know, if any team had taken Clausen in the 1st round, it would have been a "reach". But we only know that because we know he didn't get picked in the 1st round or even high 2nd round. Is Clausen with the 28th overall pick a "reach" pick?

Let's face it, the only basis we have to determine which players might get picked where is the draft analysts, who are sometimes fatally flawed (as in the case of Clausen).

22
by dryheat :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:27pm

My point in the Brady analogy is exactly the one I'm trying to make....that the future success of Alualu or anybody else has nothing to do with if the pick was a reach (or steal) or not. If Brady were the #1 draft pick in his draft year, he still would have been an all-time reach, because the team could have drafted him 5 rounds later, at the same time taking another highly-valued player at #1. Yes, we only know this with the benefit of hindsight, but "reach" and "steal" are only useful descriptors in terms of optimazation of draft resources. Denver could have taken Tim Tebow at #11. They didn't. They were fairly certain that he'd be there at #22 and traded downwards, accumulating more draft picks and saving money on the contract of a first round QB.

Now, if the Jaguars tried to trade down and just couldn't find a taker at a reasonable price, and they felt that Alualu was the best player for them left in the draft, then they made a good move. A reach still, but a justifiable one.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said here about the Kipers etc. They don't know jack. Mayock is good, because he studies film and knows what teams are looking for. Shefter is good, not because he knows jack about player evaluation, but because over the years he has cultivated an impressive collection of reliable sources from within the organizations.

16
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:34pm

There were several reports that the Jags were pretty certain that another team would have taken Alualu if they'd have traded down and the Dolphins seem the most likely candidate. In the end they took a very similar player in Odrick. It seems likely that down the road Alualu will look the better player. I think teams are overly criticised for taking the guy with the high floor, which is what Alualu was described as before the draft.

On a slightly divergent topic, the 49ers received criticism for trading a 4th to move up two spots (even though they actually won the trade according to the increasingly dubious draft value chart that the talking heads remain enslaved by). It was reported that the niners were worried about another team trading above them for Davis. For me, there are only two possible candidates that could have managed to trade above the 49ers. The first is the Packers, who did take an OT and the second team hasn't been mentioned anywhere and it's the Giants, who would have a great looking line for the future with a true left tackle. (I have no source for this, to be honest I'm just looking if there was any team that was trying to pinch Davis.)

24
by TayloreatsBrady (not verified) :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:35pm

There were also "several reports" the Dolphins wanted to trade down to recoup the pick they gave up for Brandon Marshall.

Just cause the Dolphins picked Odrick at #28, doesn't mean they were going to take Alulu at #12.

31
by Noah of Arkadia :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 4:33pm

I'm sure the Dolphins liked Alualu, as did no doubt many other teams. More than likely, few had him that high.

I strongly doubt the Dolphins would have taken Alualu, however, since they had many holes to fill and not enough picks (and not because they were trying to "get their #2 back". What does that even mean? Does having a #2 have an intrinsic value in itself? And once you have a #2 additional #2s have less value?)

I echo the sentiment here, I believe the Jags probably reached, but I suspect Alualu will prove to be a good pick eventually. Which is a bit of a contradiction, I guess. I would've taken a risk and traded down at least a few spots unless I believed Alualu to be head and shoulders above everyone else.

55
by bubqr :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:41am

The main problem with Alualu, from a PR perspective is that he'll always be more compared to the 10/15 players picked after him than a "classic", "consensual" pick.
While for example Russel Okung will be compared to some players/OT picked after him, no one will really blame the Seahawks if Bulaga, A.Davis, Iupati turn out to be better players, because he was considered as the best pick possible at the time.
Meanwhile, the Jaguars won't have this luxury, and if Odrick, Graham, D.Morgan end up being better football players, they will always take a lot of blame for this draft pick.

58
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:12am

Consensus, not consensual. (Insert Ben Roethlisberger joke here.)

60
by Eddo :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:01am

Maybe bubqr was implying that Alualu didn't willingly go to Jacksonville? Which doesn't sound too implausible, really. :P

61
by dmb :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:03am

I think it would be in everybody's best interests if Ben Roethlisberger is not inserted anywhere.

82
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 4:08pm

It's not the insertion of Roethlisberger jokes that's the problem.

69
by JonC :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 1:21pm

as long as we're coining draft neologisms, might I suggest that draftniks define the term "reach-around" to mean: a player who was picked before most imaginary drafts had him listed, and the team so picking justifies the pick by claiming that some other team was going to pick the player first?

91
by JDOE137 (not verified) :: Sun, 05/09/2010 - 2:46pm

So by that logic, Ben Roethlisberger could have been considered a reach-around pick by the Steelers in hind-sight after they inserted him behind their tight-ends and wide-receivers?

57
by iapetus (not verified) :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:25am

No, those sources are people who don't work for the Jaguars, as reported by people who do. Whether you trust those sources or the way the information gets to us from them is utterly irrelevant - it's not 'PURE SPECULATION'. If it were based solely on the trade-down afterwards, it probably would be. Incidentally, we know pretty much 100% that other teams had a first round grade on Alualu thanks to the leaked Cowboys draft board.

Okay, I'll grant that subsequent career is irrelevant for a neat definition of a 'reach'. It's all we have to go on in most cases, though. Perhaps it would be better to say that subsequent career mitigates any negative views of a reach pick. Thing is, it only takes one other scout to have seen what you've spotted in a player to cause them to want to take them early as well. To be sure that a pick isn't a reach, we need to know the draft boards of every team in the league, or not make the pick and see how far they fall. Neither of these is ever an option, which is why you just can't know whether any player was a reach by the definition of how far they'd have fallen if you didn't pick them.

Realistically, what 'reach' means in discussion at this stage is 'someone taken higher than they were in my mock draft'.

2
by Signor Sack (not verified) :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 11:12am

Did you guys do this type of poll in previous seasons? Might be interesting to see the polls from prior drafts.

3
by big_jgke :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 11:14am

You should probably read the intro before typing comments

9
by BucNasty :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 12:21pm

But it's so long and filled with eye glazing stats...

28
by Signor Sack (not verified) :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 3:43pm

Yeah, that would of been a good idea now that I think of it. :-)

5
by Dean :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 11:35am

Interesting to see that Dez Bryant made both the best pick and the worst pick lists.

30
by Bobman :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 4:03pm

That seems fitting in light of the team that drafted him. Polarizing team/fans/owner probably always on both lists of best teams ands worst teams, best/worst FOs, best/worst picks, best cheerleader outfits/bestestest cheerleader outfits, biggest scoreboard/bigestestest scoreboard... very polarizing.

Personally, I'd like to see a category "most boring draft" and I'd want my team there year-in and out. Since the Colts generally pick after #25 or so, that seems appropriate, so long as six years later, then end up in one of the best value categories.

33
by Dean :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 4:38pm

Interesting.

The perception in Philly seems to be that every year, Reid seems to put together a very solid B+type draft, and after a decade of that, they have a B+ type team that goes 9-7 or 10-6 and never gets over the hump.

39
by chemical burn :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 6:00pm

What does last year;s 11-5 team, which did the worst of any Andy Reid team in the playoffs, mean to that theory?

49
by Bobman :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 1:47am

The records might be perception as well--they were an 11-5 team that FELT like a 9-7 team. But I'm just guessing.

66
by chemical burn :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 12:34pm

Well, I'm curious what he means by get over the over hump - a lot of folks argue for Polian's draft genius and his Colts have only "gotten over the hump" once it would seem Dean is saying. And the Eagles have never had the luxury of employing the greatest QB who ever lived (sorry Montana, Anderson & Marino.) And the Eagles have had their success in a far more competitive division than the Colts...

71
by Dean :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:18pm

If you take a look at the Andy Reid era, the team averages a 10-6 regular season and one playoff win. A few times they've done better, a few times they've done worse, but they're almost never far from that mark.

The perception, justified or not, is that they've never gone "all-in" and really loaded up to make a big push in any give year, and that's why they don't have a ring to show for all their concecutive years of above average performance.

The parallell is that they always seem to be praised on draft day for "understanding the draft" and "getting value" and all the other empty cliche's. And 2 years later, they usually seem to have gotten solid production from their various draft classes.

The perception continues that only once did they really hit a draft class out of the park - the Westbrook draft - and it promptly lead to the highest peaks of the Reid era, culminating in a Super Bowl, only to have TO rip the guts out of the locker room.

I would also suggest that Philly fans might be a bit more demanding of their team than Indy fans.

On a bit of a tangent, I would further suggest that while I would most definitely put Peyton Manning somewhere in my top 20 QBs of all time, and possibly even top 10, he is NOT the greatest QB of all time. He IS, to me, the greatest QB of this era, though.

73
by dryheat :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:15pm

If Peyton Manning isn't in your top 5 QB list of all-time, I'd suggest re-doing your list.

You acknowledge that he is the greatest of this era. Wouldn't you agree that this era is the most challenging one yet for a quarterback to excel in, what with all the newfangled defensive schemes and complicated offenses he has to run?

This Patriots fan thinks Manning is the best all-time.

74
by tuluse :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:57pm

Wouldn't you agree that this era is the most challenging one yet for a quarterback to excel in

No, I wouldn't. Have you looked at passing stats recently?

76
by Theo :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 8:23pm

Defenses do get more complicated and yes offenses are getting better at the same type, but I have to agree, that seeing Manning play for 11 years now (is it?) he's got to be one of the best, if not the best QB ever.

83
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 4:14pm

This (traumatised) Texans fan thinks he is at least very much in the discussion, and that the only other credible candidates are Unitas, Montana and maybe Tarkenton. And that in various parallel universes Greg Cook may well be better than any of them.

85
by tuluse :: Fri, 05/07/2010 - 2:40am

You wouldn't put Marino or Elway within reach?

86
by Eddo :: Fri, 05/07/2010 - 9:51am

Marino, possibly, though I'd say he's not quite as good as Manning. And I've always seen Elway as a notch below Montana, with similar overall profiles ("clutch" reputation outweighs lesser pure passing numbers).

89
by Mr Shush :: Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:45am

Montana's rate stats are a lot better than Elway's, and his post-season performance is simply awesome - that's what really sets him apart. The trouble with Marino is that his profile is so similar to Manning's and fairly clearly not as good.

84
by Anonymous2 (not verified) :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 7:39pm

The thing that I find most curious is that the Eagles-Under-Reid season that most closely resembles "going all-in" would be 2004 (TO, Kearse) and the result was a Super Bowl appearance...You'd think maybe he'd have tried it again by now.

7
by Theo :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 12:03pm

how many forms were filled in?

29
by Bobman :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 3:57pm

Just one--mine. Which REALLY makes those Dez Bryant votes noted above peculiar.

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

63
by wr (not verified) :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:18am

Yes, it makes the pick look very peculiar - Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

12
by Jimmy :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:07pm

So the Bears had the fourth worst draft for value. Is this because they only had five picks starting from 75? Or is it because the guy they traded their second round pick for is dead? Major Wright and Corey Wooton seemed like decent choices to me and lets face it anything after round four is essentially a search for gravy.

13
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:18pm

But gravy would be easy to find, it would collect at the bottom, it's gravy.

62
by Eddo :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:07am

I agree, Jimmy. Echoing what Key says below about the Cowboys, all the Bears were able to get was "value" (unless, as you say, people are counting the second-rounder-for-Gaines-Adams trade as part of this draft).

Wright was good value in the third. Wooton was projected as a possible first-rounder a year ago, had he not been injured in his bowl game, and the Bears only spent a fourth-round pick on him.

And LeFevour screams "value pick" to me, as the Bears definitely don't need to be drafting a QB.

I guess you can find fault with the lack of offensive lineman, but I don't see anyone where I can say, "The Bears really should have take him instead of Wright/Wooton/LeFevour".

Was it a particularly good draft? No, but that's really a function of having spent the first- and second-rounders on veteran players. As for the action that took place during the draft, the Bears did adequately.

67
by Jimmy :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 12:57pm

I was bummed out in the lead in to the draft about the Bears not having a second round pick but looking at it now I can't say I am all that bothered. The offensive linemen they could have picked seems to amount to choosing between Zane Beadles, Vladimir Ducasse and John Asamoa to play LG or being the team who gave Taylor Mays a chance to demonstrate he can actually cover people. The thing everyone seems to be ragging the Bears about is not getting enough help on the offensive line when the only players available in the third and fourth rounds seem to be developmental guys who will need coaching and time before they contribute. The Bears already have those guys on the roster so why not see what Tice can do with them first.

68
by Eddo :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 1:19pm

Agreed. With pretty much all of that.

(One more bit about value - I suppose the Bears' draft didn't have very much absolute value, but I still feel it was decent in terms of value for where they picked. That's how I was looking at the first question in the poll, though I didn't vote for the Bears.)

72
by tuluse :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:31pm

Yeah, they had really low total value, you know due to not choosing a player in the 3 most valuable rounds.

15
by Jimmy :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:21pm

I have a question, other than Nnamdi Asomuga (who slipped becaise teams couldn't make up their minds about whether he was a CB or S - go figure that one) can anyone remember a decent cornerback who was picked up at the bottom of the first round? Not the top of the second, the bottom of the first. I have a theory that teams end up reaching for corners here basically because you can never have enough good CBs and physical skills are very important for the position. At the end of the first the value will probably have run out for most of the positions that playoff teams might want to address so every year there is a run on crap CBs who can run.

I can think of dozens of crappy CBs picked from say 20 to 32 but the best CB picked there in recent years I can think of (other than N.A.) is Marcus Trufant but to be honest he isn't all that good anyway. I will dig into this a bit deeper if I have time but if anyone can tell me of good late first round corners I would be grateful and it would at least shut me up for a while.

17
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:37pm

Trufant was the 11th pick. Do some work!

18
by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 1:46pm

2005 - Oakland picked Fabian Washington with the 23rd pick.
2005 - Indianapolis picked Marlin Jackson with the 29th pick.
2006 - Cincinnati picked Jonathan Joseph with the 24th pick.
2006 - Seattle picked Kelly Jennings with the 31st pick.
2007 - Jacksonville picked Reggie Nelson with the 21st pick.
2007 - New England picked Brandon Meriwether with the 24th pick.
2008 - Dallas picked Mike Jenkins with the 25th pick.
2008 - San Diego picked Antoine Cason with the 27th pick.
2008 - New York Giants picked Kenny Phillips with the 32nd Pick.
2009 - Miami picked Vontae Davis with the 25th pick.

These were all the secondary players selected in the "playoff picks" (21-32) since 2005. One factor about their success was that in eight of the ten instances the team made the playoffs the previous year, so they probably didn't have the need that some of the other teams had. Only one of these teams, I believe, traded to the spot it picked the player, and that was Jacksonville in 2007.

Going by my personal opinion, I think their are a fair amount of decent to good to very good players in this list.

20
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:10pm

He did say cornerbacks, not defensive backs, so take out Phillips (who looks like he's breaking down to injury), Meriwether and Nelson (and Meriwether has only recently looked like he was worth the pick and Nelson is on the verge of getting run out of Jacksonville).

Jackson has played so well at corner the Eagles were thinking of moving him to safety too.

Joseph is a good starter but the rest of the group haven't done a great deal, though Jenkins and Davis have a shot to be good players.

32
by Noah of Arkadia :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 4:36pm

It's a shabby theory anyway, as it amounts to saying that 2nd round CBs are better than low 1st round CBs.

34
by tuluse :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 4:45pm

I think it's more about measuring psychology of drafters.

36
by Jimmy :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 5:43pm

No the thoery goes that teams don't see great value available so end up going for a player with good physical tools but without the game film on account of how rare the guys with the physical tools are (kind of like planet theory - or exactly like planet theory). CBs with the physical measurables and the college production tend to go in the first fifteen picks.

I guess I am saying that teams catch themselves out projecting these players.

19
by Joe T. :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:00pm

Darrell Green was the last pick in the first round, but then again, that's not exactly recent history.

Nate Clements - #21

26
by AlanSP :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 3:07pm

Recently, Mike Jenkins (25th) has looked good in Dallas. Antoine Winfield (23rd) and Nate Clements (21st) have been good. Bengals fans tell me Jonathan Joseph (24th) was good this year, although I really haven't seen much of him. Will Allen (22nd) has been a long term starter. Lito Sheppard (26th) was a valuable player for a while, even if he's fallen off in recent years. Chris Gamble (28th) is sort of like Lito, but has been more durable. If you want to go back a bit further, there's also Ty Law (23rd).

I'd say the position where late first round picks really tend to do poorly is OT. A lot of time it's the "developmental" Kwame Harris types.

40
by Jimmy :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 6:10pm

Wouldn't Jenkins be the guy who was flagging down tacklers to take down the guy he was running along next to for about twenty yards as he ran into the end zone? One of the most embarassing plays I have ever seen by an NFL defender.

Winfield and Clements are both very good players (strangely by the same team drafting) but they are both quite a while ago. Allen was never the player they thought they might be drafting. Sheppard has been decent in man coverage in a good scheme with other strong players around him in the secondary but the fact that he has been on three teams in as many seasons may give a strong indication of his true abilities (that may be a little unfair). Gamble is a nice, if unprepossessing player. Law was awesome.

When compared with guys like Buchanon, Rumph, Woolfork, Batman Carroll, Fabian Washington and Sammy Davis it doesn't look like that good a risk. Maybe I am making the error of looking at one position in isolation as opposed to the first round of the draft not actually being full of All Pros waiting to happen. I suspect the small truth to be gleaned is that the draft is overrated and draft picks are held to be far too valuable by NFL teams.

47
by Jerry :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 10:42pm

Most elite talent is acquired in the draft (and, as Pat is fond of pointing out, at relative bargain salaries). Yes, the draft is overhyped, and it's overanalyzed in its immediate aftermath, but I don't think that teams overrate it.

78
by vinyltoupee (not verified) :: Thu, 05/06/2010 - 12:16am

Mike Jenkins

25
by tunesmith :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 2:36pm

Wonder if Denver will also be near the top of the scores next year for "disappointing 2010 draft that will look better a year from now"...

27
by Marko :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 3:09pm

Only if Josh McDaniels votes about 500 times. Maybe he will have a lot of free time to do that next year . . . .

35
by panthersnbraves :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 5:34pm

So Carolina made both the best and worst value.... We'll find out in six years, I guess.

37
by Big Johnson :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 5:47pm

its a little odd that ryan matthews can get 46% (?) of the vote for offensive rookie of the year and be on the list for biggest stretch in the first round. Come on people, either he is good or bad, u can't have both.

38
by chemical burn :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 5:58pm

Well, they actually say best in fantasy football, which makes sense as he's going to inherent a big role in a completely stacked offense and he's in a position (RB) with high fantasy value. That's perfectly logical. It's also equaly logical to say that SD reached to get him where they did because he probably would've been around later or, more accurately, wasn't a great value for where he was picked... seems perfectly logical to me...

41
by AlanSP :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 6:51pm

Right. Even at a particular position, fantasy value as a rookie is a very different thing from NFL value over a player's career. If you look at the 2004 draft, Kevin Jones was a better fantasy rookie than Steven Jackson, but nobody in their right mind is going to argue that he was a better draft value. Jones was in a better position to have a fantasy impact because he wasn't splitting carries with Marshall Faulk. Similarly, Michael Clayton and Roy Williams were both better fantasy receivers than Larry Fitzgerald as rookies.

42
by Eddo :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 6:59pm

It's not altogether that different from Knowshon Moreno last year. I'd even say that the face he was a reach means he's more likely to have good fantasy value. The Chargers will want to play him, since they paid more to get him.

43
by Big Johnson :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 7:16pm

thats true i did overlook the fantasy rookie part. Im still thinking its not on par with the knowshon deal last year. Most drafts have (atleast) 1 runningback that turns into a beast at the position, with last year being the exception. Two years ago was chris johnson. the year before that was adrian peterson. I believe the year before that was MJD. These guys are all studs and anyone who got them in the first round at the number 12 spot would consider them a steal not a reach. Knowshon just doesnt have the measurables and last years runningback class was just awful. I believe runningbacks were undervalued going into this years draft and matthews measures well in every stat i can find. highlight yards, ypc, overall yards, speed score, poe, the new bill connelly stat, etc. He will be this years version of CJ, MJD, AD, etc.

44
by Eddo :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 8:20pm

While you may be right (and I like Mathews more than any other back this year), he basically has to become an elite back for the price to be worth it. That's why he got so many votes for worst value pick.

The same applies to Spiller, by the way. And Buffalo didn't need another back, really.

45
by Richard :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 8:33pm

I keep hearing he would have gone at 14. Not sure how 12 qualifies as a reach with that in mind.

46
by Eddo :: Tue, 05/04/2010 - 9:52pm

It's also the fact that San Diego had to give up other picks to move up. They didn't "just" spend the #12 pick.

50
by Big Johnson :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:06am

thats a good point eddo. He would need to be one of the studs at runningback to verify the draft spot. While i personally think he will be great, my enthusiasm won't help his playing ability one bit.

52
by Key19 :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:28am

Not sure I can take anyone seriously who voted that Dallas was among the worst in terms of getting draft value. All they got was value! They did absolutely no need-reaching at all. They got two guys who they both gave top-16 OVERALL grades with their first two picks. They then got a somewhat-project safety right in line with where his value was, then got an OT, CB, and NT all right about where they were rated in terms of value.

Anyways, I'd really be interested to hear an argument of Dallas NOT having gotten great value in this draft, just so I can have a good laugh. Whether the players actually pan out of not is a different story, but in terms of comparing where guys were projected to go/where the Cowboys board had them rated and where the Cowboys actually drafted the players, there is no question that they got amazing value all throughout this draft. I was even tempted to vote them for Best Value in this poll, but couldn't bring myself to do that over Seattle.

56
by bubqr :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:59am

Because peoples evaluate drafts based on their "most important moves" media-wise. Panthers was in both best and worst value lists (Clausen and a 2011 2nd for A.Edwards), Denver's draft equals T.Tebow in many people mind (worst value), Jaguars draft = Alualu, etc.

Based on that :

Which team had the worst draft for value in 2010? 1.6% Dallas

Which first-round pick was the biggest mistake? 1.4% Dez Bryant, WR, DAL (24)

The guys that didn't like the D.Bryant pick (their most important pick) mostly didn't like the Cowboys draft (not exactly I know, but you get the point).

As an Eagles fan, D.Bryant was #1 on my list of players I didn't want to see in the NFC East (followed by Spiller, E.Berry, R.McClain). I do think that he's one of the best WR prospect I've ever seen since I follow college football closely (5/6 years or so), just a notch below C.Johnson, and just above M.Crabtree.

64
by bravehoptoad :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:28am

The one I'm confused by is Seattle's runaway victory in the "draft value" category. Yes, they had a great draft, but they didn't particularly get value. Okung was supposed to go somewhere 4-6; Earl Thomas was supposed to go in the middle of the first round; Golden Tate was a 2nd-round guy on most boards. The Seahawks had no 3rd round pick, and you can't tell me that E. J. Wilson and Walter Thurmond in the fourth are what pushed them so far up the "value" charts.

"Value" is where a team got a player versus where they were "supposed" to get a player according to mock drafts, right?

So in that case, the big winners in the first round for "value" were Green Bay with Bulaga, who most mocks had going in the top 10, and Dan Williams to the Cardinals, who was supposed to go in the 10-13 range. The second round "value" steals were the Saints with Charles Brown, the Ravens with Cody and Kindle, the 49ers with Mays, and the Panthers with Clausen.

Of course, "value" is a load of bull, because what do mock drafters know? But given the parameters of what it means, the Seahawks massive victory mystifies me.

I think pollers were incorrectly voting for the team who got the best bunch of players.

90
by NS (not verified) :: Sun, 05/09/2010 - 1:44pm

Golden Tate was a 2nd round guy on most boards? Really? What was his average slot then?

Revisionism at it's best. He was a late 1st, early 2nd projection, not a 60th overall projection. The 2nd round isn't equal from top to bottom. If you had bet that Okung would fall out of the top 5, and Tate would fall to 60 a week before the draft, you could be rich right now. Okung didn't fall "far," but until the Redskins decided to gamble on athleticism over production, Okung didn't have a chance of falling to Seattle.

Seattle also had two first round picks because of a great trade for them, trading their 2nd last year for Denver's 1st this year. Turning the pick for Alphonso Smith into Earl Thomas is pretty nice, although the value of that kind of is split between last season's draft and this season's draft.

The real reason they "won" the draft in most eyes is not their first and second rounds. They were considered one of the top 5 teams after those two rounds, sure, but that only laid the foundation. They were able to add three NFL players, HB Lendale White, HB Leon Washington, and DT Kevin Vickerson without giving up a single late-day pick. All they did was move down from the 104 to the 111th, and from the 176th to the 185 in the White/Vickerson trade. And then moved down from the 139th (a 5th) to the 236th (a 7th) to get Leon Washington. Moving down an equivalent of a late 4th rounder by the NFL draft chart to add three players with NFL experience, including a power back and a speed/3rd down back and KR, two important positions that the Seahawks were missing.

Add to that TE Anthony McCoy, who had been in the 2nd round for some analysts, and a couple of fliers in Chancellor (great size, not a sparkling 40 time) and Thurmond (A major injury dropped him from a likely 2nd round grade) and from top to bottom the Seahawks added players who could become starters in the NFL from the 1st round to the 6th round, along with the trades. Were the late picks astounding? No, although McCoy was a pretty nice coup, and even Chancellor might be a bit of a steal. But they certainly make good picks in the back of the draft, along with Tate, Earl Thomas, and Okung from the first day, and the surprisingly low-cost trades for White and Washington, and all-together the Seahawks probably gained far more NFL value than any other team in this draft.

So to recap, they certainly had probably an A from rounds 1-2, probably an A for rounds 4-7, and without giving up any picks added Lendale White, Kevin Vickerson, and Leon Washington. It is rare to have a consensus best draft, especially right after the draft. But this one is pretty obvious. Of course in 3 years, or 6 years, Okung's athleticism might not be enough, Tate might get shut down because of a weakness route-running or something, Earl Thomas could be regularly run over and no better than league-average at coverage, and nothing could come of the second day. It's still completely subjective. But from what we know right now, Seattle made some great bets in the draft.

65
by Dean :: Wed, 05/05/2010 - 10:29am

Two thoughts.

First, just because they had the player high on their own board doesn't really mean it's "value." Every team has its own board, and no two are the same. So there will always be guys who stand out on a teams board, simply because they had a higher grade on the guy than everyone else. It doesn't mean that the team knows more than everybody else any more than it means the team is overrating the player. If value is defined as getting the top players on your own board, EVERY team gets good value. If everybody has value, than value is devalued to meaningless.

Secondly, I can see someone being scared off by all the off-the-field negativity surrounding Dez Bryant. If you think the guy is going to turn out to be the second coming of Rae Carruth, to use an extreme example, than it's fair to criticize the pick.

At the end of the day, there's a reason he lasted as long as he did. If he turns out to be worth the headache, than it's great value, and people will compare his draft story to Randy Moss. But if he diva's his way out of a job, suddenly he's just another bust. There's no way to know which will happen (or most likely, something in between those two extremes), but it's a legitimate concern which obviously caused a lot of teams to pass on the guy.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.