2014 NFL Draft
The NFL draft, including signing non drafted rookie free agents, is designed to be, and, in fact, is how NFL football teams build and maintain their teams. Drafting in the reverse order of the previous year's results is designed to even the playing field. The salary cap and the union contract that requires each team to spend at least 90% or more of the cap keeps the field relatively level, as well.
It does not work out this way, of course. Few teams go 8-8 every year, and some teams consistently win, and some consistently lose over relatively long periods of time.
Trades and veteran free agent signings make a difference, but they tend to have less impact on team performance over time. The head coach and a quality coaching staff are a significant part to team success as well (apart from their role and influence in the draft).
Team ownership is a relevant factor. An owner who insists on influencing the draft picks is likely to ensure poor results. Personnel management (general manager, staff, etc., play a role also. So there are many pieces that make up a consistently successful football team. Poor performance in any of these areas will negatively impact performance on the field.
Key to long term success
However, as the first sentence states, the draft is where you build and maintain your team. The group in charge of the draft is the key. How it is structured, and how it is staffed? How competent is the scouting staff, and how effective is the decision maker in making key decisions in pressure filled situations with short amounts of time? How prepared and organized is the team to provide timely information to the decision maker? These are all questions about critical parameters needed to implement a successful draft.
How well a team performs over time, in wins and losses, is the easiest and should be the primary metric, in my view, in evaluating how successful a team drafts. There are other ways that have been used to determine draft success and I will address them, as well. However, the first method examined is based on team wins per year over the years 2000-2013. In the interest of a full disclosure, I am an unabashed fan of the New England Patriots, Coach Bill Belichick and owner Robert Kraft.
Which teams have sustained success (and which don't)
The table below shows the most consistent winners over the first 14 years of the Twenty First Century. Other pertinent metrics could be added, such as post season records, Conference and Division Championships, Super Bowl appearances and Super Bowls won. These metrics are interesting and meaningful for sure, but they do not significantly affect the above ranking of teams one to another on the list or to those teams not shown that are lower in draft effectiveness.
| Team | Average Wins Per Season |
|---|---|
|
1. New England |
11.5 |
|
2. Indianapolis |
10.6 |
|
3. Pittsburgh |
10.3 |
|
4. Green Bay |
9.9 |
|
5. Philadelphia |
9.7 |
|
6. Baltimore |
9.6 |
|
7. Denver |
9.4 |
|
8. New Orleans |
8.9 |
|
9. New York Giants |
8.8 |
|
10. Seattle |
8.6 |
|
11. Tennessee |
8.5 |
|
12. San Diego |
8.4 |
|
16. San Francisco |
7.8 |
Note 1: The bottom 6 from 27-32 are listed here as opposed to in the table: 27 Houston (6.5), 28 Arizona (6.4), 29 Buffalo (6.3), 30 Oakland (6.1), 31 Cleveland (5.4), and lastly, 32 Detroit (4.9).
Note 2: I did not calculate the numbers for the teams below ranking 12, except number 16, the 49ers, which I thought to be a special case because it has improved so dramatically over the last 4 years. I did calculate the numbers for the bottom 6 teams, in Note 1 above, to let the reader know just how bad bad teams can perform.
13 years are a long time over which to judge draft performance. Many teams have gone through multiple head coaches, general managers, and even a change in ownership over the 14 year period. Fans always have hope these changes will change their fortune, and they too can enjoy their team in its success. However, in the meantime, if your team is not near the top of the list or dramatically improving, and you have the same ownership and/or an unproven coach and personnel management group, good luck in the 2014 and subsequent drafts. The teams in the above table know how to do it and are likely to continue to "clean your clocks".
For those of you who think your team is moving in the right direction, you may wish to look at the last 4 years for proof you are right. Seattle and San Francisco are definitely headed in the right direction; while Philadelphia and Tennessee, look as they have taken a step back.
A look at the last 4 years regular season record yields as follows: New England (51 wins), Green Bay (44), Baltimore (42), New Orleans (42), Seattle (42), San Francisco (42), Pittsburgh (40), Denver (38), New York Giants (35), San Diego (33), Philadelphia (32), and Tennessee (28). San Francisco and Seattle, particularly, have made a great turn around in their programs.
There are other methodologies in the literature that have evaluated team draft performance over long and shorter periods of time. One I find particularly interesting is a rather academic study done by a group at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), a college in Worcester, Massachusetts. You can find the study here.
I will not go into the details of their study, however, it is very interesting reading for draft aficionados and well worth a read. WPI's metrics of draftee and and rookie free agent games played, games started, player recognition, cost of acquisition of players in terms of draft position yields some interesting results, in addition to the general validation, to the table above.
The WPI study found the following interesting points:
-
The draft position value table , developed in the '90s, and used by many teams in trades of draft picks, is inaccurate.
-
The table overvalues 1st round picks.
-
2nd and 3rd round picks are more successful and valuable than the table predicts
-
Picks 4 through 7 tail off in value, but are generally more valuable than the table predicts.
-
The new rookie pay scale more accurately matches the historical averages of draftees in their draft round, but discrepancies still exist.
-
2nd round still (even after new pay scale in effect) has more value, where, on average, 2nd rounders perform at 70% of 1st rounders and at 40% of the cost.
-
Non drafted free agents provide more successful players than any other draft round with the exception of the first. [Author's note:This finding is enlightening, but keep in mind teams sign approximately 10 or more of these unsigned players after the draft. Never-the-less, these signings are very important, and the well prepared team can find much success pouring through the non drafted pool.]
A study by Draftmetrics.com offers another method of evaluating how effective team drafts have been. It is less rigorous than the WPI methodologies and more complex than my approach; however, it is less accurate than either method in my view. The reader may wish to take a look. It has a 10 year (2003-2012 evaluation), and a 5 year (2008-2012). Results differ from my simple model and the WPI model, but there are some positive correlations with each. Some interesting outliers pop up in this study with St. Louis, Atlanta and Cleveland high in their 10 year analysis with Pittsburgh and New Orleans in the bottom five positions. Draftmetrics qualify the number one ranking of St. Louis versus their poor win record as doing well in their draft but poorly with quarterbacks. Seems an over simplification to me. Their 5 year analysis likewise has outliers with Kansas City and Miami at the top of the list.
So those of you unhappy with the results of my work, and that of WPI, i.e., wish to shoot the messengers, may find some solace with the offerings of Draftmetrics.
If your ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) has not kicked in by now, and you are not fatigued with this subject, you can view my previous posts regarding Patriot drafts listed below:
-
What will Bill do with the Patriots' 2014 First Round Draft Pick?
- Patriots Draft Focus For Elite Defense