I was engaging in a series of self-grading exercises when it comes to some of my own draft evaluations. I won't bore you with those results but I would like to point out an interesting phenomenon I noticed in the 2010 NFL Draft. It's been 2 years since that Draft and most of the 256 players taken in that Draft have now played, in addition to some UDFAs. Below, I will list the AVERAGE snap counts for the 2010 & 2011 seasons combined, for the players taken in each round: 1st Round: 1,313 2nd Round: 865 3rd Round: 816 4th Round: 370 5th Round: 327 6th Round: 226 7th Round: 240 The thing that sticks out at you is the way the rounds pair up, after the 1st round. Partcipation goes down -34% between the 1st and 2nd rounds, but then only goes down less than -6% between the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Then there's a huge jump of almost -55% from the 3rd to 4th rounds, followed by only a -12% decline between the 4th and 5th rounds. Then there's another -31% drop between the 5th and 6th rounds, followed by actually an INCREASE in participation from the 6th to 7th rounds. This suggests that when it comes to how the teams regard their draft picks, they bunch them. To the teams, 2nd and 3rd round picks are in the same boat, essentially...as are 4th and 5th round picks, and finally 6th and 7th round picks. The 1st round picks stand alone, in the teams' minds. But does the talent naturally group that way? Are 3rd round picks really as talented as 2nd round picks, to where they are deserving of playing almost as much? Are 5th round picks really as talented as 4th round picks? Are 7th round picks really in the same boat talent-wise as 6th round picks? In order to be as objective in the self-grading process (which again for your benefit I won't get into), I decided to rely on Pro Football Focus overall ratings. They are subjective, however they are an unbiased third party. Every single guy that I graded high, there was something about that player I really liked on tape in college. When they get to the pros, they're not all the sudden different players, they're just in a different setting. My tendency will probably still be to like them because they have some sort of esoteric quality that happens to be something I like in a player. So, that's why I chose Pro Football Focus ratings. But PFF ratings have a serious weakness. They're not, purely speaking, an efficiency rating (like passer rating, yards per carry, etc). They're actually very cumulative in nature. You get a +1 point when you make a good play and a -1 point when you make a bad play, and so if you're a player that tends to make more good plays than bad plays then the more snaps you have the higher your PFF overall rating will be. That's just a simple fact. What I tend to like to do with the PFF ratings, when I do use them, is to standardize them into efficiency scores. It's not hard. You divide the rating by the number of snaps and then multiply the result by 1,000...which gives you a standardized rating of how that player would have graded if he had 1,000 snaps this year (1,000 snaps is an approximation of how many snaps offenses and defenses take during the regular season). It puts all the players on a more apples-to-apples comparison basis. SO anyway, what you can do then is take the total un-standardized cumulative overall ratings of everyone in a round, add them all up, and standardize them using the total number of snaps taken by all the players in a round. For instance if you add up all 2010 2nd round players' PFF ratings over 2010 and 2011, you get +117.3 or thereabouts. They also took a total of 27,688 snaps, or thereabouts. That would standardize into (117.3 / 27688) * 1000 = +4.2 Which means that the average 2nd round pick had a +4.2 rating over the following two seasons. Below are the results, round by round: 1st Round: +0.9 2nd Round: +4.2 3rd Round: -5.0 4th Round: +3.1 5th Round: -10.8 6th Round: -5.2 7th Round: -10.4 What is interesting about this is the even-odd nature of the grades. Round 2 is much better than Round 1, Round 4 is much better than Round 3, Round 6 is much better than Round 5, etc. Should we sell all out 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th round picks for 2nd, 4th and 6th rounders? No. Go back to the average snap data and you get a look at what could very well be a PSYCHOLOGICAL distance between rounds, that isn't necessarily reflected in the talent. A 2nd round pick isn't as heralded as a 1st round pick. There is pressure to play a 2nd round pick, but it's not as much as the pressure to play a 1st round pick. When the 2nd rounder does play, he's more likely to be deserving of the honor, hence he gets positive grades when he's on the field. The 3rd round pick though is considered the same as the 2nd round pick, and has just as much pressure to play as the 2nd rounder, even though in actuality he is probably less talented. This results in more undeserving 3rd rounder appearing on the football field, which means more negative grades. By the time you reach the 4th round though, the pressure to play has been taken significantly off relative to the 2nd and 3rd round. There's a massive drop in average snaps over a two year period. If the psychological distance between the 3rd and 4th rounder does not match the talent distance then this would explain why PFF ratings surge back upward in the 4th round. Similarly, if the psychological distance between 4th and 5th rounders is small (which is suggested by the snap data) whereas the talent distance is larger, then this would explain the sudden drop off of PFF ratings. Let's use a real world example, with the 2012 NFL Draft. As we speak, there are many out there that believe Ryan Tannehill is currently a great distance behind David Garrard and perhaps even behind Matt Moore as well. Being he's a rookie, I don't doubt that, personally. But there's a chance Ryan Tannehill might even start in Week 1. I think it's a given that he will play at some point this season. Whereas at Right Tackle with our 2nd round pick, if Jonathan Martin were not looking good in camp right now, handling his own even against Cameron Wake, some would argue that Lydon Murtha would be out there. I've not seen it even suggested by anyone observing practice that Lydon Murtha is cleanly outperforming Jonathan Martin. There is certainly pressure to play Jon Martin, but I don't know if it's as great as the pressure for Tannehill to play this year. But then you get to the 3rd round and particularly Olivier Vernon, look at the role the Dolphins have indicated they have in mind for him, as the nickel pass rusher. That's a significant role. He'll get a lot of snaps this year. Is he really deserving? Or is that more a function of sort of the hole-plugging mentality that went into selecting him in the 3rd round in the first place? Michael Egnew seems to be an exception as there doesn't seem any pressure for him to play. But, if you think about it, he was selected with a luxury pick, a pick we acquired by trading Brandon Marshall away. It was our second 3rd round pick, and we even traded down before selecting him, showing that there was no particular urgency to take him. Lamar Miller is in a similar boat. He was the unplanned pick. He's out there impressing everyone but they seem in no hurry to move up up to the 1st unit. Daniel Thomas continues to get snaps, even Steve Slaton. There's an implication that, rather than having had a significant role already in mind for Miller at the moment he was drafted (which was the case with Olivier Vernon), he's a guy that will be forced to earn his way onto the field more. So right here in Miami you have the same potential issues you see across the NFL in the data. If we convince ourselves that we need to see Ryan Tannehill, we may get some early bad ratings out of him, and could easily see him outperformed by our 2nd round pick. Similarly, if we feel the pressure to fit Olivier Vernon into a role that has been intended for him since before he was drafted, we may find he's not earning good grades, as he's not ready for that role...whereas if Lamar Miller gets on the field, it will not be because we had a heavy role in mind for him, but rather because he's earned it. Just a different way of looking at things.
Interesting. Your hypothesis seems to conform with my impressions of what I see happen each year. With regards to RT, my hope is that Philbin is strong enough to resist any fan/media/owner pressure for RT to play.
It's really the data that seems to support the hypothesis. The pairing of snap data in 2nd/3rd, 4th/5th and 6th/7th rounds is compelling and the reason behind those pairings my explain the subsequent huge gaps between player efficiency in the 2nd/3rd, 4th/5th and 6th/7th rounds.
Areas for further study on that hypethesis would be: 1. More drafts 2. Different time periods of measurement (e.g. Year 1, Year 1+2+3) The hypothesis would suggest that the phenomenon would be persistent across multiple drafts. It would also suggest that if you were to just measure the rookie year instead of both the rookie and sophomore years, the phenomenon would be even more notable. It would also suggest that if you were to measure three or four years to get your data, then the phenomenon would iron itself out.
I get that. What I'm saying is that back when I was scouting the teams/coaches/industry tended to group draft picks in that manner (consciously or subconsciously), ie. 1st rounders were special, 2nd and 3rd rounders were basically the same, 4th and 5th rounders were basically equal and 6th and 7th rounders were equals. Personally, other than maybe the top 5 picks or so in most drafts, I think the talent gap between 1st and second rounders tends to not be that great. I think the difference in your PFF scores (converted to efficiency) between 1st and 2nd rounders can largely be attributed to the pressure to play. People tend to say "first rounders should contribute right away" or "what he needs most is game experience" so the 1st rounders are forced to play too early. IMO people don't understand how difficult the transition is and how much more playing right away puts on your plate. Those 1st rounders tend to struggle so there's the perception that so many 1st rounders are busts. If those guys were given time to develop before being thrown in, fewer of them would be considered busts.
Admire the hard work you put into your hard work. Too bad there aren't more people who evaluate themselves unbiasedly.
Interesting stuff. I'd be curious as well to see the 2008 and 2009 drafts and how they compare to 2010. As I'm wondering how much of an impact the lockout had with respect to those 2010 draftees vs the 2008 and 2009 draftees. Those 2010 draftees didn't get a full offseason before the 2011 regular season (including minicamps etc) that the other drafts enjoyed. I'd expect the average snap counts to be higher in those other drafts.
As far as the self-analysis goes, I had a board consisting of only 87 players, 16 of whom went undrafted. The 71 players that did get drafted averaged +3.2 standardized PFF grades and 783 snaps over the two proceeding years. The 185 players that were drafted that were not on my board averaged -4.8 standardized PFF grades and 473 snaps over the proceeding two years. -My 19 first rounders averaged a +3.5 grade, versus the other 13 first rounders' -2.1 grade. -My 12 second rounders averaged a +6.8 grade, versus the other 20 second rounders' +2.7 grade. -My 11 third rounders averaged a -0.5 grade, versus the other 23 third rounders' -7.3 grade. -My 10 fourth rounders averaged a +3.3 grade, versus the other 23 fourth rounders' +3.0 grade. -My 5 fifth rounders averaged a +6.0 grade, versus the other 33 fifth rounders' -15.3 grade. -My 3 sixth rounders averaged a +9.1 grade, versus the other 35 sixth rounders' -8.2 grade. -My 11 seventh rounders averaged a +3.2 grade, versus the other 38 seventh rounders' -12.7 grade. Of the 16 undrafted free agents I had, 7 of them did make a 53 man roster and appeared during games over the next two seasons.
Can we say that while the first rounders have more pressure to play, they also get extended time frames to find their games?, as opposed to 2 and later round players who may have less pressure or urgency to play, yet a smaller window of opportunity?
The 2nd rounders, The ones that earn the reps,can be relevant and play up to a 1st round talent, I see that, but the 2 nd rounders,who aren't good enough, usually become irrelevant, while the first rounders,who don't necessarily meet expectations, can still be relevant and stay on the field and take up reps.? The bottom third of 2nd rounders, they don't usually get to amass the negative score, the bottom third of the first round, usually do.?
Really useful and fantastic job, CK. Where do you find the time. The other factor affecting snaps for different rounds is simply ROI relative to the money being paid. A first rounder is costing you a lot more than a 4th rounder, etc. If you actually broke this down in terms of + or - rating per average dollar spent, you could isolate which round truly carried the greatest 'value' to GMs within the salary cap.
Is there another metric, other than PFF's, that we could use to cross-assess this? Just for increased validity?
I agree. There is no precedent that it would hurt Tannehill long term to sit him as a rookie, but there is some that it could help him.
That's what I wonder too. Perhaps, while ckp is out there being a Duke & Duke type of investment broker, he just assigns one of his secretaries the task of compiling these great ideas for posts and threads. I'm sure we all remember Randolph and Mortimer Duke.
lol The question is, does Chris believe in nature or nurture? And also, where in the hell is Beeks?!?
Holy hell that had me spitting up. Fantastic. As for where I find the time, if you've got a better suggestion for what an insomniac should find himself doing at 3am, I'd love to hear it lol.
I know of no other, other than some convoluted system of objective statistics which would really only work for some positions.
Since you have compared the draft picks from all 7 rounds, perhaps you could include UDFAs and see how they compare. I wouldn't be surprised if they are better than 6th-7th rounders, or at least as good.
That would take too much work. There's no convenient and reliable list of UDFAs out there. The only one I've found is NEPatriotsDraft and that's only 2012. Suffice it to say that only a very very small percentage of UDFAs even end up on a 53 man roster, so when I had 7 of my 16 UDFAs from that Draft not only make rosters but dress for games and get out on the field, that was a good thing.
I think he'd agree with the results of the Dukes scientific study. We say nature win out, as Winthorp with his fine breeding was able to rise above adversity, and we saw Billy Ray with just a little boost, overcome a tough environment. If Chris had the same misery heaped upon his shoulders as young Winthorp did, I am sure he would still find a way to rise above it.
