OT: Historical NFL draft analysis

[QuikSand]

It strikes me that each year, we get into the post-draft discussion period (always enjoyable) and there are any number of players whose eventual draft selection was a surprise one way or another. I realize that after the first 50 or 100 picks things become awfully need-based and arbitrary, but perhaps in the first round or two there's some sense to this.

Seems to me there are different categories of players. There are the "late risers" - guys who are hot properties as draft day approaches, and seem to move up lots of teams' lists as the selection process starts. This year, the DT from Georgia seems like an obvious candidate. I had been hearing that DT Jimmie Kennedy from Penn State was the #2 DT behind the kid from Kentucky, but then there was all this commotion over a guy that most sources had listed several slots later.

In another sense, slightly longer term, Kyle Boller fits here. AS the college football season ended, Boller was well into the second tier of wouold-be rookie QBs. However, after his workouts and combine results, he rocketed up, became a buzz guy, and moved ahead of several other QBs.

There are guys who move the other way, too, of course. Mike Doss from Ohio State comes to mind - projected easily in the first round, his combine wasnt spectacular and his stock slipped. LB E.J. Henderson of Maryland is much the same story. DT Kennedy might be too, to a lesser degree, and maybe Boss Bailey from Georgia.


Anyway... it strikes me that this might set things up for some kind of empirical analysis of the draft. Here's the hypothesis:


Players whose projected draft status moves significantly between the close of the college football season and teh actual NFL draft are likely doing so based on factors other than regular on-field performance (i.e. combine scores, workouts, off-field testing, all-star game results, etc.). Therefore, measuring the movement of such players in past years' draft analysis might isolate players into empirical catgeories we could use to draw some conclusions abouut the relative value of on-field performance and off-field factors.


So, in concept, if we had a set of data like this (Kiper's projections at various points leading up to past drafts, for instance), could we perhaps draw some conclusions about whether NFL teams are wise to react so significantly in the days leading up to the draft itself?

[cthomer5000]

I think this would be an excellent project, although it might be tough to produce enough data on older drafts to truly know whether a guy was even, rising, or falling.

My sneaking suspicion is that even players turn out the best, with risers and fallers more likely to be all over the place (lower overall chance of "success").

Of course, there is a nightmare amount of factors involved here so we can't even pretend that we can isolate just for rising, falling, or even stock. But I agree that we might be able to find something there.

[Bee]

Interesting idea. I think there might be too many factors involved to come to any real conclusions, but it would be interesting to see in any case. It'd also be interesting to see the results broken down by position as well. Generally, the reasons for moving up or down in the draft are because of performances in the combine (not counting the occasional off the field issues that come out). If you breakdown by position how players performed in the NFL compared to their combine performances, a team might gain some valuable information on how much weight to give to the combine performances by position. Just a thought...

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Bee
Interesting idea. I think there might be too many factors involved to come to any real conclusions, but it would be interesting to see in any case. It'd also be interesting to see the results broken down by position as well. Generally, the reasons for moving up or down in the draft are because of performances in the combine (not counting the occasional off the field issues that come out). If you breakdown by position how players performed in the NFL compared to their combine performances, a team might gain some valuable information on how much weight to give to the combine performances by position. Just a thought...

I listened to Mel Kiper's last chat before the draft and he gave a laundry list of super-successful pros who had horrible 40 times for D-lineman. Strahan, Hugh Douglas and a few others ran basically the same times as Terrell Suggs (something that had everyone worried).

EDIT: so we might find out something to the effect of "Bad 40 times mean less for defensive lineman than they do for wide recievers."

[Bee]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I listened to Mel Kiper's last chat before the draft and he gave a laundry list of super-successful pros who had horrible 40 times for D-lineman. Strahan, Hugh Douglas and a few others ran basically the same times as Terrell Suggs (something that had everyone worried).

EDIT: so we might find out something to the effect of "Bad 40 times mean less for defensive lineman than they go for wide recievers."

Yep that's what I was thinking about. There have also been a couple D-line workout warriors who burned it up at the combine and then did nothing in the NFL. Linemen seem like one of the positions that the combine results wouldn't reflect very well with performance because technique, knowledge and attitude are so important.

[albionmoonlight]

Something that will complicate this analysis is that teams put out so much misinformation that is reported to the public either directly or indirectly through leaks to media insiders. This occurs both before and after the draft (if a team had to pick a guy that they felt did not deserve the pick, they will never admit that. They will say that they had him valued in the top ten of the draft and were stunned that he fell to them).

The Saints provide a good example of this phenomenon. Before the draft, they talked up secondary, and, in particular, cornerback to everyone that would listen. Now, they say that Sullivan was their guy all along. That misinformation (which occurred before and/or after the draft) had an effect on mock drafts all the way until the draft. How much of Kiper's changes in his mock drafts occured because he kept getting different tips from his "insiders," and how much occured because of player workouts?

Robertson from Ky. is another example. Did his stock rise because of workouts, or was he always a guy that teams had their eye on as a "sleeper" pick? If he was always a sleeper pick, perhaps his stock rose because the (Wild)cat was let out of the bag and teams stopped hiding that they felt he was the #1 DT on the board.

I think this would be a great (and very useful) experiment, but it will be very hard to do in a "scientific" manner. Someone with an Insider subscription could start by saving all of Kiper's mock drafts before they are taken off the web.

[cthomer5000]

check out this tidbit from Tuesday Morning QB on ESPN's page 2:

This year's hundredths controversy swirled around defensive end Terrell Suggs. This absurd sports article actually debates whether Suggs ran a 4.79 or a 4.80, not mentioning that the former is one-fifth of one percent faster than the latter. It's seven yards to the quarterback. Assuming perfect accuracy to the hundredths place, a defensive end who runs a 4.79 will transverse those seven yards half an inch sooner than a 4.8 player. This John Clayton article {http://sports.espn.go.com/nfldraft/columnist?id=1541057}declares football types deeply worried that Suggs ran a 4.87 rather than the 4.7 scouts hoped to see. The latter speed is three percent faster than the former. Assuming perfect accuracy, a defensive end who runs a 4.7 will traverse the seven yards to the quarterback eight inches sooner than a 4.87 player. This simply can't matter anywhere near as much as ability, motivation, conditioning and so on.

[TroyF]

QS,

I have very little "hard" data, but most of the things I've seen over the years indicates late risers are usually do not work out well, while guys who slide down the charts for various reasons seem to have a good chance of becoming solid players.

I remember Kelly Stouffer of CSU. For those who have never watched Kelly, he may very well have been the worst QB in NFL history. He made Ryan Leaf look accurate. He was projected to be a middle round pick and had a monster all-star game. He flew up to the Cardinals and proceeded to do what every Cardinal has accomplished in the 20 and 21 centuries. . . he busted big time.

On the other hand we have guys like Sapp and Moss who slide down for various reasons and end up being great pros.

It would be interesting to see how not only the late riser/fast faller guys turned out, but also the guys who didn't have a position. (ie Shannon Sharpe) If I had the resources, I'd do the study.

TroyF

[MylesKnight]

A Kelly Stouffer at FOFCentral.. WOW!

What's the Over/Under on the next time that will happen?

[albionmoonlight]

But some guys slide in the Moss/Sapp mode (Cecil Collins) and end up never working out, either.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--and Donte Stallworth was the first receiver taken last year in part because of his 4.3/40 in workouts and he had a great rookie year.

More study is needed.

[cthomer5000]

a guess:

players who have been highly regarded for more than 1 season in college are more likely to be successful professionals. These are generally the more consistenly rated players vs. risers who are generally "one-year wonders."

by this logic I think Byron Leftwich is more likely to be a good QB than Palmer or Boller.

[SunDancer]

But Moss and Sapp slipped not cause of combine or performance questions, but cause of personal (drug) questions. Now, what about a guy like Ryan Leaf, he was pretty consistent coming out, but flopped.

[primelord]

Originally posted by SunDancer
But Moss and Sapp slipped not cause of combine or performance questions, but cause of personal (drug) questions. Now, what about a guy like Ryan Leaf, he was pretty consistent coming out, but flopped.

Well one thing that will be certain regardless of the results of a study like this is that there will be exceptions to the rule. It's very easy to rattle off names of guys who played well in college and were highly rated coming into the draft but busted and vice versa. It's the overall picture that is more imprtant.

[Bee]

yep...you'd be looking for a statistically significant trend. There are definitely going to be cases that don't fall in line with the trend.

[henry296]

I seem to remember Ryan Leaf having a great breakout year leading Washington State to the Rose Bowl, but I don't think he was a first rounder before that year started. Unlike Peyton Manning who was a first rounder before his senior year. Again the comparisons to Palmer/Boller vs. Leftwich.

Todd

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by henry296
I seem to remember Ryan Leaf having a great breakout year leading Washington State to the Rose Bowl, but I don't think he was a first rounder before that year started. Unlike Peyton Manning who was a first rounder before his senior year. Again the comparisons to Palmer/Boller vs. Leftwich.

Todd

exactly. Manning was straddling the fence on coming out/staying in school, and supposedly only stayed when Bill Parcells would not assure him the Jets would select him #1 overall. I frankly had not heard of Ryan Leaf until his senior season. It's very similar to this year's scenario.

[Bee]

I think Leaf came out as after his Junior season. He had been a starter for 2 years and his Sophomore year had been decent, but not spectacular. He'd had a good season his junior year, but had mostly been impressive in the camps because of his arm strength and physical ability. If I remember correctly, a lot of scouts also liked his fiery attitude...

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Bee
I think Leaf came out as after his Junior season. He had been a starter for 2 years and his Sophomore year had been decent, but not spectacular. He'd had a good season his junior year, but had mostly been impressive in the camps because of his arm strength and physical ability. If I remember correctly, a lot of scouts also liked his fiery attitude...

we haven't even mentioned the junior/senior distinction yet, but we might not have enough juniors to really make a legitemate comparison

[DeToxRox]

BAH!

The 40 time is so overrated.

Al Davis does it best. He watches the guy get off the line, and watces him run. He stops the watch after he's taken his first few steps.

If you can't explode off the line, then running a 4.4 40 is like running a 5.0 40 anyways.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I don't have much to add of what is being said but a couple of things.

The emphasis on the 40 is a little strange. For instance many kids from college do their own personal workouts in an environment they are familiar with. Some go to the combine, others don't.

I believe that scouts and draft analysts tend to lean on 40-times and not what I have heard called "football speed". (Zach Thomas is an example) You can't really see this until the preseason camps and exhibition games. Football is such a game of reaction and instinct that sometimes the high draft picks go bust and the free agents and 6th and 7th rounders go boom.

In my opinion its the 4th-7th, used to be 12 rounds that are the key to a draft. Rounds 1-3 are guys that are supposed to contribute immediately, when they don't the 4-7 picks pick up the slack.