Draftmetrics Draft Ratings for the last 5 years

So it really doesn't matter all that much how good the players are, as long as they are on the active roster and start. Scott Pioli should have been given a raise according to this site lol...

Really interesting way to look at it I'd like to see the writer go one step further and list them in order of the difference of expected ranking and actual ranking that would draw an even better picture of talent evaluation.

"Clark Kent wrote:

So it really doesn't matter all that much how good the players are, as long as they are on the active roster and start. Scott Pioli should have been given a raise according to this site lol...

If I read it correctly, if the players are on any active roster the drafting team gets credit. So, we get credit for Donald Thomas, even though he's on the Patriots.

"Clark Kent wrote:

So it really doesn't matter all that much how good the players are, as long as they are on the active roster and start. Scott Pioli should have been given a raise according to this site lol...

I think that would be the obvious criticism of this particular methodology.

In the end both sides seem pretty entrenched. People that don't think Miami's done a very good job drafting will point out the flaws in the methodology, and people that do believe Ireland has done a good job will laugh, give themselves some broseph high-fives and pats on the back, and act haughty as if this shows how obviously right they've been all along.

"emocomputerjock wrote:

If I read it correctly, if the players are on any active roster the drafting team gets credit. So, we get credit for Donald Thomas, even though he's on the Patriots.

Another obvious criticism.

Take a step back for a moment. According to this, 3 of the top 5 drafting teams in the NFL just fired their General Managers, and the other 2 of the top 5 are in hot water and constantly embattled and criticized by their fan base.

Nobody else sees that and thinks this methodology is suspect? It's almost a total contra-indicator.

I don't think its complete.

I think if the player is starting on a roster, even if it isn't the team that drafted him is a solid base. After all, talent to start is talent to start.

The problem is bad talent can start on teams. There has to be a weighting of some kind for this to make sense.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I think that would be the obvious criticism of this particular methodology.

In the end both sides seem pretty entrenched. People that don't think Miami's done a very good job drafting will point out the flaws in the methodology, continue masturbating on their fireland t-shirt, murder babies for sport, and continue to create huge run on sentences and people that do believe Ireland has done a good job will laugh, give themselves some broseph high-fives and pats on the back, and act haughty as if this shows how obviously right they've been all along.

fixed

"Fin D wrote:

I don't think its complete.

I think if the player is starting on a roster, even if it isn't the team that drafted him is a solid base. After all, talent to start is talent to start.

I think the problem with this way of thinking is that, when you draft players, you are drafting them specifically for your team. If they don't fit on your team for one reason or another, then you shouldn't get credit for it because you failed to use that draft selection to help your team. That is the ultimate goal of the draft.

"Rhody Phins Fan wrote:

I think the problem with this way of thinking is that, when you draft players, you are drafting them specifically for your team. If they don't fit on your team for one reason or another, then you shouldn't get credit for it because you failed to use that draft selection to help your team. That is the ultimate goal of the draft.

Nah. A team really good at drafting could be turning players over. A team that under performs because of coaching could be switching systems and players that were perfect for one system could be a liability on another.

Don't like this drafting method, even though I've been a fan of our drafts.

"Anonymous wrote:

Don't like this drafting method, even though I've been a fan of our drafts.

Oh I do, BUT, without weighting stuff like "who" started it lacks as much as the usual draft metrics

For example, are a G's starts as valuable as say..a Te?

No, they are not ditto a Qb vs a Cb, the mental aspect of the game, and the positions those snaps are spent on are key metrics in how the team is progressing.

INOW, whose starts are more valuable, John Jerry's or Ryan Tannehill?

This is by no means a comprehensive view of the draft and doesn't address some of the criticisms of Ireland(not drafting the right positions), but it should certainly dispel the idea that Ireland isn't getting a good success rate or contributing players which if anything is the biggest misconception. People don't seem to understand what actual NFL drafts look like in terms of how many "hits" you get.

"Clark Kent wrote:

So it really doesn't matter all that much how good the players are, as long as they are on the active roster and start. Scott Pioli should have been given a raise according to this site lol...

The Chiefs are that high up the list based primarily on their phenomenal 2008 draft, which is objectively one of the best draft classes in recent memory, and occurred before Scott Pioli was hired.

5 of top 10 and 3 of top 10 made the Playoffs this year.

Meaningless....

"Lloyd Heilbrunn wrote:

5 of top 10 and 3 of top 10 made the Playoffs this year.

Meaningless....

I think this illustrates a pretty fundamental problem... People don't care about nuance. It doesn't matter if in reality the draft is good or bad, the team isn't winning enough shut the **** up and fire someone.

I readily concede that Ireland has been good on draft day. he sucks at everything else though.

"Rhody Phins Fan wrote:

I think the problem with this way of thinking is that, when you draft players, you are drafting them specifically for your team. If they don't fit on your team for one reason or another, then you shouldn't get credit for it because you failed to use that draft selection to help your team. That is the ultimate goal of the draft.

isn't this suposed to be how it works in measuring a team's success ?

"Fin D wrote:

Nah. A team really good at drafting could be turning players over. A team that under performs because of coaching could be switching systems and players that were perfect for one system could be a liability on another.

Yes but this system also gives credit for drafting a player and only having that player be successful on another team. That is simply not a good draft pick... I guess ultimately it all comes own to how you define a successful pick, which we differ on.

I do agree that someone like Kendall Langford is a successful pick. He provided us with value. But should the Saints be given credit for drafting Rob Ninkovich who is playing well for the Patriots. They cut him before the regular season, but they drafted him so they would be given credit.

"Section126 wrote:

I readily concede that Ireland has been good on draft day. he sucks at everything else though.

That's not really correct either. Ireland has done pretty good in free agency and trading as well.

"Aquafin wrote:

isn't this suposed to be how it works in measuring a team's success ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

"Rhody Phins Fan wrote:

Yes but this system also gives credit for drafting a player and only having that player be successful on another team. That is simply not a good draft pick... I guess ultimately it all comes own to how you define a successful pick, which we differ on.

I do agree that someone like Kendall Langford is a successful pick. He provided us with value. But should the Saints be given credit for drafting Rob Ninkovich who is playing well for the Patriots. They cut him before the regular season, but they drafted him so they would be given credit.

I said earlier this system isn't complete. All I'm saying is that if the player is a starter for a team the team that drafted him should get credit. Remember, the chart is about finding out who is good at finding NFL talent in the draft. The things you may want to quantify are not the goals of this chart.

If we ranked the posters on this site in terms of how well we each assess Ireland's performance I think we'd end up with a result just about as accurate as this Draftmetrics effort.

Just as a context for free agency, take a look at this free agency tracker that goes back to 2005:

http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&p=9&c=12&nid=83&lnid=83&yr=2011

Big money free agency might be more treacherous than the draft. Karlos Dansby is overpaid, but all and all he's quite successful for big money free agency.

Using "starts" as a measure can possibly be misleading. For example a guy Ireland drafts to start might only start because he created a hole for that position. It looks good for Ireland's draft record. Now, one guy who starts which a team drafts wouldn't necessarily start for a playoff team. Would Hartline start on a playoff team? probably/probably not...Would Misi start on a playoff team? May be... Would the starters on the Cards and Chiefs whom they draft start on playoff teams?

"Fin D wrote:

I said earlier this system isn't complete. All I'm saying is that if the player is a starter for a team the team that drafted him should get credit. Remember, the chart is about finding out who is good at finding NFL talent in the draft. The things you may want to quantify are not the goals of this chart.

That's a good point. In terms of showing who finds NFL talent, this system does an adequate job of that. But, I still don't think that is really the best way of identifying good drafters and that it is skewed by using starts.