the Tail of the Tape

[averagejoe]

Here are the top 5 NFL draft picks at QB going back to 2014.
...the top 10 picks at RB.
...and the top 10 picks at WR.

Do you see any trends? Any type of "ah-ha" moments?
I mean, sure we could look back in hindsight and say, "that pick was stupid."
But do you see a range of players - like say, avoiding the 6th WR pick (with the exception of Michael Thomas in 2016).

 

[Clayton]

How about "don't fall in love with the top prospect if that position group is considered deep'. If it's not deep, get the top guy.

Maybe also 'ignore their bowl game'

 

[HaroldSeattle]

No ah ha moment for me, but love the graph just to see how past drafts did.

 

[Clayton]

There are way more Home Runs in that WR7-10 than RB7-10, right?

 

[TKOSpikes]

Here are the top 5 NFL draft picks at QB going back to 2014.
...the top 10 picks at RB.
...and the top 10 picks at WR.

Do you see any trends? Any type of "ah-ha" moments?
I mean, sure we could look back in hindsight and say, "that pick was stupid."
But do you see a range of players - like say, avoiding the 6th WR pick (with the exception of Michael Thomas in 2016).

View attachment 294133

I see two hits at QB1… two more not terribles.

RB and WR seems to be a cluster of random hits and misses… which makes sense, as their landing spots are more often than not the result of their effectiveness.

 

[SteelersPride]

I see two hits at QB1… two more not terribles.

RB and WR seems to be a cluster of random hits and misses… which makes sense, as their landing spots are more often than not the result of their effectiveness.

Sneaky rbs imho, in the right place thetes a handful of very talented backs imho. Wr is strong

 

[TREFF]

I see a bit of trend...they're a helluvalot better at picking RB's early than they are at WR's.

Very rarely has the best RB slipped past the top 2-3 RB. Very rarely do any of the top 3-5 RB's bust even if they arent the best one in the class., very rarely has the top RB selected been a bust. Sankey the only true bust, although CEH is closing in.

But WR's, about half the time the best one hasn't been in the top 3 selected. And rarely has he been THE first one..only Jamar Chase and Amari Cooper can claim that. In fact, often, the top 3-4 WR's selected read like a who's who list on all time busts.

 

[TREFF]

There are way more Home Runs in that WR7-10 than RB7-10, right?

More homeruns in the top 3-4 RB's than the top 3-4 WR's.

And honestly, there really should be a ton more homeruns at WR than RB, especially later, there are a bare minimum 64 starting WR's on the feild for virtually every offensive snap. The are only 32 possible starting RB's, many of which are only around for 2/3's of the snaps, just raw numbers would suggest that if there isn't twice as many homeruns at WR, someone seriously screwed up.

 

[averagejoe]

There may be exceptions to every situation, but from what I see is that players that went to good offenses (not necessarily good teams) seemed to do better than players that went to bad offenses.

And when I say "bad," I am not necessarily looking at win-loss numbers (which have zero affect on fantasy production), but league rankings at the time.

 

[Barilko]

I see some fine homework done and an interesting read on a Sunday afternoon

thanks Joe for you..

Spoiler: Special Treat

 

[SmokingMonkey]

More homeruns in the top 3-4 RB's than the top 3-4 WR's.

And honestly, there really should be a ton more homeruns at WR than RB, especially later, there are a bare minimum 64 starting WR's on the feild for virtually every offensive snap. The are only 32 possible starting RB's, many of which are only around for 2/3's of the snaps, just raw numbers would suggest that if there isn't twice as many homeruns at WR, someone seriously screwed up.

as for your RB vs WR thoughts - RBs change out more frequently than WRs, so hitting a HR at those positions have 2 very different meanings. If you hit on a WR, that could be your WR1 for a decade, where as hitting on a RB means you have 3-5yrs of top end production. So teams should have more hits on RBs in the early goings, as almost every team has to churn that position at some point within a stud WR's life span. And take more chances at WR (thus more busts) in hopes of finding that 10yr stud.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

@averagejoe - interesting way to view things, but I think draft capital has to come into play here to pull any type of true insights.

RB5 one year could be a 3rd round pick, or a 6th round pick the next year (for example, I didn't actually look any of these up) - the value in that varies wildly

 

[Clayton]

More homeruns in the top 3-4 RB's than the top 3-4 WR's.

It does seem that there are two molds that seem to rise to the top with RBs: the bellcow and the receiver/rb hyrbid. Both are almost guaranteed a lot of touches.

It does seem like the bellcow is far more desirable, though. The receiver/rb hybrids seem like they get hurt a lot. Imo NFL should value elite bellcows in rd1+rd2 and elite RB receivers in rd2+rd3. Probably noticeable dropoff after that at both spots.

 

[averagejoe]

Courtesy of PFF

 

[averagejoe]

Also courtesy of PFF on the top 15 slot WR

 

[TREFF]

as for your RB vs WR thoughts - RBs change out more frequently than WRs, so hitting a HR at those positions have 2 very different meanings. If you hit on a WR, that could be your WR1 for a decade, where as hitting on a RB means you have 3-5yrs of top end production. So teams should have more hits on RBs in the early goings, as almost every team has to churn that position at some point within a stud WR's life span. And take more chances at WR (thus more busts) in hopes of finding that 10yr stud.

I think you'd see that played out on a stretch long than 2016-2021, but given that's squarely within the time frame you mentioned, not gonna see it much.
But even then, expand the time frame, you'll expand the number of 'homeruns' at WR too.

There's just no getting over the bottom line that more WR's are on the feild, more often, than any RB..especially with most teams being 3 wide in base formations these days. More players on the field, more opportunities for that position to have productive players.

 

[Clayton]

Courtesy of PFF

View attachment 294254

I didn't realize Pierre Strong was so old. I guess that explains why he is lower in mocks than what his film would suggest. Dude is only going to play on one contract in the NFL

 

[TREFF]

It does seem that there are two molds that seem to rise to the top with RBs: the bellcow and the receiver/rb hyrbid. Both are almost guaranteed a lot of touches.

It does seem like the bellcow is far more desirable, though. The receiver/rb hybrids seem like they get hurt a lot. Imo NFL should value elite bellcows in rd1+rd2 and elite RB receivers in rd2+rd3. Probably noticeable dropoff after that at both spots.

I would agree. The RB's who end up being truly productive and slip past the first 2-3 rounds are very rare, and even those few generally burn out after 2-3 years, James Robinson, Lindsay, Mostert...etc..the Eckelers, Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Andersons, Arian Fosters of the world are unicorns, and for every one of them, there's likely 3 Miles Austin's Victor Cruz's, Wes Wrlkers, Rod Smith's, Marquez Colstons, Tyreek Hills (2016, 5th rd, 18th WR taken), Stephen Diggs, or Antonio Brown....although surely whatever creator you believe in wouldn't throw 3 Antonio Browns at us, would he?

 

[TREFF]

I didn't realize Pierre Strong was so old. I guess that explains why he is lower in mocks than what his film would suggest. Dude is only going to play on one contract in the NFL

Could also explain why he had so much success in college too...truly a man amongst boys, especially in Div. 2, Or whatever it goes by these days

 

[TREFF]

Also courtesy of PFF on the top 15 slot WR

View attachment 294255

So is this sorta like a SPARQ rating?? First time I've seen this one