Fun With Numbers: Why We Shouldn't Trade Down
Since 1998 NFL teams drafted 346 players in the first round and 349 in the second round (give or take a few because I am assuming my math is poor). Of those 346 taken in the first round, 107 of them turned out to be probowlers. Of the 349 players taken in the second round, only 42 eventually became probowlers. Since 1998, only 75 players taken after the second round have made it to the probowl (including rookie free agents). Finally, of the 107 first round probowlers, 74 of them were drafted in the top 16.
So what does this mean? Maybe nothing. But here are some trends. Of all the probowlers since 1998, roughly 67% of them were drafted in the first or second round. 48% of probowlers were drafted in the first round with about 19% being drafted in the second round. And most striking, is that 33% of all probowlers were top 16 picks. Additionally, 42% of top 16 picks on average become a probowl player compared with only 15% of players drafted in the last half of the first round and the second round. To break it down even further, 19% of player drafted in the first round but after the 16th pick became probowlers. Only 12% of players drafted in the second round became probowlers.
Still want to trade down for value? Historically the biggest percentages of probowl players are drafted in the first 16 picks. I didn't break down the difference in the first 16 between 1-5, 5-10 etc. (feel free is someone wants to do the math).
This post was going to originally argue for trading down if the draft class was thought to be weak for strong because then there is a less gap between the top 16 and the rest of the first round. I even had a witty title for my post: "Some draft classes are more equal than others." I think somebody on here may have said that phrase earlier. However, after doing the calculations there does appear to be a difference between players taken in the top half of the first round and the rest of the players drafted. The only exception is the 2001 draft class where of the 15 probowl players taken in the first round only eight were top 16. Additionally, in 2001 there were also 9 probowlers taken in the second round. The 1998 draft class is also an exception to the rule in which both the first and second round delivered 9 probowlers. However, in 1999 7 of the 9 first round probowlers were taken in the top 16.
Like all statistics, there are some flawed assumptions. The top draft picks make the probowl maybe because of name recognition. Additionally, they probably receive more extensive coaching because of the investment the GM has in them. A first round pick rarely has to "earn" his playing time. Looking at these numbers has changed my view. I would still like to see if we could trade down, and I'm sure Pioli will look at all the possibilities. However, I think the numbers say that if you want to draft an all star you should stay in the top half of the first round.
All numbers are from Wikipedia so take that for what it is worth. Here are the numbers, feel free to double-check my math as I am in law school for a reason. (PB = probowlers)
|
YEAR |
1ST RD PB |
TOP 16 PB |
TOTAL 1ST RD PICKS |
2ND RD PB |
2ND RD PICKS |
|
1998 |
9 |
7 |
30 |
9 |
33 |
|
1999 |
13 |
9 |
31 |
2 |
30 |
|
2000 |
13 |
11 |
31 |
5 |
31 |
|
2001 |
15 |
8 |
31 |
9 |
31 |
|
2002 |
9 |
6 |
32 |
4 |
33 |
|
2003 |
11 |
8 |
32 |
4 |
32 |
|
2004 |
14 |
11 |
32 |
2 |
31 |
|
2005 |
7 |
5 |
32 |
4 |
32 |
|
2006 |
7 |
3 |
32 |
3 |
32 |
|
2007 |
7 |
5 |
32 |
0 |
32 |
|
2008 |
2 |
1 |
31 |
0 |
32 |
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
8 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
awesome analysis
easy to understand, good work man.
One point of devil’s advocacy, is 1 pro bowl player worth 2-3 good players. Jared Allen made it to the probowl, our team went 4-12. If we would have had 2-3 more solid players on our defense would our record have been better.
I’m all for superstars, but I would rather have no glaring holes in the team. Unfortunately for the past several seasons our defense has been nothing but glaring holes.
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Apr 22, 2009 3:22 PM CDT reply actions
I Agree
That is a fair criticism of just using numbers. Another question is do you need a superstar or two to build a defense and offense around? I don’t think there is an answer for that question. On offense I think you need a solid QB, but on defense do you need a superstar? Did Strahan make the Giants or the Giants make Strahan? Its the what came first debate. In basketball I think you build around superstars, I’m not so sure in football.
Beat the Donkeys!!
Agree
1 of 5 vs 1 of 24 for foorball.
If we were to trade down I would still want to make the first Chiefs pick in top 12
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 22, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
The talent in the 1st round this year..
Is pretty much a level playing field. At least till 20.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
But
The selection of position thins out before that.
Scouts has 5 star talent to pick 34-35 I think.
But the lower you go less chance at the guys that would be BPA at PON
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 22, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
The Pro Bowl is nothing but a popularity contest
Just because a guy makes the pro bowl does not mean he is the best player at his position. I put absolutely no stock in the Pro Bowl.
Ask Philip Rivers. He is a homo but, he should have been in the pro bowl and he didnt make it.
I tend to agree
I think the All Pro selection is a better judge of ones talent level. Although I am not sure how that is done.
"But what do I know, I'm AP's new assclown and I’m like an empty room with a large ECHO"

by 























