How do the Kansas City Chiefs Compare to the Rest of the NFL in Drafting Starters?

by Joel Thorman on Jul 6, 2009 7:30 AM CDT in 2009 Kansas City Chiefs Offseason

It's something we've reiterated around here time and time again. It's the reason Clark Hunt said he wanted to model his franchise around the Pittsburgh Steelers. It's the reasoning behind Scott Pioli's hiring and to an extent Todd Haley's hiring (with a personnel background).

You draft well. You win.

Pretty simple, right? Well, the idea is simple. The implementation certainly is not.

Senior analyst Pat Kirwan of NFL.com recently penned an item titled "Smart teams find their starters in the draft." He takes a look at the teams that are the best at drafting starters for their squads...

Top five: Indianapolis Colts 17, Baltimore Ravens 16, Green Bay Packers 16, Pittsburgh Steelers 15, Buffalo Bills 15.

...and those that are the worst...

Bottom five: Washington Redskins 9, Denver Broncos 9, Cleveland Browns 9, Detroit Lions 10, Oakland Raiders 10.

Do you see the common theme here? With the exception of the Buffalo Bills (whose potential is arguable), all these teams are perceived with bright futures. The bottom five teams all have a LOT of work to do.

Side note: It's really a compliment to Mike Shanahan that the Broncos could have so many personnel problems yet continue to be contenders for the division title year in and year out. Did I say thanks to the Broncos for hiring Josh McDaniels yet?

After the jump we'll take a look at the Kansas City Chiefs and determine where they fall when it comes to drafting starters (Hint: It's better than average). What follows isn't meant to be a debate on the depth chart, instead an overall look at how well (or how bad) the Chiefs have drafted players who are or will be starters.

Drafted players in bold

Defense (9/11)

3/3 - Defensive Line (Dorsey, Tyler, Jackson)

2/4 - Linebackers (Hali, Johnson, Thomas, Vrabel)

4/4 - Secondary (Page, Pollard, Carr, Flowers)

Maybe Monty Beisel gets the starting nod over at outside linebacker but remember he's still technically a member of a Chiefs draft class. Other than that, this defense is almost completely homegrown.

Offense (4/11)

1/5 - Offensive Line (Albert, Waters, Niswanger, Goff, McIntosh)

1/1 - Tight End (Cottam)

1/2 - Wide Receivers (Bowe, Bradley)

1/2 - Running Backs (Johnson, Cox)

0/1 - Quarterback (Cassel)

If you want to use a technicality, players like Waters, Niswanger and Cox weren't drafted by the Chiefs but were still picked up as undrafted free agents and Kansas City has been the only team for which they've ever played.

Special Teams (2/2)

1/1 - Kicker (Succop)

1/1 - Punter (Colquitt)

Total Drafted Starters: 13/22

Full list of the Chiefs roster and how they were acquired.

***

Of the 22 starters likely to take the field in 2009, 13 of those will have been a Chiefs draft pick. Add in the potential of three more starters that were undrafted free agents hand-selected by the Chiefs front office, then you'll notice the team has done a commendable job in recent years drafting talent and turning them into starters. As Kirwan notes in his article, the average for a team is 11-12 starters drafted by the team. Using this as the benchmark, the Chiefs are actually above average at drafting starters.

This chart isn't meant to be an exercise in predicting the 53 man roster. In fact, some of the starters listed above wouldn't be starters on other teams (or won't be starters with the Chiefs shortly) but it's been said time and time again the best way to develop a team that is a contender every year is through the draft.

You'll notice the most successful team in the last decade isn't on this top five list. The New England Patriots have perfected the blending of drafted starters with free agent acquisitions. With Pioli's history I imagine the Chiefs won't ever be on the top five (nor the bottom five) of this list.

The Chiefs weren't always the best at drafting starters, but they certainly weren't the worst. I guess that's the hallmark of the previous regime.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That's a bit of a good surprise

And especially if you consider some guys with Pro Bowl potential on there
(Flowers, Albert, D. Johnson, L. Johnson, Bowe).

home, of the....CHIEEEEEFS!

by Holmeslice on Jul 6, 2009 7:41 AM CDT reply actions

They are almost all Herm Edwards picks too

by Vince D on Jul 6, 2009 9:57 AM CDT reply actions

What about Colquitt and Succop?

The Chiefs drafted Dustin Colquitt in the 3rd round in 2005. Succop was Mr. Irrelevant this year. Assuming Succup wins the job over Barth and all of the other projected starters end up starting, that’s 15/22 total drafted starters.

by utchief on Jul 6, 2009 10:20 AM CDT reply actions

15/24

I only counted 13/22 of the actual starters, not counting special teams because that’s what the NFL.com report used.

Arrowhead Pride

by Joel Thorman on Jul 6, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions

Homegrown: UFA and NFL.com

Seems like, in the spirit of things, undrafted free agents should count toward totals.

If you want to use a technicality, players like Waters, Niswanger and Cox weren’t drafted by the Chiefs but were still picked up as undrafted free agents and Kansas City has been the only team for which they’ve ever played.

I assume NFL.com sticks to strictly draft. It makes the place to draw line cleaner and it’s easier to count. Perhaps “homegrown” or some other label could be used for this point regarding how to build a team. In fact, one could make the point that UFA are even more of a “find” and/or development success and should get extra “points.”

by sunny D on Jul 6, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Right

I just used the draft because that was what I was comparing it to. But good points.

Arrowhead Pride

by Joel Thorman on Jul 6, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Slight Flaw In The Rating Methodology

There’s no comparison of how well those drafted players performed in relation to an average of league performance. It’s no trick to fill your starting lineup with drafted players…the trick is to fill the starting lineup with players who can perform at a high level. Looking back over the last regime’s draft history, they’ve had significant problems accomplishing that…generally they’d get one or two decent players a year out of each draft but bust on a high number of their first-day picks. You’ll usually have problems fielding a competitive team when you do that…especially if you also have problems with the free agents you bring in.

Predictions for 2009

1. Todd Haley's going to struggle with managing his staff in his rookie year as head coach.
2. The Lions will draft Matt Stafford, the Rams will draft Jason Smith, and the Chiefs will draft either Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe.
3. Maurice Carthon will be the most hated man on the Chiefs' coaching staff within two years.
4. Larry Johnson has already played his last meaningful game for the Kansas City Chiefs. He's gone before the 2009 season starts.
5. Larry Johnson will gain 0 yards rushing for the 2009 Kansas City Chiefs.

by UCrawford on Jul 6, 2009 11:57 AM CDT reply actions

+1

Teams like the Raiders for example(because we love pointing out the Raiders). Half of their drafted “starters” are only starters because they have no one better and they wouldnt even be considered to start on other teams. All in all though I think this theory does prove a valid point though because the teams at the top are all very successful. Should give us some hope because based on a number of 13 we’re just outside of that top 5.

"Success is never ending, failure is never final."

by GenericBrand on Jul 6, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Correlation, yes. But what are the reasons?

By the numbers… If you draft 7 people for 7 years, that’s a pool of 49 people to draw from. Even if you only count the first three rounds, that’s still 21 players.

Talent Evaluation - Scouts, managers, coaches need to identify college players with skills and temperaments that will translate into the professional level. Duh. The starting point.

Coaching - Once players join a team, are they trained and motivated in ways that help them reach their potential? If players fail, the assumption is that they are the reason. This starts the search on other teams where the grass is greener.

System - Did the team draft someone who would actually fill a need at some point? Someone who would fit the team’s system? Or does a the square player get shoved into a round hole, only to be stuck and then released?

Stability - To say a team has a “system” is actually a stretch. Every time there’s a new coach or even general manager, the system is likely going to change. Coaches look to bring in some of “their players” (meaning either past relationship or ones that fit their ideal profile). So shopping and trading occurs. With 5-10 new coaches a year, that’s a lot of churning.

Management and Respect - When you have 15+ players as starters that were drafted, that means you’re able to re-sign starters after their initial contracts. What does that take? First, an environment in which a player wants to remain. That means winning. (Perhaps this is the primary reason that winning teams have high numbers of starters they drafted.) It also means players respect management. (Insert Carl jabs here.)

On the down side…teams that win a Super Bowl find themselves having to pay high salaries for many players — because they have a lot of good ones. The salary cap has often been cited as a reason that dynasties are difficult because players’ market values send them to other teams after highly successful seasons. Do long-term successful teams deflect this problem with consistent, respected management/coaching? Or by molding teams from “the best 53” and not a collection of superstars? Or by creating a locker room culture where players want to stay?

Bottom line… There’s more to the story than just drafting good players.

by sunny D on Jul 6, 2009 4:15 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs

Hey Man, When Did You Get Back?

Nice to see you on the boards again…you kind of disappeared for awhile. :)

Predictions for 2009

by UCrawford on Jul 7, 2009 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Thanks

Just busy working for a while. Don’t like to comment unless I have time to read this site and be up to speed. Good to read your stuff and see your rep grow. Having been around here since near the beginning, it’s fun to see the new people, know the personalities behind the monikers and get the inside jokes.

More than that…exciting time to be a Chiefs fan! Your campaign to oust Carl came to fruition! Congrats. We’ve got an interesting mix of young and old talent on the team. Genuine competitions at positions like RT, RB and LB. Transitions and schemes to comprehend and second guess on defense. Not one, but TWO creative offensive minds in Gailey and Haley! …from guys who aren’t afraid to score points! Hope for special teams! (Note: As good as Dante was, it also took another 10 guys blocking and a coach to teach them what to do.) Another kicker controversy! (Will we have another OT two-day shoot-out to determine the kicker??? …only to be over ruled when the season started.) Fun pre-season!

…and then, of course, there’s the actual football season! Considering the scheming of Chan and Clancy, along with Pioli’s shroud or secrecy, we should have a good time trying to predict the unpredictable.

by sunny D on Jul 7, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions