Quote
David Deacon
Quote
zn
On draft picks making the team.
It's not unusual for the majority of picks to make a team in year 1.
In 2012, out of 10 picks, 2 didn't make the team that year. Now 4 are still in the league, which is 40%...and that's pretty good drafting. In 2014, out of 11, 3 didn;t make the team that year. Now 4 are still in the league. That's 36%, which verges on the cut off for pretty good drafting (40%).
Look at 2017. With that draft, 1 didn't make the team. Now, out of 8, 6 remain. Kupp, Johnson, and Ebukam are starters. We don;t know about the other 3 yet (Everett, Reynolds, and Smart). We really don't even know about Ebukam yet. Kupp and Johnson are finds. If Ebukam makes it and sticks, that will be at least 3 out of 8, which is 37.5%, and that's close to the cut off for pretty good drafting (40%). We don't know yet what we will think of that draft after this season.
This year so far it looks like Noteboom, Franklin-Myers, and Kelly are
at a minimum good players. Guys with a chance include Allen, Kiser, Oko, and Joseph. To be a pretty good to good draft you need at least 4-5 guys to make it and I mean make it past year 1.
....
ZN
Where are you getting the 40% number from and what is the measurement? Is the measurement stick to the initial roster or is it still in the league after 6 years? I would expect very different results.
Snead seems as if he has improved and is staying away from the extremely physically talented but rocks for brains type of guy like a Quick or Robinson come to mind.
Many get upset on the misses yet you say a 40% hit rate is very good. I also think that the number of impact players drafted is a key indicator. Snead has drafted some home run types in Gurley, AD, Goff, Joyner and a bunch of really good guys like Havs and Kupp etc. I remember yesteryear when we had trouble drafting guys that could make the team more less be starters and none where all pro types.
Anyway it the initial look at this years draft is pretty positive considering we did not have a 1st or 2nd rounder.
A while back I got the 40% myself by doing analysis. I took some teams that were known to draft well and did their percentages from 2006 through 2010 (5 years) and calculated as hits anyone who made it in the league as a continuing starter or significant contributor (like a nickel back or 3rd receiver or returner).
It wasn't supposed to be about grading. You grade drafts by looking at quality. So Donald is worth more than other picks when you're grading. But the point of just doing raw hit percentages was to set a baseline. I was sick of people saying the Rams had bad drafts when they didn't. So to start out, it's important to have a basic hit percentage. What I found is that good drafting hits at around 42-48%. Anything at 50% or above is rare and superlative. Decently average to pretty good drafting is around 30% to 38% or so.
But as I said it;s not the same as grading. AFTER you do the basic hit percentage, you can then assess the quality of the picks.
I also found out btw that ALL teams miss on 1st and 2nd rounders now and then, even the best ones.
Plus I found out that the 2012-2017 Rams are VERY good with third round picks. Way above the norm.
Snead has not improved. He was good all along. If he weren't then there wouldn't be a winning team in 2017. Overnight turnarounds, as a rule, only happen with teams that inherit significant talent. The 2017 Rams did.
What has changed is that the offensive coaches contributing to the collaborative drafting that is Snead's forte are much better at identifying what they want in terms of the kinds of players that fit their system. That's the only real difference.
That's not Snead improving, that means the partnership in terms of collaborative drafting on offense was just stronger. But the Snead part of that equation was always good.
...
