Re: fair enough.

i am into this stuff. im kind of a draft nerd. and i agree the numbers look reasonable so i have not reason to doubt them.

as i noted however i have some problem with more than 50 percent of games started as a metric to indicated success. lets take case keenum as an example.

first, the metric is not as straight forward as one may think. according to Pro Football Reference case started 54 out of 57 games. sounds off right? thats because they are only counting games he was either active or on an active roster. if you take his full career 2012-2018 that would be a possible 112 games (16 games x 7 years).

second, putting that aside, 54/57 equals 95 percent. he is clearly a consistent starter and a successful draft pick. But is he? john elway just traded him to the redskins cuz he didn think so.

Now if we count all the possible games (54/112) we get 48 percent or just under the 50 percent threshold. so case to date is NOT a consistent starter and not a successful draft pick. however if we factor in the fact that case was undrafted, case i think has done pretty well for himself. i contend that case has exceeded expectation as an undrafted player.

Quote
AlbaNY_Ram
Have you taken a look at the report I linked? [www.arrowheadpride.com] Its actually pretty interesting if you're into that kind of thing. (Which I am. )

I didn't verify the data but the premise seems legit. The purpose of the study is "... to provide a broader context from 10 years worth of draft data on all positions. The information was taken from Pro Football Reference."

And the criteria used to identify a consistent starter is simply "... whether the player started at least half of their career".

All the percentages I used were taken from this study at face value.