VERY Cool Draft Info Site

[bartshan-83]

I'm not sure if this site is well-known, but there is a really cool spreadsheet on this USA Today page. It contains all draft picks since 1988 and allows you to sort them in a variety of ways. The main purpose is to show where NFL talent is coming from in terms of high school states and colleges (i.e. which state produces the most first round DTs, etc.) But it's also a very smooth way to view and sort draft picks over that span in a variety of other ways.

 

After wasting a few hours looking at it last night, I thought about comparing our drafting tendencies over the past decade to a few of the teams with the most respected GMs and front offices. I picked Indianapolis, New England and Baltimore and started in 2000 since that was Belichick's first year with the Pats*. I just thought it would be interesting to contrast the styles considering how we've floundered over the past decade and most of the blame seems to fall on our method of building through the draft. The biggest beef seems to be that we draft too many skill positions (RB + WR), too many DBs and not enough big uglies (OL + DL). So checked up on that:

 

2000-2010

 

BALTIMORE

1st Round Picks: 11 (2 QBs, 2 WRs, 1 RB, 1 TE, 1 OT, 1 OG, 1 DT, 1 LB, 1 DB)

 

Total Picks: 88

 

OL: 15 (5 OC, 3 OG, 7 OT)

1st: 2

2nd: 2

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 8

 

DL: 12 (5 DE, 7 DT)

1st: 1

2nd: 4

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 7

 

DB: 12

1st: 1

2nd: 1

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 7

 

INDIANAPOLIS

1st Round Picks: 9 (2 RBs, 2 WRs, 2 DEs 1 TE, 1 LB, 1 DB)

 

Total Picks: 90

 

OL: 15 (4 OC, 6 OG, 5 OT)

1st: 0

2nd: 2

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 13

 

DL: 15 (10 DE, 5 DT)

1st: 2

2nd: 2

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 9

 

DB: 25

1st: 1

2nd: 5

3rd: 7

4th-7th: 12

 

NEW ENGLAND

1st Round Picks: 10 (2 TEs, 2 DEs, 2 DBs, 1 RB, 1 OG, 1 DT, 1 LB)

 

Total Picks: 100

 

OL: 17 (2 OC, 4 OG, 11 OT)

1st: 1

2nd: 3

3rd: 1

4th-7th: 12

 

DL: 19 (9 DE, 10 DT)

1st: 3

2nd: 3

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 13

 

DB: 18

1st: 2

2nd: 4

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 10

 

BUFFALO

1st Round Picks: 13 (3 RBs, 3 DBs, 2 DEs, 1 QB, 1 WR, 1 OC, 1 OT, 1 DT)

 

Total Picks: 93

 

OL: 16 (2 OC, 5 OG, 9 OT)

1st: 2

2nd: 1

3rd: 1

4th-7th: 12

 

DL: 18 (10 DE, 8 DT)

1st: 3

2nd: 4

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 8

 

DB: 19

1st: 3

2nd: 2

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 12

 

 

To me, what stood out incredibly here was the tendencies of the Indianapolis Colts. I'm sure I'm not alone in the opinion that letting Bill Polian go was the biggest kick-in-the-nuts mistake this franchise has ever made (at least in my lifetime). I'd spend a year locked in room listening to Willis McGahee recite Shakespeare to have him back as our GM. But it was shocking to me to see that his drafting trend over the past decade not only fell in line with our seemingly backwards strategy...it SURPASSED it! The man has drafted multiple "flash positions" (RB and WR), TWICE as many 1st day DBs as us and has neglected the OL in a way that makes us look gluttonous at the position. In 11 years, he has spent TWO 1st day picks on OL. Besides Ugoh, he hasn't drafted a Tackle before the 5th round. Maybe I'm in the minority, but that floored me.

 

Anyway, the site is really cool...a lot of ways to look at the data. Enjoy.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...ory-graphic.htm

[Ray]

Good info and it debunks everyone's theories about needing all OL drafted in the 1st round. When you have a stud QB that is the number one thing you need and it makes the team infinitely better at every position including defense. There is very little difference between the top 20 LTs in the NFL, but there is a huge crater of difference between QB number one and QB number 20.

Unfortunately we have neither a great QB or a great LT. But Cleveland has a bunch of Pro Bowl OL and 1st round OL yet they were horrible b/c they did not have a great QB.

Gives people perspective though.

And people who think Scott Pioli is so wonderful should realize he picked a safety with what the 5th pick? What about the Bills picking Whitner number 8? So teams do it......and so called "Great" GMs do it too.

[South Jersey Bills Fan]

Good info and it debunks everyone's theories about needing all OL drafted in the 1st round. When you have a stud QB that is the number one thing you need and it makes the team infinitely better at every position including defense. There is very little difference between the top 20 LTs in the NFL, but there is a huge crater of difference between QB number one and QB number 20.

Unfortunately we have neither a great QB or a great LT. But Cleveland has a bunch of Pro Bowl OL and 1st round OL yet they were horrible b/c they did not have a great QB.

Gives people perspective though.

And people who think Scott Pioli is so wonderful should realize he picked a safety with what the 5th pick? What about the Bills picking Whitner number 8? So teams do it......and so called "Great" GMs do it too.

 

I don't want to de-value this statement, but a good OC has to be considered very important here too. Granted, Manning is basically his own OC, but that is a very rare commodity. A good OC makes an ok offense look good too. Buffalo has not had a good OC since Tedd Marchabroda...some will say the players made the coach in that case, but my point is Buffalo has been RUDDERLESS in it's offensive plan of attack for 15 years. Let's hope CG has conviction and purpose in his play calling and doesn't get wishy washy. That will help cover some moles at the QB position and the OL.

[Stampede]

very interesting site indeed. i particularly liked your comparison between the Bills and the Colts draft tendencies, unlike a lot of people on this board who constantly cry about Modrak and our scouting department i have always thought the blame should fall squarely on the coaching staff. people seem to overlook the fact that these scouts zero in on players two and three years prior to them being drafted and in some cases even earlier! they have watched draft prospects play numerous games not just a couple. the talent that these players have is unquestionable, how they will be brought along for each team's needs and eventually utilized is not in my book. the scouting department's job is just as the name implies but once a prospect is drafted it's out of the scout's hands. i'm sure many of them have winced at how their personal prospects were handled down the road. i would love to get a scout's perspective as to how he/she thought their draft pic was handled the first couple of years after a team acquires them.

 

i remember listening to an interview a few years back with a player for the Bucs (can't recall exactly who at the moment) but he talked about how much a rookie can fall behind during a holdout or injury and that it was next to impossible for them to catch up once they do join the team. he said it's not as if they hold special classes with the position coaches to get up to speed, you just miss out , unless you have freakish abilities. but interestingly he also talked about how if a rookie is mis-handled how it can have just as devastating an affect on their careers and very few can overcome it, no matter what the position.

[Lori]

One note re: Polian and high draft picks at OT: the Colts selected three-time Pro Bowl tackle Tarik Glenn with the No. 19 overall pick the year before Polian got there, negating the need to find a replacement until Glenn unexpectedly retired following the 2006 season. Polian ran the Bills' "war room" from 1986 (promoted to GM Dec. 1985) to 1992 (fired Jan. 1993), and during those seven years, Buffalo used the following picks on OL:

 

1986-1-20 Will Wolford

1986-3-77 Leonard Burton

1987-11-285 Howard Ballard

1988-7-177 Tim Borcky

1988-12-309 John Driscoll

1989-12-332 Derrell Marshall

1990-3-69 Glenn Parker

1990-7-166 Brent Griffith

1991-10-277 Tony DeLorenzo

1991-11-305 Dean Kirkland

1992-1-27 John Fina

 

NOTE: 1976 No. 2 pick Joe Devlin and 1980 No. 1 Jim Ritcher were already on the roster.

[earthtobrint]

One note re: Polian and high draft picks at OT: the Colts selected three-time Pro Bowl tackle Tarik Glenn with the No. 19 overall pick the year before Polian got there, negating the need to find a replacement until Glenn unexpectedly retired following the 2006 season. Polian ran the Bills' "war room" from 1986 (promoted to GM Dec. 1985) to 1992 (fired Jan. 1993), and during those seven years, Buffalo used the following picks on OL:

 

1986-1-20 Will Wolford

1986-3-77 Leonard Burton

1987-11-285 Howard Ballard

1988-7-177 Tim Borcky

1988-12-309 John Driscoll

1989-12-332 Derrell Marshall

1990-3-69 Glenn Parker

1990-7-166 Brent Griffith

1991-10-277 Tony DeLorenzo

1991-11-305 Dean Kirkland

1992-1-27 John Fina

 

NOTE: 1976 No. 2 pick Joe Devlin and 1980 No. 1 Jim Ritcher were already on the roster.

 

Thanks for posting that. I was about to post something similar.

 

When a team has pro-bowlers like Tarik Glenn and Jeff Saturday entrenched as starters, there's no need to draft replacements in the first round. The Bills on the other hand, have gone this entire decade with very bad players at left tackle and center yet refused to use high draft picks on the offensive line (besides Mike Williams and until last season's draft).

[JPS]

That was the best post I've ever read on this site.

 

So it seems our formula isn't nearly as bad as our scouting/talent evaluation/luck. And also, maybe the reason Belichick is such a freak about hoarding extra picks is because he knows a good percentage on EVERY team is going to fail.

[BillsVet]

One note re: Polian and high draft picks at OT: the Colts selected three-time Pro Bowl tackle Tarik Glenn with the No. 19 overall pick the year before Polian got there, negating the need to find a replacement until Glenn unexpectedly retired following the 2006 season. Polian ran the Bills' "war room" from 1986 (promoted to GM Dec. 1985) to 1992 (fired Jan. 1993), and during those seven years, Buffalo used the following picks on OL:

 

1986-1-20 Will Wolford

1986-3-77 Leonard Burton

1987-11-285 Howard Ballard

1988-7-177 Tim Borcky

1988-12-309 John Driscoll

1989-12-332 Derrell Marshall

1990-3-69 Glenn Parker

1990-7-166 Brent Griffith

1991-10-277 Tony DeLorenzo

1991-11-305 Dean Kirkland

1992-1-27 John Fina

 

NOTE: 1976 No. 2 pick Joe Devlin and 1980 No. 1 Jim Ritcher were already on the roster.

 

Polian also found his starting RT in the 4th round of 2001 in Ryan Diem. While Tony Ugoh (2nd/07) and Charlie Johnson (6th/06) may not be long term starters, it's clear that it's not how many picks are devoted to a position, but in which rounds and whether or not those guys are starting level. Most starting NFL tackles are 1st or 2nd rounders.

 

My research indicated that only 4 teams since 2006 have failed to use a 1st or 2nd on an OT. They are PIT, DAL, OAK, and BUF. PIT and DAL both have quality QB's who make plays outside the pocket. Both also had decent OT's on the roster during that frame, though Flozell Adams regressed mightily.

 

OTOH, BUF and OAK can probably be grouped together given their lack of success. Peters is the only decent OT either team had in that stretch, and we know how that worked out. At least Oakland least took Jared Veldheer in the 3rd this year. Buffalo believes low cost UFA's and late round draft picks will suffice.

[RealityCheck]

Outstanding post brother. That really is a great find, and a true eye opener. Chan Gailey made an excellent point at his introductory press conference that there are a lot of ways to win football games. We can all admit that in the past 10 years the Bills have demonstrated a vast array of how to lose them. That said, one of you guys mentioned having a quality OC. As much as our team has it's personnel problems I do believe that great coaching and play calling would truly do wonders for our team. I dare say that over the years we have seen a lot of our young players come in playing well I times just to see them regress, and I think a lot of it is coaching. The information in your post leaves me with the thought that our drafting philosophy has not been as far off as much as our inconsistent coaching, poor play calling, and lack of development at the QB position has been.

[Wizard]

Outstanding post brother. That really is a great find, and a true eye opener. Chan Gailey made an excellent point at his introductory press conference that there are a lot of ways to win football games. We can all admit that in the past 10 years the Bills have demonstrated a vast array of how to lose them. That said, one of you guys mentioned having a quality OC. As much as our team has it's personnel problems I do believe that great coaching and play calling would truly do wonders for our team. I dare say that over the years we have seen a lot of our young players come in playing well I times just to see them regress, and I think a lot of it is coaching. The information in your post leaves me with the thought that our drafting philosophy has not been as far off as much as our inconsistent coaching, poor play calling, and lack of development at the QB position has been.

 

 

Agree...I like the data tool a lot; however, I admit that I was disappointed to see that South Dakota State, James Madison, UCONN, and Arkansas State never produce talent, the school's of our 3rd, 4th, and two 6 round picks.

 

Better hope Nix is right, because I don't see a pro-bowler or a serviceable starter that has ever come out of any of these programs from 1988-present.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think it's rather obvious and always has been that you don't need to take certain positions at certain points and rounds in the draft, or in free agency, you just have to choose and sign the right players, regardless of when you choose them or how much you sign them for. And then you must coach them well.

 

Thanks for the raw data a lot though. It supports the obvious.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Was there a link provided? I'm not seeing one.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Never mind. Found it. Thanks.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...ory-graphic.htm

[San Jose Bills Fan]

More than twice as many quarterbacks from California than the next state (Texas).

[RealityCheck]

Agree...I like the data tool a lot; however, I admit that I was disappointed to see that South Dakota State, James Madison, UCONN, and Arkansas State never produce talent, the school's of our 3rd, 4th, and two 6 round picks.

 

Better hope Nix is right, because I don't see a pro-bowler or a serviceable starter that has ever come out of any of these programs from 1988-present.

Good point, however coaches and recruiting change every few years and players are not carbon copies of each other on there respective teams. Players are truly unique, time place and quality changes. All things evolve in a direction of sorts. The Miami Hurricanes used to produce a lot of first day talent, times change. Doubting a players future based purely on geography is a futile way to project talent into the NFL.

[spartacus]

I'm not sure if this site is well-known, but there is a really cool spreadsheet on this USA Today page. It contains all draft picks since 1988 and allows you to sort them in a variety of ways. The main purpose is to show where NFL talent is coming from in terms of high school states and colleges (i.e. which state produces the most first round DTs, etc.) But it's also a very smooth way to view and sort draft picks over that span in a variety of other ways.

 

After wasting a few hours looking at it last night, I thought about comparing our drafting tendencies over the past decade to a few of the teams with the most respected GMs and front offices. I picked Indianapolis, New England and Baltimore and started in 2000 since that was Belichick's first year with the Pats*. I just thought it would be interesting to contrast the styles considering how we've floundered over the past decade and most of the blame seems to fall on our method of building through the draft. The biggest beef seems to be that we draft too many skill positions (RB + WR), too many DBs and not enough big uglies (OL + DL). So checked up on that:

 

2000-2010

 

BALTIMORE

1st Round Picks: 11 (2 QBs, 2 WRs, 1 RB, 1 TE, 1 OT, 1 OG, 1 DT, 1 LB, 1 DB)

 

Total Picks: 88

 

OL: 15 (5 OC, 3 OG, 7 OT)

1st: 2

2nd: 2

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 8

 

DL: 12 (5 DE, 7 DT)

1st: 1

2nd: 4

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 7

 

DB: 12

1st: 1

2nd: 1

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 7

 

INDIANAPOLIS

1st Round Picks: 9 (2 RBs, 2 WRs, 2 DEs 1 TE, 1 LB, 1 DB)

 

Total Picks: 90

 

OL: 15 (4 OC, 6 OG, 5 OT)

1st: 0

2nd: 2

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 13

 

DL: 15 (10 DE, 5 DT)

1st: 2

2nd: 2

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 9

 

DB: 25

1st: 1

2nd: 5

3rd: 7

4th-7th: 12

 

NEW ENGLAND

1st Round Picks: 10 (2 TEs, 2 DEs, 2 DBs, 1 RB, 1 OG, 1 DT, 1 LB)

 

Total Picks: 100

 

OL: 17 (2 OC, 4 OG, 11 OT)

1st: 1

2nd: 3

3rd: 1

4th-7th: 12

 

DL: 19 (9 DE, 10 DT)

1st: 3

2nd: 3

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 13

 

DB: 18

1st: 2

2nd: 4

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 10

 

BUFFALO

1st Round Picks: 13 (3 RBs, 3 DBs, 2 DEs, 1 QB, 1 WR, 1 OC, 1 OT, 1 DT)

 

Total Picks: 93

 

OL: 16 (2 OC, 5 OG, 9 OT)

1st: 2

2nd: 1

3rd: 1

4th-7th: 12

 

DL: 18 (10 DE, 8 DT)

1st: 3

2nd: 4

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 8

 

DB: 19

1st: 3

2nd: 2

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 12

 

 

To me, what stood out incredibly here was the tendencies of the Indianapolis Colts. I'm sure I'm not alone in the opinion that letting Bill Polian go was the biggest kick-in-the-nuts mistake this franchise has ever made (at least in my lifetime). I'd spend a year locked in room listening to Willis McGahee recite Shakespeare to have him back as our GM. But it was shocking to me to see that his drafting trend over the past decade not only fell in line with our seemingly backwards strategy...it SURPASSED it! The man has drafted multiple "flash positions" (RB and WR), TWICE as many 1st day DBs as us and has neglected the OL in a way that makes us look gluttonous at the position. In 11 years, he has spent TWO 1st day picks on OL. Besides Ugoh, he hasn't drafted a Tackle before the 5th round. Maybe I'm in the minority, but that floored me.

 

Anyway, the site is really cool...a lot of ways to look at the data. Enjoy.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...ory-graphic.htm

what it really shows is that Indy has really good scouts and coaches that allow Polian to draft his OL in the mid-rounds and become very successful players.

 

The Bills on the other hand have very limited success in producing starters from their first round picks, let alone the mid and late rounds.

 

using only 6 scouts which is 1/3 of that employed by other top teams will result in really bad results

[bartshan-83]

As a follow-up to what Lori, Kelly, et al have said re: Tarik Glenn, Jeff Saturday, talent vs. position, etc..

 

I completely agree. There are lots of factors the go into why teams do what they do on the 3rd week in April. And for the record, while I do believe the cliche that "games are won in the trenches" I surely don't think there is an answer key for drafting successfully. Like Kelly said, it's all about talent...not position.

 

My comparisons were meant to be more casual...not really to make a point. I think with Colts, not only did having Glenn play a big role in ignoring OTs for a decade, but also Peyton Manning. I don't pretend to understand how to fully evaluate an individual offensive lineman's ability. The Colts and Patriots have been said to have among the best OLs for the past decade. But surely having the two QBs with the best ability to read and deliver has played a huge role in that. I imagine Polian sitting down at a certain point and realizing that with Manning back there, he only needed an OL that performed adequately. He could turn his sights elsewhere. Without looking at the stats, I would think this theory is further supported by his use of multiple 1st rounders on RBs to replace James. One would think that when you have the most feared QB in the game and an OL that has been lauded for years, you wouldn't need to turn in your blue chips for RB talent.

 

One final observation about Polian...the man doesn't waste resources in areas he has talent. We already touched his OL aversion. Now, obviously he hit a grand slam with Manning. Even so...since the day he was drafted, the Colts have picked only 2 QBs...both 6 rounders. Since the day Tom Brady won his 1st Super Bowl, the Pats have picked six...including a 3rd and 4th.

 

From the day Polian drafted Edgerrin James until he left for AZ in 2006, the Colts picked only 2 RBs...a 6th and 7th. And this despite Edge's ACL in 2001 and subsequent struggles for over a year.

 

When Polian arrived in 1998, he had 1 good WR...Harrison. He immediately spent a 2nd & 3rd to get his new QB another weapon. When it became clear that those two picks (Green and Pathon) weren't cutting it, he immediately burned a 1st on Wayne in 2001. From that moment, the Colts didn't touch a single WR until 2007, when Harrison was turning 35.

 

Now having Manning/Edge/Harrison/Wayne and therefore ignoring those positions might seem obvious, but it's not what everyone does. Polian seems to be a champion of the "Need" strategy as opposed to BPA. Like Lori said, when Glenn unexpectedly retired in 2007, Polian immediately burned a high resource to get Ugoh. He didn't "let the draft come to him" and he didn't pick a position of lesser need. He said "LT is crucial, we don't have one, so we are going to get a good one RIGHT NOW, price-tag be damned."

 

And it's one thing to avoid spending high picks on positions where you have talent, but Polian seems to ignore the position completely. Compare to Buffalo:

 

Since 1997 we've spent FOUR 1st round picks trying to replace Thurman Thomas. You can make the argument that all of them from Antowain to Marshawn had warts and weren't the "answer." But break it down a little further:

 

When Antowain was at least serviceable...we drafted 3 more RBs

 

When Travis Henry was playing well...we drafted 2 more RBs

 

When McGahee was doing his thing...we drafted 3 more RBs (not including Lynch)

 

Since Marshawn and Freddy have taken over...we used our highest pick on a RB

 

 

So...long post I know. And again, I'm not really trying to make a strong point one way or the other. I'm excited for Spiller and the rest of our picks. I think OL and DL is always smart, but I don't think it is only way to go. I don't care what position we pick in the Top 5 (except K or P) because IMO, talent is talent. I'd rather have a FS or RB at #4 that turns into a probowler, than a LT or DE that becomes adequate. But overall, it's not really about what you pick or when you pick, but who you pick. And if you are good at that last part, hopefully you have the sense to check it off your list of needs and move on to the next one. And I believe that is where Polian makes his money.

[Billsguy]

I'm not sure if this site is well-known, but there is a really cool spreadsheet on this USA Today page. It contains all draft picks since 1988 and allows you to sort them in a variety of ways. The main purpose is to show where NFL talent is coming from in terms of high school states and colleges (i.e. which state produces the most first round DTs, etc.) But it's also a very smooth way to view and sort draft picks over that span in a variety of other ways.

 

After wasting a few hours looking at it last night, I thought about comparing our drafting tendencies over the past decade to a few of the teams with the most respected GMs and front offices. I picked Indianapolis, New England and Baltimore and started in 2000 since that was Belichick's first year with the Pats*. I just thought it would be interesting to contrast the styles considering how we've floundered over the past decade and most of the blame seems to fall on our method of building through the draft. The biggest beef seems to be that we draft too many skill positions (RB + WR), too many DBs and not enough big uglies (OL + DL). So checked up on that:

 

2000-2010

 

BALTIMORE

1st Round Picks: 11 (2 QBs, 2 WRs, 1 RB, 1 TE, 1 OT, 1 OG, 1 DT, 1 LB, 1 DB)

 

Total Picks: 88

 

OL: 15 (5 OC, 3 OG, 7 OT)

1st: 2

2nd: 2

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 8

 

DL: 12 (5 DE, 7 DT)

1st: 1

2nd: 4

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 7

 

DB: 12

1st: 1

2nd: 1

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 7

 

INDIANAPOLIS

1st Round Picks: 9 (2 RBs, 2 WRs, 2 DEs 1 TE, 1 LB, 1 DB)

 

Total Picks: 90

 

OL: 15 (4 OC, 6 OG, 5 OT)

1st: 0

2nd: 2

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 13

 

DL: 15 (10 DE, 5 DT)

1st: 2

2nd: 2

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 9

 

DB: 25

1st: 1

2nd: 5

3rd: 7

4th-7th: 12

 

NEW ENGLAND

1st Round Picks: 10 (2 TEs, 2 DEs, 2 DBs, 1 RB, 1 OG, 1 DT, 1 LB)

 

Total Picks: 100

 

OL: 17 (2 OC, 4 OG, 11 OT)

1st: 1

2nd: 3

3rd: 1

4th-7th: 12

 

DL: 19 (9 DE, 10 DT)

1st: 3

2nd: 3

3rd: 0

4th-7th: 13

 

DB: 18

1st: 2

2nd: 4

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 10

 

BUFFALO

1st Round Picks: 13 (3 RBs, 3 DBs, 2 DEs, 1 QB, 1 WR, 1 OC, 1 OT, 1 DT)

 

Total Picks: 93

 

OL: 16 (2 OC, 5 OG, 9 OT)

1st: 2

2nd: 1

3rd: 1

4th-7th: 12

 

DL: 18 (10 DE, 8 DT)

1st: 3

2nd: 4

3rd: 3

4th-7th: 8

 

DB: 19

1st: 3

2nd: 2

3rd: 2

4th-7th: 12

 

 

To me, what stood out incredibly here was the tendencies of the Indianapolis Colts. I'm sure I'm not alone in the opinion that letting Bill Polian go was the biggest kick-in-the-nuts mistake this franchise has ever made (at least in my lifetime). But it was shocking to me to see that his drafting trend over the past decade not only fell in line with our seemingly backwards strategy...it SURPASSED it! The man has drafted multiple "flash positions" (RB and WR), TWICE as many 1st day DBs as us and has neglected the OL in a way that makes us look gluttonous at the position. In 11 years, he has spent TWO 1st day picks on OL. Besides Ugoh, he hasn't drafted a Tackle before the 5th round. Maybe I'm in the minority, but that floored me.

 

Anyway, the site is really cool...a lot of ways to look at the data. Enjoy.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...ory-graphic.htm

 

You have to factor in that both New England and Indianapolis had franchise QB's firmly entrenched so they could build around them.

 

The other major factor is drafting success. Does a team draft more of a certain position because they keep getting it wrong?

 

If you draft a franchise OT then you don't have to keep drafting OT's.

 

The biggest issue is who drafts the best players. Quality is far more important than quantity. These statistics show the quantity which is hardly probative when it comes to quality.