Teams drafting top 15 WRs or CBs since 2000

[AKC]

Here's the list of NFL teams who used a top 15 pick on a WR or CB since the 2001 draft:

 

Lions, Vikes, Texans, Cards, Bills, Saints, Jets, Fish, Jags, Bears, Browns, Cowboys, Titans, Redskins, Chargers and the Seahawks.

 

There's a lot of speculation on this board about using the 11 pick this year to bring in the player who could have the greatest impact on our record.

 

No team has coveted the WR positon early more so that Detroit, with less than resounding results. It's safe to say that the majority of the teams on the above list also appear on every "worst front office" list. There's the effect of sustained periods of good ball keeping top teams off the list by virtue of having fewer top 15 picks, but when the franchises that have been favorites year after year for playoffs have gotten into the top of the draft, they've gone to other positions with the premium picks.

 

Looking at some of the top teams who have NOT taken a top 15 WR or CB:

 

Ravens- twice picked in the top 15, went for defense twice, a DT and a LB.

Philly- with only 3 top 15 picks this century, the Eagles have taken a defensive linemen with each one, twice selecting DTs.

Pats*- only 2 top 15 picks- both 300lb+ Defensive Linemen.

Indy- one top 15, one Defensive Lineman.

Green Bay- two top 15s, a DT and an LB.

 

Or, to put it another way, the above teams have had a total of 10 top-15 picks since 2000. Not one of those picks was used on an offensive player. Fully 8 of the 10 picks were used on DLinemen.

 

Let's hope our front office is able to recognize the trend here. Impact in premium picks comes far more frequently from quality Defensive players versus the other side of the ball. We have an opportunity in this draft to adopt the model the winners use- or we can follow the Lion's management playbook and end up acting excited whenever we get to .500 during the season.

[Pete]

Our offense scored 11 18 TDs last year and had plenty of 3 and out series. How do you rectify that? Or do you load up on defense and wait until next season to improve our offense? I am sold that we do need another DT for our rotation and we could use some LB depth. But our offense needs playmakers and it is hard to find a rookie that will make an impact outside the first two rounds. I think we tipped our hand. Our free agent signings have been defense and we addressed some needs. I do not see how it is possible that we do not use one of the first two picks on WR. I would go as far to say that 2 out of our first 3 picks will be TE and WR. Would you have a problem with that?

 

 

I edited this post. I read the figure 11 TDs and went back and counted 18

[Brandon]

I don't know if it really proves anything. Its still only one pick. Most of the better teams in the league do a very good job finding quality players after the first round. The bad teams don't. That's the difference between the winners and losers.

 

The Bills fall more into the latter category than the former, particularly on offense, and its part of the reason why I'm not too thrilled about the idea of waiting to pick a WR or TE in this draft. The Bills simply have not proven that they can draft offensive players effectively at all outside of the first round. Combined with a defense-minded coaching staff, I feel much, much more confident in their ability to find sleepers on defense a little later in the draft than on offense.

[Dawgg]

Let's hope our front office is able to recognize the trend here. Impact in premium picks comes far more frequently from quality Defensive players versus the other side of the ball. We have an opportunity in this draft to adopt the model the winners use- or we can follow the Lion's management playbook and end up acting excited whenever we get to .500 during the season.

 

Agreed 100%.

 

Great post.

[ganesh]

Ravens- twice picked in the top 15, went for defense twice, a DT and a LB.

Philly- with only 3 top 15 picks this century, the Eagles have taken a defensive linemen with each one, twice selecting DTs.

Pats*- only 2 top 15 picks- both 300lb+ Defensive Linemen.

Indy- one top 15, one Defensive Lineman.

Green Bay- two top 15s, a DT and an LB.

 

Or, to put it another way, the above teams have had a total of 10 top-15 picks since 2000. Not one of those picks was used on an offensive player. Fully 8 of the 10 picks were used on DLinemen.

 

Those teams other than Ravens all had a top notch QB and a pretty explosive offense in place that they did not need to be picking a WR in the 1st round.

 

If you look back at Philly's record of drafting, it is not very spectacular.

[Lori]

Interesting that you cut it off at 15, seeing as how the Colts used lower first-round picks on WRs in 2001 and 2007. Should probably also note that six of the teams on your top list made the playoffs in 2007, and two of them have recently gone to a Super Bowl.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're trying to make. Given my druthers, I'd rather trade down in the round than take a WR at 12, and I'd jump at the chance to pick a top defensive player that might happen to fall to us. That said, I'm not sure I'm buying this particular argument.

[Tortured Soul]

Interesting argument, but I'm not sure how relevant it is. Indy hasn't had many top 15 picks, but they have used four recent first round picks on WR/TE. Baltimore used a very high pick (#10) on Chris McAllister and (#10) on Travis Taylor. They won the Superbowl that year, but those don't mean your arbitrary 2001 cutoff. They Eagles have also drafted a WR and CB in the first round this decade, but as you said, they don't often draft top 15. NE has used two first round picks on TEs this decade and one on a DB. The Packers have used a #20 on a WR and a #14 on a Te in 2000.

 

So I think your numbers largely come from your arbitrary cutoffs of top 15 and since 2001 more than anything real. I also don't think the teams you picked are the best teams of the past seven years. If you want to look at how these teams became winners (how's this - four of five have franchise QB's), I think that may be more useful, instead of looking at what they did after they got there.

[AKC]

I'm not too thrilled about the idea of waiting to pick a WR or TE in this draft.

 

Considering the poor percentage of early round TEs who ever live up to expectations, and with the underwhelming results of the current TE class at the combine, I can't imagine finding any way to get excited about the Bills risking an early pick at the position.

 

Our offense scored 11 TDs last year and had plenty of 3 and out series. How do you rectify that? Or do you load up on defense and wait until next season to improve our offense? I am sold that we do need another DT for our rotation and we could use some LB depth. But our offense needs playmakers and it is hard to find a rookie that will make an impact outside the first two rounds. I think we tipped our hand. Our free agent signings have been defense and we addressed some needs. I do not see how it is possible that we do not use one of the first two picks on WR. I would go as far to say that 2 out of our first 3 picks will be TE and WR. Would you have a problem with that?

 

I agree the offense needs help- but I'm pointing out that losing franchises are the one's spending top picks there. We shouldn't even THINK about a WR until the first round is over. We're talking about giving the offense a bigger target as a #2, and the thought of putting #11 money towards our #2 Wideout would cripple this team IMO beyond any chance of recovering from that kind of cap misapproppriation for at least a few seasons. The idea is to get the money laid out the way the league's winners do it- and that means get your defensive house right and the rest will come together. In the coming draft, we might be best served with 2 defenders day one and spending the balance of our picks on the offensive side of the ball. Our D needs remain at DT/CB/FS and I believe once we address those, our offense will see a lot more chances. More chances will result in the offense playing better as a unit much earlier in the season.

 

Interesting that you cut it off at 15, seeing as how the Colts used lower first-round picks on WRs in 2001 and 2007. Should probably also note that six of the teams on your top list made the playoffs in 2007, and two of them have recently gone to a Super Bowl.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're trying to make. Given my druthers, I'd rather trade down in the round than take a WR at 12, and I'd jump at the chance to pick a top defensive player that might happen to fall to us. That said, I'm not sure I'm buying this particular argument.

 

We already have a top WR making first round money- adding a second WR getting the money the 11 spot will require just looks to me to be the kind of thing that the better managed teams don't do. The general opinion on this class of WRs being as low as it is, I just hope there's some way to wait to get help at the position until at the earliest our second pick.

 

I used the 15 spot because I needed some window to frame the numbers. 15 seemed like a natural- but there's no change of course if I go to top 11- the winningest teams year in and year out still favor defense when they get the rare opportunity to pick that high.

 

One study I'd love to find is one showing the ratio of D salary to O salary for each franchise. I'd be surprised if it didn't show some real connect to won/loss records.

[Chilly]

We have a top WR makiing first round money- adding a second WR getting the money the 11 spot will require just looks to me to be the kind of thing that the better managed teams don't do.

 

Not sure I'm buying this argument either. Pittsburgh has Ward and Holmes, Indy has Wayne and Harrison (and Gonzalez), the Chargers would have paid that much last year, Cowboys had TO and Glenn, Packers had Driver and Jennings.

[DreamOnDan]

Here's the list of NFL teams who used a top 15 pick on a WR or CB since the 2001 draft:

 

Lions, Vikes, Texans, Cards, Bills, Saints, Jets, Fish, Jags, Bears, Browns, Cowboys, Titans, Redskins, Chargers and the Seahawks.

 

There's a lot of speculation on this board about using the 11 pick this year to bring in the player who could have the greatest impact on our record.

 

No team has coveted the WR positon early more so that Detroit, with less than resounding results. It's safe to say that the majority of the teams on the above list also appear on every "worst front office" list. There's the effect of sustained periods of good ball keeping top teams off the list by virtue of having fewer top 15 picks, but when the franchises that have been favorites year after year for playoffs have gotten into the top of the draft, they've gone to other positions with the premium picks.

 

Looking at some of the top teams who have NOT taken a top 15 WR or CB:

 

Ravens- twice picked in the top 15, went for defense twice, a DT and a LB.

Philly- with only 3 top 15 picks this century, the Eagles have taken a defensive linemen with each one, twice selecting DTs.

Pats*- only 2 top 15 picks- both 300lb+ Defensive Linemen.

Indy- one top 15, one Defensive Lineman.

Green Bay- two top 15s, a DT and an LB.

 

Or, to put it another way, the above teams have had a total of 10 top-15 picks since 2000. Not one of those picks was used on an offensive player. Fully 8 of the 10 picks were used on DLinemen.

 

Let's hope our front office is able to recognize the trend here. Impact in premium picks comes far more frequently from quality Defensive players versus the other side of the ball. We have an opportunity in this draft to adopt the model the winners use- or we can follow the Lion's management playbook and end up acting excited whenever we get to .500 during the season.

Hey you make some great points and your research must have taken a while. I totally agree that if I owned the franchise, it would be a good business decision to draft a lineman with every first rd pick possible. I mean, this game is a dogfight, it is won in the trenches and 300 lb nasty athletes are few and far between. If the team decided to take on this philosophy it would take about 3-4 years and we would really start to see the consistency, and stability ultimately leading to a far more competitive team week in and week out. With all that being said, I feel that as a fan, I want to see the team win now. It is hard to disagree that our offense is missing a big target more than it is in need of line help. As a fan, this team is growing boring to watch. I get caught up in how hard they fought or how hard they tried. I'm much rather get caught up in how bad asz we are.

As I look back to last season, the memory that I have is thinking over and over to myself "Is this really a team that was built to win in Buffalo? I mean who are we fooling? Look at the Browns... Giants... These teams are built to win in bad weather. But the Buffalo Bills have been built like a dome team for just about as long as Wade Phillips has been gone." I felt as if the Bills were Appalacia state, they were smaller, less talented, and vanilla any way you look at it. But well coached nonetheless. If everything went right, and nobody turned the ball over we had a chance. But when we lined up, mono e mono, Bad weather, december. We had nowhere to go. We had no body wide enough to shield a defender and catch a ball. We had nobody tall enough to throw a seem pass to or a jump ball. Or even a stop route along the sideline for that matter. I truely feel that Either a awesome TE or a Big James Hardy type of reciever is excactly what this team needs. More than anything, so we can't risk not getting our guy.

[The Tomcat]

Interesting that you cut it off at 15, seeing as how the Colts used lower first-round picks on WRs in 2001 and 2007. Should probably also note that six of the teams on your top list made the playoffs in 2007, and two of them have recently gone to a Super Bowl.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're trying to make. Given my druthers, I'd rather trade down in the round than take a WR at 12, and I'd jump at the chance to pick a top defensive player that might happen to fall to us. That said, I'm not sure I'm buying this particular argument.

 

Agreed

[AKC]

Not sure I'm buying this argument either. Pittsburgh has Ward and Holmes, Indy has Wayne and Harrison (and Gonzalez), the Chargers would have paid that much last year, Cowboys had TO and Glenn, Packers had Driver and Jennings.

 

You can't reach that conclusion with the examples you offer- Driver's a 7th round pick, Ward a 3rd and Dallas didn't draft either of those receivers.

[Lori]

We already have a top WR making first round money- adding a second WR getting the money the 11 spot will require just looks to me to be the kind of thing that the better managed teams don't do. The general opinion on this class of WRs being as low as it is, I just hope there's some way to wait to get help at the position until at the earliest our second pick.

 

I used the 15 spot because I needed some window to frame the numbers. 15 seemed like a natural- but there's no change of course if I go to top 11- the winningest teams year in and year out still favor defense when they get the rare opportunity to pick that high.

 

One study I'd love to find is one showing the ratio of D salary to O salary for each franchise. I'd be surprised if it didn't show some real connect to won/loss records.

The Colts would have to skew heavily to offense. The Pats, with Brady breaking the bank vs. all those veteran defenders, I'm not so sure about. Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Bears would have to pay more on D, you'd think.

 

With Dockery and Walker last year, Stroud and Spencer Johnson this year, we're making strides in the trenches. Is it enough, or should that #11 (braincramp in my first post, #12 was last year) go to another DT? You haven't quite convinced me of that yet, but you're getting closer.

[Chilly]

You can't reach that conclusion with the examples you offer- Driver's a 7th round pick, Ward a 3rd and Dallas didn't draft either of those receivers.

 

Sure I can, you said:

 

We have a top WR makiing first round money- adding a second WR getting the money the 11 spot will require just looks to me to be the kind of thing that the better managed teams don't do.

 

I provided examples of teams where two receivers are making decent money.

[AKC]

The Colts would have to skew heavily to offense. The Pats, with Brady breaking the bank vs. all those veteran defenders, I'm not so sure about. Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Bears would have to pay more on D, you'd think.

 

With Dockery and Walker last year, Stroud and Spencer Johnson this year, we're making strides in the trenches. Is it enough, or should that #11 (braincramp in my first post, #12 was last year) go to another DT? You haven't quite convinced me of that yet, but you're getting closer.

 

This doesn't look like the year for us to fill our DT rotation in the first since the air is so thin at the top of the DT class. It's too bad, because we look to have the first 4 pieces. One more premium talent there would give us a quality and competitive rotation IMO, with the flexibility to play Johnson in the "Tuck" role. But it may have to wait-

 

I should float a trial question past someone like the FootballOutsiders to see if they'd spend the time to analyze the overall cap numbers at the O and D level. I'd be very interested in seeing how the numbers come out- and no doubt there are some exceptions to the overall trend- Indy at first glance would appear to skew the $ ratio while the Steelers skew the DTs rotation numbers- but overall the consistent teams, and especially the teams consistent on D, have put a much higher poriority on premium DLine talent than the Lions/Bills/Jets of the NFL.

[ans4e64]

Here's the list of NFL teams who used a top 15 pick on a WR or CB since the 2001 draft:

 

Lions, Vikes, Texans, Cards, Bills, Saints, Jets, Fish, Jags, Bears, Browns, Cowboys, Titans, Redskins, Chargers and the Seahawks.

 

There's a lot of speculation on this board about using the 11 pick this year to bring in the player who could have the greatest impact on our record.

 

No team has coveted the WR positon early more so that Detroit, with less than resounding results. It's safe to say that the majority of the teams on the above list also appear on every "worst front office" list. There's the effect of sustained periods of good ball keeping top teams off the list by virtue of having fewer top 15 picks, but when the franchises that have been favorites year after year for playoffs have gotten into the top of the draft, they've gone to other positions with the premium picks.

 

Looking at some of the top teams who have NOT taken a top 15 WR or CB:

 

Ravens- twice picked in the top 15, went for defense twice, a DT and a LB.

Philly- with only 3 top 15 picks this century, the Eagles have taken a defensive linemen with each one, twice selecting DTs.

Pats*- only 2 top 15 picks- both 300lb+ Defensive Linemen.

Indy- one top 15, one Defensive Lineman.

Green Bay- two top 15s, a DT and an LB.

 

Or, to put it another way, the above teams have had a total of 10 top-15 picks since 2000. Not one of those picks was used on an offensive player. Fully 8 of the 10 picks were used on DLinemen.

 

Let's hope our front office is able to recognize the trend here. Impact in premium picks comes far more frequently from quality Defensive players versus the other side of the ball. We have an opportunity in this draft to adopt the model the winners use- or we can follow the Lion's management playbook and end up acting excited whenever we get to .500 during the season.

 

You named 16 teams. Out of those teams, over half of them have made the playoffs in the past two seasons, 5 have been in the AFC/NFC Championship game, and 1 went to the Super Bowl. You are actually disproving your own point with your evidence

[AKC]

Sure I can, you said:

I provided examples of teams where two receivers are making decent money.

 

You should go back to the title of the post- it's about drafting WRs/CBs early in the draft, who does it and who doesn't. You used Pitt and the Cowboys, and between them they only have one WR either of them picked up that early. Your examples provide support for my original point.

 

You named 16 teams. Out of those teams, over half of them have made the playoffs in the past two seasons, 5 have been in the AFC/NFC Championship game, and 1 went to the Super Bowl. You are actually disproving your own point with your evidence

 

Making the playoffs sporadically is a whole lot easier trick than doing it consistently. You'll also notice among the teams listed are the franchises considererd the worst at running a team.

[Chilly]

You should go back to the title of the post- it's about drafting WRs/CBs early in the draft, who does it and who doesn't. You used Pitt and the Cowboys, and between them they only have one WR either of them picked up that early. Your examples provide support for my original point.

 

One of your points was relating to money, and thats all I was commenting on.

[Dawgg]

With Dockery and Walker last year, Stroud and Spencer Johnson this year, we're making strides in the trenches. Is it enough, or should that #11 (braincramp in my first post, #12 was last year) go to another DT? You haven't quite convinced me of that yet, but you're getting closer.

 

I don't think this argument advocates for taking a DT with #11 regardless of the situation. I think the point is that teams that prioritize defensive playmakers over WRs in the first round tend to be more consistent over the long haul... and I think AKC is absolutely correct in that assertion.

 

As I pointed out in previous posts, we had Wilfork and Tommie Harris staring at us in the face and we took Lee Evans -- a good player in his own right -- but let's not kid ourselves... that was a mistake. Let's not repeat it

[ans4e64]

You should go back to the title of the post- it's about drafting WRs/CBs early in the draft, who does it and who doesn't. You used Pitt and the Cowboys, and between them they only have one WR either of them picked up that early. Your examples provide support for my original point.

Making the playoffs sporadically is a whole lot easier trick than doing it consistently. You'll also notice among the teams listed are the franchises considererd the worst at running a team.

 

I said made the playoffs within the last 2 years?