2022 NFL Draft Thread

[Cincydawg]

I'm sure they look at "intangibles" as best they can, as well as talent, durability, success in college, etc.  Obviously some players are great in college and for some reason don't pan out later, and vice versa.  It's a bit like the 4-5 star HS players, maybe a LOT like it.

[847badgerfan]

3 years is a fair time to judge a draft, IMO. The average career is only slightly longer than that. After 3 years, you know if you have a bust or a great one, in most cases. 

Aaron Rodgers comes to mind as an exception, as he sat behind Favre for his first 3 before becoming a star. I don't think that happens much anymore though. They make too much money to sit and wait.

Steve Young didn't do much in Tampa or in SF, until Montana retired.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I'm focusing more on the player's fit into the team....it's not like hoping your draftee is a round peg for a round hole - considering the turnover rate of players at all positions, the hole can be round, square, star-shaped, etc., and is constantly changing.  The coordinators change every few years, too, so you're basically drafting a guy in the hopes that he will be able to excel in any situation, which is unlikely for any player, no matter how good.
.
With all the moving parts, no one is LIKELY to succeed.  But if you luck out and hit on enough guys being solid contributors and lady luck helps with the breakout players at least at the rate of chance, you might avoid "bad" drafts.

[Cincydawg]

QB is probably the one position where a great player might sit 3-4 years before getting a shot.  I think a great player likely needs to have a ten year career minimum.

[OrangeAfroMan]

3 years is a fair time to judge a draft, IMO. The average career is only slightly longer than that. After 3 years, you know if you have a bust or a great one, in most cases.

Aaron Rodgers comes to mind as an exception, as he sat behind Favre for his first 3 before becoming a star. I don't think that happens much anymore though. They make too much money to sit and wait.

Steve Young didn't do much in Tampa or in SF, until Montana retired.

But you know for a fact that each additional year you wait, your observation will be more accurate.  So why the rush?

[847badgerfan]

Because the average career is NFL (not for long). 3.3 years.

[Cincydawg]

But great players are not average.  I'd guess the average may include a player on the scout team who makes a handful of games and quits.

A median would be a better metric I think.  

[Cincydawg]

The ‘average career length is 3.5 years’ stat needs clarification : nfl (reddit.com)

If you make a roster opening day the average career is 6.1 seasons.
If you make it 3 seasons, your average is 7.9.
If you are a first round pick? 9.3.
Play in a single Pro Bowl? 11.7.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Because the average career is NFL (not for long). 3.3 years.

[img width=500 height=387.995]https://i.imgur.com/QrLH0Hw.png[/img]

Great, so after 3 years, you'll be able to split the draftees into 2 groups:  "not playing anymore" and "still playing."  Really useful.

[Cincydawg]

Great, so after 3 years, you'll be able to split the draftees into 2 groups:  "not playing anymore" and "still playing."  Really useful.

That would require a median, not an average of data not normally distributed.  This "average" is a distorted figure, not really relevant, in my view.

[OrangeAfroMan]

That's not the point.  The point is that it fails to distinguish between a backup and a pro-bowler.

[Cincydawg]

To distinguish between "still active" and "not playing any more", you need the median, not the average.  The median may well be 5-6 years.  I couldn't find data on it oddly enough.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Probably because people don't know what median is.

[Cincydawg]

Great, so after 3 years, you'll be able to split the draftees into 2 groups:  "not playing anymore" and "still playing."  Really useful.

The median, as I said, would likely be 5-6-7 years, not 3.  And in the above, you'd need the median.