Arizona Cardinals News: A Tangible View of Draft Success
by Hawkwind on May 6, 2009 11:55 AM MDT
in General Arizona Cardinals News
Email
PrintWe've had some spirited discussions over the past week or so about the Arizona Cardinals success, or lack their of in some people's opinion, when it comes to the NFL draft. As we all know, grading the success or failure of a draft class is often a very subjective under taking and placing a tangible 'grade' on a class can be tricky, to say the least. The past decade has seen the Cardinals get some outstanding value with some picks, such as Boldin in the second and Reggie Wells in the sixth, but they've also had their fair share of busts like (aptly named) Buster Davis in the third round and Wendell Bryant in the first. So how can a draft class or an entire organization be graded in terms of success or failure in the draft? Let's take a look....
Since we're much better at reporting other people's research than actually conducting our own, we ran across a site that studied the each organization's draft results between 1996 and 2008. The site, Advanced NFL Stats, measured success on two different levels: picks that became starters and picks that turned into Pro Bowlers. Obviously any study isn't going to be perfect, but every team was judged within the same parameters so we'll present it the same way.
Picks that Turned into Starters: Basically they looked at the average number of years as a starter for each team's picks, broken out by round, and the average starting years for all a team's draft picks. Overall the Cardinals tied with the Colts 
and Ravens with the highest percentage of picks that ended up becoming starters. Their 'success' in the first round wasn't as high as the Colts or Ravens but their level of success didn't drop off near as much in the third and fourth rounds. In comparison to the rest of the league, the Cardinals were on of the best teams at finding talent in the middle rounds, but their level of success in the first round was closer to middle of the road.
ROTB's Take: I'm sure the first argument that will get thrown out there is that it's been much easier to secure a starting spot on the Cardinals over the past decade then the Colts or Ravens. That's certainly a valid point, but the Browns, Lions and Texans could say the same thing yet they round out the bottom three.
Picks that Turned into Pro Bowlers: This is where it gets interesting because we all know how subjective the Pro Bowl voting can be at times with smaller market or bad teams often getting penalized or overshadowed by larger, more successful teams. The Cardinals though were middle of the road in this measurement (literally 15th) with 20 overall Pro Bowls, all selected in the first three rounds. The break down includes ten selections in the first round, seven in the second and three in third.
ROTB's Take: I really hate way the Pro Bowl is determined so I won't say much other than I think the Cardinals routinely get the shaft. Still though I'd love to see these stats updated in a couple of years once guys like Fitz, DRC and Wilson have a couple more trips to Hawaii (or wherever the PB is now).
Above Expected: Their third and final measure is the most inclusive and takes a team's drafting position vs. the level of starting or Pro Bowl experience. Basically they came up with an average level of success (both starting and PBs) for each slot in the draft and measured that against each team's overall results. For example, it's reasonable to assume that Matt Stafford should be more likely to become a starter and Pro Bowler than Chris Wells should, based solely on being the #1 pick versus the #31 pick. Using this metric the Cardinals were 14th in terms of starting experience above expected, but their Pro Bowl rank was 26th.
ROTB's Take: What can you say, when you've got early first round
picks like Tom Knight, Andre Wadsworth, Thomas Jones, Leonard Davis Wendell Bryant, Bryant Johnson, Calvin Pace, Antrel Rolle, Matt Leinart and Levi Brown who have combined for a grand total of zero Pro Bowls, your not going to grade out well in this kind of metric. Again I can see this number improving in the next five years or so, but we'll see.
----------------------------------------------
Defining success is often a nearly impossible task but these three metric take a stab at the impossible. The perfect example of this dilemma is Antrel Rolle. To this point in his career, would you grade his eighth overall selection as a success? He's started 44 games over the past four seasons and his five touchdowns over the past two seasons (playoffs included) are more than some of his offensive rivals. Still though he failed at the position in which he was drafted and is still learning his new position. In a world with no grey area would call him a success or failure?
In the end, I'd say the Cardinals are some where in the middle in terms of draft success and their recent drafts could move them much closer to the top 10. As with just about every aspect of the franchise, I think the Cardinals are improving in not only talent evaluation but also making smart, well informed moves on draft day. Building a sustained winner, always starts from within and very few successful teams are failures on draft day. How would you rate Rod Graves and the rest of the front office for their recent drafts? Are they trending upward?
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rolle
He’s an interesting case because he really can’t be a success b/c he could hold down a starting corner spot much less be the awesome player that we thought we were drafting. But at the same time, he wasn’t a terrible player and he’s shown some serious promise at safety. I guess considering some of the other names on that list of first round no-bodies, we can’t complain with a solid starter.
Draft pundits had Rolle tabbed to be a safety when he was drafted
He may have not panned out at the position he was hoping to fill (he was an improvement over David Macklin but a three-legged dog is too) but has shown some worth at the position many figured he should have been playing from the start. Rolle cannot be considered a bad pick, just a reimaged one. He’s no Tommy K….cannot even say that name…
We all leave footprints in the sands of time, just watch out for the discarded fish hooks!
You suck Hawk.
I was gonna come at this with the same argument about Rolle’s predraft projection as a safety. Great minds think alike.
Success/Failure
As was stated this entire exercise is very subjective. The consistent grading approach lends some validity, but can’t really define success or failure. For instance, we get no real credit for Leinart – and I’m not convinced that the pick was a good one…I was hoping for Cutler, personally – but he should be ‘getting better’ for having sat behind Warner. If his maturity and leadership can grow then he has the potential to make his selection seem ‘more rational’.
I think that Graves has done a fair job over the last 3-5 seasons. Every selection has panned out, but they’ve seemed to have been aimed at either filling a need or getting value. In that regard, I think that Rolle should be counted as a success. He’s not playing CB, but he has been playing at a much higher level since making the move to S. Playing at the value of a 1st round selection, I would propose. Plus, with AW and Rolle back there, I’m a lot more confident in the ‘last line of defense’ than I have been in ages! The list of ‘failures’ is always going to haunt a team. Ours is no exception. Of course, isn’t trying to remain positive something of second nature for those of us who have spent time following this organization?
I’d be curious to see how we’d score if the players careers weren’t limited to only the team that drafted them. Guys like Simeon Rice and Garrison Hearst would lend to our ‘good picks who got away and helped someone else’ numbers…
that would be an interesting addition
guys like the two you mentioned plus Leonard Davis, Corey Chavous, Thomas Jones and Kyle Vanden Bosch all went on to go to at least one PB after leaving ARI.
Agree that Rolle can now be considered a draft success
but should he be considered 8th overall pick success? Starting caliber free safeties can be found in the mid rounds. Starter yes…good value pick, no.
by AJ BirdWatcher on May 7, 2009 11:22 AM MDT up reply actions
that's a good point
If he was 15th or 20th, we might have a different view of him. Then again if he picks up a couple Pro Bowls at the FS spot, I’ll give him a thumbs up.
I'm not sure there's any catch-all measure of a draft's success.
First, there are several reasons why a pick doesn’t work out; among them (a) dude gets injured, (b) dude gets in trouble off the field, © dude is stuck behind better players, (d) dude develops bad attitude over salary, (e) dude doesn’t get along with his position coach, (f) coaching change makes dude a bad fit in new system, (g) team is a chronic loser & dude can’t deal with losing.
Then there’s the question of “need” vs. BPA. A team may draft a QBOF despite having a Pro Bowl guy in place they can win with for 2 or 3 more years. If that young QBOF is stuck on the bench, does that make the pick a bad one? Conversely, sometimes a draft pick is rushed into action because the team has no one decent ahead of him. If the youngster flounders, does that make him a rotten pick? Or did the team misuse him?
Of course, one good overall measure of a team’s drafting over a few years has to do with W’s and L’s. (If a chronic loser starts winning consistently, there has to be some reason for this).
I guess my tried & true method is to (a) evaluate the draft each year, (b) leave my comments up for a long time for all to see and © check back to see if I still feel those comments were valid. For example, looking back on the 2003 draft, was I correct in belly-aching about the Cards passing on Suggs, Trufaunt and Kevin Williams in order to draft BJ and Pace? (Yup!) Looking back on the 1999 draft, was I right when I jumped up and down because we drafted David Boston and LJ Shelton in the first round? (Nope!) Did Dennis Greens drafts that brought us Fitz, Dansby and Dockett still hold up when you also had to factor in guys like Blackstock, Lewis and Elton Brown?
In a majority of instances, I must tell you that – at the time – I thought most Cardinal drafting decisions were good ones (even though in retrospect, many didn’t work out so well).
What I think it all boils down to is that the draft is an inexact science – all about “probabilities” and not about “definites.” You make the best possible decisions and hope that more of them are good ones then bad. You’re betting that, if you play the percentages, the odds will work in your favor over time.
CHICKEN LITTLE WAS RIGHT!
+1....yea there's no doubt that they're impossible to project or grade immediately
I think one other factor that plays a huge role is simply stability. When the same coaching staff (specifically the head coach) stays intact and they employ the same philosophies, I think a kid’s chances of success go up exponentially. There a reason that teams like the Steelers, Colts, Pats and Ravens almost always have more ‘good’ picks than ‘bad’ picks and IMO, stability plays a huge role.
Whiz has finally brought stability to this town and even though we lost both coordinators, we’re not bringing in a new offense and the defense is still on the same track that it has been for the past two years. That kind of consistency really helps young guys like Timmy H, Breaton, big Levi, DRC and CC. Here’s to hoping we see a lot more drafts like the 2004 draft (Fitz, Dansby, DD and Antonio Smith) instead of the 2002 draft (Josh McCown was the best pick).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
