Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NFL.com's GM List of Highest Success with Rookies


Frizzy350

Recommended Posts

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000481917/article/which-gms-have-the-best-success-rate-with-rookies

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

"Carolina has to be excited about the future. Dave Gettleman, a long-time disciple of Ernie Accorsi -- who built two Super Bowl teams of his own -- has had a strong first two drafts highlighted by the talented Kelvin Benjamin. Can he build a team around Cam Newton?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is based of rookie years rather than careers? This really doesn't mean anything.

It'd be nice to see ranking GMs in order of overall success of the player based on other factors other than an all-rookie year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gettleman has done well the past two years, especially with UDFA rookies. I hope it wasn't luck and it continues.

Last year we had Horton, Lester and White contribute as UDFA rookies

This season we had Philly Brown, Darrin Reaves and Norwell contribute as UDFA rookies.

If Gettleman keeps finding UDFA rookies to contribute we will be very successful in the future especially when we have to sign guys like Cam, Luke, Star and KB to long term deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only two knocks I still have on Gettleman were picking Boston (just too early for me), though he may turn out well and I'll eat my crow. And also for not drafting Hurst late. Hard to fault much of his drafting or UDFA pick-ups so far, though. 

 

 Tre played ridiculously well already for a 4th rounder and that was after missing all of the offseason. Not sure how he hasn't already made you eat crow... As for Hurst, it would've been nice if he could've gotten him and tried to develop him here, but he was actually pretty damn bad last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Tre played ridiculously well already for a 4th rounder and that was after missing all of the offseason. Not sure how he hasn't already made you eat crow... As for Hurst, it would've been nice if he could've gotten him and tried to develop him here, but he was actually pretty damn bad last year.

 

Hurst had stretches he played well I thought, against us for instance. Then teetered off into poo it seems, my bad. Boston played well, and also struggled at times, but it's a small sample size. I just personally thought it was too high in the draft for such an up and down player (though UNC's secondary may have been to blame). But, I'm not the GM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurst had stretches he played well I thought, against us for instance. Then teetered off into poo it seems, my bad. Boston played well, and also struggled at times, but it's a small sample size. I just personally thought it was too high in the draft for such an up and down player (though UNC's secondary may have been to blame). But, I'm not the GM. 

 

I wasn't happy with the Bene or Boston pick at the time, but after this year I think we got steals in both of them. Some re-drafts have had Boston going in the 1st round to the Eagles and pretty much all of them have Bene in the 1st. Boston definitely struggled, particularly against the Seahawks, but overall I think he definitely outplayed his draft position. Literally the only pick of Gettleman's that I don't like at this point is Barner. And that was a 6th rounder, so no big loss. Kugbilla has been injured his entire career so we can't really evaluate that pick, and Gaffney was hurt and then stolen so once again, can't evaluate. The rest were all ridiculously good picks in my opinion. Still a fairly small sample size, but I'm really confident in Gettleman as our GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is based of rookie years rather than careers? This really doesn't mean anything.

It'd be nice to see ranking GMs in order of overall success of the player based on other factors other than an all-rookie year.

If they did that, you would have half the gm's off the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is based of rookie years rather than careers? This really doesn't mean anything.

It'd be nice to see ranking GMs in order of overall success of the player based on other factors other than an all-rookie year.

Well yeah that was the premise behind the article. You just changed the subject completely nullifying the legitimacy of your argument. WTF?

Hey guys how has g-mans record been for the guys he didn't draft? That's the burning question we all want to know.

Pep had a good career, does Gets get credit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah that was the premise behind the article. You just changed the subject completely nullifying the legitimacy of your argument. WTF?

Hey guys how has g-mans record been for the guys he didn't draft? That's the burning question we all want to know.

Pep had a good career, does Gets get credit?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I just don't see the point in ranking a GM based on whether their picks make 'all-rookies'. I get that was the basis of the article in just a not sure it means all that much.

And I was suggesting perhaps there is a different way to 'rank' GMs that might be a bit more meaningful, I'm not entirely sure how, but I'm sure there's a more interesting way. As squirrel pointed out some might not be on the list...

As I said, this article and ranking really doesn't mean anything. Despite sample size there's a lot of misleading issues with it, so I don't really understand the value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you're talking about. I just don't see the point in ranking a GM based on whether their picks make 'all-rookies'. I get that was the basis of the article in just a not sure it means all that much.

And I was suggesting perhaps there is a different way to 'rank' GMs that might be a bit more meaningful, I'm not entirely sure how, but I'm sure there's a more interesting way. As squirrel pointed out some might not be on the list...

As I said, this article and ranking really doesn't mean anything. Despite sample size there's a lot of misleading issues with it, so I don't really understand the value.

the point is the point. He took an angle at how to judge a GMs success by how their draft class can contribute immediately. Why would that not be a good barometer of how good of a talent evaluator is? Gets is smashing drafts and this author think that may be a tell-tale sign of a good GM. Why is that hard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Exactly what I was going to say. Brady seems to be taking a page out of Olsen's playbook, which is probably a good thing. They'll probably get around to giving Brady an Emmy one day, and he should thank Olsen for giving him the blueprint for success.
    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
×
×
  • Create New...