1st round pick staying power by position based on 1999-2008 (nfl.com)

[top dawg]

Not looking too good for one (or two) of our positions of need.  Of course I guess you could say that it doesn't look good at all depending on perspective.

 

Link (thanks to nfl.com)

 

 

Staying power of (relatively) recent first-round picks      

 

Position        No. of draftees    Started Year 6   Percentage

 

LB                          27                        17                  .630

TE                         14                          8                   .571

G                            7                           4                   .571

T                            33                        17                  .515

C                            4                           2                   .500

RB                         31                        15                   .484

S                           15                          7                    .467

CB                         42                        13                    .310

DE                         40                        16                    .400

QB                         28                        11                    .393

DT                         34                        13                    .382

WR                        40                        10                    .250

 

 

Strangely enough, whether you picked offense or defense, the results were almost identical. Just 67 of 157 (.427) offensive choices made the cut, compared with 66 of 158 defenders (.418). Either way, total crapshoot. 

 

 

 

I don't think that you can read too much into it. Just another interesting dynamic that can be contemplated within the context of drafting, free agency and the salary cap.  I guess that in a way it supports taking the BPA with those top picks as opposed to just drafting for need, because in theory those players should have the most staying power, regardless of position.   But, that may be a stretch also. I don't know.

 

 

 

[Fox007]

I just read that on NFL.com and I actually think there is enough there to draw a conclusion on "bust" rates.  It doesn't mean teams will stop doing what they do or change the way they draft but it does show good stats on how the 1st rounders pan out by position.

 

It definitely falls in line what many believe were high bust rates anyway when discussing WRs/DTs the interesting one to me is the CB one as well.

 

This may not really be about whether the player busts or not as some of those guys probably went on to be solid players but it puts what many people already thought into perspective.

[HoFBound59]

This is why BPA is the way to go. You don't reach for a certain postion just because you need it. Most reaches = busts.

[gettlemanjack]

tough to build through the draft alone when 1st R picks have 50/50 bust rates.

[gettlemanjack]

note it lists how many 1st R picks were used at each position during that time:

42 - CB ( .310 pct started year 6)

40 - DE ( .400 pct started year 6)

40 - WR ( .250 pct started year 6)

34 - DT ( .382 pct started year 6)

33 - OT ( .515 pct started year 6)

31 - RB ( .484 pct started year 6)

28 - QB ( .393 pct started year 6)

27 - LB ( .630 pct started year 6)

15 - S ( .467 pct started year 6)

14 - TE ( .571 pct started year 6)

7 - OG ( .571 pct started year 6)

4 - C ( .500 pct started year 6)

compare to the average number of Top100 picks that were used at each position over last 5 years:

14 - CB

14 - WR

12 - DT

10 - OT

9 - DE

9 - OLB

7 - RB

7 - S

5 - OG

5 - QB

4 - TE

4 - ILB

2 - C

[WestCoastPanther]

Damn this chart is making me really want to go O-Line now....Better protection for Cam and a better run game.

[updownsigma]

I just read that on NFL.com and I actually think there is enough there to draw a conclusion on "bust" rates. It doesn't mean teams will stop doing what they do or change the way they draft but it does show good stats on how the 1st rounders pan out by position.

It definitely falls in line what many believe were high bust rates anyway when discussing WRs/DTs the interesting one to me is the CB one as well.

This may not really be about whether the player busts or not as some of those guys probably went on to be solid players but it puts what many people already thought into perspective.

I read an article a few weeks ago that looked at whether players at some positions were more likely to be busts than others. I think WR and QB were more likely to be busts but only like 10% more than average. Of course a lot of it depends on how you define bust. I'll try to find it though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[panfanman]

So every player that plays through 5 years and is out is considered a bust? I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I think there are great players every year that are let go because they have exhausted their usefulness to a team considering the money they would command vs the salary savings of drafting a rookie with similar ability and youth on their side. Its a dog eat dog business and many good players just like in real world jobs fInd themselves victims of younger cheaper labor.

My wife, a teacher for 16 years, lost her job. She has a master with added educational credentials and is rated in the state with the 2nd highest pay grade. She can't get a job because of budget concerns not because she's a bad teacher. She would only be teaching for probably 14 more years. They would rather hire a teacher fresh from college with 30 years ahead of them and a bottom rung undergrad degree pay level. It's about a $35,000 a year difference. She would be willing to take a pay cut just to have the job but they would not let her do that. She is now substitute teaching 5 days a week and workingat Kmart 28 hours a week, making a third of what she was making as a full time teacher.