Jump to content

The 3rd and 4th Round


WindyCity

Recommended Posts

With the Bears doing their key draft work in the 3rd and 4th round of the draft this year I decided to look and see if there was any real difference between teams success in each round. I looked at the 2014, 15, and 16 drafts to see whether you saw an appreciable difference between the quality of the players that came out of those rounds.

Some of the labeling of the players was very subjective but this is how I did it,

Elite: perhaps not an All Pro or even Pro Bowl player, but a productive starter, or someone who has been given a significant contract or extension. Elite in relation to the rounds they were picked in. Example: OLB Za'Darius Smith was graded as an elite 4th round pick, coming off an 8.5 sack season, and about to sign a big deal with someone.

Good: This is a player that starts, but is not as productive, or someone who is a starting calibre player that may be backing up on the drafting team because of circumstance. Example: WR John Brown who has been productive and is a locked in starter, but not a big time difference maker.

Bad: Someone who is not a starter or developing potential starter, or someone who has already been released or changed teams for minor money or compensation. Example: Deinodre Hall, special teamer only and has been traded for a 7th round pick.


2014

3rd [34]

Elite: 3 [9%]
Good: 11 [32%]
Bad: 20 [59%]

4th [40]

Elite: 2 [5%]
Good: 15 [37.5%]
Bad: 23 [57.5%]

2015

3rd [35]

Elite: 4 [11%]
Good: 11 [32%]
Bad: 20 [57%]

4th [37]

Elite: 4 [11%]
Good: 8 [22%]
Bad: 25 [67%]

2016

3rd [35]

Elite: 6 [17%]
Good: 12 [34%]
Bad: 17 [49%]

4th [40]

Elite: 2 [5%]
Good: 20 [50%]
Bad: 18 [45%]

3rd Round

Elite: 12%
Good: 33%
Bad: 55%

4th Round

Elite: 7%
Good: 37%
Bad: 56%

Observations

There really is not an observable difference between the 3rd and 4th round in terms of the starting calibre talent that comes out of them, or the failure rate across all positions.
There is a noticeable difference in the likelihood that you are drafting an elite/difference making player. The 3rd round had a much better percentage of very good players.
Both rounds are about 50/50 in terms of getting a starting quality player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd and 4th Round by Position

Positions by Volume Picked

QB: 9/221 [4%]
RB: 24/221 [11%]
WR: 25/221 [11%]
TE: 10/221 [4.5%]
OL: 44/221 [20%]
DL: 28/221 [13%]
Edge: 18/221 [8%]
LB: 20/221 [9%]
DB: 43/221 [19.5%]

*The 3rd and 4th rounds are OL and DB heavy rounds. Both are pretty much double the next closest positions.

Good and Elite/Picks at the position

QB: 2/9 [22%]
RB: 13/24 [54%]
WR: 11/25 [44%]
TE: 6/10 [60%]
OL: 15/44 [34%]
DL: 13/28 [46%]
Edge: 7/18 [39%]
LB: 13/20 [65%]
DB: 17/43 [40%]

*LB and TE seem to be the safest pick, although TE is a very small sample size and volume of players.
*OL and Edge are the riskiest, non QB, positions to pick, perhaps that is due to the rush in the first 2 rounds at both positions.
*RB is a plus pick at this point of the draft and is one of the 3 positions that does not dip below 50%.

Elite/Picks at the Position

QB: 1/9 [11%]
RB: 5/24 [21%]
WR: 1/25 [4%]
TE: 1/10 [10%]
OL: 5/44 [11%]
DL: 1/28 [3.5%]
Edge: 4/18 [22%]
LB: 2/20 [5%]
DB: 1/43 [2.3%]


*While your percent chance of picking a good OLmen are not great, the percentage chance that if you do he is going to be an upper echelon starter is higher than other positions.
*There were not many edges picked, there were not a lot of good ones, but the ones that were picked produced some seriously talented rushers. Danielle Hunter, Yannick Ngaouko, Trey Flowers, Za'Darius Smith.
*DB craters as there was only 1 really top end player in Kevin Byrad. So while you can get solid starting level talent it is harder to find the big time difference maker at this position. The same goes for WR where Tyler Lockett was the only upper echelon player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Position By Round [Failure Rate]

This data is compiled from the 2014, 15, and 16 drafts.

RB

3rd: 4/10 [40%]
4th: 6/11 [55%]

*This is a pretty steady position where I think you observe a pretty natural attrition to the talent pool. 

TE

3rd: 3/6 [50%]
4th: 2/3 [66%]

*Another position that holds pretty steady as the natural attrition of talent happens.
*A very small sample size to judge.

OL

3rd: 13/23 [52%] 
4th: 14/18 [78%]

*This is a big disparity and the success rate between OLmen drafted in the 3rd and 4th round was large.
*The 4th round looks like a barren waste land of OL talent based on this analysis.
*4/5 of the upper echelon players were picked in the 3rd round.

Edge

3rd: 7/11 [63%]
4th: 4/7 [57%]

*This surprised me, there was more failure for edge rushers in the 3rd round than there was in the 4th round.
*I think this is due to the fact that the 3rd round seems to be the left over of the top 10 lists and in the 4th round you start to see more athletic upside projections.
*Elite players were split 2 in each round.

DB

3rd: 11/16 [69%]
4th: 16/28 [57%]

*Another position with a higher failure rate in the 3rd round, this time even more of a drastic difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things,

1. The 3rd and 4th round are not significantly different, so moving down is not a bad idea.

2. 50/50 means between the 3rd and 4th round pick we would be betting against the numbers if we expect both to start.

3. If we want an OLmen we need to look at it in the 3rd round. The 4th round is almost a wasted pick.

4. There is a huge volume of OL picks in these rounds, which means we need to **** or get off the pot.

5. RBs are nice safe picks be comparison in either round.

6. Working on the 5th and 6th round, there is a significant drop in starting caliber players and a real rise in failure rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All due respect Windy, (and I mean that because I respect those who do their own research) , none of this data really shows anything at all.

This data doesn't show the fact that some teams are better at drafting and evaluating players better than others (using the avg cut-off is not going to tell this -- using the med average would be better but would still not be accurate).

Nor does the data show instances such as Clayborn who has been pretty good in NE(Belichick--surprise) but was not very good in ATL as a whole. But if you look at his stats last season he had what ....10 sacks(too lazy) but what you will not see is that 4 of those came in one game and that he was otherwise ineffective for the rest of the season and more importantly his entire career.

I know Clayborn was not drafted in the same time frame you used in your data, he was just the first one to come to mind when reading it and so I used it as an example.

Late round picks are very valuable for teams. This is where you find your gems (Howard) and solid/good depth players.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will not tell you anything specific to a team.

It is simply to look at trends in terms of positions and success rates.

By using more recent drafts we avoid guys who have changed teams a number of times and had varying success along the way.

But the big picture trends give us another data point. 

 

With the Bears they have been way more successful in the 5th round than the 3rd or 4th. They have been more successful in the 4th than 3rd. That is unique to them. That being said, if they identify OL as a major draft need I would like them to look long and hard in the 3rd round. Traditionally their is a Cliff after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

It will not tell you anything specific to a team.

It is simply to look at trends in terms of positions and success rates.

By using more recent drafts we avoid guys who have changed teams a number of times and had varying success along the way.

But the big picture trends give us another data point. 

 

With the Bears they have been way more successful in the 5th round than the 3rd or 4th. They have been more successful in the 4th than 3rd. That is unique to them. That being said, if they identify OL as a major draft need I would like them to look long and hard in the 3rd round. Traditionally their is a Cliff after that.

And they should. OL depth and Longs replacement need to be found asap imo. Because regardless of what happens to Massie this off-season, I am not counting on the entire starting expected OL to stay healthy for the majority of the season. And I am even more uncomfortable going into the season with Cowell as the only solid swing option. I know, I know, some people are high Witz but I'm not sold one bit that he could maintain the same solid play that he showed for a stretch amount of time. 

Edit: I have not found time to watch as much college ball as usual this year, so I have no better solutions or options and will defer to you guys' who have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These numbers can describe the ability of scouts/GMs/teams to evaluate and draft players. They're not that valuable for creating a draft strategy and they shouldn't be used to say things like "the Bears should trade down."

There may be some value in looking at positional success rate by round because you can see which positions may be undervalued. Other than that I think it's far more valuable to look at player archetypes, college stats, and combine measurements as those things are intrinsic to the player being drafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is obviously more valuable data.

If you put a Bears context on it, Pace is on an out of this world heater in the 5th round. His production in that round dwarfs the league average. Could that make that round more valuable to the Bears than other teams?

The hit rate between the 3rd and 4th round is very close. I think that whether you trade down would be influenced by the position you are targeting. If you want an OLmen, good luck they are the 2nd most drafted position in those rounds.

If you want a TE, and there are 2-3 you like, a short move down should not kill you because they are not frequently picked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at all this has made me appreciate a couple things about Pace,

1. He murders round 5 and is above average in round 4.

2. Eddie Jackson was stealing. Finding a truly elite DB in the 3rd and 4th round is not a common occurrence. He gambled on a health thing and won big.

3. Overall, Pace is more productive than an “average GM” in the mid rounds, I wonder how much influence that had on the Mack deal and the FAs who could bring comp picks back? If I am him I am pretty confident about what I can do with an Adrian Amos comp pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has also given me an appreciate of comp picks and how good teams use them to stay good.

Of a good team is hitting on 60% of their 4th round picks, so a little above league average, by adding 2-3 comp picks a year they’re essentially adding a bonus 2 starters on cheap rookie deals.

It will be even more important as we enter tighter cap years for Pace to maintain his success in rounds 4 and 5 specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WindyCity said:

Looking at all this has made me appreciate a couple things about Pace,

1. He murders round 5 and is above average in round 4.

2. Eddie Jackson was stealing. Finding a truly elite DB in the 3rd and 4th round is not a common occurrence. He gambled on a health thing and won big.

3. Overall, Pace is more productive than an “average GM” in the mid rounds, I wonder how much influence that had on the Mack deal and the FAs who could bring comp picks back? If I am him I am pretty confident about what I can do with an Adrian Amos comp pick.

Above average in round 4 but murders round 5? I think you have it backwards, no? Jackson and Cohen (+ Bush and Kwiatkoski) >>> Howard, Nichols and Amos (+ Jordan Morgan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...