squire12 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Sifted through the profootball draft finder https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/draft-finder.cgi compiled all 32 teams from 2005-2017 (some were longer to compare other GM's that have been in their position as long as TT) Here are the rankings from 2005-2017. I used the total players drafted and the sum of those players CaV, then took the average. 2005 to 2017 CaV average per player drafted NO 14.22222222 CAR 13.92631579 GB 13.47933884 DEN 13.4040404 ATL 13.09183673 LAC/SD 12.59770115 HOU 12.36363636 DAL 11.98095238 NYJ 11.96666667 SEA 11.74561404 MIA 11.70588235 PHI 11.65217391 BAL 11.46788991 SF 11.46280992 KC 11.3047619 NE 11.19469027 ARI 11.10869565 TEN 11.09482759 PIT 10.99074074 CIN 10.96521739 JAX 10.93684211 BUF 10.84158416 IND 10.64705882 CHI 10.50537634 MIN 10.28037383 NYG 10.25842697 DET 10.04901961 TB 10.02970297 OAK 9.538461538 LAR/STL 9.51754386 CLE 8.946428571 WAS 8.735294118 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted November 26, 2017 Author Share Posted November 26, 2017 Here is the compiled date from 2010 to 2017. 2010 to 2017 CaV average per player drafted SEA 10.32467532 DEN 9.793650794 CAR 9.41509434 MIA 9.14516129 NE 9.102941176 KC 8.725806452 ARI 8.724137931 HOU 8.6875 DAL 8.634920635 TB 8.571428571 PIT 8.447761194 GB 8.405797101 CIN 8.319444444 LAC/SD 8.150943396 ATL 8.054545455 BUF 8.032786885 LAR/STL 7.757142857 NO 7.755102041 CHI 7.56 WAS 7.550724638 IND 7.525423729 OAK 7.402985075 PHI 7.328571429 DET 7.241935484 JAX 7.196428571 TEN 7.044776119 CLE 6.851351351 NYG 6.814814815 BAL 6.75 SF 6.481012658 MIN 6.394736842 NYJ 6.237288136 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted November 26, 2017 Author Share Posted November 26, 2017 Link to the google sheets where the date is housed https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g7YeXn5GTTlMXbXLT3hBosujPa-qPTsbyclKRqGzW8c/edit?usp=sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Great work as always squire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Interesting stuff. Is it easy to extract the numbers from 2011 forward? Seems to be a bit of a disagreement in another thread about TT's draft success since 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 2010 forward is pretty close. It's been good not great recently but really anyone who doesn't think TT is still a good drafter really doesn't have a realistic expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 10 hours ago, squire12 said: Here is the compiled date from 2010 to 2017. 2010 to 2017 CaV average per player drafted SEA 10.32467532 DEN 9.793650794 CAR 9.41509434 MIA 9.14516129 NE 9.102941176 KC 8.725806452 ARI 8.724137931 HOU 8.6875 DAL 8.634920635 TB 8.571428571 PIT 8.447761194 GB 8.405797101 CIN 8.319444444 LAC/SD 8.150943396 ATL 8.054545455 BUF 8.032786885 LAR/STL 7.757142857 NO 7.755102041 CHI 7.56 WAS 7.550724638 IND 7.525423729 OAK 7.402985075 PHI 7.328571429 DET 7.241935484 JAX 7.196428571 TEN 7.044776119 CLE 6.851351351 NYG 6.814814815 BAL 6.75 SF 6.481012658 MIN 6.394736842 NYJ 6.237288136 The data above indicates the Packers rank 12th out of 32 teams for measuring drafting success since 2010. The Packers 2010 draft was quite good. Bulaga and Burnett have been mainstays when not injured. Starks was a sixth-round steal. Neal, Quarless, and CJ Wilson all played several seasons and the much-maligned Marshall Newhouse is still playing. Most objective observers have already acknowledged that the drafting during the first six years of TT's time (2005 to 2010) as GM was excellent to elite. However, take away 2010 and where do Ted's drafts rank since 2011? Is it inaccurate to state, that using CaV to measure "success", that the drafting has been decidedly mediocre (14th-18th ranking) since 2011? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Just now, TheOnlyThing said: Is it inaccurate to state, that using CaV to measure "success", that the drafting has been decidedly mediocre (14th-18th ranking) since 2011? Only if it's inaccurate to say that draft position and draft capital wasn't taken into account. If we ranked 14th-18th in draft success while averaging 25th in draft position, we're excelling. It's simple math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 34 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: Is it inaccurate to state, that using CaV to measure "success", that the drafting has been decidedly mediocre (14th-18th ranking) since 2011? If 14th-18th is mediocre, what is 19th+? And this wouldn't be as big an issue if Ted had supplemented his draft misses with FA signings. But that hasn't been the case, which is part of the reason why the Packers have struggled this year. Like others have said, we've outproduced our draft position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted November 26, 2017 Author Share Posted November 26, 2017 3 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Interesting stuff. Is it easy to extract the numbers from 2011 forward? Seems to be a bit of a disagreement in another thread about TT's draft success since 2011. Not hard to do. Will just need to adjust the formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: If 14th-18th is mediocre, what is 19th+? And this wouldn't be as big an issue if Ted had supplemented his draft misses with FA signings. But that hasn't been the case, which is part of the reason why the Packers have struggled this year. Like others have said, we've outproduced our draft position. I believe they have looked into plenty of fa that might have made sense but most of the signings turn out more like Martellus Bennett than Charles Woodson. They've shown the willingness to make deals they feel are good value, and I think the "ignoring fa" narrative is pretty much garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 On 11/26/2017 at 9:58 AM, HorizontoZenith said: Only if it's inaccurate to say that draft position and draft capital wasn't taken into account. If we ranked 14th-18th in draft success while averaging 25th in draft position, we're excelling. It's simple math. this. yet it will continue to be ignored. GB had almost certainly top 5 worst draft capital over any of these timeframes. Most likely, top 2 worst. That they still drafted elite or above average is a testament to the front office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Also, major props to squire. Posts like this are what keep me at FF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 2011-2017 draft capital for the top 10 teams on that chart for the chase stuart chart: http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/ and the traditional Jimmy johnson chart. Chase Stuart Chart Jimmy Johnson Chart GB 277.3 9009.9 SEA 264.1 8078.9 DEN 291.6 11600.7 CAR 294.4 13417.4 MIA 315.8 13617 NE 271.5 9189.8 KC 309.6 12866.7 ARI 299.5 12131.4 HOU 324.5 14039.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 20 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: 2011-2017 draft capital for the top 10 teams on that chart for the chase stuart chart: http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/ and the traditional Jimmy johnson chart. Chase Stuart Chart Jimmy Johnson Chart GB 277.3 9009.9 SEA 264.1 8078.9 DEN 291.6 11600.7 CAR 294.4 13417.4 MIA 315.8 13617 NE 271.5 9189.8 KC 309.6 12866.7 ARI 299.5 12131.4 HOU 324.5 14039.5 Does Seattle get lowered because they traded a first round pick, twice? Just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.