Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › best/worst drafting teams since 2002
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm #21643
znModeratorRams rank among worst drafting teams since last expansion
By Nick Wagoner
EARTH CITY, Mo. — There’s probably no better indicator of success in the NFL draft than simply going with wins and losses.
But as metrics have advanced, other methods for evaluating such things have evolved as well. One such method is the use of “Approximate Value.” It’s a relatively new statistic that has been developed as a means to replicate what “wins above replacement” has become to baseball.
Approximate value assigns a single number intended to indicate performance in a single season for every player. The formula to reach that number is explained here. The goal is to use that number to compare players across positions and seasons.
To evaluate draft performance, those numbers are used across a player’s first four seasons (which is now the standard length of a drafted rookie contract) and compared to the expected value of a player taken in his particular draft spot. In most cases, first-round picks are expected to perform the best, so the teams that draft the best are the ones who generally make hay in the later rounds.
With all of that context out of the way, it should come as no surprise to see the St. Louis Rams rank as one of the five worst drafting teams in the league since 2002. Fans of the team don’t need the numbers to tell them that players such as Jimmy Kennedy, Tye Hill, Alex Barron, Adam Carriker and so many others qualify as draft whiffs. The number of losses on the team’s ledger in that time states that clearly.
According to ESPN Stats & Information, the Rams are joined by Detroit, Oakland, Tampa Bay and Cleveland as the five worst drafting teams in that span. Again, not a surprise given the results on the field. Using those metrics, Stats & Info ranks the Rams’ choices of tackle Jason Smith (No. 2 overall), running back Isaiah Pead (No. 50 overall) and Hill (No. 15 overall) as the three worst picks made by the Rams relative to other players drafted at their positions.
Even more damning is that the Rams rank with the Lions and Raiders as the three worst teams at finding value in rounds 4 through 7. That’s a sobering number considering the number of misses the Rams have had in the first round in that time (Barron, Kennedy, Hill, Carriker, Smith). But the Rams have had more success in the earlier rounds recently with players like Robert Quinn and Aaron Donald. Wven when they don’t hit a home run, they avoided massive busts like Smith lately.
And the team’s performance drafting in the later rounds might be getting a boost from some of the early returns on players taken recently. Cornerback E.J. Gaines was one of the steals of last year’s draft in the sixth round, and other useful players such as defensive end Eugene Sims and running back Zac Stacy have also come in later rounds.
Though the Rams have drafted better in recent years than they did in the early 2000s, they still have a ways to go to catch up with the teams that rank at the top. Using the same numbers, Seattle, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Green Bay and Pittsburgh rank as the top five teams in the league at drafting.
Those teams have combined for five Super Bowls and 49 playoff wins in that time.
March 27, 2015 at 4:27 pm #21644
wvParticipantIt would be waaay more interesting
to see things broken down into regimes.
Like Snisher, versus, Linehan, versus Spagz, etc.Its hard to compare regimes though, since
Snisher has had more high picks cause of the RG3 thing.The Jason Smith pick was a bad one, but that was
a tough year for picking in the first round. Wasn’t
much to choose from.w
vMarch 27, 2015 at 4:50 pm #21645znModeratorIt would be waaay more interesting
to see things broken down into regimes.
Like Snisher, versus, Linehan, versus Spagz, etc.Its hard to compare regimes though, since
Snisher has had more high picks cause of the RG3 thing.The Jason Smith pick was a bad one, but that was
a tough year for picking in the first round. Wasn’t
much to choose from.w
vI actually have broken them down. I also set a standard by looking at earlier drafts (Green Bay, Giants, Steelers) by good drafting teams.
This produces a hit rate but doesn’t get you any qualitative grades. You have to add that by hand, so to speak.
To me it’s just important to have the “hit standard” as a kind of numerical minimum before you add any comments about quality.
I can do all the numbers again someday but it amounts to this (from memory): an avg. of 3 to 3.5 hits per draft is good, around 2 is average, less than 1.5 is poor, anything over 3.5 as an avg. is exceptional.
According to just that standard without remarking on anything else, Linehan/Zygmunt was poor, Devaney was average, and so far as we can tell now Fisher/Snead has been good.
…
March 27, 2015 at 5:32 pm #21648wvParticipantTo me it’s just important to have the “hit standard” as a kind of numerical minimum before you add any comments about quality.
I can do all the numbers again someday but it amounts to this (from memory): an avg. of 3 to 3.5 hits per draft is good, around 2 is average, less than 1.5 is poor, anything over 3.5 as an avg. is exceptional.
According to just that standard without remarking on anything else, Linehan/Zygmunt was poor, Devaney was average, and so far as we can tell now Fisher/Snead has been good.
…
Yeah, its good what you did,
but there are so many qualifications that it all gets dizzy-ing.I mean, like Snisher had two number one picks twice.
Linehan and Spags never had that. Blah blah blah, you
cant really compare drafts by just looking at ‘hits’
It would be like comparing free-agent-signings without
thinking about the differences in cap-space-differences…etc
w
vMarch 27, 2015 at 5:55 pm #21649znModeratorTo me it’s just important to have the “hit standard” as a kind of numerical minimum before you add any comments about quality.
I can do all the numbers again someday but it amounts to this (from memory): an avg. of 3 to 3.5 hits per draft is good, around 2 is average, less than 1.5 is poor, anything over 3.5 as an avg. is exceptional.
According to just that standard without remarking on anything else, Linehan/Zygmunt was poor, Devaney was average, and so far as we can tell now Fisher/Snead has been good.
…
Yeah, its good what you did,
but there are so many qualifications that it all gets dizzy-ing.I mean, like Snisher had two number one picks twice.
Linehan and Spags never had that. Blah blah blah, you
cant really compare drafts by just looking at ‘hits’
It would be like comparing free-agent-signings without
thinking about the differences in cap-space-differences…etc
w
vSee that’s where you get into qualitative stuff.
What a basic numerical standard does is set some parameters.
For example, if you see a lot of draft discussions, there are always those who assume that a 50% hit rate is a minimum to even be decent. When the actual fact is, it’s rare.
And it’s easy enough to compare regimes. Linehan hit on NO ONE … except Long, and arguably Greco, though he didn’t start for the Rams.
Then I have seen people say insistently that the Devaney drafts were HORRIBLE. What would that make the Linehan drafts, apocalyptically reality destroying?
And yeah Snead had 2 #1s twice, but still, that doesn’t account for things like hitting on Gaines … arguably the best Rams post-3rd round pick since Hakim, and the best 6th round pick since… Mike Guman?
To me basic numerical considerations add some backbone. It helps build in a sense of perspective.
But as I said, it’s not the final step. Then you have to make some qualitative judgements. That’s when you mention things like how many 1sts they had.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
