Around the NFL Week 15

[GTripp0012]

If you define a bust as a player who starts (is his team's primary starter) for three or fewer seasons, then from 2002-2007 only thirteen players busted in the top ten, about two per year. And teams are doing a far better job rating talent at the top of the draft now vs. ten years ago.

It's significantly lower in the rest of the round, but a lot better than a coin flip until about the third round, when it's pretty much a coin flip whether you get a roster piece or a bust. After that, good orgs typically do better on Day 3 than poor ones, but no one is consistently pulling 50% after that.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you define a bust as a player who starts (is his team's primary starter) for three or fewer seasons, then from 2002-2007 only thirteen players busted in the top ten, about two per year. And teams are doing a far better job rating talent at the top of the draft now vs. ten years ago.

The stats of "played longer" is a bit misleading and many factors involved here. A guy selected at #24 isn't going to get the same type of lead way a guy drafted #1 is. You think they'd cut Bradford after guaranteeing him 50 mil? I seriously doubt it. Hell, it took JaMarcus Dummy 3 years to finally get the boot. It's also the same reason 1st rounders last longer in the league than say a 3rd rounder. Alex Smith is still starting and why? Because he was a #1 pick and was paid a ton of money. Had he been a late first round or a 2nd rounder, he'd been cut/shipped out loooong ago.


edit: That may soon change with the salary of top rookies being limited. Even so, a #1 spot is still a heavy investment when it comes to resources and teams are doing to do everything in their power to make it work, even if it means keeping them longer than they want.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The stats of "played longer" is a bit misleading and many factors involved here. A guy selected at #24 isn't going to get the same type of lead way a guy drafted #1 is. You think they'd cut Bradford after guaranteeing him 50 mil? I seriously doubt it. Hell, it took JaMarcus Dummy 3 years to finally get the boot. It's also the same reason 1st rounders last longer in the league than say a 3rd rounder. Alex Smith is still starting and why? Because he was a #1 pick and was paid a ton of money. Had he been a late first round or a 2nd rounder, he'd been cut/shipped out loooong ago.


edit: That may soon change with the salary of top rookies being limited. Even so, a #1 spot is still a heavy investment when it comes to resources and teams are doing to do everything in their power to make it work, even if it means keeping them longer than they want.

I don't really agree with his definition of a bust, but w/e.

Even so, quarterbacks always get a longer leash, even if they're late first rounders like JP Losman or Chad Pennington.

Besides, D. McFadden and R. McClain are Raiders in part due to JaMarcus being just that bad.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The stats of "played longer" is a bit misleading and many factors involved here. A guy selected at #24 isn't going to get the same type of lead way a guy drafted #1 is. You think they'd cut Bradford after guaranteeing him 50 mil? I seriously doubt it. Hell, it took JaMarcus Dummy 3 years to finally get the boot. It's also the same reason 1st rounders last longer in the league than say a 3rd rounder. Alex Smith is still starting and why? Because he was a #1 pick and was paid a ton of money. Had he been a late first round or a 2nd rounder, he'd been cut/shipped out loooong ago.


edit: That may soon change with the salary of top rookies being limited. Even so, a #1 spot is still a heavy investment when it comes to resources and teams are doing to do everything in their power to make it work, even if it means keeping them longer than they want.

I don't think Bradford is in danger of being released after this season, no. But will he make it to four years as a primary starter in the NFL? Not without improvement.

Alex Smith is not still starting because of his draft position. In the first four years of his career, Alex Smith started 30 games. In the last three years, he has started 33 games. His playing time is actually more consistent now than it was when he was the golden boy first overall pick.

The bias towards high picks is real, but I think I was able to set the bar high enough where most busts don't qualify. Sure, setting the bar at 4 years as primary starter means that a guy like Levi Brown is not considered a bust, but you can live with that for objective purposes.

Where using the "years as starter" metric probably ceases to be useful is deeper in the draft where guys don't have a shot to start early in their careers. But limited to first rounders only, I think the snapshot is accurate.