NFL Draft - Interesting article on why it may be wise to trade away draft picks

[inmate running the asylum]

Hmm. I ran across this article on the internet and thought that it would make an interesting discussion. Professors did a study of the NFL draft and claim the most valuable pick is the 43rd pick in the 2nd round! So take heart, we got the 53rd pick of the 2nd round. :laugh: :whoknows:

It also mentions the wisdom of Bobby Beathard trading away his 1st round draft picks while at Washington. Of course after he went to San Diego, this strategy didn't work to well, because as I recall too many of his high 1st and 2nd round picks bombed. But he did get the Chargers to their only Super Bowl.

What do you guys think?

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=2530&cat=10

Loser’s Curse Haunts the First Round

4/17/2005

by Michael David Smith

Football fans take it on faith that the San Francisco 49ers, who hold the first pick in the NFL’s annual draft on April 24, have the best chance to improve of any team. The team, after all, has its pick of the best and brightest, and should emerge with the most talented and promising amateur player in the world.

But two business professors who have studied the draft extensively say the big contract given to the first pick is a millstone that actually puts San Francisco in the worst position of all in the first round.

The professors, Cade Massey of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and Richard H. Thaler of the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, analyzed every selection, every trade, and every player in every NFL draft since 1988. They published their findings last month in a paper titled “The Loser’s Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft.”

The professors’ conclusions centered around the exorbitant cost of players chosen early in the draft. The NFL’s salary cap dictates that every dollar spent on a high-priced rookie is a dollar that can’t be spent on improving the rest of the team. The player taken with the first pick typically costs four times what the last first-round pick costs and, therefore, is actually of less benefit to his team.

So while the Giants were delighted to acquire Eli Manning last year, their young quarterback’s six-year, $54 million contract is exorbitant compared to the production teams typically get out of the first player selected. Ben Watson, the tight end who went at the end of the first round to the Patriots, may actually end up a better pick because he comes with a contract of only $13.5 million for six years.

Because of the salary cap, a better way to judge players than “who is the best?” is “who is the best per dollar?” And by that measurement, every selection in the second round is better than the first pick in the first round. It turns out that the most valuable pick in the draft in terms of getting a good player without breaking the bank is the 43rd overall, which is the 11th pick in the second round.

Last year, that pick belonged to the Dallas Cowboys, who took running back Julius Jones out of Notre Dame. Jones ran for 819 yards and scored seven touchdowns in just eight games and cost Dallas only $4.37 million on a six year contract. The professors’ graph shows peak value at pick no. 43 and then a steady decline through the rest of the draft, with one small blip toward the end caused by a single outlier, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, who was selected with the 199th overall pick in 2000. Brady aside, top picks are better players than later picks - but not by a wide enough margin to justify their significantly higher salaries.

Teams often target a specific player and trade picks to move up in the draft order because they’re sure other teams want the same player. This is another instance of misperception, Massey and Thaler argue; teams wrongly assume they won’t be able to select the player they want unless they trade up.

Cleveland Browns coach Butch Davis illustrated that classic mistake last year. Davis coveted University of Miami tight end Kellen Winslow so much that he shipped his team’s second round pick to the Detroit Lions solely so he could move from the seventh pick to the Lions’ sixth and take Winslow.

Davis was afraid the Lions would take Winslow for themselves or trade the pick to another team. But reports since then have indicated that the Lions’ intention all along was to take Texas receiver Roy Williams with the sixth pick. So the Lions got a free second-round pick for moving down and taking Williams, who they wanted anyway, while the Browns sacrificed their all-important second-round pick to move up and grab Winslow, who would have been available anyway. And the reversed order meant the Browns had to pay more for Winslow than the Lions had to pay Williams.

Every team knows the market for picks; a widely used chart gives a numeric value to every pick in the draft, and Massey and Thaler have found that the chart closely approximates the actual value that teams have spent in trades. But that chart overvalues the highest picks, and in some cases, like the Browns’ draft-day trade last year, teams overpay even compared to what the chart suggests.

Though the professors’ research is new, it corresponds with the innovative draft strategies employed by the Washington Redskins in the 1980s. General Manager Bobby Beathard felt strongly that trading out of the first round and getting lower-priced players in the second round was the best choice. Beathard traded away first-round picks seven straight years in the 1980s; the team he built won three Super Bowls.

Click on the link to read the rest of the article

[whitejimmy]

Great article, but I think there is one flaw. Their valuation system does not weight positions by importance (e.g., a good tight end, definited by number of starts and pro bowl appearences, is as valuable as a good quarterback). Therefore, their analysis mocks the Eli pick. However, if they accounted for the fact that good quarterback performance is more important to winning than any other position, their analysis would improve.

[Om]

Interesting. Just a couple of first-blush reactions ...

The professorss ascribe "value" strictly on a cost basis. That doesn't strike me as entirely realistic given the varying impacts different players at different positions acutally have on teams. Yes, Eli Manning has cost the Giants a lot of scratch, but if he turns out to be a "franchise QB"---still the centerpiece of most successful clubs---that keeps New York in contention for the next decade, it will have been more than worth the "cost" to New York in any real-world sense.

One thing they do NOT do, I notice, is deal with the question of what happens to, say, that magical #43 pick, when after a couple of successful years, whether his rookie contract is up or not, said player decides it's time to renegotiate and plays hardball. Seems to that rather common occurence should at least be considered when trying to assing some kind of "value" to a certain level pick.

Still though ... always fun when academia weighs in on matters gridiron.

[NVskinsfan]

A method to the "madness" :thumbsup:

[TheLongshot]

Great article, but I think there is one flaw. Their valuation system does not weight positions by importance (e.g., a good tight end, definited by number of starts and pro bowl appearences, is as valuable as a good quarterback). Therefore, their analysis mocks the Eli pick. However, if they accounted for the fact that good quarterback performance is more important to winning than any other position, their analysis would improve.

I think position is beside the point to the argument. In general, there is a pay scale in the draft, and for the most part, players are slotted based more on where they are picked than their position on the field.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the top x players are worth more than the next y players. The problem is, finding out what x is. This year, a lot of talent evaluators think it is about 10-15 players.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

The professorss ascribe "value" strictly on a cost basis. That doesn't strike me as entirely realistic given the varying impacts different players at different positions acutally have on teams. Yes, Eli Manning has cost the Giants a lot of scratch, but if he turns out to be a "franchise QB"---still the centerpiece of most successful clubs---that keeps New York in contention for the next decade, it will have been more than worth the "cost" to New York in any real-world sense.

Problem is, a great player is a great player, no matter what the position. Is Sean Taylor any less critical to our defense than Eli is to the Giant's offense? I think we view QBs as being more important, but they don't work in a vacumn.

One thing they do NOT do, I notice, is deal with the question of what happens to, say, that magical #43 pick, when after a couple of successful years, whether his rookie contract is up or not, said player decides it's time to renegotiate and plays hardball. Seems to that rather common occurence should at least be considered when trying to assing some kind of "value" to a certain level pick.

Is it any different than a successful 1st round pick? If you are a successful player, you are going to ask for money, no matter where you were picked.

There is also the fact that 2nd rounders get shorter contracts than first rounders, so they are more likely to be RFA than a first round pick.

Jason

[whitejimmy]

Yes, Sean Taylor is less critical to our defense than Eli is to the Giant's offense. It's far easier for team's to compensate for a missing free safety (e.g., play more zone, keep three back, blitz less) than a missing quarterback.

[Om]

Problem is, a great player is a great player, no matter what the position. Is Sean Taylor any less critical to our defense than Eli is to the Giant's offense? I think we view QBs as being more important, but they don't work in a vacumn.

No, they don't. But I'm firmly on the camp that believes that, with few exceptions, QB is the by far the single most important position on the field. It will take a LONG string of highly successful teams, winning big, over time, for me to begin to waver on that.

Is it any different than a successful 1st round pick? If you are a successful player, you are going to ask for money, no matter where you were picked.

There is also the fact that 2nd rounders get shorter contracts than first rounders, so they are more likely to be RFA than a first round pick.

Jason

Big-money high first rounders routinely sign 6 and 7 year deals to amortize the ridiculous bonuses. Not so for the lower first and beyonders. They're contracts are routinely much shorter, maybe even half.

Not a point I'm all that concerned about frankly, it was just a notion that I had reading the professors solemn take on "value" at certain picks, and wondering just what criteria they both considered and did NOT consider in coming up with their formula.

Maybe it was the fact that they had to mentions freakin' Julius JONES as the model pick that bothered me.

[The Sisko]

Their arguments do have some merit. However, there is much they don't take into account. First is the franchise QB argument others have already made. Anybody think the Dolts would like to trade Manning in exchange for Ramsey to get cap relief?

Secondly, if the team that picks first were to employ the strategy they describe (successively trading down in exchange for several 2nd round picks) they'd probably end up improving to no better than 8-8 as they'd have a team full of average players. At some point every team needs 3 or 4 difference makers in order to get anywhere. And ultimately that's what teams are paying the high draftees for and that's why teams frequently want to move up in the first round. Average players are a dime a dozen. Great players are rare.

Furthermore, the cost/production ratio isn't relevant on the field. Today's NFL is about parity. Having a special player that creates matchup problems may get you two extra games a season. That's huge. Assuming you can build a decent team around that special player, those two extra games he gets you may be enough to get you in the playoffs or get you a better playoff seed.

Finally, this research doesn't take coaching into account. Superior coaches (i.e. Gibbs, Parcells, Bellichek, Shula, etc.) are also quite rare and can get by with average players, whereas less talented coaches need better players to get similar results.

In short, you need a team full of good players peppered with a few difference makers along with superior coaching. Simple really.

[Reaganaut]

I'd love to see numbers on production for players in the top half of the first vs. the bottom half. I bet on defense the top half is stronger but on offense the bottom half is strongest. I'd rather have Chris Cooley than Kellen Winslow any day. Attitude, cheap, moldable type of guy. Unless it's Payton Manning or Ricky Williams then forget it...oh that's right... Williams is a bust too.

[swissarmy47]

While I think there are certainly many flaws, I agree with their overall conclusion. I believe having say 3 picks between #20 overall and #60 overall is better than having one top 5 pick, and in many cases the net salaries will be the same (cost). Talent-wise, you've now got three guys who should hopefully be very good rather than one guy that should hopefully be great, and since you've filled 3 roster spots you've got more money to put towards free agents at other spots.

I think the NE Patriots of the past few years have shown us that having a team of alot of good and very good players is generally better than having a few superstars and a bunch of average guys or even a few below average starters (a la Minn. Vikings of a couple of years ago). Better to fill three weaknesses with very good players than to fill one weakness with a great player.

Besides, with only one top pick you are taking a huge risk - with a few picks in the second round you are likely at least going to have a few of those guys turn out...

[swissarmy47]

I'd love to see numbers on production for players in the top half of the first vs. the bottom half. I bet on defense the top half is stronger but on offense the bottom half is strongest. I'd rather have Chris Cooley than Kellen Winslow any day. Attitude, cheap, moldable type of guy. Unless it's Payton Manning or Ricky Williams then forget it...oh that's right... Williams is a bust too.

For every Peyton Manning there's a Ryan Leaf, or... dare I say? A Heath Shuler. An Alex Smith...

I'd definitely rather pay two guys each 35% of what the top draft pick gets paid than pay the top guy 100%. With the two guys you get TWO guys, plus STILL have money left over to spend on other needs.

The articles main argument to me is that while there is certainly overall better talent in the top of the draft, if you move back a little to the late first or second round the talent maybe only drops off 30% while the pay drops off 400% or so (just pulling figures for example). I agree.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The quarterback is the most important player on the field simply by the fact that he touches the ball on every single offensive snap. In the course of a game, Sean Taylor may be directly involved in 10 plays, tangentally involved in another 10 to 15 and not involved at all in the remaing 40 defensive snaps. Morevover, in few of those ten plays is Taylor's importance more than, say 25 percent.

Eli Manning is directly involved in 60 to 70 plays again and in roughly half of those, he is probably 50 to 70 percent of the importance.

[inmate running the asylum]

We got a good discussion started here, kind of like in the "good ole days" when we only had a few members.

The article below is on the same basic topic, but this study indicates that the draft is not as important as it used to be. It would appear that Joe Gibbs is using the right strategy based on this study, and contrary to the impression most people have, the New England dynasty was not built through the draft. Besides lucking out on their low draft pick on Tom Brady -- genius, I doubt it, otherwise why did THEY wait so long to choose him? -- :laugh: their success appears to have been built on the DRAFT SUCCESS OF OTHER TEAMS. In other words, let some other team develop draft picks like DE Andre Carter, and then sign them away as free agents like Gibbs did this year.

Comments?

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/04/22/100spo_nfldraft001.cfm

Is the draft's impact overrated?

Published: Friday, April 22, 2005

By Scott M. Johnson

Herald Writer

Draft success doesn't always translate into field success

Each spring, 32 NFL teams spend countless hours of analysis, watch volumes of videotape, and nitpick every aspect of a player's game in preparation for the most important event of their franchises' future.

The annual NFL draft is widely seen as the cornerstone to every organization. Teams that do well on draft day should compete for a Super Bowl, while those that make the wrong choices are doomed to failure on the field.

According to a comprehensive study of the past five drafts, that might not necessarily be the case.

If success was only about the annual draft, the New York Jets would be winning multiple Super Bowls, the Arizona Cardinals would be the class of the NFC West, and the New England Patriots would be struggling to win five or six games per season.

Those were the results of an unscientific study put together by The Herald, a study designed to rank teams' drafts from 2000 through 2004. The goal of the Draft Rating Index (DRI) was to see whether successful drafts can quickly equate to playoff victories.

In a word, the answer was no.

While five of the top nine teams have not won a single playoff game in that span, the bottom nine have combined for 18 playoff victories and four Super Bowl titles. The New York Jets, who rank 11th in the NFL in wins over the past five years, have the best DRI, at 3.00. Lowly Arizona (2.65), San Francisco (2.55) and Chicago (2.58) were also among the top five in the NFL.

On the other hand, Super Bowl XXXVII champion Tampa Bay had a league-low rating of 1.33. And the Patriots ranked 29th at 2.00, proving that it takes more than quality draft picks to win three Super Bowl titles in a four-year span.

The objective of the DRI is to a rate team's draft success. Up to six points are awarded for each draft choice, based on that player's impact since being selected.

The perfect choice, for example, would be San Diego running back LaDainian Tomlinson. He gets all six points: for still being in the league, still being with the Chargers, playing more than half his team's games, starting more than half his team's games, being a starter at the end of 2004 and playing in at least one Pro Bowl.

By contrast, a player like Seattle Seahawks' draft choice Chris McIntosh, a first-round pick in 2001, gets no points because he's no longer in the league. Most full-time starters are worth five points, while contributing reserves typically get three. The average rating of the 1,285 players drafted since 1999 is 2.25.

The results of the study were relatively surprising, with many teams that struggle on the field scoring well in terms of draft success.

The reason for this has something to do with the fact that draft picks have better chances of playing - and starting - for mediocre teams. A fourth-round pick would have a much more difficult time, for example, making an impact in New England than in Arizona.

But the DRI system also proves that the NFL draft is not as important as it once was. Free agency and key trades have been more important in developing Super Bowl champions than the draft.

Take, for example, the two-time defending champion Patriots. Ten of their 22 starters from last season were drafted by other teams. Stars like Rodney Harrison, Mike Vrabel and Corey Dillon came in trades or free agency, while the heart of the defense was made up of veterans drafted before 2000: Tedy Bruschi, Ted Johnson and Willie McGinest.

Lately, blockbuster trades have had a bigger impact. Both teams from the most recent Super Bowl traded for Pro Bowlers that helped their journey: Dillon and Philadelphia receiver Terrell Owens. It's safe to assume that Oakland's trade for Randy Moss, and the Seahawks' ability to finally re-sign Walter Jones, will be more important offseason moves than anything either team does when the draft begins Saturday.

The DRI is a far from perfect formula. It only charts the past five drafts, meaning teams don't get rewarded for drafting players like Donovan McNabb (1999), Peyton Manning (1998) or Tony Gonzalez (1997). The reason for this is that too many players from drafts before 2000 have changed teams via free agency. Teams would end up getting rewarded for keeping their own free agents, which shouldn't be a major factor in analyzing the annual draft.

The goal was to find out whether teams can quickly turn successful drafts into on-field success. The key to a high DRI is to draft players who contribute to your team fairly early in their careers.

A lot of the Jets' success, for example, came from a 2000 draft that included four first-round picks (defensive ends Shaun Ellis and John Abraham, quarterback Chad Pennington and tight end Anthony Becht) as well as third-round steal Laveranues Coles.

By contrast, New England's 2000 and 2001 drafts had little outside sixth-round steal Tom Brady. Of the 20 players selected by New England in those two drafts, 13 are no longer in the NFL. Brady is one of only two members from his 10-man draft class who are still with the Patriots, while seven others are out of the league.

The Seahawks ranked 23rd in the NFL in DRI, getting major points for draft picks like Shaun Alexander, Darrell Jackson and Marcus Trufant while being penalized for picks like McIntosh, Lamar King and Ike Charlton.

The projected starting lineup for the 2005 Seahawks includes 12 players drafted between 2000 and 2004. Three others - tackle Walter Jones, tight end Itula Mili and fullback Mack Strong - were selected by Seattle prior to 2000.

Seattle's new team president, Tim Ruskell, has a good reputation as a personnel man. Yet one of his former teams, the Buccaneers, ranked dead last in our study. Fourteen of Tampa Bay's 46 draft picks over the past five years are no longer in the NFL, while only four are current starters for the Bucs.

Ruskell hopes for better results in his first Seattle draft. Even though the league has seen free agency and a number of high-profile trades change the face of franchises over the years, Ruskell believes the draft is still the most important piece in an organization's future.

"By and large, it's still the lifeblood of your team," he said this week. "Teams take it very seriously, and they see their future there. They put their hopes and dreams on it, as we do."

Yet even Ruskell is realistic about how quickly the Class of 2005 will contribute.

"You all know the success ratio of the rookies. It's not great initially," he told the media this week. "So if we're going to get better next year, it's probably not going to be from these guys."

Any team looking for a quick turnaround can't rely on the draft. As the DRI has shown, good draft picks are important, but aren't always the difference between winning and losing.

[ncr2h]

I think one thing that is also interesting about this article is this...I was thinking about this the other day:

Right now the "price" of draft picks is relatively high. Look at Daunte Culpepper getting traded for a 2nd round pick. That's just ridiculous to me. The guy is a proven franchise QB entering his prime. Look at us getting Brandon Lloyd for a 3rd. The guy is proven to at least be a pretty good receiver. Look at the Jets offering a 7th for Ramsey. The guy is proven, at the very least, to be a solid backup.

Maybe Gibbs thinks that draft picks right now are overpriced, and he wants to take advantage of that? You get an endowment of 7 draft picks per year...and if you can get a guy like Culpepper with the 2nd rounder, imagine what you can get for the first rounder. It's a wonder teams even draft these days. Trade your second for Culpepper and your 3rd for Lloyd and suddenly your team just got a new franchise QB with a decent receiver to play catch with.

[shallyshal]

an interesting analysis..

i wonder how many truly great players (hall of famers) come fromthe extreme top of the draft as opposed to farther on down? of course everybody remembers the apocryphal stories of johnnie unitas, bart starr or now, tom brady, but the larger question is where do those special players actually come from?

guys like walter payton and barry sanders and eric dickerson actually were top 5 picks, but jerry rice, art monk, michael irvin and james lofton were mid first rounders. is there something there? does it mean that you need to take a runner as high as possible and you can wait on receiver?

the other question revolves around ability to actually predict success. it has been well documented that the position easiest to grade for success is tackle, because those guys get graded on every play and there are fewer busts of first round tackles taken compared to, say, qb or receiver where there are numerous instances of first round busts. that plays into this concept as well because perhaps, you can wait if you need a receiver but you better draft your 10 year left tackle in the top 5 players if you can

[TheLongshot]

No, they don't. But I'm firmly on the camp that believes that, with few exceptions, QB is the by far the single most important position on the field. It will take a LONG string of highly successful teams, winning big, over time, for me to begin to waver on that.

For a single position, probably. But, a QB doesn't workin a vaccumn. To be successful, he still needs protection from his O-line, receivers to throw to, and a Running back to take the heat off. You pick guys high because 1) you think they will be able to step in real soon and 2) you are getting an impact guy. Course, it is a gamble, because not everyone drafted that high succeeds in being that type of player.

Also, picking a QB high is no guarantee that he will be a great one. It is still a crap shoot. I think it is even more so with QBs because of the perceived importance of getting a great QB. I think QBs probably get pushed further up the draft chart more than any other position.

The point of the article, tho, is to point out where the sweet spot is for drafting players VS what you pay them. It makes sense to me that the 2nd round is where the sweet spot is, because there are still damn good players available that don't cost that much in salary. You also can get great players at that position. Hell, Brett Favre was drafted there, and you can't tell me he isn't great. (It is also why I feel SD did the smart thing when they passed on drafting Vick and instead traded down to gake LT and Brees.)

Talking about the Skins, Gibbs always seems to have gotten great teams without having 1st round picks. There is something to be said about that.

Jason

[inmate running the asylum]

Maybe Gibbs thinks that draft picks right now are overpriced, and he wants to take advantage of that? You get an endowment of 7 draft picks per year...and if you can get a guy like Culpepper with the 2nd rounder, imagine what you can get for the first rounder. It's a wonder teams even draft these days. Trade your second for Culpepper and your 3rd for Lloyd and suddenly your team just got a new franchise QB with a decent receiver to play catch with.

Better yet sign other team's proven draft picks, like Gibbs did with Andre Carter, Achuletta, Randel El, etc.

Did you vote in my poll? Sorta of along the same lines being developed here.

Poll - Should we have signed Drew Brees or traded for Dante Culpepper?

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149021

[Om]

No doubt the Redskins are taking point on the franchise-level philosophy of using draft picks as an integral PART part of their FA strategy, using those picks to trade for young established veterans who can help immediately, largely eliminating the "bust" risk and getting immediate contributors rather than youngsters who may or may not help in 2-3 years.

They won't be the only ones, though. Not for much longer.

I generally don't make guarantees, but here's one I WILL make ... if Washington should happen to win a SB in the next couple of years---or some other team who approaches FA almost as aggressively---the league will see an IMMEDIATE shift in that direction.

As of today, the tired old saw about "you build champions through the draft" is still clearly the common perception around the league there as the way to go, and that's understandable in such a copycat league. Washington looks to be as close as anyone to being the poster child for a new approach, however. All it will take for the majority of teams who do NOT like to take risks or pioneer new ideas is to see a working model before they'll all start to do the same thing. Guaranteed.

Of couse, when that DOES happen, we'll lose some of the the advantage. Right now others are content to sit back and snicker, leaving us able to succeed so wildly in landing all the guys we target. When a few other high revenue teams finally decide to copycat us, we'll have to raise our recruiting game that much more. So while it's a bit of a drag to hear all the criticisms, at least for now it's working in our favor that everyone else is watching us to see if it can actually work.

They laughed at Al Gore, too. And NOW look at us.

[Shakermaker897]

yes but for every eli (probably should say peyton), there's a ryan leaf or heath shuler... soo...

[TheLongshot]

That's not to say building in the draft is not the way to do it. It seems to have worked fine for Pittsburgh and New England. I don't think everyone can do things the way we are doing it, because teams aren't willing or able to spend the kind of money we put in bonuses. This is why I feel at the next CBA deal that the small market teams will try to change the rules again.

Jason

[Om]

The common perception that New England "built throught the draft" does not necessarily hold up to scrutiny, as the second article above notes. They didn't do it as splashy or as aggressively as Washington is, but the numbers don't lie.

All I'm saying is, it's a new league, and times are changin'. The "build through the draft" cliche is well-rooted, but is one I believe is not going to much longer survive the realities of a new league. Change comes slowly to the NFL in a lot of ways, but again, the minute a team like Washington wins a title overtly and in the full glare of the media's eye doing it this "new way"---don't laugh at that notion, btw, unless you're prepared to explain away the improvement/success curve in two years culminating in a playoff run and what appears to be solid momentum---the "building through the draft" cliche will quickly lose most of its hold.

What they're doing makes SENSE, as long as the results bear it out. Right now, arguing that what Washington is doing is NOT working ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room ... the one that shows them as a team on the rise that played well into January last season, and now has added certain components that it's hard to argue won't make them better.

[inmate running the asylum]

an interesting analysis..

i wonder how many truly great players (hall of famers) come from the extreme top of the draft as opposed to farther on down?

Your wish is my command.

Draft rounds in which HOF's were drafted

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/general/draft/round.jsp

[jivelikenice]

I agree for the most part with this column, however I think everyone on this board would have to ackowledge our weakness in drafting outside of the first 2 rounds over the past 5 season....We haven't done a good job of finding any diamonds in the rough at those spots.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The common perception that New England "built throught the draft" does not necessarily hold up to scrutiny, as the second article above notes. They didn't do it as splashy or as aggressively as Washington is, but the numbers don't lie.

All I'm saying is, it's a new league, and times are changin'. The "build through the draft" cliche is well-rooted, but is one I believe is not going to much longer survive the realities of a new league. Change comes slowly to the NFL in a lot of ways, but again, the minute a team like Washington wins a title overtly and in the full glare of the media's eye doing it this "new way"---don't laugh at that notion, btw, unless you're prepared to explain away the improvement/success curve in two years culminating in a playoff run and what appears to be solid momentum---the "building through the draft" cliche will quickly lose most of its hold.

What they're doing makes SENSE, as long as the results bear it out. Right now, arguing that what Washington is doing is NOT working ignores the 800-pound gorilla in the room ... the one that shows them as a team on the rise that played well into January last season, and now has added certain components that it's hard to argue won't make them better.

The problem with following the Washington model is that it is based on paying out huge bonuses at one time. When you add up all the bonsuses from restructuring and from signing the free agents, the total dollar amount might exceed a team like Cincy's profit margin.

I could easily be wrong, but I would think that in terms of real dollars, the Skins payroll has to be in the $125 - $150 million range this year. I'm not sure a team like Cincy or Buffalo or even a mid-level revenue team like Pittsburgh could do that if they wanted to.