Our last 5 drafts....

[KiwiHawk]

I see people are learning from the new brand of "journalists" out there writing click-bait articles. You have to follow a certain formula. First, pick something with a lot of success and take a negative slant on it. Second, carefully cherry-pick your data points to make sure your data matches your premise. Third, do a bit of revision to any anomalous data point that seems to disagree with you.

Why the past 5 drafts? Why not past 4, or 3, or heck take all 8? Got to include that 5th one because that was the "worst" draft. Why was it the worst? Because we had a stacked roster and didn't need the players we drafted. Do you expect anyone to go up to Richard Sherman and say "Sorry man, gotta bench you so that our draft looks better"? And why not take all 8? Probably because you start to run into inconvenient things like drafting two players who were both in discussion for league MVP this year. Guys who make the Pro Bowl regularly. Guys who show up on the All Pro list.

Then you take the good ones and sort of sidestep how good they are in order to make your data look better. For example, it would be against the spirit of the post to say Lockett is a Pro-Bowler and All Pro, so you put in something like "Inury slowed him, now back on track" instead of any mention of his accolades. Frank Clark? Just "good". 22 sacks good, but still just "good". Pocic? I guess starting 11 games and being one of our better OL players is merely a "pass".

Here's the thing: The guys doing the drafting are the guys who have fueled this team to 6 playoff seasons and 9 playoff wins including a Super Bowl. The entire franchise history prior to that had 7 playoff wins. That kind of sustained success doesn't happen with crap personnel selection, and includes drafting depth players who don't get on the field for average-fan appreciation or stats padding. We may not think they are anything more than "meh" but when we have scraped those guys from the bottom of our defensive barrel due to injuries this year, the guys have performed remarkably well.

I don't have an issue with our drafting. We had bad drafts when we had a stacked roster because we could afford to take flyers on non-blue-chip players to see if we could catch any diamonds-in-the rough. I'm OK with that - they had little chance of making the 53 anyway.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'll grant you the Lockett and Clark, Kiwi, but our last five drafts have been bad. You can't keep missing at that high a rate and expect to be able to regularly reload your roster. The complaint is valid.

Also, Pocic was not one of our better OL players. He did a very poor job this year.

 

[jammerhawk]

I believe the OP in this thread is unduly negative.

The bust handle that is attached to a lot of players who don't have 3 years in and to some who player significant minutes close to the time of their being drafted is unfair. Injuries happen and those to Kam and to Cliff are sad realities when playing this contact sport. Avril's injury was a fluke Kam's was expected as his style of extreme physicality lend s itself to the high potential of injury

Judging some of our younger players playing backup as busts is somewhat unfair. apparently to the OP the only sucessful pick is an All Pro whereas players like Clark are only just adequate when most every teamin the NFL would likely want to take that player off the hands of the team.

I think Schneider has done not badly in the draft at all. yes it is is frsutrating to watch the trade downs but if the armchair managers were to be drafting the team would likely have never drafted Sherman or Kam or Carson or even a few others.

 

[randomation]

It feels like we are still drafting like a rebuilding team instead of an elite team trying to fill specific holes. With picking so many people each year we end up cutting a bunch because we just don't have the space for them.

 

[SoCalSeahawk]

That 2013 draft was pretty bad for the entire NFL. The first round that year are mostly busts or average players today. But, of course one of the few good players was selected with the 25th pick (the one we traded to Minnesota for Harvin) CB Xavier Rhodes. He is good. And two picks later some guy named DeAndre Hopkins. All for two jet sweeps and one kick return for a TD. Ok, it was pretty bad ass! But still...

 

[Leee-roy]

Anyone follow Stanford RB - Bryce Love?
2017 - 2118 yds - 19 TD's

Great field vision, fast, strong, raw grit. Loves to score (btw, good blocking schemes)

Late 3rd rounder?

(not sure why it won't work, link setup looks correct)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiQ43Y_T6fw[/youtube]

With this line
does it matter who the RB is when they get hit 2 yards deep in the backfield?

 

[KiwiHawk]

It feels like we are still drafting like a rebuilding team instead of an elite team trying to fill specific holes. With picking so many people each year we end up cutting a bunch because we just don't have the space for them.

That's because you don't draft to fill needs. You fill needs through free agency, and draft for depth and future talent.

Regardless of what the "experts" say (like how awesome Aaron Curry would be), you don't bet your season on an untested rookie player.

When you are drafting for need you are not taking best player available. You are taking best player at your position of need, who may not be the best player out there, or even the best player you can use e.g. a depth player. If you always settle for second-best you end up with a second-best team.

You have to approach the draft as a crap shoot, and when you have a solid roster, you increase your odds and potential rewards because you know not all the guys are going to make the team. It's just not numerically possible. We have 53 players on the active roster as at week 17 with another 19 players on injured reserve. Add to that another 7 draft picks and you have 79 players. 17 are free agents. Even if we lost every free agent, we still have to cut 9 more guys to make next year's 53.

We can afford to take some long shots because we are playing with house money. For every one who doesn't pan out, we have a guy *already on the roster* who can play.

 

[chris98251]

It feels like we are still drafting like a rebuilding team instead of an elite team trying to fill specific holes. With picking so many people each year we end up cutting a bunch because we just don't have the space for them.

That's because you don't draft to fill needs. You fill needs through free agency, and draft for depth and future talent.

Regardless of what the "experts" say (like how awesome Aaron Curry would be), you don't bet your season on an untested rookie player.

When you are drafting for need you are not taking best player available. You are taking best player at your position of need, who may not be the best player out there, or even the best player you can use e.g. a depth player. If you always settle for second-best you end up with a second-best team.

You have to approach the draft as a crap shoot, and when you have a solid roster, you increase your odds and potential rewards because you know not all the guys are going to make the team. It's just not numerically possible. We have 53 players on the active roster as at week 17 with another 19 players on injured reserve. Add to that another 7 draft picks and you have 79 players. 17 are free agents. Even if we lost every free agent, we still have to cut 9 more guys to make next year's 53.

We can afford to take some long shots because we are playing with house money. For every one who doesn't pan out, we have a guy *already on the roster* who can play.

This is the thought process that got us Hutchinson and Alexander and some other players when Holmgren was here, where he most failed was drafting players for need in Stevens, Robinson and a few others.

 

[Scorpion05]

It feels like we are still drafting like a rebuilding team instead of an elite team trying to fill specific holes. With picking so many people each year we end up cutting a bunch because we just don't have the space for them.

That's because you don't draft to fill needs. You fill needs through free agency, and draft for depth and future talent.

Regardless of what the "experts" say (like how awesome Aaron Curry would be), you don't bet your season on an untested rookie player.

When you are drafting for need you are not taking best player available. You are taking best player at your position of need, who may not be the best player out there, or even the best player you can use e.g. a depth player. If you always settle for second-best you end up with a second-best team.

You have to approach the draft as a crap shoot, and when you have a solid roster, you increase your odds and potential rewards because you know not all the guys are going to make the team. It's just not numerically possible. We have 53 players on the active roster as at week 17 with another 19 players on injured reserve. Add to that another 7 draft picks and you have 79 players. 17 are free agents. Even if we lost every free agent, we still have to cut 9 more guys to make next year's 53.

We can afford to take some long shots because we are playing with house money. For every one who doesn't pan out, we have a guy *already on the roster* who can play.

I don’t agree with this at all. Filling needs through free agency is a thoughtless concept particularly when you have cap issues

I for one think you always look for the best talent. The Saints didn’t need Kamara, but fit their scheme to have him because he was a tremendous talent. Linebacker isn’t necessarily a need but I’d love a young stud to join Wright and Wagner at a cheap price. Furthermore, I’d argue the RBs in the draft are far better than the potential free agent RBs

Yes rookies are a crap shoot, but this is the NFL. If it was as easy as filling needs in free agency and drafting for depth, more teams would be successful. Having young talented rookies is exactly how you build a great team for years to come. Otherwise you end up with a 2-3 year run like the Broncos

 

[adeltaY]

Imagine we could have Reuben Foster right now to replace either LB if they went down and would be our stud LB of the future. That would have been an example of drafting the best player as opposed to need.

Another Saints example is them drafting Ramcyzk. They didn't really need him but they ended up losing Zach Strief and Ryan has been a really good replacement.

 

[sdog1981]

Have you compared these draft classes to a team that has been equally successful during the same time period? Say the Patriots or Steelers? These draft classes out of context have no meaning.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

I also think its disingenuous to not include UDFA.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

It feels like we are still drafting like a rebuilding team instead of an elite team trying to fill specific holes. With picking so many people each year we end up cutting a bunch because we just don't have the space for them.

That's because you don't draft to fill needs. You fill needs through free agency, and draft for depth and future talent.

Regardless of what the "experts" say (like how awesome Aaron Curry would be), you don't bet your season on an untested rookie player.

When you are drafting for need you are not taking best player available. You are taking best player at your position of need, who may not be the best player out there, or even the best player you can use e.g. a depth player. If you always settle for second-best you end up with a second-best team.

You have to approach the draft as a crap shoot, and when you have a solid roster, you increase your odds and potential rewards because you know not all the guys are going to make the team. It's just not numerically possible. We have 53 players on the active roster as at week 17 with another 19 players on injured reserve. Add to that another 7 draft picks and you have 79 players. 17 are free agents. Even if we lost every free agent, we still have to cut 9 more guys to make next year's 53.

We can afford to take some long shots because we are playing with house money. For every one who doesn't pan out, we have a guy *already on the roster* who can play.

Ah yes, the "rigid BPA" approach.

If you go pure BPA, why not just draft a first-round QB or MLB if they're the best picks?

Every one of our first-round hits came at a position of need. Some were busts; some are still starting. A crapshoot, like you said. You find the best intersection of need and BPA, find a guy who you think will fit your system, and pull the trigger.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Ah yes, the "rigid BPA" approach.

If you go pure BPA, why not just draft a first-round QB or MLB if they're the best picks?

Every one of our first-round hits came at a position of need. Some were busts; some are still starting. A crapshoot, like you said. You find the best intersection of need and BPA, find a guy who you think will fit your system, and pull the trigger.

Not so rigid, really, I said you draft "for depth and future talent". If you are deep at the BPA position, then the value of that player for your team is diminished.

For your QB example, first of all we would not be drafting high enough that our BPA would be a QB. Second, I would not be averse to drafting a decent QB to back up Wilson. Austin Davis doesn't stand a chance behind our line in my opinion.
Third, if the BPA doesn't fit your positional needs for depth or future development, it's a great opportunity to trade with someone who does need that player.

If you draft for need, your need will not be filled unless you also bring in a free agent or trade for a guy in that position. I can point to all kinds of spectacular busts who were graded out as blue-chip players. Murphy's Law suggests that the potential success of a rookie is proportional to the quality of alternates you have for that position. No backup pretty much assures a bust or season-ending injury in Week 1. You can measure and interview all you want, but until he lines up with your guys in a real game, you don't really know if he's going to work or not.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

If you are deep at the BPA position, then the value of that player for your team is diminished.

In other words, you put it on a "needs" basis.