Using a 1st rounder to select an IOL...

rjdriver · Mar 25, 2025

...is very different than a QB.. (and other positions)

*Data is from 2017-2021 so perhaps outdated. Source is Windycitygridiron.com

We’ve all seen the stats and there have been threads ad nauseum. With the obvious outliers (Tom, Russ, Drew), the chances of selecting a true franchise QB drop tremendously once the first round clock hits zero. If you need a QB and need him now, you have to select one in the first. During the period the data was collected, a whopping 64% of starting QB’s were selected in the first round. 75% in the first two rounds.

Remember, I’m talking about starters, not just roster positions. Since there is so much talk of selecting IOL at 18R1, I figure this is Seahawk related.

Believe it is not, OT’s are in the somewhat same category with over 50% of NFL starting tackles selected in the first two rounds.

However, guards are a little different story. Of all the NFL starting guards in the NFL, only 18% of them were taken in the first round. 47% of Sunday starters were taken in rounds 2-4. 19% percent were signed as UDFA (that’s one in five!). Rounds 5-7 have abysmal rates for securing a starting guard position. Here’s the chart, I found it interesting.

Why the thread? Well, I think the mindset is that we are not addressing the IOL unless we absolutely take a guard in round one. We all know the John has been excoriated here (perhaps rightfully so) for his flippant comments with regards to IOL value. I’m just pointing out that the data (in some ways) supports finding IOL outside of the first round. I think John’s mistake is not paying known starters and FA’s, not neglecting them early rounds.

The big takeaways from this chart.

QB’s and OT’s are “best spent in the first round. I’ll say it again, get your QB in the first round because anything else is a lottery scratch ticket.

Center and TE especially are positions where lower round picks become starters at a higher rate.

Running backs shouldn’t be neglected in the draft, but don’t need to come from the first round.

AND THE BIG ONE…

If you have a good eye for talent, you can round out your Offensive line in the later rounds or with UDFA’s. The key phrase being “if you have a good eye for talent”.

If there is an absolute stud OG available, I’d love to select him at 18, but I won’t be upset at all if we take a position deemed more worthy of a first round starter and address the line soon after.

Shane Falco · Mar 25, 2025

That chart is misleading and from the that article posted in the other thread. Disingenuous at best.

Haven't done a yearly range yet, but as of right now there are exactly 5 UDFA's guards out of 64 penciled in as starters before the draft and the end of off season moves. None of them are studs.

rjdriver · Mar 25, 2025

Shane Falco said:
That chart is misleading and from the that article posted in the other thread. Disingenuous at best.

Haven't done a range yet, but as of right now there are exactly 5 UDFA's guards out of 64 penciled in as starters before the draft and the end of off season moves. None of them are studs.

Good to know. I hope you know I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous , I just stumbled on something I thought was interesting. Is there a chance this chart was accurate during the timeframe mentioned and we’ve just had a huge shift in 4 years?

Shane Falco · Mar 25, 2025

It's his criteria. He's making it sound like it is just as likely to find a starter in the 1st round as going with and UDFA. He does this by counting every time one of these UDFAs are forced into starting and by a certain amount of snaps, which he doesn't disclose, that they play that qualifies them.

Lot's of depth players get forced into starting without becoming worthy of being long term starters because of injury. We did it with 6th round pick Michael Jerrell at RT last season. He would be counted as a starter in that chart in the 6th round at RT but yet is he really a starter?

Shane Falco · Mar 25, 2025

As of right now and not counting what happens with Teven Jenkins and Cleveland and the draft or trades or who gets picked up from now to the season, 48 of the 64 starting guards were drafted in the first 4 rounds. That doesn't leave a lot of guys that came in rounds 5-7 and UDFA's.

The first 4 rounds is where it's at at least currently. Now the next step would be to evaluate quality between those 4 rounds.

rjdriver · Mar 25, 2025

Shane Falco said:
As of right now and not counting what happens with Teven Jenkins and Cleveland and the draft or trades or who gets picked up from now to the season, 48 of the 64 starting guards were drafted in the first 4 rounds. That doesn't leave a lot of guys that came in rounds 5-7 and UDFA's.

The first 4 rounds is where it's at at least currently. Now the next step would be to evaluate quality between those 4 rounds.

Would you agree though that there is less of a disparity (or “drop off”) between rounds 1 and 2-4 compared to other positions? Or is it just that fewer guards are taken round one which skews data?

Seahawker · Mar 25, 2025

rjdriver said:
*Data is from 2017-2021 so perhaps outdated. Source is Windycitygridiron.com

We’ve all seen the stats and there have been threads ad nauseum. With the obvious outliers (Tom, Russ, Drew), the chances of selecting a true franchise QB drop tremendously once the first round clock hits zero. If you need a QB and need him now, you have to select one in the first. During the period the data was collected, a whopping 64% of starting QB’s were selected in the first round. 75% in the first two rounds.

Remember, I’m talking about starters, not just roster positions. Since there is so much talk of selecting IOL at 18R1, I figure this is Seahawk related.

Believe it is not, OT’s are in the somewhat same category with over 50% of NFL starting tackles selected in the first two rounds.

However, guards are a little different story. Of all the NFL starting guards in the NFL, only 18% of them were taken in the first round. 47% of Sunday starters were taken in rounds 2-4. 19% percent were signed as UDFA (that’s one in five!). Rounds 5-7 have abysmal rates for securing a starting guard position. Here’s the chart, I found it interesting.

View attachment 70427

Why the thread? Well, I think the mindset is that we are not addressing the IOL unless we absolutely take a guard in round one. We all know the John has been excoriated here (perhaps rightfully so) for his flippant comments with regards to IOL value. I’m just pointing out that the data (in some ways) supports finding IOL outside of the first round. I think John’s mistake is not paying known starters and FA’s, not neglecting them early rounds.

The big takeaways from this chart.

QB’s and OT’s are “best spent in the first round. I’ll say it again, get your QB in the first round because anything else is a lottery scratch ticket.

Center and TE especially are positions where lower round picks become starters at a higher rate.

Running backs shouldn’t be neglected in the draft, but don’t need to come from the first round.

AND THE BIG ONE…

If you have a good eye for talent, you can round out your Offensive line in the later rounds or with UDFA’s. The key phrase being “if you have a good eye for talent”.

If there is an absolute stud OG available, I’d love to select him at 18, but I won’t be upset at all if we take a position deemed more worthy of a first round starter and address the line soon after.

That chart is propaganda.

toffee · Mar 25, 2025

rjdriver said:
*Data is from 2017-2021 so perhaps outdated. Source is Windycitygridiron.com

We’ve all seen the stats and there have been threads ad nauseum. With the obvious outliers (Tom, Russ, Drew), the chances of selecting a true franchise QB drop tremendously once the first round clock hits zero. If you need a QB and need him now, you have to select one in the first. During the period the data was collected, a whopping 64% of starting QB’s were selected in the first round. 75% in the first two rounds.

Remember, I’m talking about starters, not just roster positions. Since there is so much talk of selecting IOL at 18R1, I figure this is Seahawk related.

Believe it is not, OT’s are in the somewhat same category with over 50% of NFL starting tackles selected in the first two rounds.

However, guards are a little different story. Of all the NFL starting guards in the NFL, only 18% of them were taken in the first round. 47% of Sunday starters were taken in rounds 2-4. 19% percent were signed as UDFA (that’s one in five!). Rounds 5-7 have abysmal rates for securing a starting guard position. Here’s the chart, I found it interesting.

View attachment 70427

Why the thread? Well, I think the mindset is that we are not addressing the IOL unless we absolutely take a guard in round one. We all know the John has been excoriated here (perhaps rightfully so) for his flippant comments with regards to IOL value. I’m just pointing out that the data (in some ways) supports finding IOL outside of the first round. I think John’s mistake is not paying known starters and FA’s, not neglecting them early rounds.

The big takeaways from this chart.

QB’s and OT’s are “best spent in the first round. I’ll say it again, get your QB in the first round because anything else is a lottery scratch ticket.

Center and TE especially are positions where lower round picks become starters at a higher rate.

Running backs shouldn’t be neglected in the draft, but don’t need to come from the first round.

AND THE BIG ONE…

If you have a good eye for talent, you can round out your Offensive line in the later rounds or with UDFA’s. The key phrase being “if you have a good eye for talent”.

If there is an absolute stud OG available, I’d love to select him at 18, but I won’t be upset at all if we take a position deemed more worthy of a first round starter and address the line soon after.

Those stats are for everyday GM, we excel at picking them 4th - 6th. Occasionally, when it's a can't-miss, such as Christian Haynes, we take them at 3rd which John did mostly to throw a bone for the .NET experts.

Shane Falco · Mar 25, 2025

rjdriver said:
Would you agree though that there is less of a disparity (or “drop off”) between rounds 1 and 2-4 compared to other positions? Or is it just that fewer guards are taken round one which skews data?

I honestly can't say for sure. It's a lot of work to go through all the data and figure it all out. And the hardest part is how to grade the players to be fair and accurate. It's been tried before in a sense, based on 1st team All-Pros status. They didn't use Pro Bowl status because of the popularity contest that some think it is.

That's all good but it's harder to grade solid or very good players that weren't all-pro level. They just counted how many hits (All-Pro) each round produced between a range. But again, haven't seen anyone do it in a while.

Rat · Mar 25, 2025

The QB stat is interesting. Well, it's not, but people keep thinking taking one early is a bad idea because Jamarcus Russell was bad and Tom Brady was good.

GemCity · Mar 25, 2025

Interesting and thanks for posting.

One thought comes to mind…if most Guards are drafted in rounds 2-5, most starting Guards will be from round 2-5.

I know that sounds primitive at best but, in recent years, the only drafts that saw more than two guards drafted in round one were ‘22, ‘15 and ‘13.

Comparatively, I’m not sure where that ranks (i.e., I’m way too lazy to look).

I’m not going to freak out if we don’t draft IOL with our first pick. I just hope we consider BPA at that spot (aside from RB or ST) because we have holes everywhere.

I don’t know man…that LJ pick a few years back still has me pissed off a bit. It definitely influenced my perspective on BPA vs need.

It doesn’t always work but occasionally, you can grab a ‘gem’ even if that position looks properly manned (Dallas with CeeDee Lamb for example).

With 10 picks this year, they have the opportunity to move up (if they really LOVE a guy) or to be redundant in positioning.

There are a few receivers I’d be stoked to get. I’m not talking Dee Eskridge level stoked…

. But…stoked.

Shane Falco · Mar 25, 2025

I'm not going to freak out if they don't go IOL with our first pick either. Not even sure they'll grab one with 50 or 52 either. I do feel like IOL is still a huge weakness, and by far the biggest weakness on the team. Unlike a lot of fans. I am not so sure scheme and coaching changes a long with player development will make night and day changes, which I feel we need.

BigMeach · Mar 25, 2025

rjdriver said:
...is very different than a QB.. (and other positions)

*Data is from 2017-2021 so perhaps outdated. Source is Windycitygridiron.com

We’ve all seen the stats and there have been threads ad nauseum. With the obvious outliers (Tom, Russ, Drew), the chances of selecting a true franchise QB drop tremendously once the first round clock hits zero. If you need a QB and need him now, you have to select one in the first. During the period the data was collected, a whopping 64% of starting QB’s were selected in the first round. 75% in the first two rounds.

Remember, I’m talking about starters, not just roster positions. Since there is so much talk of selecting IOL at 18R1, I figure this is Seahawk related.

Believe it is not, OT’s are in the somewhat same category with over 50% of NFL starting tackles selected in the first two rounds.

However, guards are a little different story. Of all the NFL starting guards in the NFL, only 18% of them were taken in the first round. 47% of Sunday starters were taken in rounds 2-4. 19% percent were signed as UDFA (that’s one in five!). Rounds 5-7 have abysmal rates for securing a starting guard position. Here’s the chart, I found it interesting.

View attachment 70427

Why the thread? Well, I think the mindset is that we are not addressing the IOL unless we absolutely take a guard in round one. We all know the John has been excoriated here (perhaps rightfully so) for his flippant comments with regards to IOL value. I’m just pointing out that the data (in some ways) supports finding IOL outside of the first round. I think John’s mistake is not paying known starters and FA’s, not neglecting them early rounds.

The big takeaways from this chart.

QB’s and OT’s are “best spent in the first round. I’ll say it again, get your QB in the first round because anything else is a lottery scratch ticket.

Center and TE especially are positions where lower round picks become starters at a higher rate.

Running backs shouldn’t be neglected in the draft, but don’t need to come from the first round.

AND THE BIG ONE…

If you have a good eye for talent, you can round out your Offensive line in the later rounds or with UDFA’s. The key phrase being “if you have a good eye for talent”.

If there is an absolute stud OG available, I’d love to select him at 18, but I won’t be upset at all if we take a position deemed more worthy of a first round starter and address the line soon after.

Interesting that the "catch" rate for a IOL is better when undrafted than rounds 5-7. Really just shows what a crapshoot late drafting is.

bsuhawk · Mar 25, 2025

IIRC, JS has never selected an IOL in the first round. Carpenter ended up playing a lot at guard but was drafted to be a tackle. So no, I don't see us drafting an IOL in the first round.

GemCity · Mar 25, 2025

BigMeach said:
Interesting that the "catch" rate for a IOL is better when undrafted than rounds 5-7. Really just shows what a crapshoot late drafting is.

Very much a crapshoot!

rjdriver · Mar 25, 2025

bsuhawk said:
IIRC, JS has never selected an IOL in the first round. Carpenter ended up playing a lot at guard but was drafted to be a tackle. So no, I don't see us drafting an IOL in the first round.

My biggest memory of the Carpenter draft is when they cut to Nick Saban and he was clearly seen saying in utter disbelief …..”James Carpenter in the first round”????

I was like..”That’s a freaking great start”.

bsuhawk · Mar 25, 2025

rjdriver said:
My biggest memory of the Carpenter draft is when they cut to Nick Saban and he was clearly seen saying in utter disbelief …..”James Carpenter in the first round”????

I was like..”That’s a freaking great start”.

True, but keep in mind what most of the draft talking heads were saying about Russell Wilson when he was drafted. If the so called draft annalists were any good they would be a GM for some team.

rjdriver · Mar 25, 2025

bsuhawk said:
True, but keep in mind what most of the draft talking heads were saying about Russell Wilson when he was drafted. If the so called draft annalists were any good they would be a GM for some team.

For sure…

And for the record… Carpenter was a pretty good player.

That said, there is a difference between some Prisco type blow hard and the draftees own head coach. Usually the players college coach is their biggest advocate arguing they should be drafted ahead of where there are.

Scout · Mar 25, 2025

1st round guards were more common years ago but now that many collegiate tackles are converting to guard as they go into the pros the urgency to draft a guard in round 1 has diminished as there are plenty of guards to draft in rounds 2-5. But years ago you would see a lot of late round guards or undrafted guards see playing time but that is also no longer the case.

Centers are an interesting case because while you can find centers mid to late draft now you are starting to see them drafted a round or 2 earlier than normal because it is seen very important compared to a right guard.

A lot of collegiate tackles and guards do not play in pro style offenses which is why NFL teams have to develop these players. That is why you are seeing NFL teams use higher draft picks on non premium positions at guard and center to cut down on the development time needed to have a player NFL ready.

glenwo2 · Mar 25, 2025

I just realized something :

Whomever JS drafts at #18, someone will b*tch about it.

Using a 1st rounder to select an IOL...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads