There is a 50/50 shot that any player drafted in the 1st round will be a bust. That being he will not turn into a proven starter for the team that drafted him or you could say they paid no dividens. Out of the non-bust players maybe 1/3 will make the probowl at least one time during their career and maybe if you're really lucky you will get one of the magical 1st round players that will make it multiple times. Now for my reason not to draft in the top ten. A guy drafted in the last ten spots (Mangold) will be as good if not BETTER than a top ten pick (Ferguson), yet you will only pay a fraction of the price. I good example why not is Gholston, he has the highest garranteed salary on the defense, even over Jenkins, Rhodes or Pace (all proven players). When drafting in the top ten you pay as much in a contract as you would three players combined that are drafted in 23-32 range (last ten spots). With the odds of a college player not making it, I would rather trade down every year and collect as many picks as possible to increase my chances of a Mangold or even Rhodes. Now we are stuck with Gholston and even if he developes into a descent NFL LB he will have hurt the team for years. We could have signed a proven LB from the Raven for the price we have invested in Gholston and that alone could prevent us from getting a missing piece of the puzzle. I would rather draft twelve guys in rounds 2-7 than have 3 first round picks. It would save money and give you better chance for success.
I agree, but i don't think it's realistic to trade down for enough good picks to compensate. You could never get 3 picks in the 23-32 ranges for a top ten pick.
Larry Fitzgerald and Adrian Peterson are the only two top 10 picks in recent memory that turned out to be worth every penny.
I think a lot of this has to do with "experts" predetermining who should go where. Fans get so hyped up over who they "should" be drafting with the 3rd pick because of what Mike Mayock and Mel Kiper think, that it literally handcuffs the management from picking who they want. Again, this is my opinion. I think one thing that has made teams like Pittsburgh and New England successful is there willingness to draft who THEY think is the best pick rather then who everybody else thinks. IMO
Top 10 guys who are probably worth their draft picks are listed. A few others are mentioned: 2008 Jake Long Matt Ryan Jerod Mayo Rivers looked good but got injured. McFadded would probably be much better on a non-psychotic team. 2007 Calvin Johnson Joe Thomas LaRon Landry Adrian Peterson Okoye is getting better. Levi Brown is good but not worth #5 money. Russell definitely not worth #1 money. 2006 Mario Williams D'Brick Donte Whittier Ernie Simms AJ Hawk has been good but not outstanding. Reggie Bush is OK but not worth #2. 2005 no one ! Ronnie Brown and 'grease hands' Braylon Edwards are the best of the top 10. What a horrible draft class. **************** So that's about 11/40 who were probably worth it and maybe another 6 who are "maybes" at best. Even adding those two groups together it's < 50%. So I'd say your off-the-cuff guess of 50% busts was pretty accurate. Maybe even an under-estimate.
I agree! Also for another Jets example just look at how much money D'Rob collected and he cost us two 1st round draft picks. He was so much of a bust we didn't even get a draft pick for him.
The arguement that having a top ten pick is never good is bogus. There are some truly exceptional talents that are picked in the top 10 every year, and it's the only time when you can expect to pick up an elite player while still being realistic. It's dangerous, sure. But if you can't pick the right players at the bottom of the first round either, you're still fucked. A team that's got a lot of room to improve (and that's not run by idiots) can definitely benefit from picking early.
This thread is an epic fail, it makes alot of sense that a guy picked in late round one will be as good if not better than a guy picked top 10, the only difference is that when that guy busts you dont hear as much about it. /thread
Not true A bust at #29 costs a team 2M. A bust at #2 costs 20M. That difference will destroy your salary cap.
Also you pay way too much for an unproven college player, when you can sign a proven top caliber NFL player at the same position for the same ammount. If we offered any top caliber LB the same contract we garrantteed Gholston, they would sign. Except for Favre, not one of our Probowl players this year has a better contract than Gholston.
He's statistically a top 5 pass protector and film wise is likely top 3. Ask any GM or QB leaguewide if a top 3 pass protector is worth a top 5 pick.
Basically the rookie wages are completely crazy. Top 10 picks have become a very risky and expensive gamble. As a consequence I have no doubt that there will be a rookie salary cap in the next CBA.
am i saying rookies arent overpayed, no im saying your logic is completely fucked up. Late first rounders are bettere than top ten picks wtf, i thought you got picked higher if your supposed to be better, obv it always doesnt work out like that, there are STEALS and BUSTS but if you were indy, would you have wanted to trade out of the number one pick and got 3 players instead of Peyton Manning?
