Jump to content

syrett4

Time to Start Researching the Draft

Recommended Posts


words

People expect too much from late round picks that rarely amount to anything, and I've already said he's had some huge profile busts, still;

2001 is a good draft

2002 is terrible

2003 is a solid draft, Rogers is a huge bust of course but you got a good player in Redding and managed to get usable starters in the 2nd and 5th rounds. Pinner is still a decent back up as well.

2004 is a very good draft, all but one of those players are still on the team and if not for Lehmans constant injuries they might all be starters.

2005 was a bad draft due to Mike Williams being a bust, I admit I thought Shaun Cody would be a good player but it looks like he hasn't done anything to impress Marinelli this year

2006 is shaping up to be a solid draft, Ernie Sims is very good, Bullocks was coming along before the injury, and Jonathan Scott has showed promise

2007 Too early to tell

The main problem seems to be an inability to scout out players who are injury prone or won't work hard, also of course the horrible first round busts that I have admitted to, I think Millen does a good job finding talent in the 2nd-5th rounds.

Of course he's terrible in every other way, whether it's finding a coach, free agency, or yes the 'somewhat' important 1st round selection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that just because those players are still playing on the Lions doesn't mean they're good. It seems as if you're calling some of those drafts successful simply because there are guys from them on the team "contributing." Yes, they are on the team, but they're not good players. Is the draft a success simply because the guys are still on the team and the Lions have been unable to replace them with better players?

To me, for the draft to be a success, it should yield GOOD players, not just guys who are on the team and are average to meh players. Take 2001. Backus and Raiola are just meh players. Is the draft a success because the two top players are still on the team even though they're just meh players? It depends on what you mean by success.

2004 looks like the best of the lot by a long shot. The rest are meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People expect too much from late round picks that rarely amount to anything, and I've already said he's had some huge profile busts, still;

2001 is a good draft

2002 is terrible

2003 is a solid draft, Rogers is a huge bust of course but you got a good player in Redding and managed to get usable starters in the 2nd and 5th rounds. Pinner is still a decent back up as well.

2004 is a very good draft, all but one of those players are still on the team and if not for Lehmans constant injuries they might all be starters.

2005 was a bad draft due to Mike Williams being a bust, I admit I thought Shaun Cody would be a good player but it looks like he hasn't done anything to impress Marinelli this year

2006 is shaping up to be a solid draft, Ernie Sims is very good, Bullocks was coming along before the injury, and Jonathan Scott has showed promise

2007 Too early to tell

The main problem seems to be an inability to scout out players who are injury prone or won't work hard, also of course the horrible first round busts that I have admitted to, I think Millen does a good job finding talent in the 2nd-5th rounds.

Of course he's terrible in every other way, whether it's finding a coach, free agency, or yes the 'somewhat' important 1st round selection

Currently on team.

5th round - Alex Lewis/Dan Orlovsky/Jonathan Scott (all a cut away from being gone.

4th round - None on team

3rd round - Cory Redding, Keith Smith, Stanley Wilson, Brian Calhoun - nothing all that great, Cory Redding is probably the only one above League average

2nd round - Shawn Rogers, Teddy Lehman, Boss Bailey, Kalimba Edwards, Danial Bullocks. SR only above league average player.

That isn't good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly,

They are playing for a poor team. Being a player for the Lions doesn't make it a successful pick. Being a productive performer does. How many of those players do you look at and say "We nailed that pick." Not many for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess our expectations are different, to me if a player from the 3rd round and beyond is even a league average player it's a huge success.

Perhaps I'm overstating this, but it seems to me that a huge majority of guys taken outside the first two rounds are career practice squad guys or quickly out of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess our expectations are different, to me if a player from the 3rd round and beyond is even a league average player it's a huge success.

Perhaps I'm overstating this, but it seems to me that a huge majority of guys taken outside the first two rounds are career practice squad guys or quickly out of the league.

Sounds like you need a player distribution across the league broken down by draft position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you need a player distribution across the league broken down by draft position.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/04/24/ramblings/nfl-draft/3828/

Here's the player distribution you were looking for. It look like about 45% of the starters in the NFL were drafted in rounds 1 and 2 and the rest were either in the other rounds or free agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm usually a heavy draftnik...

But I can't yet really get into it... too geeked about the game this weekend. We're gonna have a slew of "Make-or-Break" games coming up this month and the Vikings are the first one. Gotta win, gotta win, gotta win!!!

Besides, do we know yet which Juniors are likely to declare? Obviously that doesn't happen until much later. But IMO, that changes the draft so much that I just gotta wait for that picture to get clearer before spending my time on this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess our expectations are different, to me if a player from the 3rd round and beyond is even a league average player it's a huge success.

Perhaps I'm overstating this, but it seems to me that a huge majority of guys taken outside the first two rounds are career practice squad guys or quickly out of the league.

But those guys are very important to your team. Your depth comes from those players.

The Lions problems come from lots of areas, one of which is the inability to draft talent in the later rounds and develop that talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Kowalski wrote an article comparing the Lions and the Packers, stating how the Packer's late round drafting is part of the reason for their success.

Packers prove importance of the draft

by Tom Kowalski

Tuesday November 27, 2007, 12:16 AM

ALLEN PARK -- It's hard to believe but the worst team in the NFC North division just two years ago wasn't the Detroit Lions, it was the Green Bay Packers. Yes, those Packers.

Those same Packers who just whipped the Lions on Thanksgiving Day, who climbed to 10-1 and who will play the Dallas Cowboys on Thursday with NFC home-field advantage on the line. The 6-5 Lions, meanwhile, have lost three straight games and will need a small miracle to get into the playoffs.

To understand why the Packers have surged ahead of the Lions in such a short period of time -- and why the Lions seem to keep spinning their wheels in the mud -- you only need to take a quick look at their rosters to realize how it happened.

First, there's quarterback Brett Favre, a 17-year veteran and sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famer, who is a huge piece of the Green Bay puzzle. But the Packers were 4-12 with Favre two seasons ago so it's not like he can do it alone.

The Packers started winning last year, finishing 8-8 with a four-game win streak to close the season, because of what they had put in motion a few years earlier -- solid drafts from top to bottom. Green Bay's regular starting lineup this season features seven players -- seven! -- who were drafted by the Packers in the fourth round or lower.

The Lions? Zero. (OK, we'll give them a half-credit for fifth-round pick Jonathan Scott, who has started two games, but only because starter George Foster was so bad.)

The Lions have been terrible in finding those gems later in the draft, while the Packers have found some quality players, especially at the all-important trench positions. Among the late-round picks are two starting offensive linemen -- both seventh-rounders -- in center Scott Wells and Mark Tauscher. Defensively, the Packers have two starters on the line -- Aaron Kampman (fifth round) and Corey Williams (sixth round).

One of the reasons the Lions don't have any of those late-round players in their starting lineup is because they traded a lot of them away in recent drafts. Now, that's a sound strategy as long as the guys you're getting for those picks are worth it. Unfortunately, for the Lions, it hasn't worked out that way.

Since Matt Millen took over as team president in 2001, the Lions have drafted 23 players in the first three rounds of the draft. Yet, only half of Detroit's starters come from that group.

The Lions' first-round flops are the stuff of legend, but it's not like the Packers don't have their fair share of first-round flameouts: defensive end Jamal Reynolds (2001), cornerback Ahmad Carroll (2004) and quarterback Aaron Rodgers (2005). The Packers only have two of their own first-rounders in the starting lineup -- linebackers A.J. Hawk and Nick Barnett -- while the Lions are starting five first-rounders.

The biggest difference in the draft philosophy between the Packers and Lions seems to be how they approach the offensive line. Not only are all five of Green Bay's starters products of the draft, but their three backups are all drafted players, too.

Three of Green Bay's starters -- Daryn Colledge, Chad Clifton and Jason Spitz -- are all second- and third-round draft picks. While the Packers made the offensive line a priority in recent drafts, the Lions have not. Since taking Jeff Backus and Dominic Raiola in the first two rounds, respectively, in 2001, the Lions have not drafted an offensive linemen in the top three rounds and only one in the fourth (Manny Ramirez, 2007) and one in the fifth (Scott, 2006).

The Lions have spent years trying to fill their holes on the offensive line with free agents or trades and, so far, nearly every one of them has been benched or dumped for ineffective play, from David Loverne to Rick DeMulling to Ross Verba to Rex Tucker to Damien Woody to Foster. It's been a revolving door with only one exit -- out.

The Packers are on solid ground right now because they've been building with the draft for a couple of years and adding a piece here and there as they go. The Lions, meanwhile, keep trying to plug their vacancies with free agents.

While the Lions struggle to find a way into the playoffs this season, Millen should be spending all of his time -- not some of it, not even most of it, but ALL of it -- on self-scouting his own personnel department. The Lions need to drastically improve the way they conduct the draft and free agency.

Then again, maybe Millen shouldn't waste his time looking at what the Lions have done wrong, but focus on what the Packers have done right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason the Packers are looking so good with their drafting is that they've had a history of getting extra supplemental picks, while the Lions have not. The Packers are drafting more players, giving them more room for error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be curious to look at this in year 4 of the Marinelli regime. It usually takes a couple of years for late-round draft picks to move into starter spots. I realize that doesn't excuse Millen at all and I am not attempting to make any excuses for Millen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Lions should pencil in Jonathon Scott as their future RT. He's got great feet, and has bulked up enough for that. I'd look for Peterman to eventually move to LG, and Ramirez to end up as the RG. The Lions are fine. They might need a little more speed at receiver, and they definitely need the QB to stop holding onto the ball so long. They could also use some help at TE and RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruzer,

The MAJOR REASON the Packers are doing so well with their draft picks has to do with the fact they know what the heck they are doing. The Lions do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Brady is who he is for one reason.... Coaching !!!! All draft picks are all a risk, I dont care who they are, what they did in college or anything. They all are risks at the position they are selected. They all have potential, there is NO guarantee they will amount to anything. NOTHING !!!!

It is really easy to say after the fact that this and that player should not have been selected were he was. Again it all comes down to coaching.

It sure is ironic that not one coach has proved themself since Millen has been here, and most of the picks have been crap as well. At least the first round picks, they all would have been picked in the slot or really close to it so it comes back to coaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Packers prove importance of the draft

by Tom Kowalski

Tuesday November 27, 2007, 12:16 AM

ALLEN PARK -- It's hard to believe but the worst team in the NFC North division just two years ago wasn't the Detroit Lions, it was the Green Bay Packers. Yes, those Packers.

Those same Packers who just whipped the Lions on Thanksgiving Day, who climbed to 10-1 and who will play the Dallas Cowboys on Thursday with NFC home-field advantage on the line. The 6-5 Lions, meanwhile, have lost three straight games and will need a small miracle to get into the playoffs.

To understand why the Packers have surged ahead of the Lions in such a short period of time -- and why the Lions seem to keep spinning their wheels in the mud -- you only need to take a quick look at their rosters to realize how it happened.

First, there's quarterback Brett Favre, a 17-year veteran and sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famer, who is a huge piece of the Green Bay puzzle. But the Packers were 4-12 with Favre two seasons ago so it's not like he can do it alone.

The Packers started winning last year, finishing 8-8 with a four-game win streak to close the season, because of what they had put in motion a few years earlier -- solid drafts from top to bottom. Green Bay's regular starting lineup this season features seven players -- seven! -- who were drafted by the Packers in the fourth round or lower.

The Lions? Zero. (OK, we'll give them a half-credit for fifth-round pick Jonathan Scott, who has started two games, but only because starter George Foster was so bad.)

The Lions have been terrible in finding those gems later in the draft, while the Packers have found some quality players, especially at the all-important trench positions. Among the late-round picks are two starting offensive linemen -- both seventh-rounders -- in center Scott Wells and Mark Tauscher. Defensively, the Packers have two starters on the line -- Aaron Kampman (fifth round) and Corey Williams (sixth round).

One of the reasons the Lions don't have any of those late-round players in their starting lineup is because they traded a lot of them away in recent drafts. Now, that's a sound strategy as long as the guys you're getting for those picks are worth it. Unfortunately, for the Lions, it hasn't worked out that way.

Since Matt Millen took over as team president in 2001, the Lions have drafted 23 players in the first three rounds of the draft. Yet, only half of Detroit's starters come from that group.

The Lions' first-round flops are the stuff of legend, but it's not like the Packers don't have their fair share of first-round flameouts: defensive end Jamal Reynolds (2001), cornerback Ahmad Carroll (2004) and quarterback Aaron Rodgers (2005). The Packers only have two of their own first-rounders in the starting lineup -- linebackers A.J. Hawk and Nick Barnett -- while the Lions are starting five first-rounders.

The biggest difference in the draft philosophy between the Packers and Lions seems to be how they approach the offensive line. Not only are all five of Green Bay's starters products of the draft, but their three backups are all drafted players, too.

Three of Green Bay's starters -- Daryn Colledge, Chad Clifton and Jason Spitz -- are all second- and third-round draft picks. While the Packers made the offensive line a priority in recent drafts, the Lions have not. Since taking Jeff Backus and Dominic Raiola in the first two rounds, respectively, in 2001, the Lions have not drafted an offensive linemen in the top three rounds and only one in the fourth (Manny Ramirez, 2007) and one in the fifth (Scott, 2006).

The Lions have spent years trying to fill their holes on the offensive line with free agents or trades and, so far, nearly every one of them has been benched or dumped for ineffective play, from David Loverne to Rick DeMulling to Ross Verba to Rex Tucker to Damien Woody to Foster. It's been a revolving door with only one exit -- out.

The Packers are on solid ground right now because they've been building with the draft for a couple of years and adding a piece here and there as they go. The Lions, meanwhile, keep trying to plug their vacancies with free agents.

While the Lions struggle to find a way into the playoffs this season, Millen should be spending all of his time -- not some of it, not even most of it, but ALL of it -- on self-scouting his own personnel department. The Lions need to drastically improve the way they conduct the draft and free agency.

Then again, maybe Millen shouldn't waste his time looking at what the Lions have done wrong, but focus on what the Packers have done right.

He stole my material.

jake (as 777)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Brady is who he is for one reason.... Coaching !!!! All draft picks are all a risk, I dont care who they are, what they did in college or anything. They all are risks at the position they are selected. They all have potential, there is NO guarantee they will amount to anything. NOTHING !!!!

It is really easy to say after the fact that this and that player should not have been selected were he was. Again it all comes down to coaching.

It sure is ironic that not one coach has proved themself since Millen has been here, and most of the picks have been crap as well. At least the first round picks, they all would have been picked in the slot or really close to it so it comes back to coaching.

Tom Brady is not a system QB or a product of great coaching. He was great from the 1st game he started in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Lions should pencil in Jonathon Scott as their future RT. He's got great feet, and has bulked up enough for that. I'd look for Peterman to eventually move to LG, and Ramirez to end up as the RG. The Lions are fine. They might need a little more speed at receiver, and they definitely need the QB to stop holding onto the ball so long. They could also use some help at TE and RB.

I love the quote about a QB that doesn't hold the ball so long. Really, Kitna's been the difference the last 3 weeks. He was efficient and productive the first 8 games and he's stunk the last 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that coaching has a lot to do with success or failure of draft picks. I fault Millen more for his first 2 head-coaching choices than for his drafting. Although definitely the 2 things are intertwined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jake, I posted that very same article on this very same page earlier today. : )

I thought this Kowalski article was particularly fascinating. Love the material. Loved the premise. Guy's a genius. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...