Easiest position to predict in the draft

[Harlan Huckleby]

Been thinking about NFL flops. I think pass rushers, outside linebacker and DE, are the most likely to succeed. If they can do it in college, they can in the pros. Plus the measurables count a lot.


(cough) Jamal Reynolds (cough)

OK, wise guy, the exception that proves the rule

[pbmax]

Even though it happens less often, offensive lineman and running backs bust less often I's bet.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Offensive lineman? Tell that to Green Bay tackles all my life. Let me count the ways.....

I agree w RB

I think this topic is spent.

moderator: please move this thread to garbage can

[mraynrand]

Has to be a Guard on offense, maybe safety on defense.

[texaspackerbacker]

I distinctly remember being happy when we drafted Jamal Reynolds. I reject the idea that successes or flops are the most likely to predict at that position. Just look at the latest subject of discussion in here, Kyler Fackrell, to see another case of that - great measurables, etc. Just the same, I'd favor gambling to grab the next Khalil Mack or maybe more realistically, the next Clay Matthews in his prime - when you just might also get the next Jamal Reynolds.

O Lineman busts? Heavens to Mandarich! Spare us. Derek Sherrod, John Michaels, the list goes on. The greater the expectations, the bigger the disappointment.

Running Back? You have farther back, but I remember being very pleased we got Brent Fullwood, Kenneth Davis and Darrell Thompson. Eddie Lee Ivery could have been a star but for the damn injury. Even all the way back to Anderson and Grabowski, great expectations didn't come through.

In fact, as I went down the list in Wikipedia of Packer top picks, it was downright depressing at all positions the huge number of noteworthy busts. It's a wonder the Packers have been as great as they have mostly been for the last 60 or so years with such a parade of first round misses.

[mraynrand]

I distinctly remember being happy when we drafted Jamal Reynolds. I reject the idea that successes or flops are the most likely to predict at that position. Just look at the latest subject of discussion in here, Kyler Fackrell, to see another case of that - great measurables, etc. Just the same, I'd favor gambling to grab the next Khalil Mack or maybe more realistically, the next Clay Matthews in his prime - when you just might also get the next Jamal Reynolds.

Who can tell what you're talking about here? To be a bust, don't they need to be drafted at least in the first two rounds; even so, people usually don't really care about 'busts' after the top of the first.

O Lineman busts? Heavens to Mandarich! Spare us. Derek Sherrod, John Michaels, the list goes on. The greater the expectations, the bigger the disappointment.

These are all tackles. You should at least acknowledge the difference.

Running Back? ... etc. ...
In fact, as I went down the list in Wikipedia of Packer top picks, it was downright depressing at all positions the huge number of noteworthy busts. It's a wonder the Packers have been as great as they have mostly been for the last 60 or so years with such a parade of first round misses.

Interesting post, I guess, but which is the easiest position to predict in the draft?

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, they're all Tackles; What's your point? That's what pbmax and Harlan were talking about - secondarily after pass rushers anyway. All of those I mentioned were top picks except Fackrell - who is mostly an example of drafting for measurables rather than college performance that (maybe) has not lived up to expectations. Throw Biegel in the group of pass rushers who failed also, even though he did have good college performance. The point is, it's hard to predict success at that position, not easy, and there probably is a clear reason why: the game is faster and the competition tougher on the pro level.

Assuming your post above wasn't just more weird sarcasm, I'll give you that Guard can be an easier position to predict. It also is arguably a position where a first round pick is less justified - less risk, less reward.

[Tony Oday]

I think all positions can bust out in the top two rounds. I think the easiest to get late round help in is on the line. Bahktiari was a 4th rounder and plays a premium position. Linsley is a 5th rounder.

On the other hand WR can spark white hot as a late round as well as CB. I think its coaching more so after the 3rd round.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Punter

[run pMc]

Not sure there is one...which leads one to wonder if a better or more specific question needs to be asked. Depends on the schemes and your expectations for each position in them.

If you need a decent gunner on ST you can probably just get a speedster/athlete.
G or C is easier to predict than T, and if you run a scheme where you don't care about inside pass rush you could find some fat uglies to clog the middle at DL, but that's about it.

Safety is a mixed bag - some people think you can find one anywhere, but if you don't have good ones you really feel the pain. Kind of like having a good K.

Trouble with many players is they are getting by on athletic ability and can outrun their mistakes/bad angles/etc on the college level but get exposed in the pros where technique matters too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Punter

The winning answer.


BTW, I think the reason why some are saying offensive guard is easier to project than offensive tackle is that the tackles get drafted in the first round and fail spectacularly when they tank. (Sorry, anti-polar bear.) The mid and late round washouts are forgotten.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: Which first round draft picks are least likely to fail? I'm still sticking with my pass rusher opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here is a barely related graph showing career length by position, also showing how career lengths changed from 2000 to 2014.
It says the offensive lineman are likely to stick a long time - which sorta suggests they don't often wash-out quickly. Sorta.

It's amazing how sharply career lengths are dropping. Salary cap?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wow, look at how much faster QBs are washing out compared to 2000-2010! That must be because vet salaries are sky high, everybody wants a cheap youngster to backup.

[mraynrand]

BTW, I think the reason why some are saying offensive guard is easier to project than offensive tackle is that the tackles get drafted in the first round and fail spectacularly when they tank. (Sorry, anti-polar bear.) The mid and late round washouts are forgotten.

Most first round guards are mid round picks (very few top 10). And most don't washout. They aren't remembered because they don't washout and no one cares about guards.

Think Nelson, Iupati, DeCastro, Pouncey, Albert, Joseph, Grubbs, Hutchinson, and even Logan Mankins . I think Cooper (Arizona) is the biggest/only first round washout in the past 15 years.

[mraynrand]

It's amazing how sharply career lengths are dropping. Salary cap?

Indeed. But is it true?

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...etting-shorter

So what can we conclude? Players who play -- the main population that we're interested in when it comes to career lengths -- were playing about as long as they used to through 2013. This may have changed over the last couple of years, but PFR does not have the retirement data to let us investigate that. The original WSJ analysis was flawed because it included large numbers of players who never played from 2011 onwards but not before, making average career length appear to shrink when we really were just looking at lower-quality players.