T. Richardson proves why draft position matters
What does Terry Richardson have to do with the NFL Draft?
Thanks for sharing.
I can't hear you over the sound of Tom Brady's 6th round awesomeness.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:40 PM ^
March 17th, 2015 at 11:53 PM ^
Whoever thinks that draft position doesn't matter is uninformed.
Any die-hard NFL fan* can tell you that draft position is vital, in large part because a 1st or 2nd round pick is such an investment. The pick itself is a valuable asset, and then you pay the player a good amount of guaranteed money in the form of a signing bonus. With so much invested in a single player, you DO NOT cut ties unless you KNOW he is a bust. This is less true in today's NFL where draft salaries have been depressed, but it's still an investment.
Also, the reason that players get 2nd and 3rd chances isn't necessarily because they are high picks, but rather because they have tons of raw potential. They are picked high in the draft for a reason.
*I consider myself a die-hard NFL fan. I'm actually an NFL fan first and a college football fan second....I didn't get into college sports until I attended Michigan.
I agree that draft position matters, but I'm not sure of the connection you are trying to make...
Also, let's not pretend that Trent Richardson is similar to a JaMarcus Russell or Ryan Leaf who kept getting chances simply because they were such high draft picks-- the guy rushed for almost 1000 years as a rookie for a terrible Browns team. While I don't think he will ever be a great or even good RB in the league, I think you can make the case that teams are still enamored with the chance to catch lightning in a bottle and at this point to do it for really cheap
... this is one anecdotal data point. This does not pass Mgoblog math bar.
negged for using the word "proves" so utterly wrong.
It would take much time, but I have always wondered if it would be worthwhile to delve into a study of draft position or round versus average length of career. I was inspired by a discussion the other day with someone about how you can point to examples of teams that have gone to Super Bowls that seemed to make a living between the 2nd and 5th rounds with serviceable (but really good) players. Maybe this summer when I have more time to do things like this.
id be interested to see such a study. the examples of super bowl teams cleaning up in those middle rounds are obvious and probably easier to compute than position / round vs average career length.
but its crazy to see how well a team like the patriots has done in the draft - of course theyve missed just like everyone else but they also consistently pick up starters and major contributors every year (and sometimes in lesser known or small school type dudes). the ravens have been another prime example - ozzie newsome and his staff have an amazing track record
I do believe there are a studies that show 2nd-5th round picks are better VALUE than first round picks because the money isn't so absurd for an unknown entity. That's why the Pats and maybe a couple other teams (Seattle maybe) have been "money-balling" to great success the past decade or so by trading down and accumulating a bunch of mid-round picks. I can't cite the studies, unfortunately. I think SI ran a draft issue about it a couple years ago.
I have little doubt that a study of round vs. length in the league, as you suggest, would result in a direct correlation between higher draft pick and longer time in the league, because I'm sure that as a whole over a long period of time, NFL teams do draft the better guys earlier. The problem is, they pay them too much money, relatively. So it doesn't necessarily correlate with winning because the highest talent/longevity comes at too great a cost.
Enough analysis to be useful. For every Richardson, there is a JaMarcus Russell. There are so many guys who were drafted in the top 15 picks even that aren't even in the league anymore after 3-4 years.
Didn't stay in school. He left Bama after three years.
Also, the idea that staying in school makes it more or less likely that you'll move up in the NFL draft is a pretty dumb assumption.
A lot of players improve their positions with another year of college football. Some don't, but projecting improvement is not a "dumb assumption." I would be willing to bet that a majority of players who are even sniffing the NFL draft improve every year they come back.
Therefore, assuming "they do" is dumb. Also, improving as a player is not the same thing as improving your draft stock.
Matt Barkley came back to a ton of fanfare and ended up a 4th round pick. Tim Tebow stayed in school and was a 1st round pick. JaMarcus Russell never would have been the #1 pick if he stays in school another year. Mike Hart was pretty much the same, very good, player from the moment he arrived on campus until he left four years later, but he still went in the 6th round. There isn't really any rhyme or reason to it. And in football, so much depends on health, surrounding talent, and loads of other factors that have nothing to do with the player and can change in a flash.
It's too bad he was Kiffin'd. He had a great junior year and probably should have declared for the draft.
He left early and was taken 4th overall. He was replaced by young guys (Aundrey Walker who moved to guard and ended up getting benched as a senior this past season) and Max Tuerk (a freshman at the time now playing center). Barkley, who was always a bit of a chucker even in high school, was now under pressure way more often and doubled his interception total.
2. Get drafted by the Raiders
3. Profit
I remember hearing they were in danger of not meeting the league's minimum salary commitments. With guys not really wanting to sign there, they basically had to find ways to throw money at guys in order to comply with league rules.
No wonder they got Harbaugh.
What kind of analogy is that?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
As am I, from a far less respected place than either Harvard or Ross. That's an incredibly dumb analogy. For one thing, he claims to have got his undergraduate degree anyways, so right off the top that has nothing to do with Richardson. Second of all, where is it going after that? Is Goldman Sachs supposed to be the Browns, and Ross is the Colts? Where are the Raiders in this?
The Raiders are K-Mart.
he's saying that pedigree similarly biased the employers' decisions to employ in light of performances that (supposedly) do not warrant employment in each case.The anecdotal nature of the argument is equally as absurd as the OP, however.
Cut him some slack. He's a Harvard undergrad, not a Michigan undergrad.
On a scale of 1/10 how eager are you to share the fact you're an MBA at Ross? Just wondering
He isn't an MBA at Ross, and is just the same troll who keeps getting banned around here.
No kidding man, shit be crazy. And I bet you are having trouble right now spending all the money you saved up from your job because of that trust fund you have been living off of.
Welcome to Michigan. Which Romney son are you again?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
when a player jumps to the NFL such as a younger better player that might take your spot next year particularly at a school like Bama. Also if the draft isn't particularly strong for RBs then it would seem to be a good time to get drafted higher. Don't know if that was the case for Trent Richardson but it certainly would influence whether to go or not. 25-30 years ago it was a good idea for all college players to get their degrees but nowadays for a 20 year old potential 1st round draft pick looking at a multimillion dollar contract for 2-3 years even if he is a bust thats significantly more than they are going to make in the real world. These kids can always go back and get a degree.
Get money while you can.
Finnish school later. Yes, go to Finland to get youre degree.
read the details. I said this applies to first rounders that are likely to walk away after 3-4 years with minimally around 10 million. Teddy Bridgewater picked 32nd in the first round last year signed for 6.8 mil-4.5 guaranteed and a 3.3 mil signing bonus. That's a lot more than a jr sales position or first year salaries for engineers. Passing that up would be very bad advice to a 20 year old. I guarantee Jemarcus Russell earned a lot more than most college grads and he was a first round bust. Before calling something wrong you might want to consider the details first.
I can say pretty confidently that over the last 10-15 years, I wouldn't use any personnel move by the Raiders as an example that proves much of anything...other than the Raiders make really bad personnel decisions.
Running back is very different from any other because the average career is so much shorter, even those with long ones. Most RBs are done at age 29-31 while the elite at most other positions play for at least a couple more years. Richardson may have developed into a better player with another year or he could have hurt his draft stock splitting carries with Eddie Lacy. Then again, that didn't seem to hurt Mark Ingram.
Not sure that the situation of Trent Richardson is the final piece of evidence that "proves" what seems to be something akin to common sense.