Grading Past Tomlin/Colbert Drafts

[flippy]

I’ve read a lot of comments that we can’t grade a draft until years later once we see how it pans out.

So let’s look back at the history of Tomlin/Colbert drafts. How would you grade them from 2007-2020?

Im gonna call the 2007, 2010, 2017, and 2020 drafts positives and the rest meh.

Thats 4 out of 16 drafts being good. That’s a 25% success rate. And in my unofficial pass/fail grading, I just want 3 high quality players out of a draft class that can stick and contribute meaningfully. I’m not just counting bodies and playing time. The guys have to meet some standard of quality imho to be worth a positive grade.

And I’m ready to include even 2020 as we traded our #1 for Minkah which adds to a very solid class already. I don’t have to wait 3-4 years to judge what we’ve got. I think 1 can suffice in some cases.

Looking at the current draft thru this lens, we need 3 solid contributors for it to go in my positive category. I think there’s a pretty good chance Harris and Fry will be contributors. The rest, I dunno? They should get there chances given the holes on our roster so I’d guess that the chances will get us over the hump this year.

Overall, historic odds say there’s a 75% chance we have a subpar draft class this year. Using Flippy math and ratings of course which are in exact.

How would you grade past drafts from 2007-2020? What do those drafts tell you about expectations for the current class?

[Northern_Blitz]

I think Harris will be good barring injury.

I also think we'll get starting snaps out of Fry and Green because Ebron is leaving after this year IMO and we don't have other good centers on the team.

Hopefully some of the defensive guys can be rotational players (Johnson, Roche, Norwood).

The punter has a good chance of starting too. That's worth something.

Could be like last year where we get everyone to contribute something. But that's pretty unusual.

[Joel Buchsbaum]

2007 - Three starters, two pro bowl level. Grade A

College/Univ
2007 1 Lawrence Timmons 15 LB 2017 0 1 9 71 172 12 35.5 Florida St.
2007 2 LaMarr Woodley 46 DE 2015 0 1 7 54 110 5 58.0 Michigan
2007 3 Matt Spaeth 77 TE 2015 0 0 6 2 123 55 420 10 Minnesota
2007 4 Daniel Sepulveda 112 P 2011 0 0 0 7 52 2 2 65 0 0 Baylor
2007 4 Ryan McBean 132 DT 2012 0 0 1 11 47 4.0 Oklahoma St.
2007 5 Cameron Stephenson 156 G 0 0 0 Rutgers
2007 5 William Gay 170 DB 2017 0 0 7 54 176 13 7.0 Louisville
2007 7 Dallas Baker 227 WR 2008 0 0 0 0 8 1 6 0 Florida

2008: Terrible. Just Mendy. The rest were not even good back ups. Grade D+

Yds TD Rec Yds TD Int Sk College/Univ
2008 1 Rashard Mendenhall 23 RB 2013 0 0 4 29 72 1081 4236 37 95 795 2 Illinois
2008 2 Limas Sweed 53 WR 2009 0 0 0 1 20 7 69 0 Texas
2008 3 Bruce Davis 88 LB 2011 0 0 0 0 15 UCLA
2008 4 Tony Hills 130 T 2016 0 0 0 0 33 Texas
2008 5 Dennis Dixon 156 QB 2014 0 0 0 2 4 35 59 402 1 2 10 56 1 Oregon
2008 6 Mike Humpal 188 LB 0 0 0 Iowa
2008 6 Ryan Mundy 194 DB 2014 0 0 1 14 96 1 33 0 6 2.0 West Virginia

[NorthCoast]

I’ve read a lot of comments that we can’t grade a draft until years later once we see how it pans out.

So let’s look back at the history of Tomlin/Colbert drafts. How would you grade them from 2007-2020?

Im gonna call the 2007, 2010, 2017, and 2020 drafts positives and the rest meh.

Thats 4 out of 16 drafts being good. That’s a 25% success rate. And in my unofficial pass/fail grading, I just want 3 high quality players out of a draft class that can stick and contribute meaningfully. I’m not just counting bodies and playing time. The guys have to meet some standard of quality imho to be worth a positive grade.

And I’m ready to include even 2020 as we traded our #1 for Minkah which adds to a very solid class already. I don’t have to wait 3-4 years to judge what we’ve got. I think 1 can suffice in some cases.

Looking at the current draft thru this lens, we need 3 solid contributors for it to go in my positive category. I think there’s a pretty good chance Harris and Fry will be contributors. The rest, I dunno? They should get there chances given the holes on our roster so I’d guess that the chances will get us over the hump this year.

Overall, historic odds say there’s a 75% chance we have a subpar draft class this year. Using Flippy math and ratings of course which are in exact.

How would you grade past drafts from 2007-2020? What do those drafts tell you about expectations for the current class?

What is the criteria for good vs bad? Here's a study with actual numbers. For the draft capital spent, the Steelers have done remarkably well.

By the numbers, in order of best to worst Steelers drafts:

1. 2010
2. 2017
3. 2011
4. 2013
5. 2012
6. 2019
7. 2016
8. 2014
9. 2018
10. 2015

If you go on the read the details around the question; "is there a team that consistently drafts better than others?" (they get into some statistical stuff) they conclude:

What this all tells me is that drafting well is a lot of luck, mixed with some skill and an extra layer of a random "jackpot" on top (the one or two later-round picks each draft that become unexpected Hall of Famers). This would explain the data we see (including the outliers) pretty well. The Seahawks are probably pretty good at drafting, but also had some crazy luck in hitting three jackpots in a row (Wilson, Wagner, and Richard Sherman). What this should tell NFL teams is that you need to roll the dice as many times as you can (trading down for additional value whenever possible), get the best GM you can possibly find, and get the top coaches in the league to develop the talent you draft -- which is what we already see consistently good teams generally do.

Not very exciting but certainly expected I think. So how does this align with team performance? Well if your team is a consistent winner, it likely comes down to coaching, right?

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/nfl-drafting-efficiency-2010-2019

[NorthCoast]

What is the criteria for good vs bad? Here's a study with actual numbers. For the draft capital spent, the Steelers have done remarkably well.

By the numbers, in order of best to worst Steelers drafts:

1. 2010
2. 2017
3. 2011
4. 2013
5. 2012
6. 2019
7. 2016
8. 2014
9. 2018
10. 2015

If you go on the read the details around the question; "is there a team that consistently drafts better than others?" (they get into some statistical stuff) they conclude:

What this all tells me is that drafting well is a lot of luck, mixed with some skill and an extra layer of a random "jackpot" on top (the one or two later-round picks each draft that become unexpected Hall of Famers). This would explain the data we see (including the outliers) pretty well. The Seahawks are probably pretty good at drafting, but also had some crazy luck in hitting three jackpots in a row (Wilson, Wagner, and Richard Sherman). What this should tell NFL teams is that you need to roll the dice as many times as you can (trading down for additional value whenever possible), get the best GM you can possibly find, and get the top coaches in the league to develop the talent you draft -- which is what we already see consistently good teams generally do.

Not very exciting but certainly expected I think. So how does this align with team performance? Well if your team is a consistent winner, it likely comes down to coaching, right?

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...ency-2010-2019

Added the average media grades...gotta say at least they are consistent! The funny thing is 2015 was apparently the worst draft as rated by FO but the media numerically graded as the second highest...haahahhaa.

2010 (avg media grade = B-)
2017 (B-)
2011 (B-)
2013 (B)
2012 (B-)
2019 (B-)....note; 3 "A-", and one "D")
2016 (B-)
2014 (B)...Kiper gave us an "A"!
2018 (C+)
2015 (B)

[flippy]

What is the criteria for good vs bad? Here's a study with actual numbers. For the draft capital spent, the Steelers have done remarkably well.

By the numbers, in order of best to worst Steelers drafts:

1. 2010
2. 2017
3. 2011
4. 2013
5. 2012
6. 2019
7. 2016
8. 2014
9. 2018
10. 2015

If you go on the read the details around the question; "is there a team that consistently drafts better than others?" (they get into some statistical stuff) they conclude:

What this all tells me is that drafting well is a lot of luck, mixed with some skill and an extra layer of a random "jackpot" on top (the one or two later-round picks each draft that become unexpected Hall of Famers). This would explain the data we see (including the outliers) pretty well. The Seahawks are probably pretty good at drafting, but also had some crazy luck in hitting three jackpots in a row (Wilson, Wagner, and Richard Sherman). What this should tell NFL teams is that you need to roll the dice as many times as you can (trading down for additional value whenever possible), get the best GM you can possibly find, and get the top coaches in the league to develop the talent you draft -- which is what we already see consistently good teams generally do.

Not very exciting but certainly expected I think. So how does this align with team performance? Well if your team is a consistent winner, it likely comes down to coaching, right?

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...ency-2010-2019

Thx for the info.

My criteria is as usual based on my gut feeling about something. And I like looking at data to prove myself right or wrong.

I think my gut is close to your ranked 2010-2019 list. I have the top 2 in my good list and I also had 2007 and 2020 in my list.

25% sounds like a low success rate, but it could go up to a 30% success rate if 2021 is a good draft which I expect it will be.

And 25-30% gets a lot of hitters paid a lot of money by the MLB. And it probably aligns pretty well with a successful team at drafting.

The info in your data goes along the lines of my thinking in many scenarios as I always lean toward taking a chance on boom or bust players and trading back to pick up more picks.

I tend to think the Steelers play a little too conservative in their picks and don’t play the numbers by trading back to amass more picks.

But maybe their gambles are more calculated/nuanced in drafting players with position flexibility. And maybe they are betting big given the number of mediocre years we see because it really is a crap shoot.

Overall I’m in the camp of the Steelers doing relatively well on average.

[flippy]

Added the average media grades...gotta say at least they are consistent! The funny thing is 2015 was apparently the worst draft as rated by FO but the media numerically graded as the second highest...haahahhaa.

2010 (avg media grade = B-)
2017 (B-)
2011 (B-)
2013 (B)
2012 (B-)
2019 (B-)....note; 3 "A-", and one "D")
2016 (B-)
2014 (B)...Kiper gave us an "A"!
2018 (C+)
2015 (B)

Thats an interesting comparison. So the pundits know nothing as well.

I feel like everyone gives everyone Bs and Cs unless a team picks a guy they love or if a team has a top pick and gets some top 10 talent the pundit loves.

[Northern_Blitz]

Thats an interesting comparison. So the pundits know nothing as well.

I feel like everyone gives everyone Bs and Cs unless a team picks a guy they love or if a team has a top pick and gets some top 10 talent the pundit loves.

I don't think it's that they don't know anything.

I think it's that drafting is really hard.

My guess is that it's like stock picking and very few people do it consistently well. And if you think about the million monkeys on a typewriter, it's possible that no one really does it well but some of them end up with Shakespeare anyway.

[NorthCoast]

Thx for the info.

My criteria is as usual based on my gut feeling about something. And I like looking at data to prove myself right or wrong.

I think my gut is close to your ranked 2010-2019 list. I have the top 2 in my good list and I also had 2007 and 2020 in my list.

25% sounds like a low success rate, but it could go up to a 30% success rate if 2021 is a good draft which I expect it will be.

And 25-30% gets a lot of hitters paid a lot of money by the MLB. And it probably aligns pretty well with a successful team at drafting.

The info in your data goes along the lines of my thinking in many scenarios as I always lean toward taking a chance on boom or bust players and trading back to pick up more picks.

I tend to think the Steelers play a little too conservative in their picks and don’t play the numbers by trading back to amass more picks.

But maybe their gambles are more calculated/nuanced in drafting players with position flexibility. And maybe they are betting big given the number of mediocre years we see because it really is a crap shoot.

Overall I’m in the camp of the Steelers doing relatively well on average.

I agree flippy. I was looking to see if more recent drafts graded differently than previous. Has Colbert & Co lost their edge? I don't see any trends there. I think they really, really need 2020 and 2021 drafts to work out well. Otherwise I see wallowing in mediocre play for at least several years as aging vets retire. With a new QB looming, things are going to get very testy on this board if they don't get it right.

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

How would draft grades move if you include UDFAs? I think that the Steelers always seem to have one or two make the team and at some point contribute.

[flippy]

How would draft grades move if you include UDFAs? I think that the Steelers always seem to have one or two make the team and at some point contribute.

Good point and we should factor those guys in. And we probably should factor in FA as well because it’s another component of team building that has a direct impact on what we do in the draft.

[Ghost]

Added the average media grades...gotta say at least they are consistent! The funny thing is 2015 was apparently the worst draft as rated by FO but the media numerically graded as the second highest...haahahhaa.

2010 (avg media grade = B-)
2017 (B-)
2011 (B-)
2013 (B)
2012 (B-)
2019 (B-)....note; 3 "A-", and one "D")
2016 (B-)
2014 (B)...Kiper gave us an "A"!
2018 (C+)
2015 (B)

who the hell gave 2016 a B- ? When your first 2 picks are total busts that starts you off with an F. Hargrove and a 7th round Big Red gets it up to a D+. Simply can’t fail on picks 1 and 2 without setting the team back.

[flippy]

who the hell gave 2016 a B- ? When your first 2 picks are total busts that starts you off with an F. Hargrove and a 7th round Big Red gets it up to a D+. Simply can’t fail on picks 1 and 2 without setting the team back.

I read it as those were the avg grades immediately following the draft.

So the point is wether good or bad, the pundits generally grade all the drafts the same.

[Oviedo]

What is the criteria for good vs bad? Here's a study with actual numbers. For the draft capital spent, the Steelers have done remarkably well.

By the numbers, in order of best to worst Steelers drafts:

1. 2010
2. 2017
3. 2011
4. 2013
5. 2012
6. 2019
7. 2016
8. 2014
9. 2018
10. 2015

If you go on the read the details around the question; "is there a team that consistently drafts better than others?" (they get into some statistical stuff) they conclude:

What this all tells me is that drafting well is a lot of luck, mixed with some skill and an extra layer of a random "jackpot" on top (the one or two later-round picks each draft that become unexpected Hall of Famers). This would explain the data we see (including the outliers) pretty well. The Seahawks are probably pretty good at drafting, but also had some crazy luck in hitting three jackpots in a row (Wilson, Wagner, and Richard Sherman). What this should tell NFL teams is that you need to roll the dice as many times as you can (trading down for additional value whenever possible), get the best GM you can possibly find, and get the top coaches in the league to develop the talent you draft -- which is what we already see consistently good teams generally do.

Not very exciting but certainly expected I think. So how does this align with team performance? Well if your team is a consistent winner, it likely comes down to coaching, right?

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...ency-2010-2019

A study with actual empirical criteria...what a concept? Any study that does not compare the Steelers performance to the rest of the league is meaningless. Also, you need to factor in when teams are drafting because that is probably the biggest variable in the draft. Teams drafting late like the Steelers should be expected to perform less than teams that have traditionally drafted early in each round. The number of variable is what make a real meaningful statistical analysis of draft performance extremely difficult. One you start discounting certain variable, it is a flawed analysis.

[NorthCoast]

I read it as those were the avg grades immediately following the draft.

So the point is wether good or bad, the pundits generally grade all the drafts the same.

you're correct flippy. grades are post-draft.