A question for those who study the NFL draft

#1 12-02-2006, 03:31 PM

Like any sport, it seems difficult at times to take a player's college football career and try to predict how he will do in the NFL.

On that note, I was wondering if some positions in football provide a higher level of predictability?

Assuming that a player in question played against enough quality competition in the NCAA to evaluate him fairly, what positions fit under the following three categories:

I guess I'm looking for anecdotal responses, but anything quantitative would be good too.

My uneducated guess would be the following:

1. Highest predictability - Lineman and RBs (great NCAA lineman and RBs have a high chance to make it in the NFL, others generally won't)

2. Least predictablity - Linebackers/DBs/WRs/QBs (some greats make it, but many NCAA players who were stars end up to be busts in the NFL.)

3. Out of nowhere - (which positions in the NFL have the most players who were not super-stars in College?

Any thoughts.

TheNoodleMan · #2 12-02-2006, 03:42 PM

You are right about linemen, particularly Offensive linemen, but there are tons of running backs who play great in college against decent competition and do nothing in the pros.

The first name that jumps to mind is Anthony Thompson who was a beast at Indiana and never did much in the NFL.
Curtis Enis and Rashaan Salaam also fit the bill. Ron Dayne has lasted longer than them but has just as disspointing.

Jeff W · #3 12-02-2006, 03:48 PM

All positions are high variance--look no farther than Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich. Both can't miss prospects at Offensive Left Tackle who completely busted.

RBs are pretty unpredictable. Part of that is due to a lot of highly regarded RBs having heavy workloads in college and then breaking down in the NFL, IMO.

Relative to other positions, 1st round QBs have actually been fairly low variance picks in recent years. There have been a few busts, but a surprising number of highly touted QB prospects have panned out or at least not completely busted and Leinart and Young appear to be on that path.

Offensive Linemen are prob. the lowest variance, DEs and DTs aren't too bad.

TheNoodleMan · #4 12-02-2006, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All positions are high variance--look no farther than Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich. Both can't miss prospects at Offensive Left Tackle who completely busted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Naming the only 2 top 10 picks at OT from the last 20 years that were busts doesn't make it a high variance.

BadBoyBenny · #5 12-02-2006, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All positions are high variance--look no farther than Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich. Both can't miss prospects at Offensive Left Tackle who completely busted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Naming the only 2 top 10 picks at OT from the last 20 years that were busts doesn't make it a high variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was more evidence than you offered for your contrary point of view

Jeff W · #6 12-02-2006, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All positions are high variance--look no farther than Robert Gallery or Tony Mandarich. Both can't miss prospects at Offensive Left Tackle who completely busted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Naming the only 2 top 10 picks at OT from the last 20 years that were busts doesn't make it a high variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhm... wtf are you talking about? Did you read the rest of my post?

[ QUOTE ]

Offensive Linemen are prob. the lowest variance

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that all draft selections are high variance. Other top ten OT busts: Leonard Davis, Mike Williams, etc. On the other side you have guys like Mark Tauscher drafted in the 7th round become top tier Left Tackles.

TheNoodleMan · #7 12-02-2006, 04:45 PM

I'll give you Leonard Davis for sure, I forgot about him. Mike Williams I think has been consistently hurt, hasn't helped. The fact remains that top ten draft picks at OT have been hitting around 85% of the time. The first line of your post said all positions are high variance, I think its fair to call OT an exception.

gusmahler · #8 12-02-2006, 05:00 PM

It depends on what you mean by "bust." Both Gallery and Davis are still in the NFL and probably will be for years to come. They aren't all-pro, probably never will be (actually, Davis could be an all-pro at guard, he's just an average tackle). But they are definitely NFL caliber.

TheNoodleMan · #9 12-02-2006, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on what you mean by "bust." Both Gallery and Davis are still in the NFL and probably will be for years to come. They aren't all-pro, probably never will be (actually, Davis could be an all-pro at guard, he's just an average tackle). But they are definitely NFL caliber.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if a guy is drafted high to play LT and ends up anywhere else on the line it is fair to call him a bust. No one intentionally drafts a guard that high. Its better than getting a guy that bombs out of the league completely but its still a massive disappointment for a franchise.

crockpot · #10 12-02-2006, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Curtis Enis and Rashaan Salaam also fit the bill. Ron Dayne has lasted longer than them but has just as disspointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think this is really fair. all of these guys, with the possible exception of enis, fell in the draft because it was expected that their skills would not translate well. so they were not really huge disappointments, although a bears fan would tell you otherwise.