Why it might make sense to draft a WR on the first day...

by Braun Holio on Jan 26, 2009 11:39 PM EST Comment 15 comments

Before I did a little research, I assumed that finding a #1 quality WR was a fairly luck driven process. However, this appears to not be the case.

I looked at the top 40 WRs by yards this season - this cutoff included all players who caught for more than 750 yards.

It appears that front offices are highly adept at scouting wide receivers. In that, of the top 40 wide receivers by yards, 25 were round 1/2 guys. All but five of the top guys went in the first 5 rounds, with three guys going in round seven and two being undrafted.

via 1.bp.blogspot.com

If you can't see this chart, it is available here.

Basically 29 guys of the top 40 in the NFL drafted in the first three rounds. Looking a bit deeper at the other 11:

Round 4: Cotchery (#2), Marshall and Mason (drafted 1997).

Round 5: Breaston (the #3 on his own team! Probably in this group due to how his offense is structured than anything else).

Round 7: Colston (#2), Walter(#2 on team), Driver (drafted in 1999)

Undrafted: Welker, Moore. (Everyone picks up 750 in New Orleans).

Realistically, of guys drafted in the 2000s, only Marshall and potentially Colston could be considered true #1 wide receivers that have lasted beyond the first three rounds. Welker is an unusual case - the Wayne Chrebet of his generation perhaps.

I'm going to infer from this that NFL teams are incredibly good at scouting wide receivers through the draft process. Looking to catch lightning in a bottle in the later rounds... well, the stats suggest that you aren't going to have much luck.

Of course there is another interpretation from this data. Teams are more likely to invest playing time in early draft picks and as such they are more likely to "stick."

It would still pain me to burn one of our top picks on a WR, but there does appear to be evidence that we should...

This fanpost was written by one of The Phinsider's registered users.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I would agree that

when we go to draft a WR, it makes sense to burn a high round pick. What I question is whether finding a #1 WR is our biggest need right now. . . I’d rather draft to put together a monstrous pass rush or an impenetrable O-line first otherwise the WR doesn’t have much use.

"They say statistics are for losers, but losers are usually the ones thinking that. . . . Everything we do is analyzed. Is that the bottom line? No. You can't analyze the heart of Tim Tebow." - Urban Meyer

by GatorPhan on Jan 26, 2009 11:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

agreed

except I really think Patrick Turner has big potential and we should look at him in the later rounds. I know the trends point to the opposite, but I believe he could be a steal.

"Are we doing this? Is this happening?"

by Little Nicky 21 on Jan 27, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey-

I’d trade Wilford for Turner any day- at least he might give us some hope- Sign me up on the Turnerwagon out of solidarity.

by GatorPhan on Jan 27, 2009 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Camarillo and London and all the guys are great and all but by no means can we

expect a #1 Wideout out of them. Take a chance with Kenny Britt or whoever. Like the stats show, its just amazing how the best wr´s in the game went in the second round or the third round so if we take a chance now and develop the guy, by the time we are contenders he could be a beast. I dont want to disrespect these guys i just mentioned at all but heck we all saw how freaking painful it is to have your QB throw 4 interceptions in a playoff game because he has no legit weapons whatsoever. If you dont believe me go ask Kurt Warner where he would be without Fitz and Boldin.

by MauMontaV5 on Jan 27, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and for the record i completely love Camarillo and think he is a great player, missed him as hell the last stretch of the season

by MauMontaV5 on Jan 27, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you should ask Kurt where he would be

without his O-line. Without an O-line that lets a receiver actually run down the field- a #1 is pointless. Those picks were more about pressure in CP10s face than the WRs because if they can do anything it is get separation. The line broke- he scrambled- someone else got in his face, and he heaved it up before getting plastered.

by GatorPhan on Jan 27, 2009 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok so let me get this straight, you are saying

you can win a Super Bowl with bess ginn camarillo and london ?? good luck with that

by MauMontaV5 on Jan 27, 2009 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

he’s saying you CAN’T win without a good OL. Great WR’s don’t mean squat if the QB doesn’t have enough time to get them the ball. It’s not our number 1 need.

"Are we doing this? Is this happening?"

by Little Nicky 21 on Jan 27, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thats something that is pretty clear.

I even posted in another one that first we have to focus on the O-Line. But in that post i said that London will never be a #1 receiver and he said that he “has the tools” so thats why i posted this

by MauMontaV5 on Jan 27, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we are pretty much in the same page

but at some point we need to acknowledge our WR´s flaws

by MauMontaV5 on Jan 27, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

of course

Just, in the offense we have, where the backbone will be the running game, a combo of a Speedy Deep Threat (Ginn), a Big Possession Target (London), and 2 Quick Slot Guys (Camarillo and Bess), would be good, IMO. While it would be nice, I don’t think we absolutely need a Larry Fitzgerald/Andre Johnson/Brandon Marshall type beast on the outside to build an offense around.

Basically, I think if you look at the best WR’s in the league, most of them are in very pass-centric offenses, and it’s designed around them as a primary weapon. I see us being a more run-centric offense, with our backs and TE’s being the primary weapons, and the WR’s being more complements to the offense.

Saying that, I still think we need an upgrade, but I think it could come from within. If London can develop into a starter, and Ginn continues to progress, they may be a very good combo, and would fit in with our offensive philosophy.

"Are we doing this? Is this happening?"

by Little Nicky 21 on Jan 27, 2009 1:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed, Also its funny that you mention the running game

I, too, saw as coming into this season as a run heavy team and then just letting Chad be our Kerry Collins but that wasn´t even close to happening. I guess that was because of our O-Line not being so good? Because I remember a lot of games in which we abandoned the run early and were more of a west coast type of offense. But when we were able to establish the running game, like versus the Jets, our offense was unstoppable. I hope that we can become that type of team but i personally dont see us going there.

by MauMontaV5 on Jan 27, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

How good do Breastons big numbers look on our team.
I should say I am definitely not pro drafting a WR, I was just surprised to see how effective teams have been drafting impact guys.

by Braun Holio on Jan 27, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh Yeah... the title could mislead a bit.

More or less I am saying: if you want to draft a WR, do it early.
I personally wouldn’t do so, but I was more interested in just how successful scouts have been in picking the right guys on day 1.

by Braun Holio on Jan 27, 2009 2:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

IDK

I think O & D lines should be first. I think the WR crew we have is better than people think. Give it another year and perhaps some O-line improvement so that we can run out of traditional formations and get some play-action stuff going. Keeping CP from hurrying would also be nice. Jake Long wasn’t a flashy draft pick, but he proved to be a great decision. Thank God for the Tuna.

by phatfinfan on Jan 28, 2009 9:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs