Filmstudy's article re-defining the "Draft Bust" rankings

Very interesting read to me...

http://russellstreetreport.com/films...g-draft-busts/

He labels 10 categories that should be used to determine draft bust status. I posted a comment on there that I think, while I generally agree with what he posted, it should also take into account the draft round with some idea of expectations.

Consider these examples...

1. Haruki Nakamura, in his system, ranks as a "Stuck behind veterans" player, in that his play was good, but never good enough to earn the starting spot over another veteran. In my mind though, Haruki as a 6th round pick shouldn't be EXPECTED to beat out a veteran at a starting spot. 6th and 7th rounders as starters, is a rarity in my book. What you expect out of a 6th or 7th round pick is Consistent to Spectacular Special Teams and Marginal Depth player. To me, if a 6th round pick can 1) Win a roster spot every year, 2) Play well on special teams and 3) Provide you with a decent amount of snaps as a role player on defense, that player shouldn't be considered a dissapointment. To me, Haruki Nakamura doesn't grade out as a bust.

2. Tom Zbikowski, in his system, isn't listed but I'd imagine he should rank in either "Close, but not quite" or "Drafted too high" labels. To me, Tom Zbikowski would grade out at a 4th-5th round expectation. He was a good special teams player, provided decent Spot Starting value on defense, but when given the opportunity to start, never really WOWed anyone. As a 3rd rounder, the expectation was that he should've been a "Decent to Solid Starter" in my added piece. If you grade him on that expectation, Zbikowski would be a draft bust

3. Prescott Burgess, in his system, is listed as as "Core special teamer", which ranks as a mild bust in his thoughts. This is the one that probably challenges my add-on a bit. Burgess was a very good special teams player, but only played 23 defensive snaps. As a 6th round pick, that should fit for his drafting, but can you really consider him a draft success when he never provided enough value on defense to make any difference?

Just a nice debate to have while we wait for the draft...

I agree with a lot of what Filmstudy is saying, but I just don't think that the term "bust" is really applicable to guys drafted after round 2.

1st and 2nd round players are expected to be, at the minimum, starting caliber players with enough upside to be pro-bowl/all-pro caliber during their peak years. 3rd round players are expected to be somewhat of a project, but capable of developing (quickly) into a starting caliber player.

Rounds 4 through 7 (and undrafted) are looked at in two ways:
1. Tons of upside, but not quite there yet (i.e., Tommy Streeter).
2. No real level of upside, but a decent player in the right system/role player (i.e. Brendan Ayanbadejo).

Sometimes you get lucky and draft a guy in the mid-to-late rounds who meets that potential upside like a Donald Driver or Tom Brady.

I also think the term "bust" is thrown around too loosely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I agree with a lot of what Filmstudy is saying, but I just don't think that the term "bust" is really applicable to guys drafted after round 2.

---

Don't agree. While as a GM you are penalized severely for missing in 1st/2nd rounders, third and fourth rounders hold tremendous value too. A lot of core guys come out of these rounds.

We hit on Yanda in the 3rd. But we also picked Figurs in round 3 and he was a disaster. Pittman was also a 3rd, a more spectacular disaster. I think missing on these guys hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by camdenyard

Don't agree. While as a GM you are penalized severely for missing in 1st/2nd rounders, third and fourth rounders hold tremendous value too. A lot of core guys come out of these rounds.

We hit on Yanda in the 3rd. But we also picked Figurs in round 3 and he was a disaster. Pittman was also a 3rd, a more spectacular disaster. I think missing on these guys hurt.

---

True...I think a 6th or 7th round pick has to be pretty special to be a bust. Those players are a case where I can really see the value of having some sort of developmental league.

I do think a 4th or 5th round pick can be a bust though. Note the one mentioned in the article, Chris Barnes. A 5th round pick should ALWAYS be able to make the roster, save for a case where you are stocked with good veterans.

Yeah...to me, "bust" means the player is either garbage when he played, or he was so bad that he never even got the opportunity to play.

I have a hard time calling a late (5,6,7) round pick a bust unless they fail to make the team completely, and I have an easy time calling a high (1,2,3) round pick a bust if they don't play well.

Injuries are a different story as far as I'm concerned. It's more disappointment in that regard than bust.

Travis Taylor was a bust.
Kyle Boller was a bust.
Devard Darling was a bust.
Adam Terry was a bust.
David Pittman was a bust.
Yamon Figurs was a bust.
Tavares Gooden was a bust.

Sergio Kindle and Dan Cody are just disappointments to me. We'll never know if they could have played and been productive.

I would never call Chester Taylor, or Nakamura, or even Zbikowski, etc a "bust"...because while they didn't turn into stars, they played a significant amount, and weren't an embarrassment. They contributed on Special Teams, played their roles on Offense / Defense, etc.

Not every player is going to be a grand slam. That doesn't make them a bust...especially if they weren't a high pick.

Hey guys. Thanks for reading.

The article is merely defining a "bust" as someone who plays less than 2 years as a starter. I wouldn't call that draft pick wasted, so if the word "bust" is distracting, just think of it as "not fully realized".

I have some articles coming out before the draft doing round-by-round analysis that underscore the point that it's usually just a couple of players that define the mean expectation for a round. For example, the 3rd round contains Yanda and Webb. The next best 3rd rounder is Bernard Pierce. The median pick (8th of 15) was Musa Smith. Was he a bust? Sure, by some definition, because it would be a bad thing if you drafted a player like that in the 3rd round every year.

wow...had totally forgotten about Musa Smith.

...And that right there shows why he was a bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I agree with a lot of what Filmstudy is saying, but I just don't think that the term "bust" is really applicable to guys drafted after round 2.

---

LOL, sounds like something that you would hear from a Browns or a Redskins fan. For the top teams, and I'm proud to say that we're in this category, the goal is to hit on each draft picks, as few mulligans as possible. We don't have the ability to draft the Heisman winners and the big, polished athletic freaks from BCS schools that everybody knows will be taken top 10. We have to find value all across the draft board. Will be draft busts? You bet your sweet ass we will. But we can't afford to shrug our shoulders and waste draft picks on a regular basis. Most draft picks are expected to make the 53 man or be IR'd. Hell, these days even great undrafted FA's are a must to have competitive rosters.

Now what you label a bust might be different for a 6th round pick than a 1st round pick. Most people expect 1st rounders to be key contributors, usually even the first year these days. With later round picks, you either fit them into a specialized role, like special teams, returning kicks, situational packages, or boosting your depth, and maybe they'll blossom into a Pro Bowler. If they just fall down the stairs before they're signed, barely make the playing field at all, or just flat out suck, then you can call them a bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filmstudy

The article is merely defining a "bust" as someone who plays less than 2 years as a starter. I wouldn't call that draft pick wasted, so if the word "bust" is distracting, just think of it as "not fully realized".

---

Yeah, I think the issue is semantics. If you approached it like Football Outsiders approaches their DVOA scoring and you "patented" a Player Value Index, perhaps that would avoid the debate.

I could see a how you could come up with an index for what sort of level of contribution you should expect, on average, from a player taken in each round, who plays a certain position. Mid to later round punters might, on average, expect to live up to a higher value rating than a late round guard, or late round quarterback, or late round linebacker.

And then you can overlay your ten factors to move their actual score up or down depending what occurs once they are in uniform with the team.

So you end up grading a player like Zbikowski as sub par based on the fact that you'd expect a third round safety, drafted as a returner, to contribute more, faster, than he did. Calling him a bust doesn't sound right, but saying he graded out with a substantially sub-par PVI does.