Was Mike Shanahan that bad of a drafter, lets look at the crap shoot that is the NFL Draft
Many of us at MHR (myself included) have lamented Mike Shanahan and the GM's for poor drafts that did his in, that his scouting was suspect and that was the ultimate demise of coach Shanahan. But lets take a closer look and see if he really was doing such a bad job. Looking back at the drafts from 1995 through 2006 it is interesting to do some statiscial analysis based on rounds. Assuming that each round has 32 picks (which will actually shift the numbers higher since this analysis did not include supplemental picks), on average the following would be a team's percentage of drafting a "pro-bowl" player per round over that time frame:
1st Round: 134 pro-bowl players 35%
2nd Round: 59 pro-bowl players 15%
3rd round: 36 pro-bowl players 9.3%
4th round: 20 pro-bowl players 5.2 %
5th round: 20 pro-bowl players 5.2%
6th round: 20 pro-bowl players 5.2 %
7th round: 10 pro-bowl players 2.3%
Now lets look at Mike's success rate during that same period of time:
1st round: 5 pro-bowl players 42%
2nd round: 3 pro-bowl players 25%
3rd round: 2 pro-bowl players 16%
4th round: 1 pro-bowl player 8%
5th round: 0 pro-bowl players 0%
6th round: 2 pro-bowl players 16%
7th round: 0 pro-bowl players 0%
As we can see, Mike Shanahan the GM beat the NFL average on almost every round. I understand that there will be grumblings that his recent lack of success 2001-05 may have spelled his doom, but what we sometimes fail to realize is that even with the best scouting in the world, most of the time the draft comes down to a crap shoot and sometimes you roll 7 and sometimes you roll snake eyes, but Mike Shanahan was beating the house. Especially when you consider that the overall success percenatges are higher because I did not include all the flame out supplemental picks. Another thing that this illustrates is that the 2008 draft class may be extradonary beyond compare when you may generate at least 2 pro-bowlers and possiblly 3 to 4 when it is all said and done from the Broncos end. And as much as we can hope that the 2009 draft class is as successful as the 2008, the numbers are against it.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
45 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Broncoman -- can you explain your calculations a bit
Nice job. I’d like to hear more about how you did it. My only point at first is about making Pro Bowls the metric. There’s a difference between one-time and five-time pro bowlers, and this might throw off your calculations (hard for me to tell).
The other point would be that the Pro Bowl metric is actually consistent with the critique of Shanny — high risk/high reward. Sure, he had a lot of Pro Bowlers, but the price paid was lots of wash-outs and outright busts. Redoing the calculations above based on expected tenure with team or something like that would be awfully interesting.
Basically it was based on if a player made the pro-bowl
Success = Total Number of players in a round who made pro-bowls in the time span 95-2002/(32 pics*years)
I agree, can be somehwat difficult since there is a difference as you said from a 1 time guy versus a 5 time guy but I wanted a simple metric to measure by. I didn’t want to get into if he was a quality player or not (very subjective), I figured if he made a pro-bowl, then he has talent (1 year or not) and that is really what we need to see, was Shanahann drafting the same or better or worse versus his peers in talent.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
The pro-bowl metric is misleading
I think HoF credentials should be included in there somehow as well. A guy like a Jonathon Ogden comes up as pro-bowler, when he was in fact in the pro-bowl for a decade. All GM’s have some misses in the draft, but another metric I’ve seen used is how many players that you draft are on your roster year on year. This gauges misses that develop into solid pro’s versus outright busts. Living in San Diego, which is a notoriously cheap (team owners) city, I’ve watched our guaranteed two wins a year become serious thorn in our side, and they’ve done it all through the draft.
I picked the pro-bowl as one metric because it is easy and it doesn't discriminate
I could sit there and make arguements well this guy deserved to be in the pro-bowl or this guy is going to be a HOF player, but then we start getting subjective. Since this includes all teams and shows no bias because other teams could have one time guys too, it just shows that on average Shanahan was at least keeping pace with or better than the rest of the NFL in overall talent evlauation during the draft. Also was to show that it is very hard to find superstars or pro-bowl players the latter you go in the draft.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
I dont think
you can use HOF in this equation today. If a player was drafted in 1995 would basically have to play 10 seasons (at the least) and be awesome in whatever category and then wait 5 years for possible induction. Shanny only coached 14 seasons. Look TD played 7 and is a fringe hof candidaite. (Well not IMO) as of today. I think you did a good job on this BM
somethings wrong, Trying to conquer these fears i thought were gone. And it's been so long, I'm dying to live in a world i don't belong
by broncfanstuckinsd on Jan 20, 2009 2:27 PM MST up reply actions
Good Post Broncoman,
I wonder how many picks translates to offence as to defense?
Just wondering
I see said the Blind man to the Deaf man who was near.
What is it you hear when I speak in your ear.
Didn't really look at that side, but good question
I just wanted a relative comparison to the rest of the league.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Thanx and Rec. ofcourse
I see said the Blind man to the Deaf man who was near.
What is it you hear when I speak in your ear.
Great analysis!
I prefer to rate drafts based on quality starter versus pro-bowl, but given that Shanahan preferred high-risk-high-reward drafts your method may be more favorable to him. Myself and many other posters have said on many times that it wasn’t Shanahan’s drafts as much as his mis-handling of FAs. Too many quality players like Pryce, Berry, Heyward, were allowed to leave without finding adequate replacements while high profile FA signings like Gardner and Adams were complete busts. There was a gradual talent drain over time.
Also what is not reflected in this is the disparity between offensive and defensive talent. My totally subjective sense is that Shanahan paid more attention to the offense, and had more busts on defense. But I could be mistaken.
Tend to agree with you there
I think that overall Shanahan had early success and late success in the draft, it seems like the combination of the 01-05 drafts and the FA signings that killed his credibility as a GM.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
I didn't really do it based on positions or sides of the ball
In all reality, one of our pro-bowl players was Detron Smith who was a very good ST but marginal offensive player
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Letting good players walk
rather than drafting badly seems to be the emerging consensus about what went wrong with Shanny as GM. Hixon is only the most recent example. That’s the value of the player’s still with the team kind of analysis. It automatically takes into account not just how well a team drafts but how effectively it develops and retains players. Perhaps an even better approach would be to see how many draftees and
free agent signees from each year are still with the team.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
I can't argue that
I think this somewhat shows that he had bigger problems in retaining good players and bringing in good free agents. I agree that the draft is key to building a club, but you also have to be good at bringing in free agents to help supplement your draft since obviously you will have duds at some point or another.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Hmmm interesting...
Yes, I'm a Diamondback and Suns fan. So you may be wondering, "Why does this fool like the Broncos so much?"
A: The Cardinals are too hard of a pill to swallow. Oh yeah and that Elway dude....
Nice job.
I’m so glad you broke that down.I’ve been wondering over the last couple weeks,since the Shanahan firing,how his drafts have stacked up against other nfl teams.I think we get so caught up in our own teams we don’t take the time to look around at the rest of league.After saying that however,I think teams that are consistantly succesfull expect to be better than average year after year and the with the Broncos it seems to be all or nothing with every draft.
Anyway I will still root for Shanny wherever he ends up but look forward to seeing where this new regime takes us.
Like others
I think that this only gives us part of the story. I know I’ve never grumbled over Shanahans lack of success at picking some amazing talent, but what is evident is that he was very hit or miss with little middleground. We’d either draft a pro bowl start or a washout who’d be out of the league in a few years.
The difference between Shanahan and many other GM’s was that he often didn’t draft the quality starter player that is needed to stabalize a franchise. I think that more than anything else explains the grumblings. He was great at finding the high risk high reward type players and did it consistently in both the draft and free agency, while this can give us a higher number of superstars, but never developed the middle of the road type guys we needed to flesh out the roster.
Overall though this is a good analasis of Shanahan’s draft and I think shows how succesful he was at implementing his draft stratagy. What is up for debate is whether that stratagy is an appropriate way to build a franchise.
"If you don't know where your going you might find yourself somplace else."
High Risk rarely = high reward.
When we passed on Maroney in favor of Clarett I about jumped through my tv. Marcus Thomas was another one where good players were available but Shanny was trying to show how clever he was. I think Shanahan did a good job of drafting offensive players (Lelie excepted), but he came up short finding good Defensive players, especially in the lower rounds.
Maroney was drafted in the first round in 2006, Clarrett was drafted in 2005
Vodka-man was a horrendous draft pick, but Shanny didn’t pass on Maroney to grab him
yeah that was a weird comparison1
mattison you should have said shanny passed on brandon jacobs and marion the barbarion for clarrett. not maroney who instead we traded up for cutler
by purplesocks on Jan 20, 2009 12:06 PM MST up reply actions
I am sure he meant MB3
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 20, 2009 2:35 PM MST up reply actions
Great post. Interesting stuff.
But if you’re right, I’m sobering up from the McD KoolAid a little.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
The stats are misleading...
While the percentages may be true you also have to look at 2 things; the non-pro bowlers and what position the pro bowlers played.
We know we currently have a loaded offense, which accounts for many of the pro bowls. But Shanny was never harshly criticized for drafting offense, it was defense that was the issue. How many of the Pro Bowlers were defenders?
Also you have to look at the non-pro bowlers. While not every player contributes at a pro bowl level, many stick around and are still solid players. The Broncos main problem is that they lacked those solid players. The Broncos always rank near the bottom in drafted players retained.
For example did you realize the Broncos 2003 draft may be the worst in NFL history? Not only are none of the players still on the team, only one of the players is still in the NFL (Nick Easton backup DL for Pitt).
Or how about 2004? Sure we got D.J. Williams, but other then Tatum Bell every other player the Broncos drafted is out of the league! That’s 3 players out of 20 that are still in the NFL just 4-5 years later! That’s ABSURD!!!
Also did you count players like Bertrand Berry, who became a pro bowler immediately after leaving Denver? Because they shouldn’t count, seeing as they failed to help the Broncos.
Agreed!
A draft that does not produce NFL players is a failure. A draft filled with middling players is more helpful than a lackluster draft featuring one star. Depth is the name of the game in the NFL. You can fill in the blanks through free agency, but you cannot fill a team that way.
Must point out though…letting Bert Berry go was a poor decision. However, he was not a Broncos draft choice. We picked him up as a street free agent after the Colts dumped him.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 20, 2009 8:10 AM MST up reply actions
While the percentages may be true you also have to look at 2 things; the non-pro bowlers and what position the pro bowlers played.
That really doesn’t matter – Broncoman never says he investigates the defensive side specifically.
Also you have to look at the non-pro bowlers. While not every player contributes at a pro bowl level, many stick around and are still solid players. The Broncos main problem is that they lacked those solid players. The Broncos always rank near the bottom in drafted players retained.
Agreed!
For example did you realize the Broncos 2003 draft may be the worst in NFL history? Not only are none of the players still on the team, only one of the players is still in the NFL (Nick Easton backup DL for Pitt).
I have a little piece comming up, and a lot points towards 2003 being the absolute worst draft class ever. No production is still unacceptable but is more understandable in the bigger picture.
Or how about 2004? Sure we got D.J. Williams, but other then Tatum Bell every other player the Broncos drafted is out of the league! That’s 3 players out of 20 that are still in the NFL just 4-5 years later! That’s ABSURD!!!
I’m studying the USC draftclasses in this century, and I think I can say that the most pro-like college has ca. 5/20 players staying in the league 3-4 years after drafting. 3/20 is obviously low, but we might not be that far off.
Also did you count players like Bertrand Berry, who became a pro bowler immediately after leaving Denver? Because they shouldn’t count, seeing as they failed to help the Broncos.
If he counted Berry, he must also’ve counted Portis who netted os Champ Bailey – value through trades is also value!
Random quotes about the raiders:
They really shouldn’t play — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
This is an utter disaster — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Jan 20, 2009 10:12 AM MST up reply actions
These sound like good posts you are working on
I’m looking forward to seeing them!
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 20, 2009 2:37 PM MST up reply actions
Actually a surprising number
Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson, Deltha O’Neil, Ian Gold, John Mobley, (you could throw Betrand Berry in there also although technically drafted by the Colts), I agree that we generally have had more offensive players drafted that made the pro-bowl.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Ok thanks...I was just checking...and I'm dumb about Berry.
No argument there.
by SethGrandpa on Jan 20, 2009 12:08 PM MST up reply actions
How often does a player make the pro bowl in his first two - three years?
If it is just about the probowl then the jury is still out!
It is better to keep silent, and appear to be wise, then to ramble on and remove all doubt! The Wisest Man.
Nice!
Some sample-size problems, but it’s a decent hint to Shannys production.
This only means (hints, really) that Shanny was good in the top of the draft. If you get one pro bowler and no other production in ten picks, it’s still a bad draft.
Also the pro bowl is dangerous to use as statistical evidence.
If you have the data, the time and the dedication; a breakdown similar of “games played” instead of “pro bowl appearences” would be a lot more reliable…
Random quotes about the raiders:
They really shouldn’t play — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
This is an utter disaster — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Jan 20, 2009 9:22 AM MST reply actions
Also: I would love to know where you got this data from!
Random quotes about the raiders:
They really shouldn’t play — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
This is an utter disaster — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Jan 20, 2009 10:13 AM MST up reply actions
Data is from Wikipidia, basically just go through all the drafts and they list the guys in the pro-bowl
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Is Deltha O'Neal one of those pro-bowlers?
Would anyone characterize O’Neal as a drafting success?
Owning the Patriots since September 9, 1960
I certainly wouldn't...
I won’t quite call him a bust, because he has played for several years. But you do bring up a great point. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the Pro Bowl is a popularity contest and not an indicator of a great player. Deltha is a perfect example. He was voted in because he had a bunch of interceptions – in 2001 with the Broncos thanks to his 9 INT’s, but the Denver pass defense was 16th in the league. In 2005 with the Bengals, he again made it thanks to 10 INT’s, but the Bengals were 26th in pass defense that season. Others have pointed out – Deltha was projected as a risky corner who would make a great play on one and then get toasted on the next defensive snap, and he has certainly lived up to that billing.
I think games played and started would be much more valuable and indicative than Pro Bowls made when it comes to evaluating draft success.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 20, 2009 10:51 AM MST up reply actions
Yes
Like I said I could not discriminate based on personnnel reflections of a player, but be remineded O’Neal has gone to two pro bowls, so he has talent, but there are plenty of other guys that you could say the same thing about on other teams. The point being that you generally don’t make a pro-bowl by “luck”, you generally have to have played exceptionally well and have enough talent to start, O’Neal included.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Thanks Broncoman.... these questions come with the territory
If this were baseball, we could equalize this and that and take into account every conceivable factor about performance and come up with a great measure of each player’s worth. The beauty of football is that there are too many moving parts to ever talk about a single player’s contributions in a vaccuum.
All of which is a long way of saying: questions about whether Pro Bowls are a good metric, whether you should have measured this, that or the other thing…. They all come with the territory. This was awesome work and I hope you don’t take the constructive criticism personally.
And on that note, we should record that your system would not give the Broncs credit for drafting Simon Fletcher since, you know….. There are reasons why we have our doubts about Pro Bowls.
I understand
I just figured this was a somewhat easy metric to use, sitting there and evaluating guys based on my personnel feelings may cause more problems then it is worth and there would be the ultimate arguements wether a guy was deserving or not. And I didn’t really have a bunch of hours to break down guys subjectively like that.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Your data shows
a lot in favor of Shanny and his stratagy in the draft and how successful he was at implementing it. I think this gives us good perspective on why many of us are conflicted when it comes to Shanny’s drafts. Shanahan found the guys in rounds 1-7 that for whatever reason had lost stock whether it’s an injury, off field issues, or whatever the case may be, he wanted a guy that had enormous potential, and was very good at finding them, as evidenced by your post.
The downside to Shanny’s draft stratagy was also what made it great, either he drafted us a pro bowler or the guy was out of the NFL in a couple years. So it was great in the sense that we often brought in star players when other teams just got quality players, but at the same time when other teams were drafting qualitiy players we often drafted complete busts. It went hand in hand sometimes it was good many times it was bad, but we just didn’t have enough depth on the roster to maintain our team when our stars couldn’t be resigned.
"If you don't know where your going you might find yourself somplace else."
I can't argue that
It may be worth looking at how long a guy lasted in the league versus other guys, but I didn’t have time to do that for 12 years of data. But I agree, lots of Shanahan’s picks were boom or bust prospects.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
Shanny was good at what he did
I think Shanny hit more often on the risks he took than any other GM could have, and the data you have compiled is a testament to that. He was great at mining the draft for guys that could turn into the pro bowl type player and not being afraid of taking them when he wanted.
What your data says to me is that Shanahan was dedicated and very good at drafting to his stratagy, it’s just suspect wether that stratagy is succesful. Overall thanks for taking the time to research and post the information, I think there is alot to be learned from it.
"If you don't know where your going you might find yourself somplace else."
Shanahan's strategy worked for a while...
as long as he was building off a core team with depth. But it lead, along with his FA strategy, to a gradual erosion of team depth. Then as we lost our stars to injury (Wilson) or age (Lynch) we didn’t have to depth to replace them until we found more stars.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 20, 2009 5:37 PM MST up reply actions
Exactly
he needed to settle for the safe pick, or what we could call a safe pick in the draft, a couple more times to make sure he was building depth. I think Shanahan went just a little too far to the other extreme and could have benifitted from a more balanced approach. Take the can’t miss high reward players even if it is a risk but when there isn’t one available don’t search for that guy, take someone that can contribute to the team even if they may never be a pro bowler.
"If you don't know where your going you might find yourself somplace else."
Thank you Broncoman!
For giving Mike Shanahan some credit.
I think that alot of us have been caught up in the reasons for his termination. However, I think it’s important to also look at all the great things he did for the Broncos and to recognize him for his outstanding service to the organization.
I am the eggman...they are the eggman...I am the Mermaid...Goo Goo Gajoob!!!
Agreed
Think of how things might have been different if Mike had hired a Free Agency Director/Analyst, lol.
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.





































