Skip to main content

Inside Slant: Building with own draft picks

 

We're going to build through the draft.

Have you ever heard a more repeated phrase about NFL team building? It is the public goal of every owner and general manager, even those whose teams routinely participate in veteran free agency. Young players are cheaper and healthier and can be bound to their initial team for at least four years.

Here's a better question: How closely have teams actually followed that practice? The graph at the bottom of this post offers one, albeit imperfect, way to measure that commitment.

The number associated with each team is the total original draft picks remaining on the roster as of late last week, via ESPN Stats & Information data. You will see most teams are bunched in the 20s, and as is often the case, the most illuminating revelations sit on the fringes.

The Green Bay Packers have an NFL-leading 33 players they drafted currently on their roster, more than twice that of the Chicago Bears (15) and nearly twice the Jacksonville Jaguars (17) and Tampa Bay Buccaneers (17).

There are plenty of mitigating circumstances within those numbers; variations in total number of picks and continuity of front offices are two big ones. But at the very least, we can say that teams on the lower end of this analysis must navigate even less-reliable means to assemble their rosters.

So as we march interminably toward the 2014 draft (May 8 is just around the corner!), it's worth looking at how the disparity developed between the top and bottom teams and how significant it is. We will use the Packers and Bears, who have been fighting for NFC North supremacy during the past four years, as a guide.

No team has been more disciplined than the Packers in maintaining and multiplying their supply of draft picks, while the Bears have been among the league's most aggressive in free agency and trades. The bottom line is that the Packers have made 37 draft picks over the past four years and the Bears have made 23.

Why such a disparity over a relatively short period of time? The two biggest factors are a series of Bears trades and the Packers' successful manipulation of the NFL's compensatory draft system.

The Bears traded their 2010 first-round pick to the Denver Broncos as final payment for quarterback Jay Cutler. Their second-round pick that year went to the Buccaneers for defensive end Gaines Adams. Their third-round picks in 2012 and 2013 went to the Miami Dolphins for receiver Brandon Marshall, and they used a fourth-round pick to trade up in 2011 and select defensive tackle Stephen Paea in the second round.

Meanwhile, the Bears' heavy use of veteran free agency -- the signings of left tackle Jermon Bushrod, tight end Martellus Bennett and running back Michael Bush among them -- have left them without a single compensatory pick between 2010 and 2013. The Packers, who rarely dip into free agency, picked up an additional seven selections from that system over that same period.

The Packers have won the past three NFC North titles, all while the Bears have missed the playoffs, but it's too convenient to connect those results solely to team-building philosophy. The difference between the two teams -- a total of 1Â― games over the past two seasons -- is more precisely linked to the quality of play between Aaron Rodgers and Cutler than any other single factor.

Still, the Bears' limited draft success helped trigger a general manager transition from Jerry Angelo to Phil Emery two years ago. Emery's effort to retrofit the team in a timely fashion has worked against any larger goal of accumulating draft picks. The same can be said of the Jaguars, who are entering their second year under general manager David Caldwell, and the Buccaneers, whose new leadership duo of general manager Jason Licht and coach Lovie Smith has overhauled the roster with more than a dozen free agents this spring.

 

More...

 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by FreeSafety:
Originally Posted by packerboi:
The difference between the two teams -- a total of 1Â― games over the past two seasons -- is more precisely linked to the quality of play between Aaron Rodgers and Cutler than any other single factor.

It's important to note that the combined total number of lost games due to injuries over the last two years for Chicago (93) is still less than GB games lost to injuries in either 2012 (104) or 2013 (104). 

 

So yeah, Aaron Rodgers is better than Cutler. But there is a crapload of young depth in GB that's been developed on the fly that have helped win the last three division titles. 

Of the injuries we've had over the past two years I'm trying to think of the players who benefited most from the extra reps. Hyde and Bakhtiari immediately come to mind.  The flip side of the injuries is players do get experience and opportunity.    

 

Boykin stepped up when Cobb was out and is primed for a big increase in responsibility this year. Making up for the loss of James Jones' work on the gridiron is a big set of shoes to fill.  Jones was a solid presence for a long time.    

 

Lacy proved himself a player capable of putting the team on his back.  I laugh now at the concern  I had for his work ethic heading into team 93.  He's one of those guys that saves it for Sunday and then brings all of it and more.      

 

Barclay showed he could be serviceable.

 

I think Mulumba has a lot of potential and benefited from his experience last year.  He has a lot of range he just needs to figure out how to use it.  Lattimore flashed then flatlined. Same with Brad Jones.   

 

Hard not to think injuries affected the special teams most of all:

ESPN’s Rob Demovsky reported that the Packers used 58 different players on coverage units, which was four more than in 2012. These injuries were felt in the final NFL return rankings, as Slocum’s coverage unit fell from 14th in 2012 to 29th in 2013 for opponent kickoff return average. Punts were  equally devastating as the Packers also gave up the 4th highest return average in the NFL. Punt returns saw a boost from rookie Micah Hyde, but the Packers lost about five yards on average for kickoff returns from 2012 to 2013.

 

The coverage unit looked different nearly every time they went on the field to cover a kick or punt, but lane responsibility was virtually nonexistent. The Packers coverage unit gave up the second most return yards in the NFL, including an NFL record-tying 109-yard return to Cordarrelle Patterson of the Vikings.

 

Punt returns were not much better. Although only 20 punts were returned, they went for the 4th highest average in the league of 13.1 yards. In general the Packers coverage unit played much more like a group of individuals than a team. Opposing returners will continue to find success against Green Bay if the coverage unit arrives player by player instead of staying disciplined in their lanes.

chatsports.com

Improving STs seems an easy point of emphasis to look for during training camp. The final 53 is always a tough cut and special teams are always a big factor, but this year maybe more than most.

 

I'd like to know Datone Jones involvement on the ST last year.  He took some incredibly bad pre-snap penalties last year.  I wonder if he carried those mental mistakes over to STs.     

Last edited by titmfatied

I like Kevin Seifert and miss his coverage of the NFC North, but this is a pretty half-baked article...

 

It's pretty clear to me that the Bears' inability to develop their own draft picks has hurt them, while the Packers' inability/unwillingness to fill key roster holes with free agents has hurt them in recent years.

 

Most fans/coaches/GMs espouse the draft-and-develop strategy, and with good reason, but (IMHO) prudent free agent signings are essential in today's NFL.  You don't want to overspend on big names (a'la the Eagles of a few years ago), but cap constraints and mismanagement has lead to some real value within the free agency market in recent years.     

 

B-N-D

while many Packer fans including me may want Ted to jump in the free agent pool, we also recognize his way is working. He has his team in the playoffs every year with a chance to go to the Super Bowl. The reason they have  not taken that next step in the past three years has been due significant injuries to key players including Clay Matthews, key defensive and offensive linemen, running backs, Defensive backs, and other linebackers. etc. Even with losing key personel, the Packers were competitive with the depth of their draft choices. Spending mega money on a few free agents would not have changed the ultimate outcome due to the loss of key people. Teds way be frustrating to a lot of Packer fans but in the end most of us realize his way works and it works better than those that spend like drunken Bears (sailors) on the Lamar Houstons of the world.

Originally Posted by Floridarob:

while many Packer fans including me may want Ted to jump in the free agent pool, we also recognize his way is working. He has his team in the playoffs every year with a chance to go to the Super Bowl. The reason they have  not taken that next step in the past three years has been due significant injuries to key players including Clay Matthews, key defensive and offensive linemen, running backs, Defensive backs, and other linebackers. etc. Even with losing key personel, the Packers were competitive with the depth of their draft choices. Spending mega money on a few free agents would not have changed the ultimate outcome due to the loss of key people. Teds way be frustrating to a lot of Packer fans but in the end most of us realize his way works and it works better than those that spend like drunken Bears (sailors) on the Lamar Houstons of the world.

Not sure it works much better.  Sure, the Packers have eked into the playoffs the last few years, but (as the article states) the records of our two teams is nearly identical over that same stretch, and our Super Bowl chances have been about the same (i.e., not very good).

 

We can both blame injuries (we lost Briggs, Tillman, Melton, Cutler and others last year), but that's a cop-out.   The Bears have missed opportunities to improve via the draft, and the Packers have missed opportunities in free agency.  I think most objective fans would acknowledge that.

 

B-N-D      

Originally Posted by BearNDesert:
Originally Posted by Floridarob:

while many Packer fans including me may want Ted to jump in the free agent pool, we also recognize his way is working. He has his team in the playoffs every year with a chance to go to the Super Bowl. The reason they have  not taken that next step in the past three years has been due significant injuries to key players including Clay Matthews, key defensive and offensive linemen, running backs, Defensive backs, and other linebackers. etc. Even with losing key personel, the Packers were competitive with the depth of their draft choices. Spending mega money on a few free agents would not have changed the ultimate outcome due to the loss of key people. Teds way be frustrating to a lot of Packer fans but in the end most of us realize his way works and it works better than those that spend like drunken Bears (sailors) on the Lamar Houstons of the world.

 

 

Not sure it works much better.  Sure, the Packers have eked into the playoffs the last few years, but (as the article states) the records of our two teams is nearly identical over that same stretch, and our Super Bowl chances have been about the same (i.e., not very good). 

 

We can both blame injuries (we lost Briggs, Tillman, Melton, Cutler and others last year), but that's a cop-out.   The Bears have missed opportunities to improve via the draft, and the Packers have missed opportunities in free agency.  I think most objective fans would acknowledge that.

 

B-N-D      

 

BND, do you really believe this to be true? I guess youd have to define the word 'about', but If you ask most people outside of Illinois and Wisconsin I think youd still see the teams on different tiers as far as chances of actually winning a super bowl. 11-5 with a shot at getting a #2 seed on that last weekend in '12 isnt exactly eeking in

 

 

 

FloridaRob - Though I totally agree with your general statement, we'll never know whether the underlined would be true or not. 

Last edited by WolfPack
Originally Posted by BearNDesert:
   The Bears have missed opportunities to improve via the draft, and the Packers have missed opportunities in free agency.  I think most objective fans would acknowledge that.

 

B-N-D      

The Packers have not missed opportunities in free agency, they chose not to go down that road. A missed opportunity would be if a player said, "I would have signed with the Packers for less if they would have offered to me." I don't ever recall any player saying that.

 

 Every team has virtually the same opportunities in the draft, some teams are just better at it than others. Packers are at or  near the top, the Bears are at the bottom. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×