Sometimes It's All About Getting Lucky
-
The debate over whether or not the Browns should cut Josh Gordon actually made me do some thinking about how lucky moves can really make or break a franchise.
For example, look at John Schneider and Pete Carroll's first year in Seattle. They made some bold moves that ended up paying off in the long run:
-Traded former first round pick DE Lawrence Jackson to Detroit Lions for a sixth round pick, which they used to draft CB Byron Maxwell. Maxwell was a full-time starter this season and has had a relatively strong season, considering his draft position.
-Traded former second round pick Josh Wilson to Baltimore for a conditional fifth rounder, which they then swapped with Detroit as a part of a trade and ended up taking CB Richard Sherman.
-Traded away WR Deion Branch for 4th round linebacker K.J. Wright. Wright has been a solid contributing member for the Seahawks since he was drafted, starting an average of 12 games a season.
-Took a chance on a Doug Baldwin, an undersized wide receiver who excelled in college as a UDFA. Baldwin is, obviously, a solid member of the team.
Sometimes bold moves pay off, it's not always about making the safe play. I'd say that Richard Sherman has more than recouped the investment the Seahawks put into Lawrence Jackson.
-
Some of the 'Hawks luck has been made by Carroll's familiarity with PAC 10 talent. Definitely was the case with Sherman and I suspect Baldwin as well.
Now five years removed it will be interesting to see if Carroll's "luck" wanes, but your other two player examples were Mississippi St. and Clemson, so the luck just might be sustained by a very strong scout staff.
-
If it wasn't for bad luck the Browns would have no luck at all. Here are the last baker's dozen Quarterbacks they have drafted:
Johnny Manziel
Brandon Weeden
Colt McCoy
Brady Quinn
Charlie Frye
Luke McCown
Spergon Wynn
Tim Couch
Eric Zeier
Keithen McCant
Clement Gordon
Steve Slayden
Mike Norseth
Bernie Kosar 1985 Supp draft.
So its been 30 years since they had any luck...at all. (Even a decent pick like Couch got injured)
-
Beyond that the Browns history pretty much says that they should not bother with a QB in the first round of the regular draft. Here are their first round QBs taken in their history:
1952 Harry Agannis #12 overall.....never played in the NFL
1954 Bobby Garrett #1 overall....143 career passing yards, never started a game
1970 Mike Phipp #3 overall. Disappointing considering what was given up for him
1999 Tim Couch #1 overall. Started for an "expansion" team.....got hurt.
2007 Brady Quinn #22 overall. 4-16 record as starter...for all his teams. Out of football
2012 Brandon Weeden #22 overall Too old, too dumb. Lucky to be a backup in Dallas
2014 Johnny Manziel #22 overall. Book still out....but not looking very good. Johnny Rehab.
Does anyone think the 8th time is a charm?
(Note: yes, Kosar taken in 1st round...but of Supplemental draft. Maybe we need another one of those)
-
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
Amen.
-
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
Who did it right?
1960: DAL 1.13 Bob Lilly (DT)
1961: MN 1.1 Tommy Mason (RB)
1966: ATL 1.1 Tommy Nobis (MLB)/ 1.16 Randy Johnson (QB)
1967: NO 1.26 Les Kelly (LB)/ 2.1 Bo Burris (DB)
1976: SEA 1.2 Steve Niehaus (DT); TB 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DE)
1995: JAX 1.2 Tony Boselli (OT)/ 1.19 James Stewart (RB); CAR 1.5 Kerry Collins (QB)
1999: CLE 1.1 Tim Couch (QB)
2002: HOU 1.1 David Carr (QB)
The more recent new franchises were clearly more inclined to take QBs with their inaugural #1 overall picks. But then again the passing game grew to be a much bigger factor than it was early.
Interestingly only a couple teams appear to have traded down their top pick. Expansion deals varied, however, so hard to tell, e.g. I think the Saints deal was the last pick in round one and the first in round 2.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
Amen.
-
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
Have you not been paying attention?
The Browns have spent a shitload of picks on OL.
Other teams have OLs built from the 3rd round on.
The Browns HAVE concentrated on the OL.
The OL has become little more than an excuse for bad Offense.
Oh yea, Qbs play offense.
-
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
Have you not been paying attention?
The Browns have spent a shitload of picks on OL.
Other teams have OLs built from the 3rd round on.
The Browns HAVE concentrated on the OL.
The OL has become little more than an excuse for bad Offense.
Oh yea, Qbs play offense.
Have you not been paying attention?
The Browns have spent a shitload of picks on OL.
Other teams have OLs built from the 3rd round on.
The Browns HAVE concentrated on the OL.
The OL has become little more than an excuse for bad Offense.
Oh yea, Qbs play offense.
That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman in the top 4 rounds starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
-
Let's not just put the "bad draft pick" label on the QB's.
2001- Passed on LaDainian Tomlinson for Gerard Warren
2002- Passed on Ed Reed for William Green
2004- Passed on Ben Rapistburger for Kellen WinSLOW
2005- Passed on Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman for Braylon "Mr.Drops" Edwards
2007- Passed Adrian Peterson for Joe Thomas ( If we take Peterson first, then a very good Joe Staley is availible instead of Quinn )
These ones were the worst that I found, I know the last one won't be popular but Joe Staley is still a 4x Pro bowler so he is still a better then average OT.
-
Let's not just put the "bad draft pick" label on the QB's.
2001- Passed on LaDainian Tomlinson for Gerard Warren
2002- Passed on Ed Reed for William Green
2004- Passed on Ben Rapistburger for Kellen WinSLOW
2005- Passed on Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman for Braylon "Mr.Drops" Edwards
2007- Passed Adrian Peterson for Joe Thomas ( If we take Peterson first, then a very good Joe Staley is availible instead of Quinn )
These ones were the worst that I found, I know the last one won't be popular but Joe Staley is still a 4x Pro bowler so he is still a better then average OT.
Let's not just put the "bad draft pick" label on the QB's.
2001- Passed on LaDainian Tomlinson for Gerard Warren
2002- Passed on Ed Reed for William Green
2004- Passed on Ben Rapistburger for Kellen WinSLOW
2005- Passed on Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman for Braylon "Mr.Drops" Edwards
2007- Passed Adrian Peterson for Joe Thomas ( If we take Peterson first, then a very good Joe Staley is availible instead of Quinn )
These ones were the worst that I found, I know the last one won't be popular but Joe Staley is still a 4x Pro bowler so he is still a better then average OT.
2006.K. Wimbley and passed on S. Holmes (SB MVP) and N. Mangold perennial Pro Bowler. Both in our backyard btw.
-
VesnaKociper said:
Luck? Luck had nothing to do with that. Other than the Couch pick, none of those picks had much upside to them. We drafted shit, and you say it's bad luck that the shit stunk?
Well, I don't think that the Browns FO made these picks in mind in order for them to fail. I am sure that they thought these guys could turn out well....they just haven't.
And yea, there has been a lot of luck in the successful picks. I mean, clearly the Pats got lucky as fuck to have a 6th round pick now being considered the GOAT. (Brady) And who is one of his main competitors for GOAT honors? A third round pick. (Montana).
And we just had a guy who was an undrafted FA become a Hall of Fame Finalist (Warner).
And if everyone knew that Aaron Rodgers would become perhaps the main future contender for GOAT honors, 23 teams would not have passed on him on draft day. Same with Marino with the 26 picks before him. And Brett Favre? Second round.
The Browns could have selected each and every one of these guys at some point....but didn't.
All these other teams got lucky, really. The only team that wasn't lucky was the team that got LUCK. They schemed and manipulated their way to the worst record in the game just so they could get him.
Making bad choices is as unlucky as making good choices is sometimes lucky.
I mean, the Browns got a lot of luck in 1972 when a 13th round draft choice eventually became their all time leading passer., no?
-
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
That is what the Steelers did with BR....to our regret.
-
Have you not been paying attention?
The Browns have spent a shitload of picks on OL.
Other teams have OLs built from the 3rd round on.
The Browns HAVE concentrated on the OL.
The OL has become little more than an excuse for bad Offense.
Oh yea, Qbs play offense.
That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman in the top 4 rounds starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
If you are talking all rounds they have taken more than that in the last 9 years: The Schwartz for one. Ryan Miller, Pinkston
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
I don't have a problem with drafting OL...Ghoolie might.
-
I think the Browns have failed for 15 years because they were going about building a team the wrong way. The philosophy that one should draft a QB to your expansion franchise with your first pick was sheer stupidity. It's like buying a Ferrari and deciding you'll park it everyday in the worst part of town. Why on earth would you put your biggest investment in the worst possible situation? First you build the offensive line and defensive line, then the rest of the defense and the skill positions, and then the QB LAST, when said QB will come into a situation where he is surrounded by the tools he needs to succeed. I would bet had Couch been drafted by a decent team he'd have had an excellent career.
Who did it right?
1960: DAL 1.13 Bob Lilly (DT)
1961: MN 1.1 Tommy Mason (RB)
1966: ATL 1.1 Tommy Nobis (MLB)/ 1.16 Randy Johnson (QB)
1967: NO 1.26 Les Kelly (LB)/ 2.1 Bo Burris (DB)
1976: SEA 1.2 Steve Niehaus (DT); TB 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DE)
1995: JAX 1.2 Tony Boselli (OT)/ 1.19 James Stewart (RB); CAR 1.5 Kerry Collins (QB)
1999: CLE 1.1 Tim Couch (QB)
2002: HOU 1.1 David Carr (QB)
The more recent new franchises were clearly more inclined to take QBs with their inaugural #1 overall picks. But then again the passing game grew to be a much bigger factor than it was early.
Interestingly only a couple teams appear to have traded down their top pick. Expansion deals varied, however, so hard to tell, e.g. I think the Saints deal was the last pick in round one and the first in round 2.
Who did it right?
1960: DAL 1.13 Bob Lilly (DT)
1961: MN 1.1 Tommy Mason (RB)
1966: ATL 1.1 Tommy Nobis (MLB)/ 1.16 Randy Johnson (QB)
1967: NO 1.26 Les Kelly (LB)/ 2.1 Bo Burris (DB)
1976: SEA 1.2 Steve Niehaus (DT); TB 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DE)
1995: JAX 1.2 Tony Boselli (OT)/ 1.19 James Stewart (RB); CAR 1.5 Kerry Collins (QB)
1999: CLE 1.1 Tim Couch (QB)
2002: HOU 1.1 David Carr (QB)
The more recent new franchises were clearly more inclined to take QBs with their inaugural #1 overall picks. But then again the passing game grew to be a much bigger factor than it was early.
Interestingly only a couple teams appear to have traded down their top pick. Expansion deals varied, however, so hard to tell, e.g. I think the Saints deal was the last pick in round one and the first in round 2.
That's a fair question. Let's test my theory that doing it right means you draft with the offensive and defensive line as your top priority. Here are the teams you posted, their first draft pick, and the team's record for the next 10 years. Bold teams followed the philosophy I suggested one of their first picks being linemen.
1960: DAL 1.13 Bob Lilly (DT): 67 wins, 65 losses1961: MN 1.1 Tommy Mason (RB), 64 wins, 69 losses1966: ATL 1.1 Tommy Nobis (MLB)/ 1.16 Randy Johnson (QB) 46 wins, 90 losses1967: NO 1.26 Les Kelly (LB)/ 2.1 Bo Burris (DB), 36 wins, 99 losses1976: SEA 1.2 Steve Niehaus (DT); TB 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DE) - 68 wins, 81 losses1995: JAX 1.2 Tony Boselli (OT)/ 1.19 James Stewart (RB); CAR 1.5 Kerry Collins (QB) - 82 wins, 78 losses1999: CLE 1.1 Tim Couch (QB) - 54 wins, 106 losses2002: HOU 1.1 David Carr (QB) -65 wins, 95 lossesSince we don't have as many samples of teams that did it 'right', let's add these:1976: TB. 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DL) 46 Wins, 102 losses1968: CIN: 1.2 Bob Johnson (Center) - 65 wins, 60 lossesThis gives us 5 teams that drafted OL/DL first vs 5 teams that did not. Combined winning percentage:
Drafted OL/DL first: .459 (if you take TB out of the calculation, this goes up to a .500 winning percentage)
Didn't draft OL/DL first: .366
There ya have it. If an expansion team drafts an OL/DL with their first pick, they will go on to win nearly half their games in the next 10 years. If they don't, they will only win a third of them. While I'm sure there is a lot more to do with it than that first pick, I think that first pick is an indication of the front office's approach to team building.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
If you are talking all rounds they have taken more than that in the last 9 years: The Schwartz for one. Ryan Miller, Pinkston
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
I don't have a problem with drafting OL...Ghoolie might.
Yes I meant to type " I'm the first 4 rounds".That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
If you are talking all rounds they have taken more than that in the last 9 years: The Schwartz for one. Ryan Miller, Pinkston
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
I don't have a problem with drafting OL...Ghoolie might.
-
Yes I meant to type " I'm the first 4 rounds".That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
If you are talking all rounds they have taken more than that in the last 9 years: The Schwartz for one. Ryan Miller, Pinkston
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
I don't have a problem with drafting OL...Ghoolie might.
-
Have you not been paying attention?
The Browns have spent a shitload of picks on OL.
Other teams have OLs built from the 3rd round on.
The Browns HAVE concentrated on the OL.
The OL has become little more than an excuse for bad Offense.
Oh yea, Qbs play offense.
That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman in the top 4 rounds starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
We really should focus on the OL because it is what makes the average QB and average RB look like a super star. Outside the Browns if you havent noticed lately the top 10 in the draft is packed with O lineman in the last few years. Your post is simply baseless.
That's just bullshit. You have to be basing your comments on some gut feel because its way off base. We have drafted 5 O lineman in the top 4 rounds starting in the 2006 draft. Three of them in my opinion are home runs. That is Thomas, Mack and Bitonio. The other two are Gilkey and Luavo.
Close, but not quite. Gilkey was a 7th round pick. And Schwartz was a 2nd round pick.
Overall weve picked 5 and 4 of them are starting now. Thats a pretty good percentage to hit on.(80%)
-
Who did it right?
1960: DAL 1.13 Bob Lilly (DT)
1961: MN 1.1 Tommy Mason (RB)
1966: ATL 1.1 Tommy Nobis (MLB)/ 1.16 Randy Johnson (QB)
1967: NO 1.26 Les Kelly (LB)/ 2.1 Bo Burris (DB)
1976: SEA 1.2 Steve Niehaus (DT); TB 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DE)
1995: JAX 1.2 Tony Boselli (OT)/ 1.19 James Stewart (RB); CAR 1.5 Kerry Collins (QB)
1999: CLE 1.1 Tim Couch (QB)
2002: HOU 1.1 David Carr (QB)
The more recent new franchises were clearly more inclined to take QBs with their inaugural #1 overall picks. But then again the passing game grew to be a much bigger factor than it was early.
Interestingly only a couple teams appear to have traded down their top pick. Expansion deals varied, however, so hard to tell, e.g. I think the Saints deal was the last pick in round one and the first in round 2.
That's a fair question. Let's test my theory that doing it right means you draft with the offensive and defensive line as your top priority. Here are the teams you posted, their first draft pick, and the team's record for the next 10 years. Bold teams followed the philosophy I suggested one of their first picks being linemen.
1960: DAL 1.13 Bob Lilly (DT): 67 wins, 65 losses1961: MN 1.1 Tommy Mason (RB), 64 wins, 69 losses1966: ATL 1.1 Tommy Nobis (MLB)/ 1.16 Randy Johnson (QB) 46 wins, 90 losses1967: NO 1.26 Les Kelly (LB)/ 2.1 Bo Burris (DB), 36 wins, 99 losses1976: SEA 1.2 Steve Niehaus (DT); TB 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DE) - 68 wins, 81 losses1995: JAX 1.2 Tony Boselli (OT)/ 1.19 James Stewart (RB); CAR 1.5 Kerry Collins (QB) - 82 wins, 78 losses1999: CLE 1.1 Tim Couch (QB) - 54 wins, 106 losses2002: HOU 1.1 David Carr (QB) -65 wins, 95 lossesSince we don't have as many samples of teams that did it 'right', let's add these:1976: TB. 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DL) 46 Wins, 102 losses1968: CIN: 1.2 Bob Johnson (Center) - 65 wins, 60 lossesThis gives us 5 teams that drafted OL/DL first vs 5 teams that did not. Combined winning percentage:
Drafted OL/DL first: .459 (if you take TB out of the calculation, this goes up to a .500 winning percentage)
Didn't draft OL/DL first: .366
There ya have it. If an expansion team drafts an OL/DL with their first pick, they will go on to win nearly half their games in the next 10 years. If they don't, they will only win a third of them. While I'm sure there is a lot more to do with it than that first pick, I think that first pick is an indication of the front office's approach to team building.
1976: TB. 1.1 Lee Roy Selmon (DL) 46 Wins, 102 losses
1968: CIN: 1.2 Bob Johnson (Center) - 65 wins, 60 losses
Not sure how I missed Cinci, but I had TB... same line as Seattle in '76.
I count 4 QB taking teams (ATL, CAR, CLE and HOU) and 6 non-QB teams.
Regardless, however, not surprised that slow and steady is the route...
Only other comment I'd make is that 10 years seems too long of a sample. After ten years most of the teams had moved onto at least their 2nd HC. Dallas may be the lone exception under Landry.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login