Interesting analysis by a writer for The Athletic
The breakdown for all WRs taken in the 1st round since 2011
This is the breakdown for WRs taken in the Top 10.
Better
52% Chance of landing a Superstar or Star…29% chance of a bust
The takeaway to me is that if your gonna take a 1st Round WR it better be in the Top 10
This feels loose. If the hit rate was this high, wouldn’t WR salaries be lower or WRs be overdraftsd much more? This has to be higher than other positions.
So, there’s a higher chance of us drating a star or a superstar than drafting a bust?
I don’t really care about the player being a “reach” at WR as long as he’s still a solid player. This guy would be our WR3, so we don’t need him to be a world beater like we did in 2021/22.
According to the numbers a late 1st Round WR has barely a better chance of being a Star/Superstar than a bust.
Add in the “Reach” and you are more likely to have a guy that wasn’t worth the pick or a Bust than a guy that becomes a Star or Superstar
In their analysis WR is the toughest, especially once you get outside the Top 10
This is where having good talent evaluators matters. Not all GMs are the same.
The take away for me was im glad with have an ascended master drafting for us. Bradley Holmes makes his own odds.
It makes you wonder if there will ultimately be downward pressure on WR Salaries in the not to distant future. I love ARSB. Do I love him $25 mil worth per year? I think I do right now. If this situation was 5 years into the future, maybe not.
It gets to supply and demand just like it always did. We used to push our best athletes to QB and RB. RB became oversaturated and didn’t pay them like we once did. The athletes became WRs (if you can catch) or CBs (if you can’t) and suddenly RB value is creeping up a little again. It still hasn’t come fully back IMO, but it seems to be moving there again.
Meanwhile, it used to be a luxury to have a couple of plus receivers, but now it seems to be more of a norm. Now it is a luxury to have 4. Curiously the Chiefs really seem to have 1 plus receiver with Kelce and a band of misfits.
Charts like these always bother me when the conclusion is “if you’re gonna draft a superstar, make sure you get them in the top 10”. Well guys that go in the top 10 are the freakiest amongst freaks. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be drafted in the top 10. Typically guys in the top 10 have elite traits + elite production. The floor is high and there’s no ceiling. There’s no such thing as a sure thing but odds are you’re gonna get a stud in the top 10.
Conversely, of course the odds of a player becoming a bust the later they go in the draft increases.
In isolation without comparison to other positions and later rounds doesn’t really tell you much. It has been mentioned multiple times on the board but if you can get 3 starters (not even superstars) in a draft then it should be successful. That’s less than a 50% hit rate.
I think Brad and Dan have done a great job at putting intangibles at the top of the scale when targeting players. It helps minimize but not eliminate the bust potential.
I made this exact same argument last year at this time, but for RBs instead of WR. The hit rate on 1st round RBs - especially outside the top ten - is atrocious. Even worse than WR because there are no Justin Jeffersons, DeAndre Hopkins, Ceedee Lambs, Aiyuks, Ridleys, DJ Moores, Beckhams, etc… to give anyone hope. Just a bunch of disappointing jags.
But Brad didn’t care, and Brad was right. If you trust your evaluations - and you’re right - these metrics mean essentially nothing.
There was a comparison to 2nd round WR’s that said you shouldn’t take WR’s in the 1st at all. The contribution in terms of yards and TDs was as high in the 2nd as the 1st. It’s a dated report that I’m thinking of, but a little more analysis by the Athletic folks there is warranted, IMO.
Obviously this analysis goes back to 2011 and is of all teams that took a 1st Round WR…so certainly that spectrum of GMs involved runs from not good to very good making those picks. So hopefully a good-to-great drafting GM beats those odds. And I feel confident that Holmes is in the upper 1/4 of GMs, so that should mean we can do better than this analysis…in theory
I don’t think is what the chart concludes at all. It says you have just over a 50% chance of landing a Superstar/Star if picking one in the top 10. So definitely not a “sure thing” as you put it. The top 10 chart says, 1 out 3 WR’s taken in the top is going to be a bust.
But I think the real point here is do you take a WR at #29? If you trust BH then no problem, but the numbers show over 50% of the time that doesn’t work out. What is really interesting is the reach category at 30%. Could indicate GM’s panicing a bit on a WR that should have gone in the 2nd round.
So I think the issue is simply this.
In HS and College the best WRs just out athlete the defenses typically. But then they get to the NFL and the ability to do that almost disappears (Moss being an exception). So then it comes down to work ethic (something they never had to do) and hands (they were always good enough…ect). Now I would suggest that as the college passing game keeps improving that the WR hit rate will increase dramatically. But Jamo is a prime example. He was unstoppable in college and has been truly underwhelming in the NFL. Lets be nice and say he had a much steeper learning curve than originally what was expected. Routing running and how to properly run your routes and foot placement are key.
Even look at Gibbs. Once it was mentioned he was tipping the plays he changed his ways and suddenly got better. The NFL is a savage league and the focus, precision, and drive needed to succeed is crazy high. So this is no surprise. I would like to see this breakdown for all positions. I am wondering what the average is and expectations as the bust rates are probably pretty standard across the board.
Matt Millen is that you!? 
Funny part is he was able to consistently bust even in the Top 10
And when I first read this I stopped to think about Matt and confirmed that this chart was right after we dumped him…so he didn’t have the chance to drive the curve lower to the bust section…this is all picks POST MATT MILLEN. I almost wonder if that isn’t why the author started in 2011…knowing that Millan tanks the curve unnaturally LMAO
The WR article came from a daily newsletter I get from The Athletic so I couldn’t post the whole piece and just clipped the charts.
The same guy has a article on their website doing it for QBs which is below.
Their website has lots of great draft analysis and is worth hanging out on…and it is worth signing up for their daily newsletter IMHO
I’m willing to bet more teams will lean towards the Packers method of drafting WRs in the 2nd/3rd rounds to build a complete corps rather than going for the true #1 and build the offense around that. Winning football leans towards matchup wins. There’s still value in having a true stud at WR to help dictate coverage, but having multiple guys that can win seems to be cheaper and more effective.
And you have less invested in one big contract.
This guys graphs and explanations down below them don’t align.
63% of guys drafted in the 1st round are either busts or reaches…but then he lists his reaches as Tavon Austin and BMW. Um ok, those 2 were straight up busts as well as probably taken too early…but if a GM drafts a player, didn’t that player theoretically get taken where he was supposed to?
If i put my truck for sale for 30k and its only worth 25k but someone pays me 30k, is it not worth 30k then?
The bottom explanation is even more confusing. He states that you also have a 63% chance of getting a bust???..like his graph shows 37%. And the he states that 63% means 3 out of 4 will be busts. LOL
Like, 63% and 75% are somewhat close but not really close enough to say they are equal. Weird.
Anyways, thanks for sharing but either I’m misreading this whole thing or this guy is an idiot.
