A drafting exercise.

[Dave Gray]

I don't know a ton about college players, but I seem to be able to identify busts that the Dolphins choose, ahead of time.  I don't know, though, if it's just because I'm only remembering the times I'm right.  So, a friend of mine and I are going to hang out on draft day and pause the draft at each Dolphins pick.  We're then going to each make a pick instead.  Then, we're going to seal the picks and revisit them each year to see if we can pick better than the Fins.

It's not a perfect system, because there's some subjectivity in the rankings and players on other teams might do well because of system, but it's the best we can do.

Currently, we're tinkering on our rating system.  I'm under the impression that the smaller the scale, the easier it will be to remain objective.

We're thinking either a 1-3 scale or a 1-5 scale, that would be something like:

1. Bust
2. Serviceable
3. Hit

or

1. Bust
2. Disappointment
3. Serviceable
4. Hit
5. Elite

We also think that draft position should be disregarded, as much as possible.  But even then, talking over beers last night, we couldn't agree on how to rate current players.  In the 5 point system, I thought that Ted Ginn should be a 2.  My friend said that he thought he was a 3, because even though he sucks, he's our #1 receiver.

Also, Ronnie Brown was another one that we had trouble rating.  He's either a 4 or a 5, depending on your criteria.

So, I ask you:  What makes a successful draft pick?  How long do they need to contribute to be called a hit, and what separates an elite player from a good player.  Or a good player from a serviceable player?  Any suggestions?

[Phishfan]

I am afraid the more of us you hear from the more opinions you are going to get making it more difficult to gather a definition.

[Sunstroke]

Phish is right...you're dealing with totally subjective material here.

I'd list Ginn as a 2 as well, because I think he's only serviceable because we don't have anyone who can service us properly at that position.

[Dave Gray]

I think that a 3 point system makes the most sense.  In a 3 point system, Ginn is pretty clearly a 1 and Brown is pretty clearly a 3.

[JVides]

^^^3 point system is probably the easiset to use, but will probably give you the largest error rate.  For instance, if Ginn is a "bust" and turns it around to reach serviceable on a 3 point scale, you were flat out wrong on him.  If he's a "disappointment" and becomes serviceable, he just improved a bit.  I guess I'm saying you lose the gray area.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

I like the five point system better because it is more precise.... plus it gives you a little margin for error.  There is a fine line between a very good player and a superstar, and there also is one between a bust and a serviceable player.

[Philly Fin Fan]

I think time is a factor as well.

For example, Henne was a second round pick. He sat on the bench almost all of last season. So he would get an "incomplete".  This season, he is the starter (due to injury) and has played fairly well. On your 5 point scale, you may  rate him as a "hit", since he's the starter and playing decent. However, lets say he totally regresses next year. Is he then a "disappointment" or a "bust"? But then what if in year 4, he makes the Pro-Bowl? Take a look at Drew Brees early career in San Diego for a good example of this.

[Dolphin-UK]

I think time is a factor as well.

For example, Henne was a second round pick. He sat on the bench almost all of last season. So he would get an "incomplete".  This season, he is the starter (due to injury) and has played fairly well. On your 5 point scale, you may  rate him as a "hit", since he's the starter and playing decent. However, lets say he totally regresses next year. Is he then a "disappointment" or a "bust"? But then what if in year 4, he makes the Pro-Bowl? Take a look at Drew Brees early career in San Diego for a good example of this.

Nice point, and to further illustrate this, you can rate them year on year, and graph the results comparatively adding each draft class and get an uber spreadsheet graph which shows patterns of draft pick disappointment and growth?!

[Dave Gray]

^^^3 point system is probably the easiset to use, but will probably give you the largest error rate.  For instance, if Ginn is a "bust" and turns it around to reach serviceable on a 3 point scale, you were flat out wrong on him.  If he's a "disappointment" and becomes serviceable, he just improved a bit.  I guess I'm saying you lose the gray area.

We will update the choices, though.  It's not like we rank a player and then we're done.  We will go back and revisit after 5 years or however long.

I think it's easier to judge whether a guy is a bust or serviceable.  ...or whether a guy is serviceable or a hit.  Can you think of any players that ride that line?

[Philly Fin Fan]

I think it's easier to judge whether a guy is a bust or serviceable.  ...or whether a guy is serviceable or a hit.  Can you think of any players that ride that line?

Let me ask you about a few specific players:

- Vernon Carey. Where do you rate him? Some would say he is serviceable. Some would say he is a hit.

- Jason Allen. Where do you rate him? Some would say he is serviceable. Some would say he is a bust.



Modified to add: I think draft position obviously also plays into a players "rate"

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

We also think that draft position should be disregarded, as much as possible. 

I completely disagree.  The reason you call Ginn a bust is because he was drafted in the first round.  If you drafted a WR in the 7th round who had the exact same amount of production as Ginn he would be a steal. 

[Dave Gray]

I completely disagree.  The reason you call Ginn a bust is because he was drafted in the first round.  If you drafted a WR in the 7th round who had the exact same amount of production as Ginn he would be a steal. 

Maybe "bust" is the wrong word.  I don't care where he was drafted.  I care that he can't catch.  After a few years, draft position wears off and you're left with just a player.  Either you're a productive contributor, you're a stud player, or you are cut or useless.

Ginn is too early to tell right now, but if his career continues on this path, he will be a 1 -- someone we tried out for a few years, but was unable to help us.  In a couple more years, it will be much more clear on Ginn.

[Doc-phin]

5 point scale without a doubt.  But you do have to have some sort of preset descriptions.  I had a couple extra minutes, so here is my opinion.

Elite = Game changer who performs at a potentially hall of fame level and who's talent level can't be found at his position in more than half of the league.  This is also typically a player who would never be traded and would only be released if the player was old or asked for such an insane amount of pay that it would cripple any chance at team success.

Hit = Makes plays with some degree of consistency but not often game changing plays.  Rarely misses play time and is obviously better than his back-up.  Other teams would be willing to give up a significant trade for him and you would consider if the price is right.

Serviceable = Rarely a liability, but nothing special.  May have durability issues and can be replaced with minimal noticablility.  Makes a play here and there and blows as many plays, but you rarely hear his name.  Often fills multiple rolls and is expendable if a more explosive player becomes available.

Disappointment = Looking to be replaced.  You are likely calling for his back-up to play instead.  Another team might have an interest in him but only because they are so naive as to think they can coach him up.  He has blown it big several times and when the success of a play is up to him you hold your breath and pray.  He may shock you with a decent play once and a while, but nothing in comparison to his foul-ups.  You would be just fine with replacing this player and surprised if you actually got compensation for it.  This player could be a player defined as injury prone but not to the point they rarely had a chance to play.  Play time could be hugely reduced by the coaching staff's evaluation of the player.

Bust = Likely to not play much.  Got payed way more than ever delivered on.  If they did get a chance to play in was bad most of the time.  You would understand if the coaches cutt him and didn't even replace him on the roster.  It is obvious this players is not NFL caliber.  This player could be a good player that was injured nearly the entire time they were on the team.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

5 point scale without a doubt.  But you do have to have some sort of preset descriptions.  I had a couple extra minutes, so here is my opinion.

Elite = Game changer who performs at a potentially hall of fame level and who's talent level can't be found at his position in more than half of the league.  This is also typically a player who would never be traded and would only be released if the player was old or asked for such an insane amount of pay that it would cripple any chance at team success.

Hit = Makes plays with some degree of consistency but not often game changing plays.  Rarely misses play time and is obviously better than his back-up.  Other teams would be willing to give up a significant trade for him and you would consider if the price is right.

Serviceable = Rarely a liability, but nothing special.  May have durability issues and can be replaced with minimal noticablility.  Makes a play here and there and blows as many plays, but you rarely hear his name.  Often fills multiple rolls and is expendable if a more explosive player becomes available.

Disappointment = Looking to be replaced.  You are likely calling for his back-up to play instead.  Another team might have an interest in him but only because they are so naive as to think they can coach him up.  He has blown it big several times and when the success of a play is up to him you hold your breath and pray.  He may shock you with a decent play once and a while, but nothing in comparison to his foul-ups.  You would be just fine with replacing this player and surprised if you actually got compensation for it.  This player could be a player defined as injury prone but not to the point they rarely had a chance to play.  Play time could be hugely reduced by the coaching staff's evaluation of the player.

Bust = Likely to not play much.  Got payed way more than ever delivered on.  If they did get a chance to play in was bad most of the time.  You would understand if the coaches cutt him and didn't even replace him on the roster.  It is obvious this players is not NFL caliber.  This player could be a good player that was injured nearly the entire time they were on the team.

Great analogies on the ratings Doc.  I can think of several Dolphins players that come to mind in each category.  I'll think of one current player and one past player for each category:

Elite-  Dan Marino, Jason Taylor

Hit- Richmond Webb, Yeremiah Bell

Serviceable- Morlon Greenwood, Akin Ayodele

Dissapointment- Jamar Fletcher, Gibril Wilson

Bust- Yatil Green, Jason Allen
Hit-

[Philly Fin Fan]

Elite-  Dan Marino, Jason Taylor

Hit- Richmond Webb, Yeremiah Bell

Serviceable- Morlon Greenwood, Akin Ayodele

Dissapointment- Jamar Fletcher, Gibril Wilson

Bust- Yatil Green, Jason Allen

Wilson? The Fins had absolutely nothing to do with drafting him.

Also, I'm curious what makes Fletcher "only" a disappointment, but Allen a bust.