Jerry Angelo Draft Success Rate
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 8:15 AM CST
64 comments
I almost never post but I read often. I do this every couple years when people start saying that Angelo can't draft. I don't necessarily intend to argue that point one way or the other, but I like to bring up some statistical evidence for the group to debate.
Here are my calculations. It's all based on the definition of success. Rd 1-3 should be a starter or better. Rd 4-7 should be depth or better. More info on that below.
Definition of Success
To quantify the success of a draft, I've developed 5 classes of players in the NFL. Each draft pick will be assigned to one of the classes for calculation purposes. This is the only “human judgment” that takes place. I'll generally assign the pick to the highest level that they achieved, but there is some judgment involved there (you'll notice I did not call Craig Krenzel a starter).
ProBowl: Player has made the PB
Starter: Player has been a regular starter
Depth: Player provided quality depth
Fodder: Player limited mainly to ST or buried in roster
Out of NFL: Player didn't stick on the roster
Round 1-3: Starter or better (60.9% success rate)
Round 4-7: Depth or better (45.0% success rate)
Rd 1 Success Rate = 85.7%
Rd 2 Success Rate = 71.4%
Rd 3 Success Rate = 33.3%
Rd 4 Success Rate = 77.8%
Rd 5 Success Rate = 61.5%
Rd 6 Success Rate = 25%
Rd 7 Success Rate = 10%
I've assigned every pick Angelo has made (his first draft was 2002 when our first pck was Marc Columbo). There are certainly some decisions that could be questioned. Here's how I've classified them:
2008
1 Chris Williams - Starter
2 Matt Forte - Starter
3 Earl Bennett - Fodder
3 Marcus Harrison - Depth
4 Craig Steltz - Depth
5 Zack Bowman - Depth
5 Kellen Davis - Depth
7 Ervin Baldwin – Out of NFL
7 Chester Adams – Out of NFL
7 Joey LaRocque - Fodder
7 Kirk Barton - Fodder
7 Marcus Monk - Fodder
2007
1 Greg Olsen - Starter
2 Dan Bazuin – Out of NFL
3 Garrett Wolfe – Depth
3 Michael Okwo – Out of NFL
4 Josh Beekman - Starter
5 Kevin Payne - Starter
5 Corey Graham – Depth
7 Trumaine McBride – Depth
7 Aaron Brant – Out of NFL
2006
2 Danieal Manning - Starter
2 Devin Hester – ProBowl
3 Dusty Dvoracek - Starter
4 Jamar Williams – Depth
5 Mark Anderson – Depth
6 J.D. Runnels – Out of NFL
6 Tyler Reed - Fodder
2005
1 Cedric Benson - Starter
2 Mark Bradley – Depth
4 Kyle Orton - Starter
5 Airese Currie – Out of NFL
6 Chris Harris - Starter
7 Rod Wilson - Fodder
2004
1 Tommie Harris - ProBowl
2 Tank Johnson - Starter
3 Bernard Berrian - Starter
4 Nathan Vasher – ProBowl
4 Leon Joe - Fodder
5 Claude Harriott – Out of NFL
5 Craig Krenzel – Out of NFL
7 Alfonso Marshall – Out of NFL
2003
1 Michael Haynes – Out of NFL
1 Rex Grossman - Starter
2 Charles Tillman - Starter
3 Lance Briggs – ProBowl
4 Todd Johnson - Fodder
4 Ian Scott - Starter
5 Bobby Wade – Depth
5 Justin Gage - Starter
5 Tron LaFavor – Out of NFL
6 Joe Odom - Fodder
6 Brock Forsey – Out of NFL
7 Bryan Anderson – Out of NFL
2002
1 Marc Colombo - Starter
3 Roe Williams – Out of NFL
3 Terrence Metcalf – Depth
4 Alex Brown - Starter
5 Bobby Gray – Depth
5 Bryan Knight – Out of NFL
6 Adrian Peterson – Depth
6 Jamin Elliott – Out of NFL
6 Bryan Fletcher – Out of NFL
3 recs |
64 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Chris Williams has not proven to be a regular starter
hopefully he fills into that role this year
by No It All on Mar 7, 2009 8:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
He will
Chifan pointed out that he is going to start barring injury. That was the basis for it
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
breakdown says:
Starter: Player has been a regular starter
does not apply to Chris Williams
and is not the same as “he is going to start barring injury”
by No It All on Mar 7, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he just likes to argue.
Pool and a pond... Pond be good for you.
by SoulEater7 on Mar 7, 2009 7:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
It’s a literal interpretation and it’s accurate. But, if I didn’t list him as a starter I would have to call him depth – and he hasn’t proven that either! He doesn’t really fit a cetegory yet, and I don’t think it’s fair to call him a bust yet.
There’s judgment involved and that’s one of many factors that keeps this setup from being perfect
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 6:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i feel ya
but not totally being a bust does not make him a success. maybe not a bust, but definitely not a success yet. you are right he hasn’t even proven to be “depth” so i guess we agree that so far he is “fodder”. Hopefully he can lock down the LT position at a Pro Bowl level, but as of now he is far from being a feather in JAs cap.
by No It All on Mar 8, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe classify them as a project or potential.
Just add a “tweener” category. Bennett would fall into this gray area instead of unfairly calling him fodder.
"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus
by propheteer on Mar 9, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
bennett is currently "fodder". get over it.
by No It All on Mar 9, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
3rd Round Pick
And rookie.
Not fodder yet… maybe he should just be considered “unclassified” or something similar.
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 9, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One year means nothing at WR.
How many times does a receiver come in their first year and make contributions? It’s very rare, and again you can’t look to evaluate a player (esp. a WR) until their 3rd year.
"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus
by propheteer on Mar 9, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably could've
just asterisked him and put “rookie” or something… He’s not proven to be anything one way or the other yet.
Hide your Molina, Lilly's free!
by halfblindcubbiegirl on Mar 9, 2009 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Williams
I don’t think it’s a question of proving it. He IS going to start at LT this year. For good or ill.
by Subotai on Mar 7, 2009 8:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That's fine
But he does have to prove his worth. Unfortunately, if he sucks, we don’t have a lot of backup, but he won’t be on the Bears long if he sucks.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Mar 7, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice job...
Some things to consider…
1. Starters – some guys may have temporarily been starters on the Bears… or may have only been starters due to lack of quality competition at the position. Would they have been starters on most teams throughout the league? Example: Beekman, Payne, Dvoracek, Scott.
2. If a player drafted by the Bears didn’t finish his rookie contract with the Bears, because he was released… I look at that as a failed pick. Example: Benson, Bradley, Wade, Columbo.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 7, 2009 8:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
There is some judgment that has to take place – it’s subjective
Starters:
Beekman started all last year and didn’t get replaced, (while Garza does figure to be replaced) and he figures to start again. As a 4th rounder, I’m considering him a success as a quality backup, so if he starts it’s a bonus
Payne is likely to start – 5th rounder, definitely good depth
Dvoracek – was a starter, may not be next year – this would affect the 3rd round success rate
Scott – counts as a success by being quality depth – I think he was second on the team in tackles one year next to Harris (working from memory here)
Rookie Contract:
Benson should probably get re-classed as depth. He wasn’t a successful starter with us, and he was only a fill in for CIN last year
Bradley – I think he got hosed by the management and he was productive for KC. He counts as a failed pick because he didn’t reach starter as a second rounder
Wade – he was decent depth with us as a WR, even if he was a lousy returner. He is decent depth now. I think that’s a successful fifth rounder
Columbo – Injuries delayed him and the Bears just got impatient. He is starting with Dallas and certainly would step in at RT for the team now or the last couple seasons
Thanks for your thoughts. It’s just one way of thinking about it
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are being generous with a lot of your classifications
To say someone is a starter suggests it was a successful pick. Would you consider Benson a successful pick? Tank Johnson? Marc Colombo? Rex? Dusty?
The fact is very few of these players (Hester, Alex Brown, Peanut, Briggs, Berrian, Harris, Orton, Olsen, Vasher, Forte) have contributed in a consistently positive way—I am not putting Manning on that list since he may have lost the Super Bowl for us.
That’s not a very good track record for 7 drafts for a team that is supposedly built through the draft.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Mar 7, 2009 9:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Wait
That’s not fair. That’s like me saying “I’m not putting Hester on that list cuz he didn’t have any return TD’s this year.” Manning has given us some very good play.
If we’re not putting Manning on that list, we need to take Vasher off too because he couldn’t tackle this past year.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Mar 7, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think if
you are judging the drafting success of a GM, you should judge them based on their performance during their rookie contract.
Vasher performed very well in his rookie contract, so was a very good pick. He has been subpar since signing an extension, so JAs judgement on that was not very good. But as a draft pick, he was good.
I have yet to see Manning perform better than serviceable at anything but returning kicks. Part of it could be the coaches fault for shuffling him around so much, but the end result is he is not very good at anything but special teams.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Mar 7, 2009 5:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nickel back?
He showed to be an absolute beast later in the season, and was arguably the defense’s best player.
"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus
by propheteer on Mar 7, 2009 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ease off that statement dude
he blew it big time in Houston. then again, he was at safety in that game
OH! STEWIE!! GET OUT THE WAY BOY! GET OUT THE WAY!
-Stacey King
by ifuwannacrownem on Mar 7, 2009 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Coaches fault
He’s obviously out of position at FS, and has been ever since the staff has shuffled him around. Again, I stated as a nickel back not a safety. Besides, I didn’t watch the game cause I was in the mountains skiing (only game I missed all season).
"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus
by propheteer on Mar 9, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he fumbled a kick in that game as well
but i do like Manning. just not at free safety.
OH! STEWIE!! GET OUT THE WAY BOY! GET OUT THE WAY!
-Stacey King
by ifuwannacrownem on Mar 9, 2009 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I didn’t know he fumbled a kick return. I’d imagine that led to a Texans TD then.
"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus
by propheteer on Mar 9, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
I think your first statement is completely wrong. That means that Anthony Thomas was a great pick, since he had a great first year. We all know how that turned out.
You don’t draft players for just one year; you draft players to be cornerstones for your team for the long haul.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Mar 7, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Way off base
Manning lost the SB? Yeah, Rex (how many times can you throw into double-coverage?) had nothing to do with it, Benson didn’t either, Urlacher, the entire defensive and offensive lines.
"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus
by propheteer on Mar 7, 2009 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But to say that Columbo is a bust as a first rounder isn’t fair. He got injured and is now starting on a pretty good O-line in Dallas.
Benson probably should be re-classes as depth and be considered a failed pick.
Tank was good and is good, but he just made some bad off field mistakes. I think he fulfilled the FO expectation in talent for sure.
Rex is a good example because he’s controversial – true many Bears fans now hate him, but to say that he’s a failure isn’t an objective way to gauge his success. He started for several seasons and just isn’t the long term answer. Part of it is because he’s a QB. Hard to do this when you have different rules for each position.
I’m not touching the Manning comment. The only person who didn’t lose us the super bowl was Hester
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Columbo
didn’t work out, therefore he was a bust for the Bears. He may be starting for another team, but that pick didn’t help the Bears out at all.
I also feel this list is skewed (as most would be no matter what the measurement, but this one is too general for my taste). First Round picks should be effective players within their first two years in order for them to be considered successful picks. Players who start simply because there is no one else on the roster at their position does not make them a good pick or quality player.
Players drafted by the Bears should measured for their success with the Bears.
Chris Williams, by your definition of a starter (“Starter: Player has been a regular starter”) is should not be tagged as such, even if someone has argued that he’s scheduled to start next year. “Has been” doesn’t equate to “scheduled to.” He contributed little to nothing in his one year, so if you want an honest measurement you should evaluate consistently on performance. Especially since you acknowledge that Krenzel was a starter but you list him otherwise. That blows your entire rating system up, logically-speaking.
by ethan a on Mar 7, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What should the requirements be for a successful pick?
If you had to re-write the definition of success what would it be?
How do you decide if someone would be a starter here or there?
What would you have said if I called Krenzel a starter? There’s no perfect way – it’s a combination of plain old facts and judgment
Thanks for the feedback
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 7:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My requirements for a successful pick:
To keep it as simple as possible….
Requirement A: Drafted player must play out his entire rookie contract with the team that drafted him, before leaving as a free agent or getting extended or re-signed.
My reasoning for Requirement A: If the player is with the team that long, it means he’s been a regular contributor on the playing field.
Requirement B: If a player drafted on the 1st day of the draft (rounds 1-3) does not win a regular starting position or play a significant role (Return specialist or 3rd down specialist) by season number 3, then his selection is deemed as a failure.
My reasoning for Requirement B: You invest 1st day picks on guys to be starters. If they fail to earn a starting position, then the pick is a failure.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 8, 2009 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it takes 5 years after being drafted to have success in
the league, then it wasn’t a very good pick, right?
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Mar 7, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
especially
if the success comes with another team…
by ethan a on Mar 7, 2009 8:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's a not a successful draft for your team
if the players are not successful for your team,
especially if you have to wait five years for someone
to show they were worth hiring.
Would any other business consider a hire a success
if they spent a lot of salary on someone who did nothing
to help their company,
but then went on to another company and helped that company?
For the original company, that hiring is a bust…
by ethan a on Mar 7, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad Comparison
Columbo could have been an accountant with a torn ACL. He couldn’t be a starting caliber NFL LT with one.
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 7:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you fail to understand the essence of the analogy
Whether his failure is from injury or from just not being as good…he still failed to perform at his employer. You fail, you fail, that’s the point.
That’s a failed hire. It’s like hiring someone who has a mental breakdown that no one saw coming. You fire that person because they failed to do the job to their full capability when fully healthy.
It doesn’t mean they can’t have success at another job once they recover. They still didn’t do their job for your company and our a deemed a failed investment. Colombo was a failed investment for the Bears.
by ethan a on Mar 10, 2009 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not measuring investments
I’m trying to measure the skill of the team when making their selections. The staff believed that Columbo could be a starting T in the league when they drafted him. All the risks are there; injury, psychosis, inaccurate grade of talent, inaccurate grade of work ethic, inaccurate grade of maturity, ability to fit into locker room, etc.
Tank Johnson was a starting DT but he didn’t conduct himself with enough maturity to not get cut. Does that mean his two years of starting before that are worthless – that he’s a failure? I say no, it seems that you say yes.
Columbo suffered two major injuries and rehabbed for three years. After his first season back the team cut him, and he went on to start for a playoff team and get an extension to remain starting. Does it mean that Angelo made a bad pick? I say no, you say yes.
We just disagree. The way I look at it, Columbo would have been a no-brainer as a starting RT the last 2-3 years (Tait would be LT still).
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 12, 2009 5:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you talking about Columbo?
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 7:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Way too soon to classify Earl Bennett as fodder.
Or anyone in the 2008 draft for that matter. A draft can’t really be accurately evaluated until after 2-3 years have passed. Very few 3rd round WR have impact their first season, especially if they never get to play. Bennett set the all time reception mark in the SEC (the best football conference) in just 3 seasons, with 3 different starting QBs. No small feat.
by BigGeorgeTX on Mar 7, 2009 10:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
3 years
They say you can’t judge a draft for 3 years, but I would have had less data without the last 2.
I agree with your point. If he had lined up for more than 10 plays I wouldn’t have hesitated. To be fair, though, it’s very likely that he will line up regularly this year. The same way Williams is listed as a starter, Bennett should probably consider at least depth until proven otherwise.
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He can't
possibly do any worse than Davis.
by luckie815 on Mar 7, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the Ultimate Test
If he doesn’t get ahead of Rashied on the depth chart I might have to keep him listed as fodder
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Compared to What?
How does this compare with other General Managers? My gut thinks Angelos’s no better or no worse than the competition, but I would like to see the stats because we all know statistics never lie. LOL
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
by phastphil on Mar 7, 2009 10:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
What Team?
A comparison was definitely considered, but it takes some time and I don’t know every team well enough to make the same judgments as I do the Bears.
What team should I try as a gold standard? I was thinking the Patriots with Belicheck & Pioli would be one heckuva measuring stick. Any ideas on the standard to compare Angelo to? If the board can reach some kind of consensus I’ll do that team & GM, too
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned earlier in the week
that I was going to do a comparative analysis of how the Bears have fared over the years in the draft versus other teams. I may start by doing our division first, then maybe build on it and do the NFC, followed by the entire league. I have already started compiling some data, but it will be an arduous process indeed.
Good job allhailmark… I’ll save your post, and reference it once I get up and running with my article!
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 7, 2009 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spreadsheet
I made a spreadsheet to do all the counting/etc. I’ll be happy to share it
Thanks for your comments
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 6:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I Know
You did a great job though.
I don’t agree with every move that Angelo makes, but he does a much better job than some of his detractors believe. Someone out there on the web has to have some sort of team by team draft analysis, but you probably have to pay for it.
Thanks for the great post.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
by phastphil on Mar 7, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cool
I generally don’t post because the natural reaction is to find what’s wrong with what someone said instead of what’s right about it
Thanks for your comments
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 6:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your data
just seems skewed towards making Jerry Angelo’s drafts look successful. People here don’t criticize everything everyone posts. But if you create a study to analyze data, and your data analysis is biased or inaccurate (how else could you call Benson, Tank, Colombo, etc successful picks) then there is going to be criticism.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Mar 8, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
The point of the topic isn’t to say Jerry Angelo is a success or failure or to say who’s a good pick or who’s a bad pick. I have no pro-Angelo scheme and I’m not Larry Meyer in disguise.
The point is more about attempting to define the expectations of a draft pick that leaves out some of the gray area. I chose a single method for this. There are limitless ways to measure it. It will make some people think about it and it will make some people just point out a single statement as being wrong.
Obviously, some disagreement will happen and I’ve listened carefully to that so that I could refine the data. If you want to come up with another way I’d love to hear it. The way I did it follows some strict rules: was he a starter? It’s a yes or no question. Clearly there’s some interpretation but I don’t think that’s reason to call it biased or inaccurate.
But it doesn’t matter. I don’t mind the criticism, I just prefer for folks to stay positive with it.
If I change Benson, Tank and Columbo and whoever else you want it will give us another set of numbers. List who you want changed and I’ll show you the numbers. Fair?
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't have to
change anything for me.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Mar 8, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Patriots comparison.
I’d love to see that one, if you’re up for it.
—d
by itsugly on Mar 7, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I might try it
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 6:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd suggest using the Colts
if you’re measuring drafts. I consider the Pats a way to measure signings, but the Colts draft exceptionally well because of their cap constraints.
Hide your Molina, Lilly's free!
by halfblindcubbiegirl on Mar 9, 2009 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Angelo has done a fairly fine job.
Most of you do not realize how difficult it is to draft the right football players. I don’t care who the player is, it is a crap shoot with every player.
Passion For The Game, Loyal To The Name, Chicago Bears, I Trust In Thee, Standing Strong Since 1983.
by Haightminow on Mar 7, 2009 11:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Data
I think the data will, as you’ve said, point out that it’s a game of chance. Just reviewing some of the year’s drafts make you remember how bad some picks turn out. Everyone’s a prospect with potential until they take the field and show what they can do against the best in the world. Armchair GM is a no pressure job
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 7, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post and very good analysis to the point
by payton#34 on Mar 7, 2009 1:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Great concept
I love the post, a great way to look at it. Just wanted to point out that while J.A. may have a better track record as a drafter than he gets credit for, I think it’s fair to say that some draft picks that failed can be blamed on managements later approach. Did Bradley get a fair shake, was Benson let go too early, same with Tank and Columbo. They have shown the ability to start for other teams, is it Jerry’s fault they didn’t start for the Bears? Just an idea on why the stats may seem a little skewed towards successful drafts for J.A.
by Hurricanes becoming Bears on Mar 7, 2009 1:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Coaching
The point about coaching/management is a good one. All the examples you listed are good ones.
Manning is another guy whose position keep changing.
Columbo could play, he just had to get past injuries that delayed his career by 2-3 seasons. I think that was a good pick that just didn’t work out.
Tank was a bona-fide starter with the team
Bradley was breaking out then banned from the field following injury
Some of them never reached their potential with the Bears – Some of them never reached their potential anywhere. That’s the NFL I guess
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 8, 2009 6:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
comparison
I think the Patriots would be the best “gold standard” to compare the Bears against, if someone is to do the comparison. Would be interesting to see.
by JohnPaul on Mar 7, 2009 4:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Last two drafts have been dubious at best
Jerry Angelo needs to do better in the 2009 draft. No question about it. I’m not expecting more than one or two plays he drafts to have an impact as rookies, but longer term the 2009 draft has to produce 4 or 5 “solid” contributors.
by BLou on Mar 7, 2009 9:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like this post
While it’s true that some of your classifications could be argued, I like this approach. I get so annoyed when people go off on Angelo because of one pick he made that they don’t like. Nothing in the draft is 100%.
That said, the real standard would be to compare each year to the total number of starters/depth available that year. That way, you could see how effective he’s being for the amount of talent available that year.
by TCBullfrog on Mar 8, 2009 1:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Looks Like Jerr's 1 for 2
What’s your point? JA drafts no better than a monkey. Any idiot (even me) can get it right 50% of the time. Angelo is a colossal failure as a GM. As I’ve said b4, it’s a wonder he can find his ass with BOTH hands.
by DGURU on Mar 10, 2009 12:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The idea
was to get people to think about what constitutes success or failure in a draft outside of people saying things like:
Rex Sucks
Manning Sucks
Fire Angelo
Lovie’s a tard
JA is a monokey
I really can’t believe what i read sometimes
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on Mar 12, 2009 5:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
