What positions are statistically the surest thing, and which have the highest bust rate? It's probably pretty hard to siphon through every pick of every draft, but if it was just kept to first and second rounders, how does it break down?

 

I haven't researched it at all, but my guess is that the premium positions are also the riskiest. QB and DE, specifically. My guess is that Offensive lineman tend to be the safest picks, with the least bust rate of all positions.

 

Do GMs ever take that into account when setting up a draft board? I wonder. Also, how would that translate to this draft, assuming they all did?

 

 

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Pretty sure you are correct with most/least risky.


DEs and QBs most likely have the highest bust rate and I believe DE is a little bit riskier. I would think the secondary is pretty risky as well.


OTs are safe because of all else fails they can normally shift to RT/guard and be somewhat successful.

---

One could argue that the safe picks, the O-Lineman, are also way less impactful.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Pretty sure you are correct with most/least risky.


DEs and QBs most likely have the highest bust rate and I believe DE is a little bit riskier. I would think the secondary is pretty risky as well.


OTs are safe because of all else fails they can normally shift to RT/guard and be somewhat successful.

I would have assumed that secondary would fall middle of the pack, somewhere around WRs. I could be wrong though.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I did find this article on it. It seems to break it down fairly well.

 

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.c...rst-round/

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

you could almost say that RB's for the fact that if you draft one high and miss on it it's a huge risk considering late round running backs have been just as productive as first rounders, Yes there are exceptions to this like everything. Which imo is why they're being devalued now more than ever 

---

Interesting to see that TE is considered the least risky pick, at least going by the data in that article. It is also interesting how they break it down from the first half of the first round and the second half, and how dramatically different the results are. 

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I did find this article on it. It seems to break it down fairly well.

 

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.c...rst-round/

 

"Again, as the quarterback position is abounding with high-profile busts, the AED for quarterbacks is the lowest of any position. In the spirit of traditional wisdom, positions on the offensive line have the highest AED in the top of the first round and the second highest in the bottom."

 

Wisdom.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

"Again, as the quarterback position is abounding with high-profile busts, the AED for quarterbacks is the lowest of any position. In the spirit of traditional wisdom, positions on the offensive line have the highest AED in the top of the first round and the second highest in the bottom."

 

Wisdom.

What was even more interesting is that the data shows it is far more successful to take your QB in the second half of the first round. I would have never guessed that. That is what history has shown though.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I would have assumed that secondary would fall middle of the pack, somewhere around WRs. I could be wrong though.

 

No data. Just my assumption. Most wide receivers coming out of college aren't very good at route runners and are poor at disguising what they will do so it seems like a tough transition.

---

What was even more interesting is that the data shows it is far more successful to take your QB in the second half of the first round. I would have never guessed that. That is what history has shown though.

 

Those in the lower half of the first round have lower expectations so the busts don't drag them down as much. If you look just at their CAV and disregard the expectations (which he doesn't in this particular article because it's about risk) I'm sure the top half would be far more successful.

 

He should really separate DTs from DEs instead of grouping them together under DL because one has a lot of busts and one is very safe. Also CB is very different from S but those are lumped under DB.

 

As he said in the last paragraph, only scratching the surface. I'd love to see the data on CAV broken out by GM to see who was the best talent evaluator over that time span.

---