Is Brian Orakpo or Everette Brown Already Better than Lawrence Jackson and Darryl Tapp?
by John Morgan on Apr 11, 2009 4:22 PM PDT
in Seahawks Player Analysis
Email
PrintIf Seattle selects Brian Orakpo at four, he will be the first defensive end taken in the 2008 draft. I'm dreading that possibility. It's significant that Orakpo is the first defensive end taken, because it gives us a rough idea of his development. Talent is lot more fluid than it looks on a draft board, but teams have enjoyed a reasonable amount of success evaluating the best player at an individual position. The first two defensive ends drafted average five sacks per season, a sack a season more than the defensive ends drafted third and fourth. That means Orakpo could be expected to be about one sack per season better than Lawrence Jackson, who was the third defensive end selected in 2008 draft. What I want to know is how much does Jackson's and Darryl Tapp's advantage in experience put them ahead of Orakpo, and when will Orakpo's potential overtake their experience? In other words, if Seattle is drafting Orakpo thinking it should try to "win now", is it in fact putting itself behind?
Data is from the 1982 season to the 2004 season. 1982 is the year the NFL officially started tracking sacks. The data encompasses 138 players over 23 seasons.
The answer is no. The first two defensive ends selected in a draft outperform the second two defensive ends selected in a draft throughout their respective careers. The former outperform the latter in their rookie season, and that rookie season outperforms the latter in each of the four following seasons. The data titled "Fool's Gold" is the set of player's selected with the seventh or eight pick that outperformed their group's average each of their first two seasons. Darryl Tapp belongs to this group. That's only eight players, but it's at least interesting to ponder if Tapp's best seasons are already behind him. The data titled "Late Bloomers" is 28 players that underperformed their group's average in their first season. Jackson belongs to this group. Though, on the whole, they continue to underperform the larger group, they do eventually show improvement. After five seasons, the Fool's Gold group and Late Bloomers group settle in at three sacks a season.
Sacks are just a proxy for a defensive end's total contributions, his disruptiveness. Seattle has invested a late first round pick and a late second round pick on Jackson and Tapp. The two project, working strictly from this data, as below average defensive ends. It might seem premature, but if Seattle selects a defensive end with the fourth overall pick, there's reason and data to support it. It's Seattle's best chance to select a cornerstone player on a defense with aspirations of greatness.
19 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice.
It’s definitely a way to continue improving our pass rush. It would also take a little bit away from losing Peterson? But alot invested in the position, assuming Kerney is still productive.
I’m not sure how I’d feel about Orakpo over a top tackle or maybe even Crabtree, but I would be excited at the idea of having him on our team regardless.
Let's go.
Just to make this clear
I do not want Seattle to draft Orakpo or even Everette Brown. I thought I would find that Tapp and Jackson’s head start in development would offset Orakpo’s presumed superior ability, but the results speak differently. I also think Tapp has a very good chance to exceed the “Fool’s Gold” bracket. For one, the sample is extremely small. He looks like he’ll stick in the league. Around the 7-8 group are guys like Aaron Schobel and Patrick Kerney in the 5-6 group.
My point is only, I went into this expecting one result and found another, and that result potentially dignifies Seattle selecting a defensive end with their first overall pick.
Groupings
One of the problems is that there’s a lot of variability where the 1-2 DEs and 3-4 DEs are selected. For example, in 2008 the top two DE’s were picked in the Top 10, with the third (LoJack) going at 20. But in 2004, the first two DE’s weren’t selected until picks 18 and 20, with the third going at #35.
Now, this doesn’t invalidate your results, but it does introduce significant noise. I think the question which we should be trying to answer is:
If Brian Orakpo is a “true” #4 pick DE talent, can we expect his initial production to exceed that of a “true” #20 pick talent with more years of NFL experience?
Your results suggest that the answer to this question is “Yes”, but I think there might be cleaner (i.e. less noisy) ways to answer it.
There's no such thing as a "true" #4 pick.
I think you are assuming there’s an absolute value to where a player is drafted, but there isn’t. I would click through the link, there’s a reason I grouped the players as I did.
Clearly there's no such thing
But you have to use something as a surrogate for true talent level. It’s not obvious to me that GMs are any better at picking players in the “correct” order (according to their future NFL production) than they are at picking them at the “correct” pick.
Well if you look at the scout accuracy
compiled by Brian Burke you’ll see that their is typically a drop off in production after the second pick and after the fourth pick. The problem with strict draft order is that for one, I don’t have any sort of data splitting players by actual pick (the sample would be way too small) or even region of pick, and that order and not just positional order is reliant on team needs and the overall quality of talent in the draft.
Of course, you’re not wrong. This projection is incomplete, and I wouldn’t say we could use it to predict the absolute value of defensive ends. I do think it tells us quite a bit about, in a global sense, what we can really expect from Lawrence Jackson and what Seattle could expect from an end that is rated best in class.
by John Morgan on Apr 12, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
You know what would be neat
would be to get the aggregate grading of each player by each team after the draft. Aaron Rodgers and Brady Quinn both fell to late in the 1st round and both could have been top 5 picks. But I wish we could see the gradings of each team (and maybe independent scouts) to see how each player stacked up in their eyes, and how the draft should have gone, and how Rodgers compares to Quinn. Of course no GM would give this info up, and if they did they’d only do it after a player retired or was near retirement.
Wasn't LoJack drafted #28 overall?
It couldn’t have been 20 if we were drafted at 25 and we traded back with Dallas…
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 12, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
How much of the data is influenced by
outliers? In 1994, McGinest and Joe Johnson were the first two DEs drafted and both put up great sack numbers in their careers. I don’t recall who was picked behind them, but I can’t imagine they even approach those two.
If I’m reading the table right, even the author acknowledges that the 1st DE pick has only been better than the 2nd DE pick 48% of the time and that the 3rd has been better than the 4th less than 40% of the time.
According to this research, the real value pick of DEs is the 2nd one chosen and to a lesser extent the 4th one as well.
Well I wouldn't call them outliers
an outlier is not simply a player that performs well above average, an outlier is something exceptional that could not otherwise be predicted. Like if a player were to die in a plane crash prior to his second season. That’s something that would influence that data, but does not meaningfully influence the data.
There’s tons of players in the first two picks that perform well above the average, but that’s the point. From Jim Jeffcoat to Bruce Smith to Leslie O’neal to Neil Smith to…well you get the point, the elite pass rushers are frequently drafted in the top two picks.
I agree though, the second defensive end taken has better value, but it’s very unlikely Seattle will be able to draft the second defensive end unless they are able to trade down.
by John Morgan on Apr 12, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Two points
The gist of what I was trying to say was, in how many instances were the 1st two DE picks better than the second 2 DE picks (DE picks 3 and 4)? Was it 18 of 21 years or is it closer to 12 of 21? Is the total sack data from a couple of “superstars” making it look more clearcut than it really is? I may look it up during the golf.
Second, why put the money into the first DE pick of the draft when a) that value can be better gained elsewhere (first QB according to an earlier analysis for instance), and b) Seattle can wait a year and see what they actually have with Jackson.
I looked up the sack data for the first four DEs drafted between 1982 and 2000. The earlier analysis really focused on sacks/year. If you look at just total sacks, it’s clear that the 1st DE pick outperforms the others:
1st pick: 59.4 sacks/career
2nd pick: 43.8
3rd pick: 33.7
4th pick: 31.5
I’m not sure why sacks/career is so different from sacks/year (busts given more opportunity on the roster, great players moving into situational roles later in career, etc.), but I think this gives us a more complete picture of what’s going on.
Of the 38 DE picks in the top 2, only 10 end up with less than 20 sacks in their career and nearly half (17) end up with at least 50. Of the 38 3rd and 4th DE picks, 17 end up with less than 20 sacks in their career and only 9 end up with at least 50.
Chris Doleman really skews the 3rd pick data (he has nearly 25% of those sacks) and he’s the only pick outside of the top 2 with more than 100 career sacks.
One thing Mayock said that made sense was
if you are drafting a linebacker in the 1st round, you want him to be able to stay on the field for all 3 downs. I would think the same could be said for DE’s. Orakpo and Brown are said to be good fits for 3-4 outside linebacker, given their size/speed combo, while Jackson and Ayers are more traditional 4-3 DE’s. Orakpo and Brown may get washed out by 300 lb OT’s on running plays, while the bigger Jackson and Ayers would be expected to hold up better and set the corner. Orakpo is certainly capable of playing 3-4 OLB or 4-3 DE, but in the latter case, would he be better than Jackson? Unless we’re moving to a 3-4 down the road, I have a hard time seeing Orakpo or Brown staying on the field.
I think Mayock is missing the forest for the trees. (or at least your paraphrased quote would imply such)
It goes without saying that a team wants their top ten pick to be as good as possible, including in a defensive end’s case having the ability to hold the point, but the value of a defensive end is heavily reliant on their pass rush. Ignoring the comparable pass rush abilities of Orakpo/Brown and Jackson/Ayers and instead comparing them on secondary skills sort of misses the point. It’s like saying Seneca Wallace is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning because you want a quarterback that can scramble.
by John Morgan on Apr 13, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Evaluation strictly on sacks
This evaluation is strictly judging sacks. Does not take into consideration run defense or “hurries” or “pressures” or knock downs. Great point by Mayock- you want to have an all-around player in the first ten picks of the draft, not just a specialist.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
