Merged: WRs don't make great draft investments

[DKphin]

Got my Draftmetrics book in the mail over the weekend and in browsing through it, I cringed at the Chapter Three conclusions because it shows why drafting wide receivers is often a risky proposition.
The folks at Draftmetrics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) studied NFL drafts from 1990-2009, and in those 20 years the return on so-called skill position players was bad and the return on wide receivers was, well, horrible.
Of the 677 wide receivers selected in the 20 years only 32 percent of them have enjoyed careers of five years or more. Obviously the percentage is driven down because those picked the past five years have not yet had the opportunity to play five years or more. But when you consider the same variables applied to other postions -- defensive linemen (40 percent), linebackers (41 percent), defensive backs (40 percent) and even punishing positions like RB (38 percent) -- they still yield a higher chance the player will play five years for you and the investment on a wide receiver begins to look prohibitive.
And the statistics aren't that much greater for wide receivers picked from 1990-99 who already had the opportunity for extended careers. Only 39 percent of them lasted five years or more while percentages at other positions soared into the 40s -- linebacker 46 percent, defensive lineman 50 percent, defensive back 49 percent.
Now here's the part that should scream buyer beware: A depressing 36 percent of wide receivers managed even a modest career length of two years with 25 percent not making NFL rosters at all. Only 10 percent started as rookies.
Wide receivers, Draftmetrics concludes, have the lowest percentage of players who last three years or more in the NFL.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Playmaker76]

Good article. However, to get a stud receiver you must pick one high in the draft unless they come from a small school, or they played with a poor college QB or a run oriented offense and couldn't show off their abilities, or if they had character issues.

[finfan54]

I knew this already. And if they do make it as a diva receiva the end up playing for 5 different teams and you were the sucker who invested big money in them originally.

Say no to Dez. Its so enticing but do not make this deal with the devil. He will burn ya.

[hemidemon]

Wouldn't surprise me if this is one of the reasons BP, and Ireland don't take WRs in the 1st round.

[Phin-Phan 66]

agreed. Dez is really enticing but I'm for Brandon Graham and then Mike Williams in the 3rd. If you are going to draft someone that may be questionable, don't do it in the first round.

Brandon Graham 1
Nate Allen or Morgan Burnett 2
Mike Williams 3
Torrell Troup 4

[BAMAPHIN 22]

Of the 677 wide receivers selected in the 20 years only 32 percent of them have enjoyed careers of five years or more. Obviously the percentage is driven down because those picked the past five years have not yet had the opportunity to play five years or more. But when you consider the same variables applied to other postions -- defensive linemen (40 percent), linebackers (41 percent), defensive backs (40 percent) and even punishing positions like RB (38 percent) -- they still yield a higher chance the player will play five years for you and the investment on a wide receiver begins to look prohibitive.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.