- Joined
- Nov 16, 1998
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 2,440
Offline
Return vs. Capital
So now we come to the true test of drafting ability. How much return did each team get relative to the draft capital it had? We can find out by dividing each team's draft return by its draft capital in each year, then expressing that as a percentage. A score of 100% means that teams got the talent they were expected to get given how much draft capital they had. That's a league-average GM in drafting ability.Draft Return vs. Draft Capital, 2010-2019 | ||||||||||||
Team | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 10-Yr | 5-Yr |
SEA | 132% | 224% | 236% | 77% | 88% | 175% | 117% | 107% | 121% | 74% | 135% | 111% |
GB | 178% | 121% | 90% | 206% | 125% | 94% | 139% | 113% | 87% | 69% | 120% | 98% |
DAL | 154% | 125% | 60% | 111% | 175% | 104% | 163% | 103% | 110% | 62% | 120% | 118% |
PIT | 188% | 125% | 119% | 120% | 90% | 71% | 99% | 146% | 83% | 114% | 117% | 103% |
NO | 125% | 119% | 164% | 143% | 67% | 72% | 128% | 151% | 70% | 148% | 114% | 111% |
BAL | 61% | 138% | 85% | 175% | 108% | 94% | 94% | 73% | 185% | 118% | 113% | 113% |
KC | 70% | 108% | 73% | 94% | 143% | 165% | 142% | 141% | 71% | 185% | 113% | 142% |
NE | 139% | 95% | 121% | 128% | 123% | 155% | 190% | 60% | 71% | 41% | 112% | 102% |
WAS | 98% | 102% | 115% | 118% | 154% | 108% | 65% | 103% | 73% | 138% | 108% | 101% |
ATL | 84% | 154% | 56% | 108% | 97% | 116% | 149% | 84% | 117% | 96% | 108% | 113% |
MIN | 94% | 76% | 89% | 90% | 104% | 169% | 51% | 172% | 94% | 124% | 106% | 126% |
HOU | 91% | 129% | 137% | 111% | 69% | 89% | 87% | 142% | 127% | 98% | 106% | 108% |
IND | 108% | 68% | 96% | 54% | 117% | 104% | 122% | 111% | 146% | 83% | 105% | 117% |
CAR | 114% | 73% | 123% | 129% | 132% | 128% | 80% | 119% | 97% | 66% | 104% | 99% |
MIA | 135% | 114% | 117% | 50% | 108% | 108% | 100% | 86% | 118% | 119% | 103% | 106% |
CHI | 128% | 80% | 60% | 149% | 98% | 73% | 112% | 108% | 104% | 162% | 101% | 103% |
PHI | 90% | 104% | 128% | 117% | 55% | 90% | 131% | 69% | 111% | 83% | 98% | 95% |
DEN | 130% | 102% | 129% | 58% | 123% | 83% | 131% | 53% | 86% | 81% | 98% | 85% |
BUF | 44% | 83% | 101% | 98% | 94% | 129% | 54% | 162% | 107% | 130% | 97% | 115% |
DET | 86% | 33% | 86% | 143% | 101% | 93% | 128% | 111% | 99% | 61% | 95% | 97% |
OAK | 79% | 99% | 121% | 102% | 171% | 68% | 61% | 63% | 101% | 90% | 94% | 79% |
LAR | 67% | 70% | 87% | 86% | 94% | 125% | 71% | 148% | 103% | 131% | 94% | 114% |
CIN | 132% | 116% | 105% | 94% | 91% | 50% | 113% | 81% | 100% | 53% | 94% | 78% |
SF | 116% | 110% | 35% | 73% | 74% | 100% | 63% | 92% | 101% | 140% | 93% | 100% |
NYG | 98% | 52% | 43% | 84% | 117% | 98% | 77% | 91% | 89% | 120% | 90% | 97% |
LAC | 91% | 84% | 86% | 116% | 40% | 127% | 65% | 120% | 107% | 57% | 90% | 95% |
ARI | 104% | 85% | 108% | 105% | 81% | 141% | 52% | 64% | 71% | 85% | 90% | 84% |
JAX | 53% | 47% | 60% | 59% | 127% | 63% | 114% | 77% | 126% | 137% | 87% | 101% |
TEN | 76% | 95% | 81% | 49% | 123% | 58% | 96% | 77% | 105% | 137% | 87% | 90% |
TB | 62% | 67% | 111% | 110% | 78% | 126% | 47% | 78% | 78% | 111% | 86% | 90% |
CLE | 84% | 96% | 80% | 39% | 61% | 77% | 80% | 63% | 77% | 164% | 78% | 81% |
NYJ | 47% | 164% | 85% | 77% | 42% | 51% | 108% | 72% | 68% | 66% | 74% | 71% |
Percentage of CarAV generated by drafted players (relative to total CarAV in the draft), divided by percentage of expected CarAV from draft picks used. |
If you look at the top teams on this list, you see a lot of well-run organizations with a lot of stability: Seattle, Green Bay, Dallas, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Baltimore, Kansas City, New England. It seems like Dallas has done a great job of drafting, but they haven't really had the success these other teams had. Maybe their coaching wasn't that good? We can also see how badly New England has drafted in the last three years. It doesn't look quite as bad as the raw numbers, but it's still very bad, easily the worst in that time. But over the last five years, they are right about at average, so maybe things aren't that bad?
At the bottom of the list you have Tampa Bay (86%), Cleveland (78%), and the Jets (74%). Jets fans are not surprised, I'm sure, with only two above-average drafts in the last decade but three in the bottom 10%. They are at the bottom of the list for the last five years as well. Tampa Bay has struggled in the draft, not getting what they should have out of their third-best draft capital, while Cleveland has squandered the best draft capital of the decade. At least the 2019 draft is looking good for Cleveland, but that's only because they had very little draft capital (very unusual for them). The actual raw return is still below average. The factory of sadness is still open for business.