NFL Draft Accuracy By Volume (1 Viewer)

[BreesusSaves]

So I figured I'd do some examining of the Saints approach to the draft of "F dem picks" and constantly trading away picks to move up and compared it to the teams currently leading their divisions, or are a great team stuck in a loaded division (looking at you NFC North), or in playoff contention. This is over a five year span, so dating back from 2020 to the present.

By default, a team is given 7 picks per draft.

The AFC East leading Bills have made 39 picks, 7.8 picks per draft.
The AFC West leading Chiefs have made 36 picks, 7.2 picks per draft.
The AFC North leading Ravens have made 44 picks, 8.8 picks per draft.
The AFC South leading Texans have made 37 picks, 7.4 picks per draft.
The NFC East leading Eagles have made 40 picks, 8 picks per draft.
The NFC West leading Rams have made 50 picks, 10 picks per draft.
The NFC South leading Succaneers have made 37 picks, 7.4 picks per draft.
The NFC North leading Vikings have made 49 picks, 9.8 picks per draft.
The NFC North second place for now Lions have made 38 picks, 7.6 picks per draft.
The NFC North somehow third place Packers have made 53 picks, 10.6 picks per draft.

The Commanders have made 42 picks, 8.4 picks per draft.
The Steelers have made 36 picks, 7.2 picks per draft.
The Chargers have made 39 picks, 7.8 picks per draft.
The Broncos have made 41 picks, 8.2 picks per draft.
The Bengals have made 41 picks, 8.2 picks per draft.
The chokers in Georgia have made 38 picks, 7.6 picks per draft.
The Dolphins have made 33 picks, 6.6 picks per draft.

The 49ers fall from grace this season has been remarkable, but they've played in 3 of the 5 NFC Championship games including this season. 39 picks, 7.8 picks per draft.

Going back to 2000, more than two decades, the Patriots have drafted less than 7 players just TWICE.

For those who haven't seen my previous posts, the Saints have made 29 picks, 5.8 picks per draft.

Since the new era Saints started in 2006, the Saints have made less than 7 picks in 12 drafts. (How much did Drew Brees fool Payton/front office into thinking they were geniuses?) It is interesting to see that Payton in his first draft after being crippled in 2023 by the Wilson trade, Denver had 7 picks. Will be interesting to see if he was a driving force behind the Saints "fork dem picks" strategy or if he continues to make 7+ picks per draft and shows Loomis was the one doing it. Loomis to his credit has left the last two drafts with 14 picks, 7 and 7. Perhaps he's learned?

The back to back defending champs Kansas City have made 36 picks over five years, one pick more than the default allotment so even they value draft picks despite their elite status. Almost like the best team in the league knows its roster is going to get raided regularly and they need to bring in plenty of talent every season to reload.

Now I am sure there are people who will say "well there are bottom feeders who also make a lot of picks", yes, and? Just one team averages less than 7 picks per draft and is in playoff contention. And they're trending down: the Miami Dolphins. The Dolphins made just 4 picks in 2022, 4 picks in 2023, and 7 picks in 2024. There is a lot of discussion about a decline in talent and depth on the Dolphins roster.

The draft is not an exact science, it is just a whole bunch of educated guesses. The more educated guesses you get, the more chances you get to be right.

 

[B4YOU]

Our best draft was due to having 6 picks in the first 3 rounds in 2017.

Since then, we have undervalued 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks. We only averaged 3.3 picks in the first 4 rounds and 2.67 picks in the first 3 rounds since 2017. When we trade up, it's not for QBs or for top 5 picks. We have averaged more comp picks than most teams. This is due to bleeding FA talent and not resigning comparable talent. That's us losing starter to quality depth players for guys with a 50-60% chance to make a team. Not start, but make a team.

Our problem appears to be a combination of "one-pick away" and "drafting for need" mindset, cap issues, and undervaluing volume of picks for draft position. At the end of the day, short-sighted thinking and cap management is slowly draining the team of talent.

 

[St. Widge]

I agree we need to make more picks, but out of curiosity how many picks have the Browns, Jets, Raiders, Giants, and Panthers made over the same time period?

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Our best draft was due to having 6 picks in the first 3 rounds in 2017.

Since then, we have undervalued 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks. We only averaged 3.3 picks in the first 4 rounds and 2.67 picks in the first 3 rounds since 2017. When we trade up, it's not for QBs or for top 5 picks. We have averaged more comp picks than most teams. This is due to bleeding FA talent and not resigning comparable talent. That's us losing starter to quality depth players for guys with a 50-60% chance to make a team. Not start, but make a team.

Our problem appears to be a combination of "one-pick away" and "drafting for need" mindset, cap issues, and undervaluing volume of picks for draft position. At the end of the day, short-sighted thinking and cap management is slowly draining the team of talent.

Was, despite people not wanting to admit it - Loomis made a conscious decision to distance himself from that model starting last year. It's why we considered a trade back w/ Rams had Bowers been on the board, and it's why we were virtually onlookers in FA. I expect that pivot to continue. Some of the arguments on this board are legit, but some are pretending like the pivot didn't already start and they just want to stay upset about something that arleady happened and lead to a lot of winning seasons.

Can't function that way anymore and the FO knows it

Now whether they do a full scale reboot or a soft one depends on how they feel about taking their medicine all in one season. I'm on the thinking a full reset would be easier to execute in 2026 but if they're ok w/ cutting veterans while paying them to play for other teams, yet removing their talent from the team then you can certainly start it this year.

I just don't see the point in paying people not to play for you. You're locked into some of these iffy contracts, might as well keep the talent on the roster until you can bettger replace it. Either way, you do it next season is going to be rough, depends on how competitive you want to be.

 

[Hedon James]

I agree we need to make more picks, but out of curiosity how many picks have the Browns, Jets, Raiders, Giants, and Panthers made over the same time period?

I thought the same thing. If those teams (perennial cellar-dwellers) make in excess of 7 picks per draft, that would diminish the argument that volume (by itself) is a solution. I wholeheartedly agree that 7-10 shots at the dart board, year after year, gives you a greater chance to hit the bullseye than only taking 5-6 shots a year. NO DOUBT! But it also follows that if you're taking 7-10 shots at the dart board, and only duplicating the results of those who take 5-6 shots a year, I think the conclusion might be that You blow at darts, and someone else with greater accuracy should be tossing them?!

 

[BreesusSaves]

Our best draft was due to having 6 picks in the first 3 rounds in 2017.

Since then, we have undervalued 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks. We only averaged 3.3 picks in the first 4 rounds and 2.67 picks in the first 3 rounds since 2017. When we trade up, it's not for QBs or for top 5 picks. We have averaged more comp picks than most teams. This is due to bleeding FA talent and not resigning comparable talent. That's us losing starter to quality depth players for guys with a 50-60% chance to make a team. Not start, but make a team.

Our problem appears to be a combination of "one-pick away" and "drafting for need" mindset, cap issues, and undervaluing volume of picks for draft position. At the end of the day, short-sighted thinking and cap management is slowly draining the team of talent.

My numbers include comp picks so it shows just how much the Saints were trading away picks. Absolutely crazy doing this while running the tightest cap in NFL history. You'd have thought they would be hording picks like the Packers and Rams with this cap model, instead they did the opposite.

I agree we need to make more picks, but out of curiosity how many picks have the Browns, Jets, Raiders, Giants, and Panthers made over the same time period?

The reality is almost every team values draft picks, except the team that really needed to value draft picks. We have seen a shift in philosophy from Loomis the last two years which is good, but frankly it should have never been needed. This should have been the philosophy from the start.

 

[St. Widge]

I thought the same thing. If those teams (perennial cellar-dwellers) make in excess of 7 picks per draft, that would diminish the argument that volume (by itself) is a solution. I wholeheartedly agree that 7-10 shots at the dart board, year after year, gives you a greater chance to hit the bullseye than only taking 5-6 shots a year. NO DOUBT! But it also follows that if you're taking 7-10 shots at the dart board, and only duplicating the results of those who take 5-6 shots a year, I think the conclusion might be that You blow at darts, and someone else with greater accuracy should be tossing them?!

Yep. I agree we need more rolls of the dice to better our odds, but I also think in addition to taking more picks, we just need to get better at drafting. My suspicion is that the Browns, Panthers, Jets, Raiders, and Giants have likely made a lot of picks over the last 5 years (although the Browns traded many away for Watson and the Panthers traded a lot away for Young, so maybe not them) but they have little to show for it because of bad talent evaluation.

 

[B4YOU]

I agree we need to make more picks, but out of curiosity how many picks have the Browns, Jets, Raiders, Giants, and Panthers made over the same time period?

All are over > 7. All have QB/owner issues that the Saints don't have - thankfully.

Browns gave away so many 1st and 2nd round picks while missing on Watson that the total # of picks matter less than the quality. Only having one 2nd round pick and ZERO 1st round picks in the last 3 years is franchise mismanagement. Giants missed on Daniels vs Barkley while overpaying the QB by 10M+/yr. Jets had an injured Rodgers season followed by an owner that sabotaged this season 5 weeks in. Panthers were full rebuild the last two years and Young might not be a starter. Owner is also meddlesome. Raiders can't figure out the QB spot for the last 2 years.

Benson doesn't hurt the team. We have gotten servicable QB play the last two years, but QB injury probably cost us 2 wins this year.

 

[44slayer]

I thought the same thing. If those teams (perennial cellar-dwellers) make in excess of 7 picks per draft, that would diminish the argument that volume (by itself) is a solution. I wholeheartedly agree that 7-10 shots at the dart board, year after year, gives you a greater chance to hit the bullseye than only taking 5-6 shots a year. NO DOUBT! But it also follows that if you're taking 7-10 shots at the dart board, and only duplicating the results of those who take 5-6 shots a year, I think the conclusion might be that You blow at darts, and someone else with greater accuracy should be tossing them?!

I agree mostly. But over a 5 year period drafting more quality players, more players worthy of being drafted cannot possibly have anything but a positive impact on developing quality starters and depth.

When we start worrying about comparing ourselves to the Browns, Raiders, Jets and Panthers, its gotten about as bad as it can get. Those are 4 of the worst run franchises in all of sports.

There are other factors, but when you are constantly going into the offseason being the #1 team over the cap and digging out of a 80+ million overage, you need the picks as much, if not more than....anyone else. Depth, is not depth, regardless of how many times people repeat it on here. Quality depth keeps you in games. It keeps you alive to get bodies back. UDFA/Oft injured depth gets you to 5-11. I believe the Lions have the most man games lost this season. And they are 13-2.

 

[St. Widge]

The reality is almost every team values draft picks, except the team that really needed to value draft picks. We have seen a shift in philosophy from Loomis the last two years which is good, but frankly it should have never been needed. This should have been the philosophy from the start.

I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm just curious how many of the perennially bad teams have taken a lot of picks over the last 5 years. Because if they have taken a lot of picks, taking a lot of picks alone is not enough for the Saints. We also need to get better at drafting, which I think is almost certainly the case.

 

[44slayer]

I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm just curious how many of the perennially bad teams have taken a lot of picks over the last 5 years. Because if they have taken a lot of picks, taking a lot of picks alone is not enough for the Saints. We also need to get better at drafting, which I think is almost certainly the case.

All 32 teams wish they could draft worse.

If you hit on 50%, and you draft 6 vs 50% and you draft 8.......

 

[St. Widge]

All 32 teams wish they could draft worse.

If you hit on 50%, and you draft 6 vs 50% and you draft 8.......

I get that and I agree that we need to draft more players. But it's also the case that we need to draft better players with the picks we have. If you draft 8 and hit on 60% instead of 50% . . .

And yes, it's even more important for this team given that we don't have money to sign free agents in any quantity or quality.

 

[44slayer]

I get that and I agree that we need to draft more players. But it's also the case that we need to draft better players with the picks we have. If you draft 8 and hit on 60% instead of 50% . . .

And yes, it's even more important for this team given that we don't have money to sign free agents in any quantity or quality.

Regardless of what % we hit on, its hard to argue that the lack of picks has led us to where we are with the quality of our depth. Other factors like extending dinosaurs and signing guys out of Touro doesnt help.

Im not saying you are wrong. No doubt we need to draft better. But we need to draft more because it seems easier to draft more and get more quality than to just say "draft better". I dont think we are making a choice to draft poorly. Either way we are drafting how we draft. More picks = more hits.

 

[B4YOU]

Was, despite people not wanting to admit it - Loomis made a conscious decision to distance himself from that model starting last year. It's why we considered a trade back w/ Rams had Bowers been on the board, and it's why we were virtually onlookers in FA. I expect that pivot to continue. Some of the arguments on this board are legit, but some are pretending like the pivot didn't already start and they just want to stay upset about something that arleady happened and lead to a lot of winning seasons.

Can't function that way anymore and the FO knows it

Now whether they do a full scale reboot or a soft one depends on how they feel about taking their medicine all in one season. I'm on the thinking a full reset would be easier to execute in 2026 but if they're ok w/ cutting veterans while paying them to play for other teams, yet removing their talent from the team then you can certainly start it this year.

I just don't see the point in paying people not to play for you. You're locked into some of these iffy contracts, might as well keep the talent on the roster until you can bettger replace it. Either way, you do it next season is going to be rough, depends on how competitive you want to be.

I hope Loomis has really changed his model. I will need 1 more draft/offseason to really buy that we are shifting gears. I thought the Lattimore trade was solid and it looks better every week.

Agree, 2026 is the best time for a full reset. The amount of Carr's salary restructured this offseason will tell us Mickey's plans. I think Loomis only restructures 20M of the 31M possible and leaves space for an out in 2026.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Yep. I agree we need more rolls of the dice to better our odds, but I also think in addition to taking more picks, we just need to get better at drafting. My suspicion is that the Browns, Panthers, Jets, Raiders, and Giants have likely made a lot of picks over the last 5 years (although the Browns traded many away for Watson and the Panthers traded a lot away for Young, so maybe not them) but they have little to show for it because of bad talent evaluation.

I think under Ireland we'v been more successful than not in drafting, more or less the player away draft is what makes us look worse. When we've given Ireland 4-5 picks in the top 100 we've hit at a higher rate but since 2017 we've only done that once or twice. At most we've had 3 picks in the top 100 if I'm not mistaken, so I agree w/ the premise of the thread.

Give Ireland more picks and he'll give you more talent.