How many starters do we need to draft each year?

[John_Viveiros]

I was reading somewhere on the internet - maybe a story on Bleacher Report - about the 2010 draft. In it, they basically suggested that you needed to pick up two starters out of every draft. That seemed a bit simplistic to me, so I did a little back of the envelope calculations. First of all, the caveat. We all agree that, even if Toby Gerhart probably could start on a few teams, there's an itsy bitsy difference between him as a starter and AD. So "starter" isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of what you are looking for.

So I was thinking what the average career for a starter in the NFL would be. If you think something on the order of 6 years starting, and you have 24 positions on a team, roughly (including punter and kicker), which simplifies the math, you need to replace four starters each year. Either you do it through your draft, or someone else's. Anyhoo, that's a pretty scary thought if your team is drafting roughly 8 players (7 rounds and about 1 compensatory let's say). You would need to hit on half. So that just doesn't pass the smell test.

So I got to thinking about quality starters. As fans, we can more-or-less tell the difference between quality starters, and "just guys filling a slot". For the Vikes offense last year, Kalil, Sullivan, Loadholt, AD, Felton, Harvin, and Rudolph were solid. The others were "just guys" to me. Now, for example, I thought Jenkins was a decent player, and in watching the season over again, found he made a lot of important catches. I just thought that another 60 or so receivers in the league probably could have done the same. On defense, we had 3/4 of the defensive line as quality guys (still haven't replaced big Pat), Greenway was great, Smith was a stud, we got pretty good defense out of one CB slot (Winfield). The rest were just guys (at this point, although I have hopes for better things from our CB's). To complete the team, clearly the probowl kicker is a quality starter, and they punter who was just cut was just a guy, more or less. So I have the Vikings with roughly 14 quality starters last year (ignoring injuries to Harvin and eventually Winfield), and the rest are positions we basically are looking to upgrade (Ponder excluded from the upgrade search - he's got another year to prove it).

So we have a 10 win playoff team with 14 quality starters. If you think of those guys as long term starters (like many have been) you are getting close to the 'two starters per year' needed to build your squad, with the rest essentially being filled by journeymen. But that's the Vikings (and we might have a quibble about one player or another - 13-15 quality guys - but I don't think it invalidates the idea). Does anyone have a handle on another team's roster to make this same kind of call for, say, the Bears/Packers/Lions, or maybe a truly downtrodden team like the Jets?

[Eli]

Here's a good resource:

http://www.profootballrosters.com/2012/ ... ed-charts/

It's a slippery question. Like you say, there are bona-fide starters and then there are guys who start only until you can replace them. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's years. I think what you really look for are _immediate_ starters. Guys who come in and start their rookie years and then stay in the starting lineup. A team has to have an unusually solid squad not to need at least one or two of those every year.

There's also the factor of free agency, but I suppose you might consider that a wash. You'll lose some good players after their rookie contracts, but you'll also pick up some from other teams. Trades are rare enough these days that they can almost be ignored.

[losperros]

Since the Vikings are building through the draft and supplementing through the free agency, then I think the two starters from each draft theory works for their team. Of course, one has to consider that NFL teams use a lot of "role" players these days, meaning that not everyone is expected to be an every down player.

I also agree with Eli that a team would probably have an exceptionally good and durable roster not to need at least two starters from their draft class every year.

[mondry]

Because football is such a team sport, I think you really need to draft at least one difference maker (Harvin, Kalil, Smith, etc) who's going to hopefully be a part of your team for a long time. Then you'd want at least one above average starter, not necessarily a perennial probowler but a Chad Greenway kind of guy. Then at least one average starter who isn't anything super special but could start for a lot of other teams as well, Toby Gerhart, Jarius Wright, Everson Griffin, etc. Of course those 3 specific names could actually be studs but haven't had their full chance yet or are still developing but as far as drafting goes that's pretty much what you want out of those 4th or later round guys. (not gerhart in this case)

That makes for 3 new starters, and you can possibly get the 4th from FA, lucking out in the late rounds / undrafted FA's, or teams practice squads.

If you look at how this all played out in 2013

#1 Patterson is hopefully the difference maker
#2 Sharif Floyd and Rhodes both could potentially be difference makers, but have a great shot at being above average starters
#3 Jeff locke, Gerald Hodges, and Michael Mauti are all candidates for that "average" starter role.
#4 Greg Jennings

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Floyd or Rhodes have less of a chance than Patterson but as year 1 difference makers given K.will and the CB situation this seems more likely to play out. It's also just to fit the criteria of what I think a "successful" draft / off season would look like. If Patterson ends up an above average starter and Floyd is the difference maker than so be it! If we get multiple difference makers than look out...

Another thing I'll say is that I actually think drafting average (so good but not great) players is SUPER important. If you nail every draft pick with a probowler, you got 3-4 years till they need to be paid a LOT more, drafting too well would actually increase the rate of how many new starters you would need because you simply can't afford to pay everyone AD / Harvin money. Of course if you are that good at drafting you could just draft their stud replacements but you get the idea. Every team NEEDS role players IMO.

[PacificNorseWest]

Are we talking immediate starters? Because a lot of the better teams don't always necessarily draft for starters, but for depth because some of their later round picks in previous years ultimately make their way to starters.

Seattle is a good example of that this year. They're carrying over just about all their starters and only drafted for depth or for future impact. It's rare, but it's what the best of the best can afford.

[John_Viveiros]

Are we talking immediate starters? Because a lot of the better teams don't always necessarily draft for starters, but for depth because some of their later round picks in previous years ultimately make their way to starters.

Seattle is a good example of that this year. They're carrying over just about all their starters and only drafted for depth or for future impact. It's rare, but it's what the best of the best can afford.

So can you speak with knowledge of the Seattle roster? Even if they are returning starters, are they guys they want, or guys they just can't replace at this time?

I'm completely unfamiliar with the non-skill-positions on the Seahawks. How many of their offensive linemen are of the Kalil/Sullivan/Loadholt grade, and how many look like our guard situation. It's kind of the way I see the Packers. Fabulous skill guys. But would they switch out nearly every offensive lineman from the position he has now if they had the chance?

Mondry: I liked your idea of the three tiers. Each draft, you want a star, you want an above average starter, and you want another guy who doesn't hurt you when you have to play him. ...Bare minimum to keep the team competitive.

[Mothman]

So we have a 10 win playoff team with 14 quality starters. If you think of those guys as long term starters (like many have been) you are getting close to the 'two starters per year' needed to build your squad, with the rest essentially being filled by journeymen. But that's the Vikings (and we might have a quibble about one player or another - 13-15 quality guys - but I don't think it invalidates the idea). Does anyone have a handle on another team's roster to make this same kind of call for, say, the Bears/Packers/Lions, or maybe a truly downtrodden team like the Jets?

I think I could do it with the Bears roster. I'll give it a shot later.

[PacificNorseWest]

So can you speak with knowledge of the Seattle roster? Even if they are returning starters, are they guys they want, or guys they just can't replace at this time?

I'm completely unfamiliar with the non-skill-positions on the Seahawks. How many of their offensive linemen are of the Kalil/Sullivan/Loadholt grade, and how many look like our guard situation. It's kind of the way I see the Packers. Fabulous skill guys. But would they switch out nearly every offensive lineman from the position he has now if they had the chance?

Pete did a massive overhaul with roster he took over and the offensive line was the first position he solidified. All but one of their starters for this coming season were drafted in 2009 or later (Giacomini - 2008). Pete came prior to the 2010 season and drafted 3 of their starters from 2010 to 2013. They also have another prized 1st rounder from that 2010 draft that has been injured pretty much his entire time in Seattle, but he was slated to start. These are all guys that Pete wanted and groomed into starters, if not there from day 1, so he's very confident with his starting group.

The biggest need for that team was another receiver and defensive line and linebacker depth. They took care of all of that in free agency with top tier free agents at each position. Harvin, Bennett, and Avril. So, they were able to get rid of their first round pick because Harvin was essentially the only missing piece on offense. They simply drafted for depth as evidenced by taking two RB's when they already have Lynch and Turbin. It's an embarassment of riches.

Very similar to how the 49ers drafted last year...For depth.

[John_Viveiros]

I think I could do it with the Bears roster. I'll give it a shot later.

Thanks Moth...

I'm surprised I didn't get any pushback on my eval of the Vikes players. You always think we should be able to agree more or less on these things (like our guards being just guys) but it's always interesting when it turns out to be true.

[jackal]

As far as defense ..

Hoping Rhodes is a total stud at CB and Cook has his best year

Harrison Smith is a stud and are other safety was okay nothing great ..

Green way had another great year .. are other LB's were not good and the worst
part of our defense IMO..

IMO Jarad Allen needs to let Everson Griffen have a few snaps .. Allen is a great player
but he is not young anymore and i think he would benefit from this overall.. I know
Griffen would

[John_Viveiros]

Not purposely trying to revive my thread...

The Bleacher Report article on AD listed a couple interesting tidbits about the lengths of NFL careers. We all know the "average" career length is pretty short, but listen to these stats:

The NFL Players Association claims the average career of an NFL player is 3.30 years, with the average career of a running back at 2.57 years.

The NFL qualifies this statistic in claiming the average career of a rookie making a club's opening day roster is 6.0 years and players with at least one Pro Bowl selection or appearance last 11.70 years.

That actually makes a lot of sense. So if you figure you maybe have half a team of guys who have made the probowl if you are good and lucky, you need to replace a stud every year or so. If half the rest of the guys are solid starters (6 year career), you need one of those each year. And you need to at least fill the other 6 slots with almost-decent journeymen (Jasper Brinkley anyone), one per year or so.