First-Round Picks: Beware of Draft Stock Jail

Are first-round picks held to unfair, ill-informed standards by fans and media? 

First-round picks beware: You might be in for a career-long fight with your draft stock. You might end up in a little place I call “draft stock jail.” 
 
To be clear, being labeled a bust isn’t the same as landing in draft stock jail. Bust is a term relegated to players who come in with high expectations and, for reasons including injuries or ineffective play, never make an impact. Those who end up in draft stock jail, conversely, may have been team captains, Super Bowl winners or even carved out a spot in their team’s record books. 
 
A.J. Hawk fits the description perfectly. 
 
Hawk was a defensive anchor for the Packers for the better part of his nine-year career in Green Bay, reflected in his team-record 1,118 tackles. He played in 142 of a possible 144 regular-season games and led the team in tackles five times. Hawk was a leader on and off the field. He was a quality linebacker by any definition. 
 
And for all that, he’s remains imprisoned—even after retirement—in draft stock jail. Hawk was drafted with the fifth overall pick in the draft and so in the eyes of many fans, anything short of a dominating, multiple Pro Bowl career somehow means he wasn’t worth the pick, or he didn’t live up to it, or someone else should have been taken in his place. 
 
For the record, this writer thinks that’s a load of crap. 
 
After you’re drafted, the pick at which you were taken recedes from importance. What matters is whether or not you can contribute. You may have more expectations pressed upon you, but that’s your problem. It’s not the problem of the coaches or the front office. The NFL, like all other professional sports, is a ruthless business. If you can’t hack it, you’ll be out of the league and out of a job. If you’re being paid loads more than the undrafted free agent one locker over, the team might be incentivized to take their time and let things play out, but often not at the expense of a roster spot. 
 
Datone Jones’ time in Green Bay may be a lot different than Derek Sherrod’s, but the fact is they’re not here for ultimately the same reason. Their first-round pick status didn't appear to be a factor in the decisions. On the flip side you have Clay Matthews, Bryan Bulaga and Nick Perry, who may still be judged against their draft stock by fans, but whose first-round status is likely a distant memory among front office staff. 
 
If a first-round pick is thought of as a key investment of team resources, then it extends logically that a second-round pick has comparably less value. Does anyone think that Kevin King would honestly be under any more pressure had the Packers taken him at pick No. 29 rather than trade back? That's ridiculous. Had the Packers selected Jordy Nelson in the first round should we have been less patient with his professional development? We might have been less patient, but that's now saying we (hypothetical) should have been. 
 
Offseasons are about growing and developing your roster, whether that’s adding players via free agency or through the draft. One of the developments this offseason has been putting Randall in a more advantageous position, both for himself personally and for the betterment of the defense. Randall has the opportunity to become the full-time nickel cornerback, a position of growing significance. That he could end up on the bench on the rare occasion the defense plays base is no more a demotion than a pass-rush specialist sitting out on run-stopping situations. 
 
Randall isn’t being paid to be a first-round pick or a boundary corner. He’s being paid to be an impact player, something he stands to do at nickel cornerback.
 
According to Pro Football Focus, Randall allowed passer ratings of 61.5 and 66.0 at left and right slot cornerback, respectively. Though the sample size was small (28 snaps) that’s largely due to the fact that injuries forced the Packers’ hands in where they could play Randall. 
 
Again, he’s being paid to be an impact player. That’s the investment the Packers have made in him—the same, by the way, that they make in players not, you know, selected in the first round. To wag our fingers and pontificate on the substance of the move belies the fact that we’re just guessing. 
 
Two of the Green Bay’s finest players, trench warriors David Bakhtiari and Mike Daniels, are former fourth-round picks. The only significance there is the confidence-instilling fact that not all great players come in the first 32 picks and that Ted Thompson and Co. are pretty good at plucking value on the second and third days of the draft. 
 
This notion of holding a player’s draft stock over their head is a creation of fans and media. I can’t imagine it’s a serious factor for people making decisions.
NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (26)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
BPEARSON21's picture

June 23, 2017 at 03:27 pm

See the article below posted on Packers Note:

"Let’s stop with all the nonsense. The decision makers in Green Bay are moving Damarious Randall to the slot cornerback position because they’ve come to the realization he can’t get the job done on the outside. It’s really as simple as that.

Here’s what cornerbacks coach Joe Whitt said about the move at last week’s minicamp:

“It’s a lot of what he did in college. He’s comfortable being inside, he has good quickness, he has good instincts, he has the ability to see and catch the flash of the football, he’s a smart player. I think he’s becoming a better communicator on the field and so he has the ability to be successful inside there.”

I don’t overtly disagree with anything Whitt said, but to try and spin this as a positive development (hey Wisconsin media, I’m talking to you) is simply disingenuous. You can be sure general manager Ted Thompson didn’t expect his first round pick from only two years ago to be a role player in 2017. And while the slot corner position is undeniably a big part of coordinator Dom Capers’ defense, it’s still a part-time role.

Even if Randall is on the field for 75 to 80 percent of the plays, that still means he won’t be on the field for perhaps as many as 200 snaps over the course of the regular season. That equates to approximately three full games. Having a former No. 1 pick standing on the sidelines for that many snaps can’t be considered a positive – especially when you consider the cornerbacks who figure to be playing while he’s watching.

It would be one thing if Tramon Williams and Sam Shields were the starting corners, but that won’t be the case in 2017. The men playing ahead of Randall in the base figure to be Davon House and either LaDarius Gunter or Kevin King. Thinks about that for a minute. The Packers prefer a player benched and cut by the Jags, a former undrafted free agent with 4.6+ speed and a rookie to a player selected 30th overall just 26 months ago.

None of this is to suggest I disagree with the decision to move Randall to the slot full-time. Unlike most, I wasn’t overly impressed by his play as a rookie. And like most, I was nauseated by his play last season. While the 24-year-old certainly has the skill set needed to play outside, he hasn’t shown the ability to get the job done consistently. He’s vulnerable to QB manipulation, gives up separation at the break point and struggles with his back to the ball. Simply put, he’s less effective the further he gets away from the line of scrimmage.

Truth is, the coaches always saw Randall as a better fit inside. That’s why the plan last season was to move him from outside in the base to the slot in the nickel and dime, but Sam Shields’ injury in week 1 pretty much scrapped the idea. Now that plan can be revived, minus the part about Randall starting in the base.

Look, I get that future Hall of Famer Charles Woodson often played in the slot when the Packers went to five defensive backs, but he moved there from the outside. He didn’t move there from the bench. The much better comparison is to Micah Hyde. And while being the next Micah Hyde wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, it’s sure as heck isn’t what anyone in the organization was hoping for a year ago at this time – no matter what coaches or sycophantic members of the media suggest in the weeks and months to come."

AJ Hawk and Randall aren't comparable at all. Going into his 3rd year Randalls career has gone like this: Pretty good rookie year..... to statistically, literally one of the worst CB in the game last year.... to being removed from the position he was drafted to play and inserted in a role that will reduce his starting snaps over the course of a season by about 200.

Again this is just feels like a Packer fanboy article that refuses to say it how it is. Instead, trying to put a spin on it because Packer management is never wrong. Last week on this blog Randall was being compared to Chris Harris Jr. And this week it's AJ Hawk. What's next week going to be? Seeing a trend here?

0 points
0
0
BPEARSON21's picture

June 23, 2017 at 01:58 pm

I just think with the Packers, us fans are SO die hard that we have the worst tunnel vision in the world. Sometimes it's best to find articles written by non-packer fans to get the best non-biased football analysis. Calling Randall a disappointment and realizing his move is a demotion doesn't make anybody a bad Packer fan or a "hater" it's just statistically and strategically true... but Packer fans don't want to believe it because we love our team so damn much.

0 points
0
0
BELIEVER's picture

June 24, 2017 at 03:11 pm

When you write, write for your self. Not "us fans" , I'm a fan and I have my own opinions just as you have yours. Mine are just smarter then yours.

0 points
0
0
dnicholson's picture

June 23, 2017 at 02:26 pm

I read the story. I disagree with it. Nickel corner is an incredibly important position (one that Chris Harris Jr. often plays). I think it's simplistic to argue that on the basis of reduced snap counts that it's bad news for Randall. If he thrives at his new position then it's a win for the team and for Randall.

But thanks for the insulting response.

0 points
0
0
BPEARSON21's picture

June 23, 2017 at 02:30 pm

I apologize for insulting you. Wasn't my intention. I thought we blog to express our opinions.

0 points
0
0
Arthur Jackson's picture

June 23, 2017 at 03:17 pm

Dude your opinion was that the writers has "the worst tunnel vision" and is "biased." I would say personal attacks fall under insulting. Now if you stuck with your believe that Randall is a disappointment and you believe he is being demoted than THAT is your opinion and is good stuff (in my opinion).

0 points
0
0
BPEARSON21's picture

June 23, 2017 at 03:29 pm

No I wrote "us packer fans" that includes myself. And I just said sometimes it's best to read articles that are a little more unbiased. But as a Packers fan I am biased myself. But I edited the comment to hopefully reflect better my argument without insulting anyone because obviously that's never my intention.

0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

June 24, 2017 at 05:00 am

David I read your article and I agree in general with you. I'm old enough to have patience in estimating others, but I'm "young" football fan (from roughly 2007). I admit I picked Packers as "my franchise" for 2 reason: unique ownership and, more important, they looked me at the time like underdog. And I tend to support underdogs. Finally, I was pleasently surprised!

But, despite I follow footbal for a short time (comparing fans on this site) I can tell that football changed dramatically over last 10 years. The changes was not sudden, but step by step with changing few rules here and there. Finally, we are looking high scoring games with unfair advantage to offensive side of the game.

To be able to respond to all of the changes, Packers starts to change their roster. They started to pick players who are (as TT call them) football players, less specialists for one position. They started to pick versatile, multiposition players. I would like to remind you of few - Woodson, Matthews, Hyde, Jones, Perry, Ha-Ha (but safeties are by definition multipositional), Peppers, Randall, Clark, any LT or RT...

That is, at the end, the only way how you can response on so many abilities offense was allowed to do. Very often you do not have time to substitute players to match your personal to offensive play. That is why you need to have multipositional, versatile players on the field. I understand that, but I'm baby with my knowledge of the football. Why others, more experienced fans do not see that I do not understand!

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

June 23, 2017 at 05:25 pm

While there is a little bit of truth woven through the article, in general I disagree with it.

Sure, "draft slot" isn't all that important in and of itself (and "draft round" is even less important), but everybody knows that the higher the draft pick, the higher the salary, and money is definitely important. To deny it is like saying, "I paid $500,000 for this McDonald's hamburger, but now that I've bought it the price doesn't really matter as long as it tastes good."

And draft slot is not entirely irrelevant either. While it may be true that every now and then you find a Tom Brady in D6, your best chance to get an impact player is clearly higher in the draft. No one can be happy at whiffing on their best chances.

I was MUCH more of a Hawk supporter than most others were. He was a pretty good player. But yes he was a disappointment as the fifth pick of the draft. You definitely do and should expect something more from a top ten pick, and Hawk did not quite measure up.

Would you be comfortable trading a first round pick for a sixth? After all, you can find a Brady down there, right? Are you really saying that every draft slot has equal value and equal expectations? And if you won't trade a D1 pick for a D6 pick, aren't you saying that you do have higher expectations for players picked in D1?

0 points
0
0
dnicholson's picture

June 23, 2017 at 10:28 pm

Part of the point I was trying to make was that Hawk's selection shouldn't continue to be a talking point. Did he live up to superstar billing? No. Do most top five picks? No. By the time he was a veteran it was no longer relevant where he had been taken, because by that point he was a solid-if-unspectacular contributor. And that's enough. Most linebackers would die to have a career like his.

And now a guy like Randall--jury still out, no freaking doubt--may carve out a niche in a role that is VITAL and we're going to poo-poo it because he might play less snaps and he's making a little more guaranteed money?

I don't see the logic in it, and I'll agree to disagree.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

June 24, 2017 at 01:46 pm

Totally agree. There is also the other cost associated with the higher pick, a losing season. Any team expects to have something to show for the sunk cost of losing. If a top pick busts, you are left with nothing. See Mandarich.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 24, 2017 at 04:51 pm

Well, I think DNicholson is right as to judging the player, but it certainly matters when judging the GM.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

June 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm

For me it doesn't matter where a player is drafted. Yes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd rounders should be able to contribute over the course of their careers and more so than later round selections. But as we have seen with players like Shields, UDFAs can make the team and play better than 1st rounders. Draft round and/or salary doesn't guarantee anything. My point is that if a player makes the team and gets on the field I expect them to fill their role and win their one on ones. If they can't do that consistently they shouldn't play. If Randall plays the slot CB I will expect him to get the job done or he should be replaced by a player who can. Last season Randall played hurt, but because of injury or not he wasn't getting the job done and he was bad. Your opponent doesn't care if you're hurt. This is professional sports. Win your one on ones or get beat, injured or not, no excuses, regardless of when or if you were drafted. FAs, UDFAs, and drafted players all have a role on the team. If you get on the field do your job or get out of the way. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

June 24, 2017 at 08:03 am

randall will be just fine in the slot if healthy. we may even see him back at boundary if there are injuries. his play last year was not indicative of his abilities and i think he will surprise a lot of naysayers with his play this year.

0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 25, 2017 at 07:30 am

I'm with you.

I'll even go as far as saying that I think that both Randall and Rollins will be just fine packers over the course of their time here.

I've seen Julio and Des make the best corners look ordinary on the right play.

The trick is quality depth. I fear that Damarius G has had too many reps and this highlighted is weaknesses to the point where a QB can just cut to his "pain points".

If the middle is WELL patrolled with a rotation\combo of Ha-Ha, Morgan, Randall, Rollins, J Jones and Brice then that REALLY helps the assignment of the boundary corner doesn't it.

0 points
0
0
NitschkeFan's picture

June 24, 2017 at 11:29 am

High picks like a top 5 (Hawk) rightfully have very high expectations. But as you pointed out, many do not live up to those expectations. Who was drafted around Hawk that year? Did they have much better careers? We now have their entire career to compare.

4 New York Jets D'Brickashaw Ferguson T
5 Green Bay Packers A.J. Hawk
6 San Francisco 49ers Vernon Davis TE
7 Oakland Raiders Michael Huff SS
8 Buffalo Bills Donte Whitner SS
9 Detroit Lions Ernie Sims OLB
10 Arizona Cardinals Matt Leinart QB
11 Denver Broncos Jay Cutler QB
12 Baltimore Ravens Haloti Ngata DT
13 Cleveland Browns Kamerion Wimbley

I can't recall what needs the team had 12 years ago at this time. In hindsight it is easy to say that Vernon Davis would have been a good pick, that both Huff and Whitner had good careers (but not that much better than Hawk IMHO) etc etc.

Really with 20/20 hindsight I only identify Davis and Haloti Ngata as players that would have been significantly better choices at that spot in 2005.

As for the talk about Randall, well any reasonable football observer knows that Randall, Rollins and Gunter really really stunk last year. We are Packers fans so we hope and pray that they play better this year.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

June 24, 2017 at 02:42 pm

The thing about Hawk is that he made painfully few game changing plays. In 10 years, he had 20 sacks, 3 or 4 fumbles forced (depending on who you ask) and 9 INTs. He never made a Pro bowl, and no All Pro selections. Lots of tackles, sure....

In addition to Ngata, other players that I would say were clearly better than Hawk (and were available at five):

Jahri Evans - 6 time Pro-Bowl, 4 time first team All Pro, 1 time second team

Nick Mangold - 7 time Pro-Bowl, 2 first team All Pro, 1 second team All Pro

Tamba Hali - averaged almost 9 sacks per year, forced 33 fumbles, 5 time Pro-Bowl, 2 time Second team All Pro

Elvis Dumervil - five Pro-Bowls, two first team All Pro, 99 sacks in 11 years, 23 forced fumbles

Brandon Marshall - 6 time Pro Bowler, 1 first team All Pro, 1 second team All Pro, currently 24th all-time in receiving yards

Andrew Whitworth - three pro bowls, 1 first team 1 second team All Pro

Also... Antonio Cromartie, Greg Jennings, Tramon Williams, Maurice Jones-Drew, Cortland Finnegan, Kyle Williams, Johnathan Joseph, Brent Grimes.... almost certainly others.

0 points
0
0
dblbogey's picture

June 24, 2017 at 11:46 pm

It was just a bad draft class that year. Based on his career, I think Hawk was a 2nd round talent, as were most 1st rounders that particular year.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

June 25, 2017 at 03:22 am

Agreed. And the irony is that the 2006 class was supposed to be an embarrassment of riches.

0 points
0
0
Arthur Jackson's picture

June 26, 2017 at 11:40 am

Vernon Davis was an overrated bum. Not until he was called out by his coaches and his career and contract were on the line did he even begin to live up to his draft status. Then he had a really good season followed by a good season. Before and after those two years he has only had one decent year. So VD made almost twice as much as Hawk and career AV per pro-football-reference is half of AJ Hawk's. So I would not say significantly better than Hawk. Not as good straight up and even worse when money is added to the equation.

I really liked Ngata for the Packers that year, but in a tradeback situation because a NT just isn't #5 pick. I was for trading back to a taking Greenway also. As I recall many wanted Thompson to trade up for Reggie Bush. Hawk was exactly what he was expected to be - a guy who might not fulfill all the #5 overall ceiling expectations, but was not likely to be a bust like Reggie Bush ended up being.

The fact is all positions do not have the same value in the NFL. Since the merger the highest draft position for a center was 14th. The highest for a guard was 7th with three total top 10. Offensive tackles had two overall #1's, five more #2 overalls and 24 top 10's. Linebackers also had two #1 overall picks, seven #2's and 54 total top 10 picks. In other words if your GM is drafting centers or guards in the top 20, much less 5th overall he should be roasted regardless of how the pick turns out. For fuck's sake you do not buy a sirlion and hope it turns out as good as a ribeye because you think the ribeye could end up tough.

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

June 24, 2017 at 11:56 am

Hawk was a solid player and is a great person I met him once coming out of Lambeau and he was nothing but nice spent sometime talking with me and my son after practice , he also played in a different defense at OSU so again this is the Packers drafting players that play different positions and expecting them to adjust , the list is long Nick Perry, Datone Jones ,Randall ,Rollins safeties to name a few. Why can't the Packers draft players that actually play the position in college? Wouldn't they learn the system faster if they did not have to learn a new position as well ? Does anyone here call a electrician when they have water leak?

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

June 24, 2017 at 07:50 pm

No...but apparently we hire a game show host when we need a President.

0 points
0
0
TJ Coon's picture

June 24, 2017 at 10:07 pm

If you are drafted 5th overall and you are considered to be not worthy of such an early pick, it's not hard to figure out whose at fault. I dont care how good you were as a 5th overall because I I'm not looking for good. You were number 5 overall so you better be damn great! It happens all the time I don't care who it was if you are fifth overall you better perform and if not you will be considered shite. You get paid too much to be average playing a game. As a fan I have that right to judge.

0 points
0
0
NashvilleCheesehead's picture

June 25, 2017 at 05:49 am

As a "packer fan," let me say how happy I am that there are only 31 days until training camp. Sheesh!!!

0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 25, 2017 at 07:42 am

Just for comic value and went and googled TB12's combine 40 yarder.

Man, they need to dub the chicken dance music to it!

I hate the concept of GOAT, but TB12 and Belichick ARE formidable. Makes me wonder what Vince and Bart would have been like with better access to video.

Remember that these kids are still in their early 20's - except for Kyler Fackrell

I'm interested to see what Kenny C produces this year, and how this influences what happens in the backfield

0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

June 25, 2017 at 08:47 am

I personally think a lot of Randall and Rollins issues last year were the loss of Shields game one and both having groin injuries requiring surgery. As a CB your ability to move, flex your hips, and keep up with a WR must be severely depleted by a groin injury. Yikes! I think that explains a lot of the cushion we saw being given to WR's, hence the completions on 3rd and long from opposing teams. If the two RR's are healthy I expect them to both play exponentially better this season. The current CBA makes the draft position far less important than it previously was. If Randall turns out to be a great 'star' in the slot all is good.

0 points
0
0