I take it back about Ellis Brooks making the wrong decision to leave for the NFL draft early

[RussianEagle]

Interesting. In years four and five the six round picks do significantly worse than seven round picks.

Maybe because teams tend to draft kickers, punters, and long snappers in the 7th round?

 

[Online Persona]

Improving their squat, bench, and power clean? Sure.

Improving their draft stock? No. It's not certain.

Ideally, I am on your side. Brooks could have brought stability to our LB corp early on, but I remember Illinois '21 when he looked like the rest of our defense did vs Michigan '22, so I'm not exactly sure that a returning Brooks increases our '22 win total nor that he puts anything on film that gets him drafted in '23.

Let's see what he does in the XFL.

It is significantly north of 50% and I think you know that. We can argue the exact % that would improve their draft stock with an extra year but we know for certain that more will improve it than will decrease it. Some will improve it by more than a round or 2. We just saw Jahan Dotson jump several rounds by returning and having a big year. This goes on all throughout the country.

 

[NITTANYJGK]

Where you are drafted or not drafted makes a huge difference in the opportunity that you are given to stick in the NFL. Early rounds, long leash. Late rounds, short leash. Undrafted, who cares? For an NFL team and undrafted free agent is an almost no cost flyer that either flashes or is immediately gone. Had Brooks stayed, maybe he is a late round guy and has a better than 50% chance to stick at least for a year or 2. We can't know that now. But the odds of sticking in the NFL are SIGNIFICANTLY higher if you get drafted and if you get drafted even 1 round higher.

Below are the % of draft picks by round that are in the NFL after up to 5 years.

​

Round	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
1	99.7%	93.5%	83.9%	77.4%	71.0%
2	96.8%	96.1%	83.9%	74.2%	41.9%
3	96.9%	75.1%	62.5%	37.5%	18.8%
4	91.4%	74.3%	54.3%	34.3%	17.2%
5	81.1%	56.8%	37.8%	24.3%	16.2%
6	70.2%	57.5%	35.3%	20.9%	10.6%
7	58.3%	45.8%	31.3%	21.7%	16.7%

Source: https://www.milehighreport.com/2014/5/13/5713996/how-long-does-the-average-draft-pick-stick-around

Now, they don't list data for undrafted players but you can see the precipitous drop off in the late rounds for being on the roster in just year 1.

So how low are the odds for undrafted players? "Of everyone who has played a snap in an NFL game, less than 0.9% entered the league as undrafted free agents." Keep in mind that each year, every team signs more undrafted players to free agent flyer contracts than they actually draft. So do the math, your sample size of undrafted players is larger than the entire draft each year but only 0.9% of players who ever play a snap in the NFL were undrafted. https://jokermag.com/best-undrafted-nfl-players/

You ignore the talent factor. Early round picks hang around longer because they're better athletes. That's just common sense. Undrafted free agents are undrafted for a reason. I understand where you are coming from but the major factor is lack of talent.

 

[Online Persona]

You ignore the talent factor. Early round picks hang around longer because they're better athletes. That's just common sense. Undrafted free agents are undrafted for a reason. I understand where you are coming from but the major factor is lack of talent.

I'm not ignoring that. It's understood. However, the greater the investment by the team, the more opportunity that player will have to make it. GMs don't just willy nilly throw away their draft picks without making sure that it wasn't going to work. They do just discard undrafted free agents without much care. The numbers bear this out.

It's no different than you not giving up on your biggest investments (of money, time, etc.) without thoroughly giving them a chance. However, if it was something that was essentially free, you have no reservations about cutting bait. That is human nature.

 

[LionFan87b]

Before I retired, I was the laboratory program director at a major university in a hard science department. I'm pretty confident in my ability to analyze data.

I'm not going to throw out the overwhelming statistical evidence that you have a much higher chance of sticking in the NFL if you are drafted, even in the 7th round, when compared to undrafted free agency.

If you want to make a compelling statistical argument, then I'd be happy to analyze that.

I think his point is that a guy who just missed getting drafted is very different than a guy who never came close to getting drafted. And yet they both get put into the same bucket for purposes of this analysis.

 

[LionFan87b]

Where you are drafted or not drafted makes a huge difference in the opportunity that you are given to stick in the NFL. Early rounds, long leash. Late rounds, short leash. Undrafted, who cares? For an NFL team and undrafted free agent is an almost no cost flyer that either flashes or is immediately gone. Had Brooks stayed, maybe he is a late round guy and has a better than 50% chance to stick at least for a year or 2. We can't know that now. But the odds of sticking in the NFL are SIGNIFICANTLY higher if you get drafted and if you get drafted even 1 round higher.

Below are the % of draft picks by round that are in the NFL after up to 5 years.

​

Round	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
1	99.7%	93.5%	83.9%	77.4%	71.0%
2	96.8%	96.1%	83.9%	74.2%	41.9%
3	96.9%	75.1%	62.5%	37.5%	18.8%
4	91.4%	74.3%	54.3%	34.3%	17.2%
5	81.1%	56.8%	37.8%	24.3%	16.2%
6	70.2%	57.5%	35.3%	20.9%	10.6%
7	58.3%	45.8%	31.3%	21.7%	16.7%

Source: https://www.milehighreport.com/2014/5/13/5713996/how-long-does-the-average-draft-pick-stick-around

Now, they don't list data for undrafted players but you can see the precipitous drop off in the late rounds for being on the roster in just year 1.

So how low are the odds for undrafted players? "Of everyone who has played a snap in an NFL game, less than 0.9% entered the league as undrafted free agents." Keep in mind that each year, every team signs more undrafted players to free agent flyer contracts than they actually draft. So do the math, your sample size of undrafted players is larger than the entire draft each year but only 0.9% of players who ever play a snap in the NFL were undrafted. https://jokermag.com/best-undrafted-nfl-players/

Not that it makes a difference, but I wonder why early round picks have a longer leash? Is it because teams are trying to save face and not admit to mistakes too readily? Or do early round picks possess more talent and have a better chance of improving? I suspect it's the latter.

 

[LionFan87b]

I'm not ignoring that. It's understood. However, the greater the investment by the team, the more opportunity that player will have to make it. GMs don't just willy nilly throw away their draft picks without making sure that it wasn't going to work. They do just discard undrafted free agents without much care. The numbers bear this out.

It's no different than you not giving up on your biggest investments (of money, time, etc.) without thoroughly giving them a chance. However, if it was something that was essentially free, you have no reservations about cutting bait. That is human nature.

From a financial standpoint, that makes no sense. A sunk cost should not factor into decision making.

 

[voltz99]

Players and whomever advises them need to make smart, informed decisions.

1) Contract money by round is very, very different. Even 1 round higher is an enormous difference in pay. That means players have to maximize their draft position.

2) Sticking in the NFL is a function of which round you are drafted. The odds go up significantly with just 1 round higher in the draft and it is night and day difference between drafted verses undrafted. Teams give a longer look to players based on what they invested in them. That means players have to maximize their draft position.

3) The vast majority of players will improve their draft position if they return to college for an additional year. 20-, 21-, and 22-year-olds are getting strong and faster with additional training and they are further developing their game and knowledge with more experience. The overwhelming majority of those who return instead of leaving early will improve their draft positions. They can take out insurance to protect against injury on their current draft evaluation.

4) The only instances where leaving early make sense for their career and financially:

a) Rd 1 or 2 grade.
b) College team has a young player or inbound player that will take their playing time.
c) They know that they have peaked athletically.
d) College team is going in a different direction (like a coaching change or their whole OL is moving on, etc.).

So Fashano should have left?

 

[voltz99]

I'll be honest, I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here.

10,000 d1 players. Coming back a year won't put them all in the first round. Only 224 draft picks total.

Tell us where you come up with the number that significantly over 50% improve their draft stock. For every One that improves there is one that drops. Should olu have entered the draft? Tough To improve on top 10. He has a good chance of dropping in the dtaft.

 

[Online Persona]

From a financial standpoint, that makes no sense. A sunk cost should not factor into decision making.

And yet it almost always does. You should take some courses on the psychology of investing amd finance. Humans are rarely rational decision makers in finance.

Also with respect to your previous question, how does one differentiate between an undrafted free agent that just missed getting drafted and one that was never close as you suggest that we do? No GM ever reveals their draft board and who just fell short of it. Teams sign a dozen or more undrafted free agents. There is no granularity in that grouping. The guy you think just missed it may never have been close and vice versa. No one has that information.

 

[Erial_Lion]

The size of the signing bonus is one strong factor in which UDFAs are more sought after.

 

[Online Persona]

10,000 d1 players. Coming back a year won't put them all in the first round. Only 224 draft picks total.

Tell us where you come up with the number that significantly over 50% improve their draft stock. For every One that improves there is one that drops. Should olu have entered the draft? Tough To improve on top 10. He has a good chance of dropping in the dtaft.

1. I already explained where I come up with it in this thread a few times. Go back and reread.

2. For every one that returns and improves, another drops. Many of those that drop are ones like Brooks that chose not to come back and improve.

3. Fashanu should have left if finances and career longevity were his top considerations. No one would have second guessed him. He prioritized the degree first and that's his peragative. Also because a mock draft listed you top 10 doesn't mean that is what would transpire. I've seen him in low 2nd round as well before he announced his return. Do you think Levis is a lock as the 1st overall pick? I've seen that in multiple mock drafts and just laugh it off.

 

[Online Persona]

The size of the signing bonus is one strong factor in which UDFAs are more sought after.

Ok, lay out 10+ years of data to analyze

 

[Erial_Lion]

Ok, lay out 10+ years of data to analyze

No thanks…I’m simply saying that coming out of the draft process each year, there are some USFAs that clearly have a better than 1% chance of sticking, and others that have almost no chance. But you’re looking at them all the same.

If you’re willing to offer me 50-1 odds on any players of my choice, I’ll put in the work and tell you who has better chances of sticking when we get to May.

 

[lazydave841]

Tell us where you come up with the number that significantly over 50% improve their draft stock.

In his mind. That's where it came from. He's done zero math on it. It's literally his arbitrary % (that I have already whittled down from 80% to 50% by merely 3 or 4 replies).

He seems to believe that if a player, such as Brooks, returned for his 6th year and improved his bench by 3 reps and his 40 time by 0.02 that Brooks "improved his stock by returning" whether that means going from the 300th guy on draft boards to 275.

I'm of the opinion that improved draft stock is ACTUALLY getting drafted vs not having your name called.

I don't think anybody here disputes that any player returning to a college program can get stronger, faster, and add another year of tape. What I am disputing is whether those improvements make one more draftable.

He mentions Dotson, who got his speed down to a very good time, which was the only thing lowering him from years prior (when he showcased excellent hands and strong route running).

Brooks was never a mid round guy. Barring him getting 0.2 seconds faster, if not more, he didn't have NFL level instincts and tackling ability.

Why do you think we have former walk ons still bouncing around practice squads while a player like Brooks was cut very quickly and didn't get a second team? SPEED.

 

[Online Persona]

No thanks…I’m simply saying that coming out of the draft process each year, there are some USFAs that clearly have a better than 1% chance of sticking, and others that have almost no chance. But you’re looking at them all the same.

If you’re willing to offer me 50-1 odds on any players of my choice, I’ll put in the work and tell you who has better chances of sticking when we get to May.

Doesn't it tell you something that you need 50 to 1 odds to do research on finding just 1 undrafted player making the NFL cut?

You are admitting that undrafted is a massive Longshot while in the middle of arguing that it's better than a 7th round selection who has better than 50% chance of making it at least a year or 2 according to the last 10+ years of data.

 

[Online Persona]

In his mind. That's where it came from. He's done zero math on it. It's literally his arbitrary % (that I have already whittled down from 80% to 50% by merely 3 or 4 replies).

He seems to believe that if a player, such as Brooks, returned for his 6th year and improved his bench by 3 reps and his 40 time by 0.02 that Brooks "improved his stock by returning" whether that means going from the 300th guy on draft boards to 275.

I'm of the opinion that improved draft stock is ACTUALLY getting drafted vs not having your name called.

I don't think anybody here disputes that any player returning to a college program can get stronger, faster, and add another year of tape. What I am disputing is whether those improvements make one more draftable.

He mentions Dotson, who got his speed down to a very good time, which was the only thing lowering him from years prior (when he showcased excellent hands and strong route running).

Brooks was never a mid round guy. Barring him getting 0.2 seconds faster, if not more, he didn't have NFL level instincts and tackling ability.

Why do you think we have former walk ons still bouncing around practice squads while a player like Brooks was cut very quickly and didn't get a second team? SPEED.

1. You don't know what is in another poster's mind and I stand by a high probability that 80% or so of players that would return an additional year would improve rather than fall in draft stock with an extra year of growth and maturation. It sure as heck isn't 50% as you seem to imply.

2. You concede that players returning will get stronger and faster but do not think that translates to a higher draft position? Why have a combine? Why do pro days at schools across the country? Some poster named lazy Dave says faster and stronger doesn't correlate to higher draft status. I suppose you also don't think game tape from a more experienced and developed player in year 4 doesn't help them over likely not quite as good of film in year 3? You conceded that the players improve year to year but apparently the NFL doesn't value better results?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Doesn't it tell you something that you need 50 to 1 odds to do research on finding just 1 undrafted player making the NFL cut?

You are admitting that undrafted is a massive Longshot while in the middle of arguing that it's better than a 7th round selection who has better than 50% chance of making it at least a year or 2 according to the last 10+ years of data.

I started the bargaining at 50-1, since you seem very confident that your <1% stastic applies across all UDFAs equally…I’d take 5-1 if you’re offering it…I’ll also tell you that those 7th rounders aren’t all created equally, and that some will have better chances of sticking than others.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Ok, lay out 10+ years of data to analyze

Here is some data on it…

The Value of Undrafted Free Agents

Guest columnist Joe Mahoney looks at Day 3 draft picks vs. undrafted free agents. There are a number of reasons why players would prefer to be undrafted rather than taken in Rounds 6-7.

www.footballoutsiders.com

 

[lazydave841]

It is significantly north of 50%

It sure as heck isn't 50% as you seem to imply.

Using what you wrote. If it's 80, stay at 80.

Why have a combine? Why do pro days at schools across the country? Some poster named lazy Dave says faster and stronger doesn't correlate to higher draft status. I suppose you also don't think game tape from a more experienced and developed player in year 4 doesn't help them over likely not quite as good of film in year 3? You conceded that the players improve year to year but apparently the NFL doesn't value better results?

Penn State football draft profiles | Ellis Brooks proves abilities at pro day ahead of NFL Draft

One of four former Penn State linebackers participating in pro day, Ellis Brooks looked to increase his draft stock after not drawing an invite to the scouting combine.

www.collegian.psu.edu

The combine is for the NFL to further explore players. Pro Days is for a school to showcase their players.

Brooks didn't get a combine invite. Why? Because he's 6'1, 226 lbs 4.77 running ILB. What was he going to fix by returning? Do you think he was magically going to gain 15 lbs and run a 4.57? Because if he couldn't, he just doesn't fit what the NFL is looking for.

Yes, he could have returned and done 25 reps at 234 lbs with a 4.75 and at 6'1 I don't think a 6th year guy improved his draft stock when another bunch of junior and senior kids become freshly eligible.

What does my user name have to do with any of this? Lol

 

[Online Persona]

Using what you wrote. If it's 80, stay at 80.

Penn State football draft profiles | Ellis Brooks proves abilities at pro day ahead of NFL Draft

One of four former Penn State linebackers participating in pro day, Ellis Brooks looked to increase his draft stock after not drawing an invite to the scouting combine.

www.collegian.psu.edu

The combine is for the NFL to further explore players. Pro Days is for a school to showcase their players.

Brooks didn't get a combine invite. Why? Because he's 6'1, 226 lbs 4.77 running ILB. What was he going to fix by returning? Do you think he was magically going to gain 15 lbs and run a 4.57? Because if he couldn't, he just doesn't fit what the NFL is looking for.

Yes, he could have returned and done 25 reps at 234 lbs with a 4.75 and at 6'1 I don't think a 6th year guy improved his draft stock when another bunch of junior and senior kids become freshly eligible.

What does my user name have to do with any of this? Lol

In response to those arguing that returning for another year may equally result in improving or declining, the quotes that you pulled out of context are consistent with my estimate of 80% improving and in some cases may be part of the same paragraph where I state exactly that.

You are the one arguing that players that return another year will almost certainly get faster and stronger but the NFL won't look more favorably on better 40 times and strength numbers or better film. I'm sorry but that just is not a logical position.

 

[Online Persona]

Here is some data on it…

The Value of Undrafted Free Agents

Guest columnist Joe Mahoney looks at Day 3 draft picks vs. undrafted free agents. There are a number of reasons why players would prefer to be undrafted rather than taken in Rounds 6-7.

www.footballoutsiders.com

So based on this data, there were approximately 10% or so of UDFAs that received more guaranteed money than Mr. Irrelevant.

But here is the key, he states that 85% of 6th and 7th rounders make the 53 man roster and make $500k more than the highest guaranteed pay for any UDFA.

Using his analysis, if you are the top 10% of UDFAs, you may get slightly more guaranteed money which comes in handy if you are only a practice squad guy. But if you are drafted, you have an 85% chance of making almost 4 times as much as the top 10% of UDFAs unless they latch on to a 53 man roster as well, which is significantly less likely.

 

[lazydave841]

players that return another year will almost certainly get faster and stronger but the NFL won't look more favorably on better 40 times and strength numbers or better film.

Every player that returns or continues to play can possibly improve. If 500 borderline kids improve, do they all get drafted because they are one year better?

No. They don't.

 

[NoBareFeet]

Good thing he sat out that bowl game, or the DC Defenders may not have signed him to this deal to be on the reserve list...

 

[Online Persona]

Every player that returns or continues to play can possibly improve. If 500 borderline kids improve, do they all get drafted because they are one year better?

No. They don't.

They don't all make the same decisions. You are comparing the wrong groups. If 500 borderline kids come back and improve while 500 borderline kids go early to compete against those that improved from the previous year, then those who chose to leave early will collectively average a lower draft status.