Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
The stats of "played longer" is a bit misleading and many factors involved here. A guy selected at #24 isn't going to get the same type of lead way a guy drafted #1 is. You think they'd cut Bradford after guaranteeing him 50 mil? I seriously doubt it. Hell, it took JaMarcus Dummy 3 years to finally get the boot. It's also the same reason 1st rounders last longer in the league than say a 3rd rounder. Alex Smith is still starting and why? Because he was a #1 pick and was paid a ton of money. Had he been a late first round or a 2nd rounder, he'd been cut/shipped out loooong ago.
edit: That may soon change with the salary of top rookies being limited. Even so, a #1 spot is still a heavy investment when it comes to resources and teams are doing to do everything in their power to make it work, even if it means keeping them longer than they want.
|
I don't think Bradford is in danger of being released after this season, no. But will he make it to four years as a primary starter in the NFL? Not without improvement.
Alex Smith is not still starting because of his draft position. In the first four years of his career, Alex Smith started 30 games. In the last three years, he has started 33 games. His playing time is actually more consistent now than it was when he was the golden boy first overall pick.
The bias towards high picks is real, but I think I was able to set the bar high enough where most busts don't qualify. Sure, setting the bar at 4 years as primary starter means that a guy like Levi Brown is not considered a bust, but you can live with that for objective purposes.
Where using the "years as starter" metric probably ceases to be useful is deeper in the draft where guys don't have a shot to start early in their careers. But limited to first rounders only, I think the snapshot is accurate.