Originally Posted by SteelersCanada
That's great, but one would have to make the assumption that drafting well would ultimately lead to playing well, but that hasn't been the case. I don't know what to make of it honestly. It's definitely misleading.
I get the point of the article and where you're coming from, but it's a little iffy. I mean, it's almost a kiss of death to be at the top of that list ya know.
Or maybe we aren't looking at the data in the correct context?
This is a list of drafting success from the last 10 years. How many of Cowher's players that took us to the last 3 Superbowls were drafted in the last 10 years and count against this tally? Most of them were probably drafetd around the very beginnning of that draft period, and tend to skew the results.
How we drafted in the last 4 or 5 years would not show up in our win percentages until several years later-- which is what we may be looking at today. A series of sub-par drafts have put us at a difficult crossroads, overpaying a bunch of aging veterans, while not having the money to sign any descent depth to our roster behind those guys.
Sure, we won 2 SBs and visited 3-- but some of that success was due to parts put in palce prior to, or near the edge of this statistical study. We have not drafted well in the last 10 years-- not enough to maintain the level of success we have enjoyed. And we are now seing the drop-off in 8-8 seasons and getting knocked out of the playoffs by Timmy Tryhard.
If you look, the Browns appear to be on the rise, while the Steelers are in decline.
But also, as someone already stated, going purely by the number of starts is misleading. Teams like the Browns routinely draft players to fill immediate needs, thus more of their rookies will get starting time and teh results get skewed even further.