lets say it for the first 3 rounds, as anything 4th and later is too wide of a range as some never even play, some win 6 superbowls and become hall of famers.

 

What are your thoughts?

Teams expect players drafted in rounds 1-3 to become starters for them, at least by year 3. Merely getting a second contract would be a little disappointing as pretty much any first rounder will get a second chance elsewhere if he fails with his first team. But we can't expect most top 100 players to make a pro bowl either or start all the seasons of their rookie deal. 

Due to cap reasons I think getting a 2nd long term (not a 1-2 year deal) contract either with the team or a different team

I choose to bitch about or praise draft picks on a pick-by-pick basis.  There are just so many factors that come into play, including who is ahead of them at that position on the team and who else was available at that point in the draft. 😎

Being a 4th round pick who gets a $905,972 performance based paycheck after being bad mouthed and made the scapegoat for poor O line play all season.

1/2 

Becoming a productive starter by year 3.

I voted for the ProBowl selection, but that's admittedly wishful thinking.  Honestly, any one of those choices could constitute a successful selection depending on specific circumstances IMHO.

On 4/1/2024 at 5:30 PM, sparky151 said:

Teams expect players drafted in rounds 1-3 to become starters for them, at least by year 3. Merely getting a second contract would be a little disappointing as pretty much any first rounder will get a second chance elsewhere if he fails with his first team. But we can't expect most top 100 players to make a pro bowl either or start all the seasons of their rookie deal. 

 

i think this is the big misconception, if you go look at the first round in 2017, theres about 6 guys who were busts and hopped around and never got past the 4 years into even a 5th year option. then there are the deshawn watson types, still in the league, mega contract, but was that a successful pick? traded him for lots of draft capital and stuff, but as a pick, thats a bust IMO, so there is some wiggle room, but if we did thise for all 3 rounds, id bet we are somewhere around 50-60% success rate. so thats what got me thinking about what a successful pick is.

 

many of the options above would have Gio Bernard as an unsuccessful pick, which i think is bananas.

 

On 4/1/2024 at 5:52 PM, Jamie_B said:

Due to cap reasons I think getting a 2nd long term (not a 1-2 year deal) contract either with the team or a different team

 

this would put you as a great pick IMO. which qualifies of course, but its the next level for me.

 

On 4/1/2024 at 7:23 PM, Cricket said:

I choose to bitch about or praise draft picks on a pick-by-pick basis.  There are just so many factors that come into play, including who is ahead of them at that position on the team and who else was available at that point in the draft. 😎

 

shouldnt be anyone ahead of them for the first two rounds, 3rd rounders, sure. but its rare for a first and even second round pick to be facing a depth chart at all. 

 

as far as who else is available, thats a slippery slope. not sure anyone ever has any successful picks in that case, i think TJ watt was damn near the end of the round. everyone fucked up lol

 

18 hours ago, High School Harry said:

Being a 4th round pick who gets a $905,972 performance based paycheck after being bad mouthed and made the scapegoat for poor O line play all season.

1/2 

 

he fucking sucks. tape shows, it, stats show it, lets hope, again, this offseason was a productive one. cause it would be sweet if he wasnt so fucking bad. imagine getting a million dollars cause you sucked but still played lots of snaps. if i performed at his level at my job id ahve been fired 7 years ago.

 

13 hours ago, claptonrocks said:

Becoming a productive starter by year 3.

 

low bar, but reasonable, especially for the end and 3rd rounders. a first rounder sitting sround not being productive for two years would be tough, but if it panned out longer term it would be ok.

 

11 hours ago, esjbh2 said:

I voted for the ProBowl selection, but that's admittedly wishful thinking.  Honestly, any one of those choices could constitute a successful selection depending on specific circumstances IMHO.

 

yea thats the loftiest goal, with that bar the bengals ahve had like 6 successful draft picks in the last 15 years. same across the league.

i am actually shocked that pro bowl is the leading answer. no wonder everyone says we cant draft for shit.

3 hours ago, GoBengals said:

i am actually shocked that pro bowl is the leading answer. no wonder everyone says we cant draft for shit.

On 4/3/2024 at 5:49 AM, High School Harry said:

 

yea those picks were killer, but every roster is full of a rotation of lunch pale guys doing dirty work, there are 88 total pro bowlers each year. and 96+ first three round picks. 

 

id have to consider a pro bowl selection to be too tight of a goal for all top 3 round picks. hell in a 5 year span there are 160 first round picks.

 

 

On 4/3/2024 at 2:46 AM, GoBengals said:

i am actually shocked that pro bowl is the leading answer. no wonder everyone says we cant draft for shit.

 

3 hours ago, GoBengals said:

 

yea those picks were killer, but every roster is full of a rotation of lunch pale guys doing dirty work, there are 88 total pro bowlers each year. and 96+ first three round picks. 

 

id have to consider a pro bowl selection to be too tight of a goal for all top 3 round picks. hell in a 5 year span there are 160 first round picks.

 

 

 

Hmmmmm...I think there are some folks that answered the question optimistically like I did...all the choices *COULD* be considered a successful draft pick based on circumstances.  I think you would have gotten a much different result if the question was "What do you consider the MINIMUM criteria for a successful draft pick FOR ALL THREE TOP PICKS?" instead.  I for one did not assume minimum, nor did I assume all three simultaneously.  Just sayin'.