Wide Receiver or Offensive Tackle? Which one is the better pick in Round 1 & Round 2? We analyzed the NFL Drafts from 2006-2012 in the first 2 rounds to see how those WRs and Ts did. Some people do not like it when I refer to WRs and RBs as “toys,” so I felt that we were all entitled to a little more objective data on the output of these positions, specifically the players taken at the top, the cream in Round 1 & 2.
On Day 1 of the 2016 NFL Draft, the Giants passed on a Tackle (Laremy Tunsil) and went for a Cornerback. On Day 2 of the same draft, the Giants passed on (among others, our choice) Tackle Jason Spriggs to go for a Wide Receiver. As we have stated and will restate, we like both Apple and Shepard as contributors. But we believe that correct architecture dictates to choose the Offensive Tackle. We have been wrong in the past, and it can be that Shepard is a superstar while Spriggs is a bust. Let’s see what 7 years of results from taking WR and T generate for those teams.
[table id=21 /]Let’s preface this discussion with the fact that there was zero subjectivity in the data selected. The only thing subjective was the selection of the time frame. We went back 10 years, and quickly realized that comparing players who were drafted from 2013-2015 was marginal because those careers were not yet formed. That left us with the 7 years of players drafted from 2006-2012. These players generally have anywhere from ~4 to 10 years in the NFL. We did not go further back (pre 2006) because we want to keep the data set relevant to current playing conditions. Tracking roughly 50 players from each position is a healthy snapshot to get a good representation of what is taking place. We also tracked player movement around the league. Part of the analysis was to see if you get a “fixture,” a player that your team drafts, starts, and then he STAYS.
The results objectively conclude that in term of Pro Bowl appearances, All Pro designations, Games Started, and Starts per Team, Tackle yields greater returns than Wide Receiver for those selected at the top (R1 & R2) of the draft. Our draft analyst, Wonder, says it more bluntly in his rankings and evaluations: “Wide Receiver is always available. A good Tackle is harder to come by.” The data bears this out. The number of starts per team, a measure of turnover, is DOUBLE for the Tackle. So even if the impact is the same (the data does not indicate that in terms of starts, pro bowls and all-pros), you still rate to lose that WR to one of the other 31 teams more often. Of course there are exceptions, but the averages indicate more reliability in taking the OT. When we filter for players with All-Pro/ProBowl designation, the story gets even better for Tackle- all but one Tackle stayed and played for a single team.
There are those among you who want that gamebreaker, the OBJ, the Julio Jones who can win you the game with his hands. Yes, Tackles do not score points and they do not score TDs to win games. It is still a team sport and you need that Tackle to not only give your QB the time to throw, but also to keep him clean. We can debate the impact of each position, but clearly the most important piece of data is that blue chip WRs generate less starts and recycle around the league faster. We prefer the Tackle to the WR, especially at this point in Eli Manning’s career when we just need him upright. Eli has proven his ability to deliver if given the time. Obviously we will be rooting heavily for Shepard to make a big impact, getting necessary separation to help Eli and the Giants. We collected the data to prove that all else being equal, that a big investment in Tackle pays off in terms of starts and a greater likelihood of staying with your team. Continuity matters.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
