The biggest obstacle in doing an objective analysis is to select the metrics that do the best job of measuring performances. DRAFTMETRICS decided to use a weighted combination of four measures to measure each team’s draft success.The four measures are 1) # of games started, 2) # of players active in 2012, 3) annual starts, and 4) Pro Bowl. The problem I see with it is that it rewards bad teams who draft a bunch of guys who have to start, whether or not they deserve to.
As a result, the Green Bay Packers come out pretty average: No. 9 over the past 10 years (which still includes the "awesome" Mike Sherman drafts) and No. 14 over the past five.
I don't think too much of who a team that had a great draft 10 years ago. If a team is still counting on those players, it's probably looking at a massive re-build in the near future. For example, the Chargers had a great 2004 draft but they're looking at starting over this off-season.
If you look at who's ranked high over the past five years, it's a collection of bad teams at the top led by the Chiefs, Dolphins, Cardinals, Browns, and Eagles. It looks like this evaluation is based more on quantity than quality because those young starters didn't help those teams win much in 2012.
Sometimes one great draft can make a franchise. The selection of QB Aaron Rodgers in 2005, when nearly every other team passed on him, probably should have put the Packers closer to the top of the 10 year list. The analysis by Draftmetrics seems to ignore the importance of each position. It's one thing to find guys who are good enough to start, and maybe even sneak in a Pro Bowl appearance, but it's another to find elite players at key positions who are among the best in the league.