Ozzie's draft magic - Fantasy or Reality?

[usmccharles]

7 hours ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Without stockpiling picks for 2016 we wouldn't have Judon and we would have been short a fourth round pick, so we would be losing one of young, Lewis, Dixon, Henry, or Moore. If we went with Henry or Moore over Dixon Lewis or young then this draft class suddenly wouldn't look so good, but we stockpiled picks and got home runs in the mid rounds which set up our future nicely. 

Not to mention, we drafted KC to be an edge rusher and he fell short there, but looked good at ILB, and Zach Orr retired, so we set ourselves up nicely with an insurance policy. I'd rather have KC at ilb with Judon and Dixon/young/Lewis than spence or jack, easy.

Do you see KC trying to replace Orr?

9 minutes ago, RayRayRaven said:

dixon not a bad player. he be useful. reminds me of Bernard pierc. which is to say a runnin back is jus a runnin back less hes in ray rice mold. jus sayin. lots of bad talk about us stockin compensation pics, the ones the league gives you if you lose a veteran to free agent.  me? rather keep the vet than get a dixon or sign a good free agent instead of getting a dixon, see what I'm sayin?

one more time rayrayraven is all about doin your job.  a back has to do his job. you go to work you do your job. you go to the store the checker does her job. you pic first in the draft you betta do ur job.  give rayrayraven 7 draff pics @ 16 on the clock and i'll draff ya some football players fur sur. wont need to stockpyle comp pics.  sheez if a picker drafts well you can't keep 12 rook pics anyways. no need for a  pichorda that can't pic!

doan think I can do  it?  tune into 2017 Draft board on t his site message group called Lets help ozzie

OK, im not trying to be cruel here, but is there any possible way you can try to make more sense.  We are all here to talk football and regardless of opinions its fun to discuss, even when some people's opinion seem outlandish.  That being said, i cant for the life of me interpret what the hell you are trying to say and while im glad you can make paragraphs have you ever thought about using spell check, it would make it easier for us to actually have a discussion.  

[RayRayRaven]

matt elam. wow what a lightnin strike burnin down th e house. talk about being out of position. talk about him not bein able to tackle. talk talk talk talk talk. talk about him not being a footballplayer.  where was all this talk when we draft'd this munchkin?  everyones an expert now that he's a bust then a drug bust but where was everyone when he was drppin the ball at the combined?  where were ya then? where was everyone when that one postar calls him cleats elam and clank the sound of the ball off his hand? where was you then?  where was everyone when ozz called elam and asks him if hes ready to be the next ed reed? where was you then?  who seen the flim of elam body tacklin mississpi A and M 2nd division players? and droppin hte balls thrown to him? but best question is if he was a skillless @ any position, where was ozz and decousta?  whos droppin this ball anyways?

 

18 hours ago, Tru11 said:

yup dude played fs all of his rookie season and was nickle corner for a large part of his 2nd season.

but ofcourse to these guys its  all the same position lol.

 

 

9 hours ago, rmw10 said:

Yep.  When you have issues with the basic fundamentals of football, you're not going to be good no matter what position you're playing.  He was just a bad football player and there's not much more explanation needed, in my opinion.  It had 0 to do with what role he was playing, and everything to do with a lack of ability.

 

9 hours ago, Willbacker said:

And lack of common sense.

 

9 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And couldn't tackle at any of them.

No evidence to suggest he would all of the sudden be a better tackler at his "natural position", which is obviously debatable as to what position that actually is or if it even exists in the NFL.

Regardless, guys that can't tackle and can't cover at any level are highly unlikely to be good defensive football players, regardless of what role it is.

 

 

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, RayRayRaven said:

dixon not a bad player. he be useful. reminds me of Bernard pierc. which is to say a runnin back is jus a runnin back less hes in ray rice mold. jus sayin. lots of bad talk about us stockin compensation pics, the ones the league gives you if you lose a veteran to free agent.  me? rather keep the vet than get a dixon or sign a good free agent instead of getting a dixon, see what I'm sayin?

one more time rayrayraven is all about doin your job.  a back has to do his job. you go to work you do your job. you go to the store the checker does her job. you pic first in the draft you betta do ur job.  give rayrayraven 7 draff pics @ 16 on the clock and i'll draff ya some football players fur sur. wont need to stockpyle comp pics.  sheez if a picker drafts well you can't keep 12 rook pics anyways. no need for a  pichorda that can't pic!

doan think I can do  it?  tune into 2017 Draft board on t his site message group called Lets help ozzie

We didn't let Ko walk so we could get a third. We let him walk because the raiders paid him High market LT value to play guard.

see, there's this really important thing called the salary cap, and all 32 teams need to stay under it...

Edited March 1 by JoeyFlex5

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, usmccharles said:

Do you see KC trying to replace Orr?

OK, im not trying to be cruel here, but is there any possible way you can try to make more sense.  We are all here to talk football and regardless of opinions its fun to discuss, even when some people's opinion seem outlandish.  That being said, i cant for the life of me interpret what the hell you are trying to say and while im glad you can make paragraphs have you ever thought about using spell check, it would make it easier for us to actually have a discussion.  

I think it's his job to lose. And I think he will  do pretty well. He is a good athlete and an instinctive ball player and he's got the tools to be a good ilb, he's got burst, top speed, he form tackles, he sniffs out open lanes in the run and pass. It's all a matter of refining those little things that he lacks, but being an ILB he won't constantly be asked to win 1v1 matchups so he won't be relying solely on his own ability and can feed off of the team and go make plays

[usmccharles]

1 minute ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I think it's his job to lose. And I think he will  do pretty well. He is a good athlete and an instinctive ball player and he's got the tools to be a good ilb, he's got burst, top speed, he form tackles, he sniffs out open lanes in the run and pass. It's all a matter of refining those little things that he lacks, but being an ILB he won't constantly be asked to win 1v1 matchups so he won't be relying solely on his own ability and can feed off of the team and go make plays

I see.  I know i have been very critical of KC, im hoping im wrong.  I assume he is much better in coverage than CJ?

[JoeyFlex5]

2 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

I see.  I know i have been very critical of KC, im hoping im wrong.  I assume he is much better in coverage than CJ?

Wouldn't say that. I don't think Mosley is bad in coverage, just bad in MAN coverage and really I don't expect great man coverage out of most linebackers. I think KC has a very high ceiling in coverage and he has the athleticism to man cover some guys, whether or not he can put it all together is the question. 

Not sold on KC, but I've been a fan of his since long before we took him and I see too much good from his tape to think he flat out fails 

[usmccharles]

Just now, JoeyFlex5 said:

Wouldn't say that. I don't think Mosley is bad in coverage, just bad in MAN coverage and really I don't expect great man coverage out of most linebackers. I think KC has a very high ceiling in coverage and he has the athleticism to man cover some guys, whether or not he can put it all together is the question. 

Not sold on KC, but I've been a fan of his since long before we took him and I see too much good from his tape to think he flat out fails 

have any clips you want to throw my way that i should check out?  Never really looked at his tape that much

[JoeyFlex5]

1 minute ago, usmccharles said:

have any clips you want to throw my way that i should check out?  Never really looked at his tape that much

I don't know how to throw together clips but he's got a few games on draftbreakdown. His game vs Virginia was a beauty

[usmccharles]

2 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I don't know how to throw together clips but he's got a few games on draftbreakdown. His game vs Virginia was a beauty

Sounds good. 

[Tru11]

13 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

So what was your purpose for posting anything then? Trolling?

If you're goal was to point out that he played different positions, did you somehow think you had some sort of top-secret insider information that nobody else but you was aware of? And then to acknowledge that its really not relevant at all? I mean any way you slice it, you pointed out something, and then acknowledged that what you pointed out didn't really matter.

It seems that you were trolling, caught yourself doing it terribly, then got mad when people pointed it out.

I mean its comical at this point.

 

On 27-2-2017 at 7:58 AM, hn68wb4 said:

Neither Elam nor Brown were forced to switch position. And I'd argue that Waller's switch was objectively the right move.

Reason i started posting about the different positions.

Anymore more briljant assumptions that you want to share?

[rmcjacket23]

6 hours ago, Tru11 said:

 

Reason i started posting about the different positions.

Anymore more briljant assumptions that you want to share?

Nope, you validated what I said.

Thanks

[Tru11]

7 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Nope, you validated what I said.

Thanks

your welcome

[berad]

On 2/27/2017 at 6:13 PM, ellicottraven said:

 

Here's a good article on the topic. Read it all the way through because its pretty interesting....

http://russellstreetreport.com/2017/02/26/street-talk/ravens-comp-picks/

Didn't see any specifics as top players the Ravens did not sign in FA because they wanted comp picks instead. The author just says they could've had a number one WR or lockdown CB - that's nice to say but, without an example, it's baseless. The Ravens rarely shell out big money at those spots in FA but that has less to do with comp picks and more to do with team philosophy.

Only specifics in the article were bemoaning that some of the comp picks didn't turn out to be good players. That's more of a comment on our scouting, drafting, and development than it is the accumulation of picks. And, at the end of the day, that's a different complaint.

[usmccharles]

7 minutes ago, berad said:

Didn't see any specifics as top players the Ravens did not sign in FA because they wanted comp picks instead. The author just says they could've had a number one WR or lockdown CB - that's nice to say but, without an example, it's baseless. The Ravens rarely shell out big money at those spots in FA but that has less to do with comp picks and more to do with team philosophy.

Only specifics in the article were bemoaning that some of the comp picks didn't turn out to be good players. That's more of a comment on our scouting, drafting, and development than it is the accumulation of picks. And, at the end of the day, that's a different complaint.

Do you know anything on how the scouting department works?

[rmw10]

We'll likely never know the full details on what guys we passed on to try to save a comp pick, but I bet it does happen.  Sometimes it will work out and sometimes it won't, just like everything else in the NFL.  I know we passed on both Julian Edelman and Emmanuel Sanders to save the comp pick, $5M, and draft Campanaro instead.  In hindsight, you wish you could take that back.  On the same token though, there are instances where we do sign a guy like Dominique Foxworth, sacrifice the potential comp pick, and lose out because the player doesn't work out.

I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't worry too much about comp picks, but I don't blame them for doing so either.  I just want the best possible player on the team.  If that means forgoing a comp pick, so be it.  If that means not spending the money and opting for a young player instead, so be it.

[berad]

6 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Do you know anything on how the scouting department works?

Generally, I believe I do.

Some teams do it in different ways but, for the Ravens, they have area scouts across the country looking into prospects and collecting personal reference information from college sources (coaches, trainers, admin, etc) while comparing that with their own opinions of the players talent and personality.

Throughout the year (or years) of research, they write reports and determine whether a prospect is worthwhile, 'draftable' is a word I've heard them use.

Eventually, all of these scouts (and guys like DeCosta, Hortiz, etc) reconvene and compile these players into a list. From there, I believe they go about grading and ranking these players with input from the coaches. I'm sure a few players get bumped off the list after further review. The 'final' product is the mythical big board.

From there, it's time for the draft where they weigh value with their selections, play the matching game of guessing who teams will pick, and turning their selections in.

They also have processes for self-scouting and scouting players on other teams but I know less about that because they discuss it less.

Am I ignorant to something with the scouting? I would like to know - because I am interested - and don't want to be clueless about it

[berad]

13 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

We'll likely never know the full details on what guys we passed on to try to save a comp pick, but I bet it does happen.  Sometimes it will work out and sometimes it won't, just like everything else in the NFL.  I know we passed on both Julian Edelman and Emmanuel Sanders to save the comp pick, $5M, and draft Campanaro instead.  In hindsight, you wish you could take that back.  On the same token though, there are instances where we do sign a guy like Dominique Foxworth, sacrifice the potential comp pick, and lose out because the player doesn't work out.

I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't worry too much about comp picks, but I don't blame them for doing so either.  I just want the best possible player on the team.  If that means forgoing a comp pick, so be it.  If that means not spending the money and opting for a young player instead, so be it.

That's interesting. If they thought Campanaro was a viable alternative to guys like Edelman and Sanders, they shouldn't have waited until round 7 (having to trade back into the draft) to get him - regardless of if he actually panned out or not. Was Keith Wenning more valuable than that?

Hindsight is 20-20 but in the third round they took Terence Brooks while Donte Moncrief and John Brown were available.

[usmccharles]

1 minute ago, berad said:

Generally, I believe I do.

Some teams do it in different ways but, for the Ravens, they have area scouts across the country looking into prospects and collecting personal reference information from college sources (coaches, trainers, admin, etc) while comparing that with their own opinions of the players talent and personality.

Throughout the year (or years) of research, they write reports and determine whether a prospect is worthwhile, 'draftable' is a word I've heard them use.

Eventually, all of these scouts (and guys like DeCosta, Hortiz, etc) reconvene and compile these players into a list. From there, I believe they go about grading and ranking these players with input from the coaches. I'm sure a few players get bumped off the list after further review. The 'final' product is the mythical big board.

From there, it's time for the draft where they weigh value with their selections, play the matching game of guessing who teams will pick, and turning their selections in.

They also have processes for self-scouting and scouting players on other teams but I know less about that because they discuss it less.

Am I ignorant to something with the scouting? I would like to know - because I am interested - and don't want to be clueless about it

I was actually asking to get informed as I know nothing about the process.  Didn't mean to come off the wrong way if that's how you took it. 

Lets use Antonio Brown as an example.  Is there anyway OZ would know about him other than a scout putting him in one of his reports?  I am just intrigued on how we continually fail at the WR position.  From what I understand, Oz can only judge what reports he gets from the scouts as its their job to bring him the info and he is the one who analyzes it.  I know he is a bad example as every team passed on him 5 times, but hes just an example. 

Sorry if im not portraying my thoughts too well right now, just had an F18 electrical system go crazy, trying to get this in before my day is ruined. 

[rmw10]

2 minutes ago, berad said:

That's interesting. If they thought Campanaro was a viable alternative to guys like Edelman and Sanders, they shouldn't have waited until round 7 (having to trade back into the draft) to get him - regardless of if he actually panned out or not. Was Keith Wenning more valuable than that?

Hindsight is 20-20 but in the third round they took Terence Brooks while Donte Moncrief and John Brown were available.

I thought that was weird as well, but it came straight from DeCosta I believe in the post draft presser that year.  Said they were willing to give $5M a year to either of them but thought they could get the same thing out of Camp for much cheaper obviously.

[berad]

Just now, usmccharles said:

I was actually asking to get informed as I know nothing about the process.  Didn't mean to come off the wrong way if that's how you took it. 

Lets use Antonio Brown as an example.  Is there anyway OZ would know about him other than a scout putting him in one of his reports?  I am just intrigued on how we continually fail at the WR position.  From what I understand, Oz can only judge what reports he gets from the scouts as its their job to bring him the info and he is the one who analyzes it.  I know he is a bad example as every team passed on him 5 times, but hes just an example. 

Sorry if im not portraying my thoughts too well right now, just had an F18 electrical system go crazy, trying to get this in before my day is ruined. 

No, didn't take it that way, no worries. I won't pretend I know it all.

I'm not sure exactly how deep the top level guys go, particularly Ozzie. He's got a lot to juggle with roster management so that definitely consumes time he could devote to scouting. Does he only look at the top guys? Controversial guys? Ones we're more likely to get? Not sure on that.

From interviews and press conferences, I do know that he likes to collect everyone's input before deciding something. Sometimes, he'll stay to what he knows - drafting JO over Phillips or Reed over Lito Sheppard despite owner complaints/questions - but I imagine, like anyone, he can be swayed.

Sorry, man, good luck with that star cruiser lol

[usmccharles]

10 minutes ago, berad said:

No, didn't take it that way, no worries. I won't pretend I know it all.

I'm not sure exactly how deep the top level guys go, particularly Ozzie. He's got a lot to juggle with roster management so that definitely consumes time he could devote to scouting. Does he only look at the top guys? Controversial guys? Ones we're more likely to get? Not sure on that.

From interviews and press conferences, I do know that he likes to collect everyone's input before deciding something. Sometimes, he'll stay to what he knows - drafting JO over Phillips or Reed over Lito Sheppard despite owner complaints/questions - but I imagine, like anyone, he can be swayed.

Sorry, man, good luck with that star cruiser lol

Makes sense. So what qualification do scouts normally have?  Does a single scout that covers his one area, do they cover every position as well?  Seems like it would be hard for a scout to know what to look for at every position. 

[berad]

4 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Makes sense. So what qualification do scouts normally have?  Does a single scout that covers his one area, do they cover every position as well?  Seems like it would be hard for a scout to know what to look for at every position. 

A lot of them look like former players at the pro or college levels. Some worked with other teams or with the Ravens on different quality control functions.

It looks like they do all positions and the 'regions' looks like the correlate to NCAA conferences, a lot of the time. There is some overlap, they have guys split the Southeast, Southwest, and Midwest regions as well as two national scouts.

It does seem like a lot. Maybe they get guidance from the top level guys? A lot of what they do is forge connections with players, coaches. Some of them set up meetings with the team.

I wish I did know a little more about it because it seems kind of ambiguous to describe.

[usmccharles]

28 minutes ago, berad said:

A lot of them look like former players at the pro or college levels. Some worked with other teams or with the Ravens on different quality control functions.

It looks like they do all positions and the 'regions' looks like the correlate to NCAA conferences, a lot of the time. There is some overlap, they have guys split the Southeast, Southwest, and Midwest regions as well as two national scouts.

It does seem like a lot. Maybe they get guidance from the top level guys? A lot of what they do is forge connections with players, coaches. Some of them set up meetings with the team.

I wish I did know a little more about it because it seems kind of ambiguous to describe.

Im sure there is an article somewhere that a scout has written, im going to look for that, ill post it if I find a good one. 

[The Raven]

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

We'll likely never know the full details on what guys we passed on to try to save a comp pick, but I bet it does happen.  Sometimes it will work out and sometimes it won't, just like everything else in the NFL.  I know we passed on both Julian Edelman and Emmanuel Sanders to save the comp pick, $5M, and draft Campanaro instead.  In hindsight, you wish you could take that back.  On the same token though, there are instances where we do sign a guy like Dominique Foxworth, sacrifice the potential comp pick, and lose out because the player doesn't work out.

I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't worry too much about comp picks, but I don't blame them for doing so either.  I just want the best possible player on the team.  If that means forgoing a comp pick, so be it.  If that means not spending the money and opting for a young player instead, so be it.

I like the comp pick strategy, but it relies on you to be hitting on 33 percent of your picks -- and here's the kicker -- and retaining them for the duration of their rookie deal. That second part has been our problem I think.

I think you have to collect comps when you have so much cap invested in QB and in your red chip players.

[Willbacker]

1 hour ago, usmccharles said:

Makes sense. So what qualification do scouts normally have?  Does a single scout that covers his one area, do they cover every position as well?  Seems like it would be hard for a scout to know what to look for at every position. 

All just opinions here but to me a high football IQ plus great communication skills are what is needed to be a successful scout for ex a 50 yr old scout has to be able to fluctuate between talking to parents,coaches and the athletes with varying age differentials and different backgrounds. Also willing to travel and be gone from home for long stretches at a time which is a mindset of it's own

Also the scouting is definitely split into regional coverage with a chain where it works up to national scout and then on to Oz and Eric themselves and again back to opinion Oz probally does a lot of film watching,talking on the phone to scouts and coaches alike but probally doesn't do a lot of footwork but depends on his scouts (who he hires). Also there's private firms that can be hired to supply data that is also acquired which I believe the Ravens use.

Hopefully you find a good article cuz I'm curious myself.

47 minutes ago, The Raven said:

I like the comp pick strategy, but it relies on you to be hitting on 33 percent of your picks -- and here's the kicker -- and retaining them for the duration of their rookie deal. That second part has been our problem I think.

I think you have to collect comps when you have so much cap invested in QB and in your red chip players.

I'm not sure if its the rookie deal part of it but to me its not getting that 2nd deal done. We need at least 2 out of 3 from Wagner,Williams or Juice to make the 2013 draft any sort of success. This has been my big gripe. Us not keeping our own that are going into their prime and redeveloping our identity with homegrown talent. Right now I'm thinking those 3 plus Aiken are our chances for comp picks and I'm hoping we can keep it to 2 and see what happens from there.

[The Raven]

4 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

All just opinions here but to me a high football IQ plus great communication skills are what is needed to be a successful scout for ex a 50 yr old scout has to be able to fluctuate between talking to parents,coaches and the athletes with varying age differentials and different backgrounds. Also willing to travel and be gone from home for long stretches at a time which is a mindset of it's own

Also the scouting is definitely split into regional coverage with a chain where it works up to national scout and then on to Oz and Eric themselves and again back to opinion Oz probally does a lot of film watching,talking on the phone to scouts and coaches alike but probally doesn't do a lot of footwork but depends on his scouts (who he hires). Also there's private firms that can be hired to supply data that is also acquired which I believe the Ravens use.

Hopefully you find a good article cuz I'm curious myself.

I'm not sure if its the rookie deal part of it but to me its not getting that 2nd deal done. We need at least 2 out of 3 from Wagner,Williams or Juice to make the 2013 draft any sort of success. This has been my big gripe. Us not keeping our own that are going into their prime and redeveloping our identity with homegrown talent. Right now I'm thinking those 3 plus Aiken are our chances for comp picks and I'm hoping we can keep it to 2 and see what happens from there.

Ideally you retain 75 percent of your draft class for their rookie deals and retain 33 percent in a second deal. That's my take.

And, I'm not sure we're doing either.

Edited March 1 by The Raven

[Willbacker]

2 minutes ago, The Raven said:

Ideally you retain 75 percent of your draft class for their rookie deals and retain 33 percent in a second deal. That's my take.

And, I'm not sure we're doing either.

Well off the top of my head we got Joe,Pitta,Jimmy,Yanda,Suggs and Webb as original Ravens after their rookie contracts so that doesn't look good lol.

[usmccharles]

@Willbacker This is a pretty good read about The History of Scouting. 

http://www.nfl.com/historyofscouting

[Willbacker]

13 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

@Willbacker This is a pretty good read about The History of Scouting. 

http://www.nfl.com/historyofscouting

Cool story and yes Gil Brandt should be the 1st scout in the HOF

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, The Raven said:

Ideally you retain 75 percent of your draft class for their rookie deals and retain 33 percent in a second deal. That's my take.

And, I'm not sure we're doing either.

Would have to define a range to analyze this for. Obviously looking at the 2016 draft class is pointless at this point, and I'm not sure analyzing 2015 is a good idea either, though we have lost 2 players from the 2015 class so far (one was via death though, so not sure if that should count).

So I guess if you started in 08 with the "Harbaugh/Flacco era":

2008 (10 picks):

4 picks played full rookie deal, 2 picks with 2nd contracts (Flacco and Rice)

Notable: 6 picks did play at least 3 years with the team, including all of our picks in the first 3 rounds. One pick never made the team.

2009 (6 picks):

3 picks played full rookie deal, 1 pick with 2nd contract (Webb)

Notable: First three round picks were all significant for us, last three players played a total of 1 year. Two picks never made the team.

2010 (7 picks):

4 picks played full rookie deal, 1 pick with 2nd contract (Pitta)

Notable: Technically, Terrence Cody signed a 2nd contract, as he played a 5th year with us. He only appeared in one game though, so I didn't count him. This was a notoriously poor draft class, particularly given the whiffs in the 2nd round, but we did have 4 guys who lasted the entire time, and a couple other guys who played 2-3 seasons. 

2011 (8 picks):

5 picks played full rookie deal, 1 pick with 2nd contract (Jimmy)

Notable: 2 other picks played 3 seasons, so 7 of the 8 draft picks played at least 3 seasons. Overall a pretty strong class. 

2012 (8 picks):

2 picks played full rookie deal, 0 picks with 2nd contract

Notable: another notoriously poor draft class, its basically KO and a bunch of hot garbage in this draft. A couple guys played 3 seasons, like Pierce, Tyson and Asa Jackson, but its just terrible really. Nothing else to say here.

2013 (10 picks):

5 picks played full rookie deal, Unknown

Notable: Elam, Williams, Juice, Wagner and Jensen are the only one's to survive currently. We know Elam is gone, and will likely lose at least one more. Think we will realistically retain 2-3 of these guys on 2nd contracts

2014 (9 picks):

7 picks still under rookie deal, Unknown

Notable: Brooks and Wenning are both gone. Camp has been signed and cut a couple times I think, but he's still kind of, sort of, in our plans. 

So overall, I'd say we have a reasonable track record of draft picks surviving the full rookie deal, or giving at least 3 seasons, which I think should be a better standard. 

The retention rate for a 2nd contract is very low, however. Given that we have incomplete info on the 2013 season right now, over the 5 year stretch from 08-12, we averaged 1 extension per year. Essentially kept 5 out of 39 picks, which is roughly 13%. We had a full rookie contract retention rate of about 41%. I think 50% is a respectable number there, especially when you take into account that most of your late round picks (rounds 6 and 7) very rarely pan out, and most aren't in the league very long.