SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
Peter King on Eric Berry: are safeties really a risk at the top of the draft?
Among his many thoughts in his weekly Monday Morning Quarterback article, Peter King shared some on Eric Berry, the star safety from the University at Tennessee, who is projected as a top ten pick, and on many boards a top five pick, in this year's draft:
If I were an NFL team drafting high, I'd be very careful evaluating Eric Berry.
The Tennessee safety, obviously, is a rare prospect. But the history of safeties in terms of longevity and greatness at the top of the draft is very shaky.
The nature of the position is smallish people throwing themselves around like linebackers, and that doesn't lend itself to long careers. The three best safeties to be drafted in the past decade -- Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu and Bob Sanders -- have missed 78 games due to injury in their 21 combined NFL seasons.
Berry looks like a top-10 pick, but the team that takes him is going to be picking against history. Of the five top-10 safeties this decade, none has had franchise-player impact: Roy Williams (Dallas, eighth overall, 2002), Sean Taylor (Washington, fifth overall, 2004), Michael Huff (Oakland, seventh, 2006), Donte Whitner (Buffalo, eighth, 2006), LaRon Landry (Washington, sixth, 2007). Taylor might have had franchise-player impact if he had not been gunned down three-and-a-half years into his career. But overall, the position justifies the caution lots of teams are taking with it.
. . .
I'm not saying Berry won't be a great player. Maybe he'll be Ed Reed. Maybe he'll know when to dish out the big hit and when to steer a player instead of seek and destroy. But the odds of him being great for a long time -- as opposed to the physical longevity of a tackle or defensive lineman or quarterback not subject to as many high-speed collisions -- are pretty long, based on history.
I had several instant reactions to that segment, including:
1) Well, if someone is talking about history, we might just be able to look into that;
2) It would suck if Eric Berry had a career like Troy Polamalu, Ed Reed and Bob Sanders . . . I mean, who would want 9 pro bowls, 5 first team all-pros, and 3 second team all-pros, and numerous playoff appearances during the combined first five years of their respective careers. Seriously, who would want to settle for that while they were still playing under their rookie contracts? If God gave you some insider info that Eric Berry's first five years were going to be a cross between Troy Polamalu, Ed Reed and Bob Sanders, but he was unfortunately mum on everyone else, and you were a team sitting with pick number five for a team that had horrendous safety play the year before, don't you jump at that opportunity? I don't know how Eric Berry's career will turn out, but I would be primarily concerned with how he will do while he is playing under the initial contract, and not what might happen eight years later.
3) Even just looking at the five recent top ten safeties cited, it is clearly a case of lack of comparison to how other positions perform and selective memory. Roy Williams is a liability now, but he made 6 pro bowls and 1 first team all-pro. As we will see, that's pretty good for an early first round pick. Sean Taylor made two pro bowls in his first four seasons and looked like a star; I don't think we should anticipate the tragic end to his life and project that as impacting how highly drafted safeties turn out. Whitner, Landry and Huff have each started three seasons. Others can chime on Whitner, Landry and Huff, but I wouldn't rule out Whitner or Landry making a pro bowl at some point; Huff looks like the most disappointing but he could turn it around. Those three guys are young and have been starters and we certainly shouldn't make a historical comparison to other guys who are still quite active and potentially entering their primes.
4) On the injury thing, how different is that from other positions? I think it is an interesting question--though one that should be more of an issue when evaluating contract extensions and second contracts. Do star safeties tend to fall apart more frequently than other positions, once they hit the mid to late twenties?
I'll try to take a look at that last injury issue in the future. For now, I want to get back to the history of drafting safeties in the first round. We can always have a recency versus relevancy debate, but I'm not going to look at guys who have played for three seasons and are still active. I used the draft database to find all players in the 1978-2002 drafts--this coincides on the front end with the changes in passing rules and the sixteen game schedule, and ends with a draft where players, if active, should be at age 30 or older. I then sorted each position by number of players who made a pro bowl, and number of players who had a career AV of 50 or greater. Here are the results for all first round picks during that span, sorted by position, and percentage of pro bowlers.
| Position | PB selection | Total | PB Pct | AV50 | TOTAL | AV50 Pct | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defensive Tackle | 20 | 45 | 0.444 | 21 | 45 | 0.467 | ||
| Safety | 14 | 32 | 0.438 | 13 | 32 | 0.406 | ||
| Running Back | 41 | 98 | 0.418 | 32 | 98 | 0.327 | ||
| Quarterback | 19 | 47 | 0.404 | 22 | 47 | 0.468 | ||
| Tight End | 10 | 25 | 0.400 | 6 | 25 | 0.240 | ||
| Offensive Tackle | 31 | 79 | 0.392 | 36 | 79 | 0.456 | ||
| Offensive Guard | 14 | 36 | 0.389 | 13 | 36 | 0.361 | ||
| Linebacker | 31 | 81 | 0.383 | 33 | 81 | 0.407 | ||
| Wide Receiver | 30 | 80 | 0.375 | 31 | 80 | 0.388 | ||
| Cornerback | 24 | 74 | 0.324 | 23 | 74 | 0.311 | ||
| Center | 3 | 10 | 0.300 | 3 | 10 | 0.300 | ||
| Defensive End | 27 | 95 | 0.284 | 37 | 95 | 0.389 |
Okay, so this is just a quick look, and is not sorted by draft position within the first round, pro bowls are not a perfect measure of value, etc., etc. We see, though, that safeties grade out pretty well. What about early first round picks, though? Berry is going to go high in the draft, not just in the first round. Here is the same chart, except for top ten picks only, during the same time period.
| Position | PB selection | Total | PB Pct | AV50 | TOTAL | AV50 Pct | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | 7 | 9 | 0.778 | 6 | 9 | 0.667 | ||
| Defensive Tackle | 11 | 16 | 0.688 | 9 | 16 | 0.563 | ||
| Running Back | 22 | 35 | 0.629 | 20 | 35 | 0.571 | ||
| Offensive Tackle | 17 | 30 | 0.567 | 18 | 30 | 0.600 | ||
| Wide Receiver | 14 | 26 | 0.538 | 13 | 26 | 0.500 | ||
| Linebacker | 16 | 33 | 0.485 | 16 | 33 | 0.485 | ||
| Cornerback | 10 | 21 | 0.476 | 11 | 21 | 0.524 | ||
| Quarterback | 13 | 28 | 0.464 | 14 | 28 | 0.500 | ||
| Defensive End | 14 | 38 | 0.368 | 18 | 38 | 0.474 | ||
| Offensive Guard | 3 | 9 | 0.333 | 3 | 9 | 0.333 | ||
| Tight End | 1 | 4 | 0.250 | 0 | 4 | 0.000 |
So, yes, you're reading that correctly. The history of safeties in terms of longevity and greatness the top of the draft is, in fact, not very shaky at all compared to other positions--it is the opposite of shaky. Seven of the nine safeties drafted in the top ten between 1978 and 2002 made a pro bowl. Six of the nine had a career AV higher than 50 (and Bennie Blades finished at 49). The median top ten safety had a career like Eric Turner. Rickey Dixon is the only one who started less than three seasons and could be considered a true bust.
Only nine were drafted in this time period, so we have a small sample size. GM's don't want to draft safeties early. They want to take the next Bruce Smith at defensive end, which is why we see that position rank second-highest in terms of most picks in the first round, but lowest in terms of pro bowl percentage. That's the position where they are willing to reach and to view with rose-colored glasses. They don't reach for safeties. You have to be elite to overcome the bias at safety against using the early pick, much like what we may be seeing with Berry. Contrary to King, I think history (granted, a very small number from history) shows that Berry is a relatively safe pick at the top of the draft to turn out to be at least a pretty good starter during his rookie contract.
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 25th, 2010 at 12:24 pm and is filed under NFL Draft. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

You're right on on this-- King's "analysis" is obviously anecdotal, not statistical. Safety actually has the lowest bust rate of any defensive position when taken in the first round:
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2010/3/15/1367708/nfl-draft-2010-bust-factors-on
In addition to not making his evaluation relative to other positions, King's standards ("franchise-level player") are ridiculously high in evaluating what constitutes a success. "Regular starter" would be a good place to begin. How many "franchise-level players" are taken in the first round in general each year, regardless of position?
Good post. I think your last point is a good one; you probably have to be low risk to be a safety selected in the top ten of the draft. Berry appears to be that impact player, and I think we've seen the sort of impact a guy like Sanders had when healthy, not to mention Polamalu and Reed.
There's something fishy with that ProBowlPercentage metric. I would think that it's easier to make a pro bowl at QB than, say, safety. Each year they select 3 QBs pr. conference out of a field of 16 to 20 players. Safeties are picked among a much larger field. And if voters differentiate between free- and strong safeties there only gets picked 1 or 2 players pr. conference pr. division.
I'm not a genius, though, so there must be a reason you guys haven't touched on that here or in any of the HoF posts. What am I not seeing here?
ESPN wrote an entire huge article on the "safest" and "riskiest" positions for the first round 3 years ago. It was very good, and it was concluded safeties were the "safest" bet for drafting in the first round. Several football sites I respect have taken PK to task for this, and I'm glad they have.
I unfortunately can't find the article after a bit of searching, but maybe someone else can. I think it was published in 2007, and spanned multiple pages, it was pretty good.
I agree. It's like, why take Adrian Peterson in the 1st round, look what happened to Ki-Jana Carter! A team must be CRAZY to think about taking a QB at #1, look at how Akili Smith's career turned out!
ESPN wrote an entire huge article on the "safest" and "riskiest" positions for the first round 3 years ago.
The article you're referring to is probably this piece by Ted Kluck on first-round draft choices: Draft risk study: Wrapping it up.
Mike Sando(ESPN) also posted a piece that summarizes a Scouts Inc. study positing similar objectives with somewhat dissimilar results (Note: Sando doesn't question or qualify the methodolody, criteria, results of the Scouts study; e.g. how they define "expectations").
I would be concerned about selection bias in the sample of the study, though. Perhaps a smaller no. of safeties were taken in the first round than any position but tight end and center because of thought that Pioli echoes in that King article: "You know how I feel about safeties that early." So you're seeing a higher % of those 1st-round safeties become pro bowlers because teams only take mega-elite safeties with first round picks, since they have some general unwritten rule about taking safeties that high and are scared off by all other safeties. As opposed to some positions with smaller percentage of pro bowlers, where teams are more willing to take a 1st-round flier on someone and that drags down their %. So it may not even be as simple as saying "safeties with 1st round talent have a 44% chance of becoming a pro bowler", because maybe sometimes safeties with the talent to be first rounders relative to players at other positions end up in the 2nd or 3rd round because GMs are scared of them busting or getting hurt.
In regards to # 7--if I read your comments correctly, you are talking about a selection bias which makes the analysis of whether picking a safety in the first round difficult to ascertain as a good choice.
But on the specific issue of Eric Berry and Peter King's opinions (not really analysis). He is considered an elite talent with a strong chance of at least becoming a starter. King is not concerned Berry will succeed--he is critiquing the longevity issue and whether a safety is a legitimate first round choice. As Jason points out in his post, the drafting team should be concerned morea about early impact initially and avoid speculation down the road of success past a certain # of years, such as 3 to 5 seasons.
Many selection biases exist for the first round picks--drafting a marquee player to attract fan interest would be one--and therefore you may not make the best pick for your team--this too could raise or lower the %age success rate for certain positions because teams may ignore the hard data of whether the player is truly worth the risk of being a first round selection. I would say the preliminary data support what Jason examined--first round safeties have a good track record--even better than other positions considered safer. And that Peter King's off the cuff assessment is not a valid argument against drafting Berry.
I think the selection bias is this--outside of ELITE safeties like the three mentioned, an "average" safety just isn't worth it. In basketball, people have rightfully noted that GM's look for "upside" while solid players go lower than they should. This somewhat applies to the first round of the NFL draft. This is why NFL GM's don't pick centers, TE's, and safeties high--there isn't "upside" to players at those positions. This is part of the reason why Peterson, Emmitt Smith, Dwight Freeney, etc. dropped slightly compared with their "true" value.
The other part of the equation relates to NEED. Since safeties, like QB's & OL, pretty much stay on the field regardless of the down & distance, if you have decent ones, you don't draft them HIGH. That's why draftniks can pretty much guess which teams will pick QB's EARLY, whereas other positions move all over the board.
Okay, I get that-- but why would an average safety (or average player of any ilk) be taken high in the first round? Seems irrelevant to this discussion.
1. King's an idiot. This isn't news, but you've done a nice job of demonstrating it once again.
2. Safety is one of the least valuable positions in football, as indicated by, for example, the franchise tag number - at $6.455m lower than that at any other position except TE and K/P. Let's suppose Berry were selected 5th overall. The 5th overall pick last year was Mark Sanchez, who received a 5 year deal reckoned to be worth around $50m once easily attainable bonuses are factored in. Such a contract would make Berry the best paid safety in football, and not by a small margin. How about Eugene Monroe, in the 8th slot? 5 years, $35.4m. That's still more per annum than the current safety franchise tag, but admittedly the tag amount will rise over the contract, so if Berry is a pro-bowl calibre safety, he would probably be playing up to such a contract. Any less, and he would not be. Michael Crabtree at 10 got $32m over 6 years. That's probably the earliest spot at which a pretty good starting safety would not be getting substantially overpaid. That's why teams do (and should) have reservations about taking them in the top ten.
3. I happen to really, really like Berry as a prospect. If he falls to ten or thereabouts, and my Texans trade up to take him, I will be ecstatic.
Re: Tim Wilson, #10
What I mean is that sometimes players who have shown in college ball to be "average"--but Mel Kiper et al deem said player to "have a lot of upside"--will be a surprise pick, whereas someone with obvious talent but "little-to-no-upside" will slide down. Most times these "upside" picks don't work out. IMO, safety is a position without much "upside"--thus (almost) nobody is willing to risk a top ten pick on one. The majority don't change the game that much, and aren't worth the financial commitment. Outside of Polamalu & Reed, I don't think OC's game-plan around a safety. Whereas teams do have to game-plan around many a DT/DE or star LB, or avoid Revis/Asomugha et al. Since they aren't involved in as many passing plays as CB's, or as many running plays as the front seven (or at least they aren't SUPPOSED to be), they just aren't worth the high pick--nor the $ that accompanies one.
I mean, Darren Sharper had a great season as the Saints' FS--and nobody is knocking down the door to sign him, probably because of his age as much as anything. He'll probably make the HALL, for goodness sake! Safeties just aren't worth it.
I think the flaw in your premise and analysis was that you assumed Peter King knows what he's talking about in the first place.
I agree! Which is why you need a smart GM when you are drafting because certain players are liabilities. Players like Ed Reed, Troy Polomatu, Bob Sanders, and Sean Taylor are the rage now because they are not liabilities at either stopping the run or in coverage. In addition, a safety has to be a guy that has to be a open-field tackler because he is sometimes the last line of defense. He must also be a good blitzer. With the multiple-wideout sets that offenses are running today teams are shying away from the big hitting, linebacker-type safeties and going with the more smaller, nimble safties and both strong and free safties today are becoming harder to be distinguish because they now both have to have the same strengths.
Re #12, thanks, that was a more coherent way of saying what I meant earlier. The selection bias is that safeties likely to bust out or get hurt don't get drafted in the first round because of what Joseph said, which is what I felt like that Pioli quote meant. For QBs, RBs, WRs, OTs, or pretty much any other position on offense or defense except C and TE, teams will take players likely to bust or get hurt, which makes it look like the "average" 1st-round safety is a lot safer than the "average" at those positions. But that's only because of the selection biases - if teams treated safeties like they did other positions, their % would go down too. Now maybe Berry is one of those mega-elites who won't bust, but we can't say King is 100% wrong based on the past draft data because that data is biased into making safeties look safer than they really are.
Brian Burke has another take on the Safety early question.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/03/are-safeties-risky-top-picks.html
The selection bias point is moot when you compare the safety numbers with the other positions rarely taken in the 1st round (center & tight end). While safeties are rarely taken high, the ones who do break through into the high picks tend to do well. But if that's just a matter of the other, lesser-talented ones falling into later rounds rather than underachieving as 1st rounders, then you'd see similar numbers from the TEs and Cs. The TEs and Cs who break into the 1st round should (by that logic) be superlative talents who are near-locks to be stars at their position. But the numbers suggest otherwise -- those first round centers and tight ends actually haven't done all that much in terms of Pro Bowls or AV ratings. While there certainly is a selection bias against certain positions, it isn't the answer to why 1st round safeties have a good track record.