Every year, some of the biggest questions on the minds of National Football League (NFL) general managers entering the draft are whether it will be a worthwhile risk to invest in particular players with troubling pasts.
This year has been no different, as ‘character concern’ stories including Reuben Foster’s positive drug test and Joe Mixon’s assault have dominated headlines in the days approaching the draft. With several multi-million dollar decisions looming, let’s take a look at how character might affect these players draft positions.
It should affect position
Before selecting Charles Rogers second overall in 2003, the Detroit Lions heavily vetted the wide receiver following his failed drug test before the NFL Scouting Combine.
After speaking with his college coaches, friends, his agent, and even Charles himself, the team felt confident that drugs would not be an issue for him in his professional career.
However, after three lacklustre NFL seasons and three violations of the league’s substance abuse policy, Rogers would have been best off using his six-year, 39.5 million dollar contract to find a luxury rehab for marijuana.
Roger’s story could be a cautionary tale to teams around the league that despite saying the right things after an incident, drafting players that have these concerns could be a huge risk. For that reason, suspensions, drug problems, and arrests should all at least have some effect on how teams view different players.
Although this does not mean that drafting a player with similar issues as Charles Rogers will or will not work out for other teams.
Players with character concerns are undervalued
Kendall Weir and Stephen Wu of Hamilton College conducted a study that found that players with legal issues and suspensions go lower in the draft than equal players with clean records.
Surprisingly, however, the researchers’ data showed that it could be worth the risk to draft players with character concerns. This is because such players typically perform at the same level as players with equal abilities with clean pasts, despite being drafted much lower on average.
While this does not mean that it is always worth drafting players with extra baggage, it does show that teams might be punishing players too much for off-the-field incidents on their draft boards. It might not always be the safe selection, but teams that are willing to take these chances might be rewarded with better players in lower rounds.
More than just ability
There is much more that goes into selecting a player outside of their ability on the football field. While a player like Joe Mixon, who would have likely been a first round pick if not for assaulting a woman in 2014, certainly has the physical tools, there is a chance that he will not be able to earn the respect of his teammates.
Detroit Lions guard T. J. Lang said, “It’s really tough because when it comes to that whole thing – to hitting a woman – it’s really tough to get past that when it’s out there.” when asked about the possibility of his team drafting him. Teams need to take various factors into account when drafting, including issues such as team chemistry, work ethic, and whether the players are at risk for suspensions.
As a fan, it is sometimes hard to look at players outside of their physical abilities, but that can make the difference between becoming an NFL superstar or a bust. Just look at 2007 first overall selection JaMarcus Russell, who had all of the physical tools to become an elite quarterback, but possessed none of the work ethic to make that happen.
On the other hand, there are players like Tyrann Mathieu who was able to become an accomplished player despite the drug problems and issues he experienced before entering into league.
The truth is that every player is different, and character concerns should be examined on a case-by-case basis by every team. Each player will come in with a certain amount of baggage, and the true test for NFL general mangers is identifying how much should impact their draft board positions.
GFH
Roar Rookie
Interesting that Dallas drafted Taco Charlton over Reuben Foster. I bet their recent swings and misses on Randy Gregory and Greg Hardy were on their minds when they turned in the player card. Anyway, I think that draft overwhelmingly answered that question in the affirmative - good talent will still be drafted, albeit a little later, despite whatever off-the-field questions they have to answer.
The Doc
Roar Guru
Great article. It is a tricky science trying to determine which players have the right head space to make it at the highest level. From a recruiters perspective, The only Predictor of future behaviour is the past and taking into account playing potential and all other variables, Players with a past history of misdemeanours will have that go againat them. as alluded to above, the nature of the misdemeanour is crucial and whether there were repeated offences. Repeated offences shows an inability to learn from a mistake and that would put a line through them. drugs and assault charges are trickier - everyone deserves a second chance I believe and if they have shown remorse and the intel suggests they have turned their ways around then they should be given a chance. In the US though, drafted players are a bit older compared to say Aussie rules players who are usually under 18 and indiscretion made later in a college career would count more againat a player
no one in particular
Roar Guru
Multiple witnesses corroborate Conleys version, including a female friend of the apparent victim. The Raiders also submitted him to a polygraph test before the draft
joe
Guest
No charges yet most likely they will pay off the girl to end the case very much like Greg Hardy did a couple years back in Carolina In all likelihood it never gets to court.
JGK
Roar Guru
There are no charges against Conley - it is just an allegation.
joe
Guest
Tonight we had 2 guys with checkered off field history but obvious 1st rd talent (Mixon & Cook) not go in 1st rd.However, Conley from OhioSt was still drafted #24 overall by the Raiders with a pending rape case in the works.Depends on the player & organization. Rueben Foster dropped from probable top 10 pick in January to late 1st rd from failed drug test & Jabrill Peppers failed drug test didn't affect his draft stock at all he went late 1st which was expected.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
I'm not saying it is, the old white guys that make these calls do. And you just need to look at the penalties dished out to guys that commit either and which sits you on the sidelines longer
northerner
Guest
I'm not sure why you think taking a drug is more likely to reflect repetitive behaviour than beating up on people does. It's all about character, after all.
joe
Guest
Depends on the players infractions & what team he is drafted by.Some franchises have a better infrastructure &/or personnel to handle a potentially troubled player.Minnesota in 1998 comes to mind.They took Randy Moss who was ultra talented but had off field issues.The Vikings had Denny Green as coach & veteran leadership on the team with Cunningham,Robert Smith & Chris Carter.Moss fit in perfectly & excelled immediately.Had Moss gone to a dysfunctional organization like Cincinnati or something, then maybe the results would have been far different.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
It depends on what the concerns are. If it means they could miss games (like a failed drugs test) then they will fall. If it is something that has already been dealt with, like an assault case, then it won't affect them