Draft Metrics: Draft Tendencies
By: Tony Villiotti
November 4, 2011
Draft Metrics recently took a look at the issue of whether NFL teams display any recurring tendencies in their NFL Draft selections. Three specific areas were examined:
Do teams show a preference for drafting certain positions? Do teams show a preference for drafting players from particular conferences? Do teams show a preference for (or stay away from) underclassmen entering the draft?
Each team's draft selections were compared to the "norm" to determine whether there were pronounced tendencies.
Not surprisingly, Draft Metrics did discover that there were quantifiable tendencies. It is not practical to determine, though, whether the identified tendencies are due to (1) strategic or philosophical reasons, (2) circumstances faced by that team (e.g., an ongoing and unfulfilled need at a particular position) or (3) chance. Such a determination would require extensive analysis of each team's needs and the mindset of their management team. That is far beyond the scope of Draft Metrics' capabilities.
To identify draft tendencies, Draft Metrics studied the draft choices of each NFL team for both the time period from 1992 through 2011 (for both all draft choices and choices in the first three rounds) and the time period from 2007 through 2011 (again for both all draft choices and choices in the first three rounds).
Position Tendencies
A summary of the draft choices made by all NFL teams for groups of positions and individual positions is as follows. The percentages indicate the percentage of drafted players that are included in each group. For example, in all rounds of the draft from 1992 through 2011 49.6 percent of the selections were offensive players.
Note: Offensive and defensive players don't always add to 100 percent due to the drafting of kickers and return specialists.
Appendix 1 hereto shows the same information for each of the NFL teams.
  1992-2011   2007-2011
  All Rounds First 3 Rounds   All Rounds First 3 Rounds
Offensive Players 49.6% 48.4%   48.6% 48.0%
Defensive Players 48.7% 50.8%   49.7% 52.0%
Linemen 33.1% 34.4%   32.1% 36.6%
   Offensive 16.5% 16.1%   15.6% 15.6%
   Defensive 16.6% 18.3%   16.5% 21.0%
Skill Positions 27.1% 27.2%   26.7% 27.7%
   Quarterbacks 4.8 4.8%   4.8% 5.3%
   Running Backs 9.7% 9.5%   9.4% 8.3%
   Wide Receivers 12.6% 12.9%   12.5% 14.1%
Defensive Backs 18.9% 19.7%   20.0% 19.2%
Linebackers 13.2% 12.8%   13.1% 11.7%
Tight Ends 6.0% 5.1%   6.3% 4.7%
As mentioned earlier, it is clear that have been differences among the teams in the drafting of playing positions. Whether those differences were by design or circumstance is a matter of conjecture. Following is a summary of the highest and lowest teams in terms of percentage of players drafted for select position categories:
Offensive Players Drafted:
  1992-2011   1992-2011
  All Rounds   First 3 Rounds
Highest % Denver Broncos 54.8%   Cleveland Browns 58.5%
  New York Jets 54.1%   Seattle Seahawks 57.9%
  Ravens/Redskins 53.8%   Washington Redskins 57.1%
Lowest % Indianapolis Colts 42.2%   Buffalo Bills 40.6%
  New York Giants 43.5%   Minnesota Vikings 41.7%
  Minnesota Vikings 43.9%   Indianapolis Colts 42.6%
  2007-2011   2007-2011
  All Rounds   First 3 Rounds
Highest % New York Jets 69.6%   Miami Dolphins 64.7%
  Baltimore Ravens 63.2%   Minnesota Vikings 63.6%
  Green Bay Packers 57.8%   Browns/Raiders 60.0%
Lowest % Tampa Bay Bucs 37.5%   Tampa Bay Bucs 31.3%
  New Orleans Saints 37.9%   Houston Texans 33.3%
  Houston Texans 38.5%   San Diego Chargers 35.7%
Skill Position (QB, RB, WR) Players Drafted:
  1992-2011   1992-2011
  All Rounds   First 3 Rounds
Highest % Baltimore Ravens 33.3%   Cleveland Browns 43.9%
  Cleveland Browns 32.5%   New York Giants 31.7%
  Green Bay Packers 31.5%   Tennessee Titans 31.3%
Lowest % Indianapolis Colts 19.9%   Dallas Cowboys 16.1%
  Dallas Cowboys 20.0%   Jacksonville Jaguars 20.0%
  Houston Texans 24.1%   New Orleans Saints 20.8%
  2007-2011   2007-2011
  All Rounds   First 3 Rounds
Highest % New York Jets 47.8%   Minnesota Vikings 45.5%
  Baltimore Ravens 36.8%   Miami Dolphins 41.2%
  Minnesota Vikings 36.1%   Browns/Lions 40.0%
Lowest % Tennessee Titans 15.4%   Indianapolis Colts 13.3%
  New Orleans Saints 17.2%   New Orleans Saints 15.4%
  Atlanta Falcons 18.6%   Jacksonville Jaguars 15.4%
Offensive and Defensive Linemen Drafted:
  1992-2011   1992-2011
  All Rounds   First 3 Rounds
Highest % Carolina Panthers 37.0%   Houston Texans 45.5%
  Seattle Seahawks 36.5%   Carolina Panthers 42.1%
  Cardinals/Dolphins 36.1%   Oakland Raiders 41.0%
Lowest % Cleveland Browns 28.0%   San Diego Chargers 23.0%
  Washington Redskins 29.4%   Cincinnati Bengals 25.0%
  New York Giants 29.9%   Cleveland Browns 26.8%
  2007-2011   2007-2011
  All Rounds   First 3 Rounds
Highest % Indianapolis Colts 41.0%   Jacksonville Jaguars 61.5%
  Jacksonville Jaguars 38.9%   Indianapolis Colts 53.3%
  Carolina Panthers 38.1%   Several Teams 50.0%
Lowest % Dallas Cowboys 20.0%   Minnesota Vikings 9.1%
  San Diego Chargers 21.2%   San Diego Chargers 14.3%
  New York Giants 23.1%   New England Patriots 19.0%
When looking at the full 20-year study period, NFL teams can be grouped into seven categories based on their basic draft tendencies:
• Balanced (49ers, Bengals, Bucs, Cardinals, Raiders)
• Offensive Slant (Chargers, Redskins, Steelers)
• Defensive Slant (Colts, Cowboys, Falcons, Jaguars, Lions, Texans, Titans, Vikings)
• Defense Early, Offense Late (Bills, Broncos, Chiefs, Eagles, Jets, Packers, Panthers, Saints)
• Offense Early, Defense Late (Bears, Browns, Giants)
• Balanced Early, Offense Late (Patriots, Ravens)
• Offense Early, Balanced Late (Dolphins, Rams, Seahawks)
Following are comments on the tendencies of each NFL team.
Arizona Cardinals  
   Offense vs. Defense Pretty balanced, but heavy on defense in the early rounds in the last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Drafted fewer defensive backs, both overall and early
   Another Significant Tendency Fairly heavy preference for defensive linemen; drafted very few offensive linemen in last five years
Atlanta Falcons  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean toward defense, heavily in the last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Heavy on defensive backs early in the draft
   Another Significant Tendency Have stayed away from drafting defensive linemen early in the draft
Baltimore Ravens  
   Offense vs. Defense Heavy lean to drafting offense, especially over the last five years and late in the draft over the 20-year period
   Most Significant Tendency Load up on skill positions in later rounds, about average number taken early
   Another Significant Tendency Tend to take fewer defensive backs, both overall and early, than the norm
Buffalo Bills  
   Offense vs. Defense Balanced overall, but heavy on defense in early rounds and all rounds in the last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Take defensive linemen early
   Another Significant Tendency Avoid offensive line early
Carolina Panthers  
   Offense vs. Defense Pretty balanced overall, tilt to defense early in the draft
   Most Significant Tendency Like defensive linemen early and late
   Another Significant Tendency Fewer defensive backs early than most teams
Chicago Bears  
   Offense vs. Defense Evenly balanced
   Most Significant Tendency Draft offensive and defensive linemen early
   Another Significant Tendency Avoid linebackers early in the draft
Cincinnati Bengals  
   Offense vs. Defense Evenly balanced
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from offensive and defensive linemen early in the draft
   Another Significant Tendency Draft skill positions and linebackers early in the draft
Cleveland Browns  
   Offense vs. Defense Focus on offense early, defense late
   Most Significant Tendency Tend to grab skill positions early, especially wide receivers
   Another Significant Tendency Avoid linebackers early, none drafted in top three rounds in the last five years
Dallas Cowboys  
   Offense vs. Defense Slight defensive preference overall, but pretty balanced in last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from skill positions early; fewest number of QBs drafted in 20-year period
   Another Significant Tendency Heavy on offensive linemen
Denver Broncos  
   Offense vs. Defense Heavy on offense overall, but focus on defense early (though not so much in last few years)
   Most Significant Tendency Tendencies of 20-yr. period and last five years are completely different. Full 20 years, it would be taking DBs early; last five years would be taking OL both early and late
   Another Significant Tendency Lots of skill position players overall in 20-year period; relatively few skill position players in last few years
Detroit Lions  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean toward defense, very balanced last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Take defensive linemen early
   Another Significant Tendency Heavy on linebackers, not so much over the last five years
Green Bay Packers  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean toward offense overall, but favor defense early in the draft
   Most Significant Tendency Take defensive backs early, not so much later
   Another Significant Tendency Take offensive linemen later in the draft
Houston Texans  
   Offense vs. Defense Definite slant to drafting defense
   Most Significant Tendency Take more defensive backs than the norm, particularly early
   Another Significant Tendency Fewer skill position players than the norm
Indianapolis Colts  
   Offense vs. Defense Focus on defense
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from drafting many skilled position players
   Another Significant Tendency Heavy focus on offensive and defensive linemen in the last five years; also take defensive backs early
Jacksonville Jaguars  
   Offense vs. Defense Focus on defense
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from skill positions early, take them later
   Another Significant Tendency Like offensive and defensive linemen early
Kansas City Chiefs  
   Offense vs. Defense Draft defense early and offense late
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from linebackers both early and late, none drafted in top three rounds in last five years
   Another Significant Tendency Heavy drafters of defensive linemen
Miami Dolphins  
   Offense vs. Defense Focus on offense early, pretty balanced thereafter
   Most Significant Tendency Heavy on offensive linemen
   Another Significant Tendency Like skill positions early
Minnesota Vikings  
   Offense vs. Defense Tend to take defense overall, but switched to offense in the last five years
   Most Significant Tendency More defensive linemen and defensive backs early in the draft over full 20 years
   Another Significant Tendency Very heavy drafting of skill position players over the last five years
New England Patriots  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean toward offense overall but more balanced in early rounds; more balanced in last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Like defensive backs early
   Another Significant Tendency Light on defensive linemen both early and overall; more offensive linemen late
New Orleans Saints  
   Offense vs. Defense Draft defense early, offense late; though defense has been major focus in last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from skill positions; no QBs have been taken in the first three rounds in the last 20 years
   Another Significant Tendency Tend to take more offensive linemen, both early and overall, than the norm
New York Giants  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean toward defense, but favor offense early in the draft
   Most Significant Tendency Like skill positions, especially wide receivers, early in the draft
   Another Significant Tendency Stay away from linebackers and take defensive backs early
New York Jets  
   Offense vs. Defense Defense early, offense late
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from skill positions early, take them later
   Another Significant Tendency Draft linebackers early, ignore them later
Oakland Raiders  
   Offense vs. Defense Pretty balanced overall, more offense in the last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Take offensive linemen early
   Another Significant Tendency Avoid linebackers early
Philadelphia Eagles  
   Offense vs. Defense Focus on defense early, more offense later
   Most Significant Tendency Heavy on defensive linemen early in the draft
   Another Significant Tendency Like offensive linemen and linebackers later in the draft
Pittsburgh Steelers  
   Offense vs. Defense Slight tendency toward offense, but very balanced over the last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Tend to take fewer defensive linemen early than is the norm
   Another Significant Tendency Like linebackers early and late
San Diego Chargers  
   Offense vs. Defense Offensive preference overall, but shifted to defense in last five years
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from drafting defensive linemen
   Another Significant Tendency Draft defensive backs and linebackers early
San Francisco 49ers  
   Offense vs. Defense Evenly balanced
   Most Significant Tendency Draft offensive and defensive linemen early
   Another Significant Tendency Stay away from offensive linemen later in the draft
Seattle Seahawks  
   Offense vs. Defense Pretty evenly balanced overall, but thend to take offense early
   Most Significant Tendency Take offensive linemen early and late
   Another Significant Tendency Stay away from linebackers early but do take them later
St. Louis Rams  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean toward offense but balanced early; last five years have been offense early and defense late
   Most Significant Tendency Stay away from linebackers early
   Another Significant Tendency Avoid offensive linemen early then take later, though that has reversed in the last five years
Tampa Bay Bucs  
   Offense vs. Defense Pretty balanced overall, but heavy on defense in the past five years
   Most Significant Tendency Draft defensive linemen early, especially in last five years
   Another Significant Tendency Draft fewer offensive linemen than most teams
Tennessee Titans  
   Offense vs. Defense Lean to drafting defense
   Most Significant Tendency Take more defensive linemen than the norm, especially early
   Another Significant Tendency Tend to stay away from offensive linemen; none taken in the top three rounds in the last five years and the lowest percentage overall in the last 20 years
Washington Redskins  
   Offense vs. Defense Heavy lean to drafting offense
   Most Significant Tendency Take skill positions early, especially wide receivers
   Another Significant Tendency Take fewer defensive linemen, though that has reversed in early rounds during last five years
College Tendencies
For purposes of this analysis Draft Metrics has divided colleges into three groups:
• Conferences that are automatic BCS qualifiers
• BCS conferences that are not automatic BCS qualifiers (e.g., the MAC, the WAC, etc.)
• All non-BCS schools (includes Football Champion Series schools, Division II, Division III, etc.)
It should be noted that for purposes of this analysis college are included in the conference in which they are playing during the 2011 season. The breakdown of the percentage of all draftees by these categories is as follows:
  1992-2011   2007-2011
  All Rounds First 3 Rounds   All Rounds First 3 Rounds
BCS Automatic Qualifiers
   SEC 15.0% 18.1%   15.7% 19.8%
   Big Ten 14.8% 16.4%   13.4% 15.0%
   Big 12 8.5% 9.2%   9.2% 10.3%
   Atlantic Coast 13.9% 16.6%   12.8% 14.6%
   Pac 12 14.5% 15.8%   13.8% 15.4%
   Big East 5.3% 4.8%   8.0% 5.9%
All BCS AQ 72.0% 80.9%   73.0% 81.0%
Other BCS Conf. 16.2% 13.2%   16.9% 14.6%
All Other 11.9% 5.9%   10.1% 4.5%
A few points in this table are worth highlighting:
• The BCS Automatic Qualifier Conferences (BCSAQ) are dominant as a source of draft talent
• This dominance is even more pronounced in the early rounds of the draft
• The Big 12 and the Big East, especially the Big East, are clearly the "junior partners" in the BCSAQ as far as providing talent -- This will become even more
pronounced as the Big East disassembles
• The recent trend is for the BCSAQ colleges to become even more dominant at the expense of the "All Other" category
• Within the BCSAQ, the SEC, Big 12 and Big East are trending up with the Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 trending
When looking at the information by NFL team, there are significant differences in the source of their talent. Appendix 2 presents information for each NFL team. As with the position tendencies, it is difficult to explain the reasons for the tendencies and there is even another layer or two of variables added as NFL teams may have better or worse relationships with coaches from a particular conference or more or less confidence in scouts that cover a particular region of the country.
A summary of tendencies for each NFL team is shown below. First, though, here are a couple of observations:
• The Jaguars and Chargers are far more likely to draft small college players, both early and late, than other NFL teams
• The Packers and Raiders also draft more than their share of small college players but those choices typically occur later in the draft
• The Saints have drafted no small college players in the first three rounds of the draft over the past 20 years
• Four teams (Chargers, Cowboys, Jaguars, Giants) have drafted twice the average percentage of small college players in the first three rounds of the draft over
the 20-year period
• The Bucs and Steelers have had the greatest tendency to draft BCSAQ players in the first three rounds of the draft over the past 20 years
• More than 30 percent of the Jets selections over the past 20 years in the first three rounds have been from the Big 10, the greatest conference tendency of any
NFL team
Following is the earlier mentioned chart that covers the 20-year study period. The nomenclature used was is follows:
• Average ++            Well above the average
• Average +              Somewhat above the average
• Average -               Somewhat below the average
• Average --              Well below the average
    BCSAQ Favorite BCS Other Other Schools
Arizona Cardinals Rds. 1-7 Average + SEC Average -- Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average ++ SEC/ACC Average -- Average -
Atlanta Falcons Rds. 1-7 Average SEC Average - Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average SEC Average - Average +
Baltimore Ravens Rds. 1-7 Average ACC/Pac-10 Average Average
  Rds. 1-3 Average + Pac-10 Average - Average
Buffalo Bills Rds. 1-7 Average - Big 10 Average + Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average + Big 10/ACC Average Average -
Carolina Panthers Rds. 1-7 Average + Pac-10 Average -- Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average SEC/Pac-10 Average Average +
Chicago Bears Rds. 1-7 Average Big 10/Pac-10 Average + Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average - Pac-10 Average ++ Average
Cincinnati Bengals Rds. 1-7 Average - SEC Average ++ Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average ++ SEC Average Average --
Cleveland Browns Rds. 1-7 Average ++ ACC Average - Average --
  Rds. 1-3 Average ACC Average ++ Average --
Dallas Cowboys Rds. 1-7 Average - SEC Average Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average -- SEC Average + Average ++
Denver Broncos Rds. 1-7 Average + SEC Average + Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average SEC/Big 12 Average + Average -
Detroit Lions Rds. 1-7 Average - Big 10/Pac-10 Average Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average + Big 10 Average - Average -
Green Bay Packers Rds. 1-7 Average -- SEC Average ++ Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average ACC Average - Average +
Houston Texans Rds. 1-7 Average + ACC Average + Average --
  Rds. 1-3 Average ACC Average -- Average ++
Indianapolis Colts Rds. 1-7 Average + Big 10 Average Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average Big 10 Average + Average -
Jacksonville Jaguars Rds. 1-7 Average -- SEC Average + Average ++
  Rds. 1-3 Average -- SEC Average ++ Average ++
Kansas City Chiefs Rds. 1-7 Average Pac-10 Average + Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average ++ SEC/ACC Average -- Average --
Miami Dolphins Rds. 1-7 Average - SEC Average + Average
  Rds. 1-3 Average + SEC Average Average --
Minnesota Vikings Rds. 1-7 Average - ACC Average Average ++
  Rds. 1-3 Average - SEC/ACC Average + Average
New England Patriots Rds. 1-7 Average SEC Average + Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average + SEC Average Average -
New Orleans Saints Rds. 1-7 Average + Big 10 Average - Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average + Big 10 Average + Average --
New York Giants Rds. 1-7 Average Big 10 Average - Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average - ACC Average Average ++
New York Jets Rds. 1-7 Average Big 10 Average - Average
  Rds. 1-3 Average Big 10 Average Average +
Oakland Raiders Rds. 1-7 Average - Pac-10 Average + Average +
  Rds. 1-3 Average - Pac-10 Average + Average -
Philadelphia Eagles Rds. 1-7 Average + Pac-10 Average - Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average - SEC/ACC/Pac-10 Average + Average ++
Pittsburgh Steelers Rds. 1-7 Average + Big 10 Average Average --
  Rds. 1-3 Average ++ Pac-10 Average -- Average -
San Diego Chargers Rds. 1-7 Average -- ACC Average - Average ++
  Rds. 1-3 Average -- Big 10/ACC Average + Average ++
San Francisco 49ers Rds. 1-7 Average + Pac-10 Average - Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average ++ ACC/Pac-10 Average -- Average -
Seattle Seahawks Rds. 1-7 Average ++ SEC/Pac-10 Average - Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average + SEC/Pac-10 Average Average --
St. Louis Rams Rds. 1-7 Average Big 10 Average Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average + Big 10 Average - Average -
Tampa Bay Bucs Rds. 1-7 Average ++ ACC/SEC Average -- Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average ++ SEC Average - Average --
Tennessee Titans Rds. 1-7 Average SEC Average Average
  Rds. 1-3 Average SEC Average Average +
Washington Redskins Rds. 1-7 Average Pac-10 Average + Average -
  Rds. 1-3 Average - Big 10 Average + Average
Underclassmen Tendency
The final tendency studied by Draft Metrics was whether teams tended to favor or avoid underclassmen that opted for the draft. A total of 577 underclassmen were drafted during the 20-year study period, with 196 coming in the last five drafts. The following chart shows the breakdown by round selected.
  1992-2011   2007-2011
  # Picks % UC % All   # Picks % UC % All
1st Round 229 39.7% 36.9%   72 36.7% 45.3%
2nd Round 116 20.1% 18.4%   48 24.5% 29.6%
3rd Round 81 14.0% 12.1%   26 13.3% 15.0%
4th Round 62 10.7% 8.9%   22 11.2% 12.4%
5th Round 37 6.4% 5.4%   12 6.1% 6.8%
6th Round 26 4.5% 3.5%   9 4.6% 4.8%
7th Round+ 26 4.5% 2.5%   7 3.6% 3.0%
All 577   11.4%   196   15.4%
While there were some differences by team, it did not appear that any NFL teams really avoid drafting underclassmen, nor did any have a tendency to "overdraft" underclassmen. Ignoring the expansion teams, the Jets and Redskins drafted the fewest with 11 each, both drafting seven in the first round. The Bengals with 31 selected the most underclassmen. The Raiders with 12 selected the most underclassmen in the 1st round.
A summary by NFL teams is as follows:
  1992-2011   2007-2011
  1st Round All Rounds   1st Round All Rounds
Arizona Cardinals 5 16   2 5
Atlanta Falcons 6 14   2 6
Baltimore Ravens 8 15   0 4
Buffalo Bills 7 18   3 6
Carolina Panthers 8 18   3 9
Chicago Bears 8 20   1 5
Cincinnati Bengals 10 31   3 9
Cleveland Browns 6 16   1 5
Dallas Cowboys 4 17   3 6
Denver Broncos 7 16   4 6
Detroit Lions 9 19   4 7
Green Bay Packers 5 18   1 5
Houston Texans 4 10   2 5
Indianapolis Colts 7 12   2 4
Jacksonville Jaguars 4 13   3 4
Kansas City Chiefs 6 18   3 8
Miami Dolphins 6 16   2 6
Minnesota Vikings 12 28   1 8
New England Patriots 9 21   1 6
New Orleans Saints 6 17   2 5
New York Giants 6 15   3 9
New York Jets 7 11   4 6
Oakland Raiders 12 21   4 8
Philadelphia Eagles 6 20   1 6
Pittsburgh Steelers 8 21   3 7
San Diego Chargers 5 13   2 5
San Francisco 49ers 9 24   3 9
Seattle Seahawks 8 21   1 3
St. Louis Rams 9 22   2 3
Tampa Bay Bucs 9 20   3 8
Tennessee Titans 6 25   2 11
Washington Redskins 7 11   0 2
Appendix 1: Percentage of Draftees by Position -- (click here)
Appendix 2: Percentage of Draftees by Conference -- (click here)
Note: This article was originally published on Tony Villiotti's website, DraftMetrics.com and is being reprinted here with the permission of the author. Draft Metrics was established in 2010 but its roots were planted long before. Villiotti's obsession with the NFL Draft began in 1969. Over the years, his interest shifted from predicting draft choices to trying to better understand the draft's importance by examining its eventual outcomes.
Venedik�in meşhur saraylarını İstanbul�a getiren Viaport, Venezia projesinde 329 bin TL�den başlayan fiyatlarla satışa sunulan saray dairelerine yoğun ilgi yaşanıyor. Saray ihtişamını tüm ayrıntılarıyla içerisinde barındıracak olan daireler İstanbul�un en şık İtalyanı olacak� kakade Venedik�i İstanbul�a taşıyan Viaport Venezia, meşhur Venedik saraylarını da projeye koymayı unutmadı. 1+1�den 3+1 dublekslere kadar değişik seçeneklerde tasarlanan dairelerde oturacak olan proje sakinleri saray ihtişamını her ayrıntısıyla yaşayacak. Ekonomik değer olarak Türkiye�nin en büyük ilk 5 gayrimenkul yatırımından biri olan Viaport Venezia, Via Properties & Gürsoy Yatırım Ortaklığı güvencesiyle hayata geçiriliyor. Satışa çıktığı günden bu yana ilk etapta yüzde 85�inin satıldığı projede lanse edilen Venedik Sarayları etabında ise iki gün içerisinde yüzde 20�lik birporno ön talep toplandı. �İstanbul�un en şık İtalyanı� olarak Mayıs 2015�te boy gösterecek olan Venezia projesi, Venedik rüyasını gerçeğe dönüştürmeye gün sayıyor. Projede oturacak olan daire sakinleri, Venedik�in meşhur kakade kanallarında gondollarla gezebilecek, Venedik meydanlarında alışveriş yapabilecek, dostlarını Venedik restoranlarında ağırlayabilecek. Yüksek prim yapması öngörülen projedeki daireleri bugün satın alanların, proje porno bitiminde yüzde 50�lik bir prim kazancı elde etmeleri hedefleniyor.