JDM

[Bruschi_Warrior]

If I want college football player info I'm relying on Bru for it...because he has it!

Krafty - thanks man but you see, I am stupid. He said so.

 

[JDM]

PFR effectively turned higher draft picks into lower values and lower draft picks into higher values which is contrary to your point.

It compresses the value scale, but the difference between high and low first round picks is still massive.

 

[TKO]

Krafty - thanks man but you see, I am stupid. He said so.

LOL! I have to get outta here or I'll never sleep tonight...

Bottomline...

PFR destroyed his argument.

TTYL!

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

It compresses the value scale, but the difference between high and low first round picks is still massive.

Yea.

- Cue in the big guy from Trading Places.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

LOL! I have to get outta here or I'll never sleep tonight...

Bottomline...

PFR destroyed his argument.

TTYL!

Same here Krafty -

Until tomorrow when As the World Turns on Sportshoopla.com Continues.

 

[JDM]

LOL! I have to get outta here or I'll never sleep tonight...

Bottomline...

PFR destroyed his argument.

TTYL!

Except I said that picking 6 was between one and a half and two times as valuable as picking 27. Your new numbers still match that claim. The difference is starting value between what Seattle has had to work with and what we have had to work with is massive, regardless of which valuation you use. You can keep shrugging that off, but it's not real. A great drafter with that much extra value can't be matched from our position without the best drafting job anyone has ever done.

 

[TKO]

Except I said that picking 6 was between one and a half and two times as valuable as picking 27. Your new numbers still match that claim. The difference is starting value between what Seattle has had to work with and what we have had to work with is massive, regardless of which valuation you use. You can keep shrugging that off, but it's not real. A great drafter with that much extra value can't be matched from our position without the best drafting job anyone has ever done.

That PFR chart is vastly superior but they point out there are still variables in play because it depends on who the team selects. A higher pick doesn't necessarily mean better...For example: Vernon Gholston was selected 6th overall while the Packers selected Clay Matthews a year later with #26. While the PFR chart blows Jimmy Johnson's out of the water, you can't rely soley on any chart to predict how good a team will be in the draft. You can say their chances are better, but it's still chance....it still depends on their evaluations. Belichick set the defensive rebuilding process back with failed DBs because he had to re-draft the same positions instead of upgrading other positions and IMO it was more a failure of evaluation over the actual draft slot.

Feel free to say it was due to the value of the picks but you're leaning more on the theoretical when you do.

PFR shows the higher numbered pick doesn't necessarily mean better players:

There are some bumps in the data, of course. The seventh pick in the draft has an average value of 39, and the eighth pick an average value of 51, over the thirty years. The 7th pick has a lot of busts (Reggie Rogers, Brian Jozwiak, Joe Profit and Andre Ware) and not that many stars (Phil Simms, Champ Bailey and Bryant Young are the best players). The 8th pick has Ronnie Lott, Willie Roaf, Leslie O'Neal, Otis Anderson and Mike Munchak, and fewer busts.

 

[JDM]

Of course not, because different people are making the picks. If you move the same drafter ten picks up across the draft they are essentially guaranteed to do noticeably better.

And failed picks are expected. It is part of drafting. It's all about managing risk.

 

[TKO]

Of course not, because different people are making the picks. If you move the same drafter ten picks up across the draft they are essentially guaranteed to do noticeably better.

And failed picks are expected. It is part of drafting. It's all about managing risk.

Players rise or slide every year. A certain drafter could select the same player higher if he rises, or lower if he slides; if he wants to target that specific player. If the player fails, he fails either as a higher pick or a lower pick so there's no guarantee players will do better if they're drafted higher. If he fails...the drafters who passed on him did a better job evaluating him than the one who ultimately selected him.

Evaluation is more important than a draft chart.

 

[JDM]

More options = better success for a good drafter. Higher pick = more options.


It's that simple. When you add in that Belichick trades around and if he does move, that extra value gets added almost wherever he wants it, higher starting picks are even more dangerous in his hands.


Evaluation is projecting risk; drafting is managing it. More or higher picks = more control of the risks and more upside.

 

[TKO]

More options = better success for a good drafter. Higher pick = more options.


It's that simple. When you add in that Belichick trades around and if he does move, that extra value gets added almost wherever he wants it, higher starting picks are even more dangerous in his hands.


Evaluation is projecting risk; drafting is managing it. More or higher picks = more control of the risks and more upside.

So trading down for more defensive options, as in more second rounders = better success and extra value than in rounds 3-7? I think you and I might have a different definition of picks that are dangerous in Belichick's hands.

 

[JDM]

I don't even know what you're trying to get at.

If you start the draft 15th in the draft order, you will be more successful than if you start at 20th. It's simple. I don't get why people keep disputing it; it's 100% indisputable fact.

 

[TKO]

I don't even know what you're trying to get at.

If you start the draft 15th in the draft order, you will be more successful than if you start at 20th. It's simple. I don't get why people keep disputing it; it's 100% indisputable fact.

So it must be a 100% indisputable fact that players drafted in the 2nd round will be more successful than those drafted in rounds 3-7...?

Chung, Brace, Butler, Ras-I, Wheatley, Cunningham and Tavon Wilson are all 100% indisputable examples of your point?

 

[JDM]

No. Knowing they will fall there is part of the drafting process. But if you pick 5 picks later every round you have five extra chances that your guys don't get to you.

 

[TKO]

No. Knowing they will fall there is part of the drafting process. But if you pick 5 picks later every round you have five extra chances that your guys don't get to you.

Are you saying you need to pull the trigger on targeted players and that trading down and reaching is a good strategy?

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

 

[JDM]

I'm saying one guy has had one short stretch with higher picks that can compete with bill in production from his draft picks. No other team or GM since bill has been here can come close. He dominates the draft, so clearly his strategy works.

 

[Drawmeomg]

I feel like I'm in Groundhog's Day.

There are a lot of different ways to view drafting. We can assess their percentage success: they're not that great, especially in rounds 2-4, as a percent of picks made turning into successes. They do tend to hit on their first rounders - only Maroney and Meriweather stand out as busts, with Graham, Warren and Watson as solid players and Seymour, Wilfork, Mankins, Solder, McCourty (I know we disagree on him, you don't need to say it again), and Mayo as obvious hits, with Jones trending towards an obvious hit and Hightower totally up in the air. Yes, your first rounders should be a hit, but the last time I looked (which was admittedly some years ago) few teams get 5 All Pros in 11 first rounders (Seymour, Wilfork, Mankins, and Mayo have all been All Pro and I am convinced that Solder will be - Jones might be which would make the total 6 in 13, since I wasn't counting the 2012 class). My gut feeling is they're doing well in rounds 5-7 but I haven't seen any kind of statistical analysis there.

We can assess them on the basis of the quality of players they add. I contend they've been second to none at that since Pioli left, with only Seattle ahead of them on defense, and also that this is the most important thing to look at in assessing their drafting.

We can factor in who has a better starting position - picking at the end of every round every year is a disadvantage. I don't care too much about this one.


Emblematic of their draft process, both the strengths and the weaknesses: the infamous Clay Matthews trade, they traded the 23th selection for the 26th and a 5th rounder, then traded both of those for two third rounders and a 2nd rounder. A few more trades and the eventual yield was: Darius Butler, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman, and Rob Gronkowski.

They missed on two of those players, but they still got their current best WR (and a genuinely good WR!) and the hands down best tight end in football. If Gronk keeps being injured, this will go down as a bad trade. If Gronk strings a few healthy seasons together anytime soon, it'll go down as a steal, getting Gronk and Edelman for one late first round pick.

 

[Drawmeomg]

Are you saying you need to pull the trigger on targeted players and that trading down and reaching is a good strategy?

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

By the way, if you want to caricature him like that, I'll caricature you like this: Are you saying that you can draft five spots later and not be at a disadvantage? Because if you're saying that, you must be in favor of trading down every chance you get, right?

JDM is saying that a higher pick works out more often than a lower pick. That's all. If you're going to trade back, you give up some of the value of that selection. If you get at least that much value in picks back, it can be worth it. You don't trade back for no additional value.

 

[TKO]

By the way, if you want to caricature him like that, I'll caricature you like this: Are you saying that you can draft five spots later and not be at a disadvantage? Because if you're saying that, you must be in favor of trading down every chance you get, right?

JDM is saying that a higher pick works out more often than a lower pick. That's all. If you're going to trade back, you give up some of the value of that selection. If you get at least that much value in picks back, it can be worth it. You don't trade back for no additional value.

Nice try...if you stretch any more you'll fall off the deep end. All I know is the defense has taken five plus years to rebuild. JDM said it was because of an arbitrary draft value chart made of pixie dust by Jimmy Johnson. A Harvard research group said this about it:

These values are completely arbitrary: there is no statistical evidence to back up the relative values of these draft picks. There is no reason why the 156th pick is 100 times less valuable than the first overall pick. “The Chart” simply dictates how much each pick is worth. These values also have no grounding in the real worth of the players drafted at a given pick. This system is a ridiculous way to value picks because there is no reason behind the values it gives. There must be a better approach.

Believe in it if you want to.

 

[JDM]

It doesn't matter what valuation you use. The result is the same. New England has significantly less to work with than anyone else but still have had more success than nearly anyone.