JDM

[TKO]

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.

Feel free to use either the PFR chart or the one from the Harvard group from now on...both are an improvement on the one you touted. My memory tells me New England had more top 100 picks to work with than most NFL teams in the last five years. It may be faulty but my recollection is they had multiple 1s, 2s and 3s before trades. Someone else can look it up or I will if I have the time later.

 

[JDM]

It's impossible to have multiple picks in a round before trades, except compensatory picks.

 

[TKO]

It's impossible to have multiple picks in a round before trades, except compensatory picks.

He traded for future picks and those would give him multiple picks in certain rounds the following year.

 

[JDM]

And that is part of his draft strategy.

 

[Drawmeomg]

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.

Nice dodge.

I agree that the old draft value chart is utterly worthless. It is still the case that the #10 overall pick is statistically more valuable - will yield more overall production - than the #15 overall pick. I'm not sure exactly how much more valuable, it could be not very much at all, it could be pretty significant, but the difference will be there. You will get more success on average out of it.

A 2nd round pick is statistically more valuable than a 5th round pick. You will on average get better players. Yes, some 5th rounders are better than some 2nd rounders. Yes, quite a lot of 2nd rounders wash out. More 2nd rounders make it than 5th rounders.

 

[TKO]

Nice dodge.

I agree that the old draft value chart is utterly worthless. It is still the case that the #10 overall pick is statistically more valuable - will yield more overall production - than the #15 overall pick. I'm not sure exactly how much more valuable, it could be not very much at all, it could be pretty significant, but the difference will be there. You will get more success on average out of it.

A 2nd round pick is statistically more valuable than a 5th round pick. You will on average get better players. Yes, some 5th rounders are better than some 2nd rounders. Yes, quite a lot of 2nd rounders wash out. More 2nd rounders make it than 5th rounders.

Higher picks should be/could be more valuable but there are a number of variables that come into play. I think they've been mentioned already and I'm sure you could name a few that haven't been. IMO...evaluating talent is still king.

 

[JDM]

But if you have two guys comparable at talent evaluation the guy with significantly better picks will do better. Every time.

 

[Drawmeomg]

Higher picks should be/could be more valuable but there are a number of variables that come into play. I think they've been mentioned already and I'm sure you could name a few that haven't been. IMO...evaluating talent is still king.

Evaluating talent is critical. Maneuvering to get the most value out of your picks - that is, the most talent out of your picks - is also critical. Being able to develop talent is critical. At times they've done all of these things well and at times they've screwed them all up.

The point I'm making, though, is that it's statistical. Nobody bats anywhere near 1.000 over multiple drafts, and your odds of success are highest with high picks. Sometimes your biggest success will come in round 6 and sometimes all your top 100 picks wash out, but on average you're more likely to have a 6th rounder wash out than a 1st rounder.

 

[TKO]

But if you have two guys comparable at talent evaluation the guy with significantly better picks will do better. Every time.

Compare where Richard Sherman was taken to where Ras-IR was taken...it's not every time. Sherman was a stroke of luck more than anything, which I'd say is a variable, but the variable of need comes into the picture with Ras-I due to earlier mistakes or failures, whatever you want to call them. Ras-I should have been more predictable being taken at the top of the 2nd round...and given his injury history. He was boom or bust.

 

[JDM]

Because the patriots acquire enough picks to be deliberately aggressive and take risks, knowing that they don't need them all to work out. The goal is never for every pick to work out. It's to take the right risks so the ones that do are difference makers. He has gotten more contributions from his picks than anyone else from theirs, with the arguable exception of Carroll over one short stretch of drafting.

Few others can even make a bad case that they compare.

 

[Drawmeomg]

Compare where Richard Sherman was taken to where Ras-IR was taken...it's not every time. Sherman was a stroke of luck more than anything, which I'd say is a variable, but the variable of need comes into the picture with Ras-I due to earlier mistakes or failures, whatever you want to call them. Ras-I should have been more predictable being taken at the top of the 2nd round...and given his injury history. He was boom or bust.

2013 Pro Bowl rosters and the NFL Draft - SBNation.com

Yes, there are examples of successful late rounders. That's exactly why I say that it's statistical. I mean, specifically, that we're talking about odds of success. Many more Pro Bowlers went in the 1st round than in the 5th, for example. You will statistically have better success with a first round pick than a fourth no matter how good you are at evaluating talent (though if you're much better than someone else, you might have more success with 2nd round picks than they have with 1st round picks - Tannenbaum drafting for the Jets comes to mind as a terrible drafter even with 1st rounders).

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

Because the patriots acquire enough picks to be deliberately aggressive and take risks, knowing that they don't need them all to work out. The goal is never for every pick to work out. It's to take the right risks so the ones that do are difference makers. He has gotten more contributions from his picks than anyone else from theirs, with the arguable exception of Carroll over one short stretch of drafting.

Few others can even make a bad case that they compare.

"The goal is never for every pick to work out."

- JDM

That could literally be the stupidest thing that I have ever heard. All coaches want their picks and the players of those picks to "work out".

You are hereby fired. Just do yourself a favor. Stop digging anymore holes which constitutes the 10 fingers that you need to communicate a post.

 

[JDM]

It isn't. Anyone with sense knows that isn't possible. You be aggressive and make enough picks that your successes are valuable. The misses are part of the strategy.

If you go the "safe pick" we get a bunch of mediocre guys who are nothing special. With aggressive picks we get a consistent Super Bowl contender that hasn't had a losing season in 13 years.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

It isn't. Anyone with sense knows that isn't possible. You be aggressive and make enough picks that your successes are valuable. The misses are part of the strategy.

If you go the "safe pick" we get a bunch of mediocre guys who are nothing special. With aggressive picks we get a consistent Super Bowl contender that hasn't had a losing season in 13 years.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JDM]

If I wasn't leaving you in the dust behind me I'd be concerned.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

If I wasn't leaving you in the dust behind me I'd be concerned.

No offense - but guys like Krafty, myself and the others that came here from ESPN have been talking about Patriots football for more than a decade, and outside of the trolls that we had to deal with, you would have been ignored on that message board because of the things that you say here.

I think that it is fair time to start with the New Year.

 

[Baseballnut77]

now i have read this garbage from the guy who likes to argue with everyone and have taken a look at bill's drafts and it is clear to me that he should just trade all of his 1-3 round picks for a bunch of 4-7 picks because it is clear that when he gets higher "value picks" he fails

 

[JDM]

The goal of "every pick successful" contradicts with the more important goal of "maximize expected value of all picks". Risk is good.


Your claim is the equivalent of putting your money in a bank instead of the stock market. Yes, the stock market has riskier individual investments, but with a diversified portfolio that properly manages risk, you get a significantly greater return.

 

[TKO]

now i have read this garbage from the guy who likes to argue with everyone and have taken a look at bill's drafts and it is clear to me that he should just trade all of his 1-3 round picks for a bunch of 4-7 picks because it is clear that when he gets higher "value picks" he fails

Anybody in here know this poster and who the hell he's talking about?

 

[JDM]

He's talking about me