JDM

[TKO]

That's not how math works. The difference is relative to the one you're comparing to. The 27 is 80% of the value (or 20% less). The 14 is 125% of the value of 27, or 25% more.

So 27 is still 20% less valuable than 14?

That's still not massive.

 

[JDM]

Yes, it is. That is huge. If that were the case for four years, they get the equivalent of 5 first round picks to our four.

 

[TKO]

We have taken offensive players as well. You don't draft one side of the ball and more value to work with leaves you more value to take defenders with.

Also 25% higher (because that's actually the correct way to phrase that), would be, over a four year stretch, the equivalent of an extra year. The difference doesn't stay that high, but 25% higher value is a substantial difference.

By the way, in 2012 the Pats took only one offensive player and that was with their last pick = Ebert

 

[TKO]

Yes, it is. That is huge. If that were the case for four years, they get the equivalent of 5 first round picks to our four.

The 14th pick and the 27th were the values of one year not four.

Prior to this year the top five defensive picks used by Caroll were #14, #15, #47, 99, 111

The Pats have used #21, #25, 33, 48, 90

Avg pick used by Seattle: 57.2
Avg pick used by the Pats 43.4

 

[JDM]

I understand that. I am simply pointing out that 25% more value is a substantial number. It's a lot.

And the way you're valuing it doesn't look even worse in terms of value to work with? Again, I consider the picks you were given a better measure of value than the picks you use, but even using your way Seattle had substantially more to work with.

 

[TKO]

I understand that. I am simply pointing out that 25% more value is a substantial number. It's a lot.

And the way you're valuing it doesn't look even worse in terms of value to work with? Again, I consider the picks you were given a better measure of value than the picks you use, but even using your way Seattle had substantially more to work with.

I forget to include McCourty so to correct the numbers of the top five defensive picks since 2010:

Patriots: 21, 25, 27, 33, 48
Seahawks: 14,15, 47, 99, 111

Pats avg pick used: 30.8
Seahawks avg pick: 57.2

Again prior to 2013

 

[TKO]

The five defensive players taken by the Seahawks and Patriots with their highest five picks prior to 2013:

Seahawks: Earl Thomas, Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner, KJ Wright, Walter Thurmond
Patriots: Chandler Jones, Dont'a Hightower, Devin McCourty, Ras-I Dowling, Tavon Wilson

Avg draft position:
Patriots: 30.8
Seahawks: 57.2

 

[TKO]

Total PFR draft chart value of the above top five defensive selections for each team:

Patriots: 35, 33, 32, 29, 24 = 153 total points
Seahawks: 40, 39, 25, 15, 14 = 133 total points

Avg point value per pick:

Patriots: 30.6
Seahawks: 26.6

If you look at the avg draft position or the avg value as shown by the PFR chart, the Seahawks used less overall to select defensive players and they got better value.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

I understand that. I am simply pointing out that 25% more value is a substantial number. It's a lot.

And the way you're valuing it doesn't look even worse in terms of value to work with? Again, I consider the picks you were given a better measure of value than the picks you use, but even using your way Seattle had substantially more to work with.

I have come to the conclusion that you are clearly as dumb as a box of rocks.