Boom or Bust: A Look at Draft Probabilities/NFP

[Alan]

jrry32 with this:
Well, no, it's all about talent evaluation. And the 6.2% is a 2+ time All Pro. And that "suckers bet" is worth making if you're very good at what you do.

So if that statement was actually true then the success rate wouldn't be on'y 6.2%. You do realize that the other 93.8% were fails (at least as far as making the PB 2+ times) right? Even Vegas gives you better odds than that. Or maybe there's one guy on some team that actually fits your description. If only we could get him to draft for every team.

In addition jrry, did you read that table? That 6.2% figure is for the whole 1st round. No one is suggesting you should trade out of the first round. Or even out of the top 13 which almost doubles your chances at 10.9%.

 

[Alan]

BTW, if trading up is such a good idea, why do we have a thread entitled:
Steelers’ G.M. says everyone wants to trade down in this draft?

 

[max]

I'm not sure what people are arguing about here. The only thing I got out of this OP is that when you have a top 13 pick if you trade down you greatly reduce your chances of getting an elite player.

And that supports my earlier stated position that it would be a huge mistake if Snead traded the #2 pick down to #15 like Peter King reported.

 

[Rams and Gators]

I just did didn't I? So if a team has a hole and they pick someone off the street and put a uniform on him that makes him a starter? Hell, I could fit that description. I look really good in a uniform BTW. That's why I I said quality starters. I assume you're trying to build a good team through FA and the draft. Placeholders are only that, placeholders. How does Hekker fit into your UDFA/FA strategy? I'm pretty sure we drafted him. Clemens wasn't a starter, he was an injury replacement. McLeod sucked. How did Amendola turn out for the Cheatriots? You're adding Dunbar who we cut? Twice? In a row.

Well the criteria for this maths is a 5 year starter it doesn't mention the "quality" of the starter, if you want to do your own math that's fine by me, we'll discuss your article.

You're sure we drafted Hekker?

John Robert Hekker (born February 8, 1990) is an American footballpunter for the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League (NFL). He was signed by the Rams as an undrafted free agent in 2012. He played college football at Oregon State. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Hekker
When did we cut Dunbar the second time, was it when he became a FA?
McLeod may have sucked, but he could also fit into the 5 year starter eventually (are you beginning to see the problem yet)

So what's your overall strategy? If it's adding guys like Chris Williams, who we jettisoned (a description that pretty much fits every single player you mentioned) even though we have huge holes at his position, then I for sure don't like your plan.

I don't have a strategy, except for to discuss the article, I'm not paid enough to come up with my own ideas , I came up with 7 players who fit (or will eventually fit) into this article's criteria.

So you didn't address my math.

You made a statement based upon the article, the article set a criteria, I had the view that you can find a starter under this definition later in the draft. I'm in agreement with you that maybe those guys aren't the best, that was my original issue.

I'm not saying your strategy can't work. It has worked occasionally in the past but it hasn't worked very often and the math that RamBill posted is why. You can argue with me but it's hard to argue with math.

Did I mention that I love math? :seizure: :rockon: :cheers:

 

[jrry32]

So if that statement was actually true then the success rate wouldn't be on'y 6.2%. You do realize that the other 93.8% were fails (at least as far as making the PB 2+ times) right? Even Vegas gives you better odds than that. Or maybe there's one guy on some team that actually fits your description. If only we could get him to draft for every team.

In addition jrry, did you read that table? That 6.2% figure is for the whole 1st round. No one is suggesting you should trade out of the first round. Or even out of the top 13 which almost doubles your chances at 10.9%.

Well no. Because that 6.2% doesn't cover specific picks, competent GMs and trade up opportunities.

Like I said, it's all talent evaluation. If you're very good at what you do and you see it, trade up. I don't care about the probabilities.

BTW, if trading up is such a good idea, why do we have a thread entitled:
Steelers’ G.M. says everyone wants to trade down in this draft?

Because that is speaking specifically about this draft and is only one man's opinion.

 

[jrry32]

I'm not sure what people are arguing about here. The only thing I got out of this OP is that when you have a top 13 pick if you trade down you greatly reduce your chances of getting an elite player.

And that supports my earlier stated position that it would be a huge mistake if Snead traded the #2 pick down to #15 like Peter King reported.

In this draft, I totally agree.

 

[LesBaker]

Well, no, it's all about talent evaluation. And the 6.2% is a 2+ time All Pro. And that "suckers bet" is worth making if you're very good at what you do.

I think that is selling the entire process short, big time.

Because developing talent plays an important role. I don't think it's just draft the guy and put him in a uni because you know how to pick 'em.

And the right scheme plays a role too.

Anyway it's a bit to simplified to say it's all about talent evaluation when there are other factors. That's kinda like saying it's all about the House of Representatives when talking about policy. It leaves too much out.

 

[max]

In this draft, I totally agree.

True. Drafts vary and this one is much different than the last 2. It's closer in fabric to the 2011 draft.

When Snead traded down from #6 in 2012, it wasn't a bad idea to target Brockers. They didn't miss out on elite prospects.

 

[Alan]

Rams and Gators back with this:
I just did didn't I? So if a team has a hole and they pick someone off the street and put a uniform on him that makes him a starter? Hell, I could fit that description. I look really good in a uniform BTW. That's why I I said quality starters. I assume you're trying to build a good team through FA and the draft. Placeholders are only that, placeholders. How does Hekker fit into your UDFA/FA strategy? I'm pretty sure we drafted him. Clemens wasn't a starter, he was an injury replacement. McLeod sucked. How did Amendola turn out for the Cheatriots? You're adding Dunbar who we cut? Twice? In a row.

Well the criteria for this maths is a 5 year starter it doesn't mention the "quality" of the starter, if you want to do your own math that's fine by me, we'll discuss your article.

LOL! That article was about the draft and the quality statement had to do with your UDFA/FA fantasy.

You're sure we drafted Hekker?

No. I'm going to completely ignore this mistake I made because he's a punter and my font is bigger than yours.

John Robert Hekker (born February 8, 1990) is an American footballpunter for the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League (NFL). He was signed by the Rams as an undrafted free agent in 2012. He played college football at Oregon State. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Hekker
When did we cut Dunbar the second time, was it when he became a FA? Yes.
McLeod may have sucked, but he could also fit into the 5 year starter eventually (are you beginning to see the problem yet)

EVENTUALLY?!?!

So what's your overall strategy? If it's adding guys like Chris Williams, who we jettisoned (a description that pretty much fits every single player you mentioned) even though we have huge holes at his position, then I for sure don't like your plan.

I don't have a strategy, except for to discuss the article, I'm not paid enough to come up with my own ideas , I came up with 7 players who fit (or will eventually fit) into this article's criteria.



I do not recall that.

 

[Rams and Gators]

LOL! That article was about the draft and the quality statement had to do with your UDFA/FA fantasy.
No. I'm going to completely ignore this mistake I made because he's a punter and my font is bigger than yours.

But the article makes 3 distinctions, "starter", "Pro Bowler" and "All Pro" my problem was that there are multiple levels of starter, you can find a "starter" later, I think we've both agreed on that now.

I'd expect nothing else I have always said "Biggest font wins" :notworthyy).

 

[Alan]

I didn't know we ever disagreed about that. I looked at your original post as your version of a two pronged approach.
1. How to approach the draft to get elite talent.
2. How to fill any holes your draft approach might leave.

My bad.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 no longer believing the data:
Well no. Because that 6.2% doesn't cover specific picks, competent GMs and trade up opportunities.

Like I said, it's all talent evaluation. If you're very good at what you do and you see it, trade up. I don't care about the probabilities.

So now you no longer believe that data even though you "learned" something from it earlier?
Do you get free all expense paid trips to Las Vegas in the mail by any chance?

BTW, before I forget again, I love your new avatar.

Sorry jrry, I got started early tonight.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Manziel and Clowney are the two biggest boom or bust prospects in this draft.

 

[Alan]

I see a big potential for boom with Clowney but Manziel, not so much.

 

[jrry32]

I think that is selling the entire process short, big time.

Because developing talent plays an important role. I don't think it's just draft the guy and put him in a uni because you know how to pick 'em.

And the right scheme plays a role too.

Anyway it's a bit to simplified to say it's all about talent evaluation when there are other factors. That's kinda like saying it's all about the House of Representatives when talking about policy. It leaves too much out.

True. But I think talent evaluation is the biggest part of it. Can't turn chicken shit into chicken salad. But you can turn chicken salad into garbage if you don't have the right person making the salad. So you're right. It's a bit of an oversimplification.

My point is that it's not about the probabilities. It's about having a guy that is really good at what he does and knowing when the opportunity is right.

 

[kurtfaulk]

What it tells me is don't waste an early pick trading up because you just lost two starters to gain one highly unlikely 2+ PB player. 6.2% is a suckers bet. It's all about the probabilities. Never ever trade when it costs you an early pick unless it's for a QB. That's smart drafting IMO.

you're looking at the wrong table.

1-13 gives a 10.9% chance
14-24 gives a 3.2% chance
25-46 gives a 1.6% chance

and they're for all pro status, not pro bowl.

can't draft scared.

.

 

[jrry32]

So now you no longer believe that data even though you "learned" something from it earlier?
Do you get free all expense paid trips to Las Vegas in the mail by any chance?

BTW, before I forget again, I love your new avatar.

Sorry jrry, I got started early tonight.

I thought it was interesting. It wouldn't impact my draft decision making which comes down to need, positional value, talent evaluation, and scheme fit. Only said that it shines a light on why I think elite talents are so rare and valuable.

Thank you on the avatar, X, tried to pull a fast one which forced me to change it.

 

[jrry32]

True. Drafts vary and this one is much different than the last 2. It's closer in fabric to the 2011 draft.

When Snead traded down from #6 in 2012, it wasn't a bad idea to target Brockers. They didn't miss out on elite prospects.

Yep. Whereas, in 2011, you don't want to drop out of that top 14 with Watt, Quinn, Aldon Smith, Dareus, Peterson, Green, Newton, etc.

 

[Alan]

kurtfaulk telling me something:
you're looking at the wrong table.

1-13 gives a 10.9% chance
14-24 gives a 3.2% chance
25-46 gives a 1.6% chance

and they're for all pro status, not pro bowl.

can't draft scared.

At least I was being consistent. The 6.2% is all pro too.

Thanks for the heads up bro. I do that frequently for some reason.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 taking quick action:
Thank you on the avatar, X, tried to pull a fast one which forced me to change it.

That sure sounds like X doesn't it. I think he still has the keys to this car. Basically, none of us are safe.

Just saying.