A Study on the effectiveness of Bum Mining

[3irty1]

Wist made a pretty unique argument spanning a couple of different threads and I thought it would be worth checking out. I'll just quote him directly:


The Green Bay Packers are the most draftcentric team in the NFL - hands down. The only other means of player procurement, except on rare occassion, is Street FA's. Whom you cannot include in your assessment of TT's late round picks.

That means Tyrone Williams, Shields, EDS, et al... all other Street FA's. You would have signed these guys anyway.

My criteria is that a guy be a legit NFL starter - if you're going to build your team with late round picks and street FA's, don't many of those guys need to be legitimate NFL starters - and necessarily better, i.e. Sitton.

The list is very short - Sitton, Lang, Bishop, Jolly (I include Jolly b/c I love the guy, and he absolutley was a legit NFL starter; but of course he might never play again, we'll see).

That's it... that's the list of TT's bum mining successes in rds 4-7.

You have to take Daniels, McMillian, and House off the list b/c we don't know what those guys are. I think House looks like a hit, but we simply don't know - so they're not considered yet.

I don't include CJ Wilson, Marshall Newhouse, Jurius Wynn, Starks, DJ Smith... they may have started, or are starting - but none of those guys has any business starting in the NFL. If you have them for backups, you're looking to replace them and upgrade. So even though they're playing, I don't consider them legit starters - they are weak links in our lineup that need to be replaced.

We now have 8 years of drafts to look at - it's an ugly, ugly list.

48 guys minus Crosby and the 3 young guys gives you 44 picks to assess. Of those 44, only 4 became legit starters. That comes out to 9.09% hit rate.

I've never really heard anyone argue this before and with our recent trade downs in the 2013 draft wist has put into words for us a philosophy that I think is largely being debated on the forum between others as well. Its a debate of quantity vs quality.

After thinking about about this I didn't think the 9.09% hit rate was really the important part here. Naturally, the later rounds in a draft are of lower quality but the important thing is to get 22 starters that even wist would like so at a 9.09% hit rate it would take 244 picks in rounds 4-7 to field those starters :shock:.

What I feel is missing from this equation is the relationship between draft picks. Clearly we'd all trade a couple of 7ths for a 1st or 2nd but that's not an option. Well we have such a way to relate draft picks to each other in the form of draft trade charts. Using wist's list of guys who are "legit starters" I assessed where Ted has done the best job. Here is the draft chart I used. (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/draft-pick-value.php)

Wist's list of starters may be slightly conservative but I like it.

Solid starters from the early rounds: (offense) Rodgers, Matthews, Bulaga, Cobb, Nelson, Jones, Finley; (defense) Raji, Matthews, Burnett, Hawk; (probable, but too early to say for sure) Heyward, Perry, House.
I didn't count Mason Crosby as a hit, nor Jolly, nor any of wist's probables and I did leave their draft picks in the numbers as if the picks were misses. Borderline guys like Newhouse and Wilson were also not counted as hits. Also remember that this list is just a reflection of the current roster so even though Jennings and Collins were pro bowlers, they haven't done anything for us lately. For that reason all the value numbers are only meaningful relative to each other.

Ok so here we go. What we've got here is simple. The first number is the sum of all Wist's players in that category. The 2nd number is the sum of all the values of all the draft picks Ted's cast in those rounds to get both the hits and the misses. The third number is the average cost in draft picks it takes to find a guy.


Total Round 1-3 Legit Starters:
10


Total Round 1-3 Pick Values:
14,054.00


Total Round 1-3 Cost/Starter:
1,405.40







Now for the bums. This is the same numbers for rounds 4-7.


Total Round 4-7 Legit Starters:
3


Total Round 4-7 Pick Value:
1,518.70


Total Round 4-7 Cost/Starter:
506.23


So in this light it woudn't seem that it would be advisable for Ted to amass picks at the top of the draft. He finds a starter for every 506 points worth of picks he spends in rounds 4-7 but requires almost three times that many points to find a starter in rounds 1-3.

For shits and giggles I also did this for each round in Ted's draft history.


Round
Cost/Starter


1
1,640 (Rodgers, Hawk, Raji, Matthews, Bulaga)


2
2,276 (Nelson, Cobb)


3
434 (Jones, Finley, Burnett)


4
408 (Sitton, Lang)


5
NONE


6
239.20 (Bishop)


7
NONE


If anyone wants me to run some different scenarios with a different list of Legit starters feel free to leave the list!

[RashanGary]

Haha, this is great. Well done, sir.

[pbmax]

Going to take some time to wrap my head around this.

[RashanGary]

It shows how many points you pay to get a starter. Since lower picks are really cheap (ie, moving back 6 spots and getting another pick) it doesn't add up to much when you miss.

When you blend in Patler's point that if you move back and know you're going to get 1 of 6 equally rated players (the cost is really nothing)
Then blend in thirty1's point that you need quality back-end players on your roster (that benefit isn't even considered when you look at it this way)


While those picks may not have high odds to hit, they do hit from time to time, and they do shore up the back end of the roster. You always have to be sifting through talent. As hard as it is to project college to pro, you have to keep going at it.

It's more like a never ending process, of always mining for talent than it is "bum mining"

[RashanGary]

To summarize the picks:

#55 for #61 & #173
TT moved back six spots, still got a player he had rated equally to the player he would have picked at 55, and got a free late round flyer to boot. Cost, nothing. Received, pick 173

#88 for #93 & #216
TT talked about the middle rounds of this draft being particularly deep. He moved back, likely staying in the deep middle round talent pool and picked up a free pick. Cost, nothing. Received, pick 216

#93 for #109, #146 & #224
Again, listening to Ted say he had a lot of players in the the middle of the draft rated highly so he purposely made picks in that area. Cost nothing. Picked up 146 and 224.

#146 & #173 for #125.
Ted used pick 173 (the freebe pick from his first trade) and pick 146 (a freebe pick from his 3rd trade) to move back into the part of the draft he had highly rated talent available.


Then he had some extra picks to take flyers on some talented college players he might not have been able to get here without using picks on. At the end of the day, if you listen to Ted talk about the draft and understand the concept of players being rated on the same teir, TT ended up getting 2 extra picks in what he considered the sweet spot of this draft and a couple extra flyers (which 3hirty1's analysis shows do matter and do add up over time.)


Ted said he did some things he didn't think he'd be able to do. If I had to guess, listening to him talk about the depth in the middle of the draft, I think getting two extra picks in that area while still keeping his later round picks would be one of thoe things he didn't expect to be able to do. I think the Packers are happy with how the executed this draft. I really do.

[wist43]

wow, that's a lot of math, lol... at work, will give it a good look when I get home.

I really would like to hear where more of you guys come down on this - we have 8 years to assess. Back in the day, when we were all at JS-Online, and came over here, we didn't have enough data to examine, but the picks are there for us to evaluate now.

[Patler]

Doesn't every team have some starters they would replace if they could? Doesn't every team have a few like Newhouse, Wilson and EDS? isn't that the reality of free agency?

[RashanGary]

wow, that's a lot of math, lol... at work, will give it a good look when I get home.

I really would like to hear where more of you guys come down on this - we have 8 years to assess. Back in the day, when we were all at JS-Online, and came over here, we didn't have enough data to examine, but the picks are there for us to evaluate now.


That's exactly what 3hirty1 is attempting to do here. He's showing that it's not just a matter of evaluating picks, but a matter of evaluating risk/reward. You talk about all of these 6th round picks as if he's giving up high picks to get them. Really, he's not. He's moving within tiers of the draft, getting equal players and extra picks to boot.

You can go on an on about how few of the late round picks pan out. That's fine. But at the end of the day, finding talent to play in the NFL is a never ending process that goes on year after year. TT, every year, is mining for talent.

If you want to start evaluating results. 1 SB ring, a bunch of playoff births, a healthy cap situation, the best QB in football and one of the winningest teams since he's been GM of the Packers with no drop off in sight. If you really want to look at results, they speak for themselves.

You're constantly trying to break everything down into the most negative light, but at the end of the day, TT has the Packers competing for the SB year after year. He's already won one SB that way. The Packers are on the short list of teams likely to win it ever year (including this one.)

Fuck, wist, admit it, the guy is doing a good job, even of you don't understand how or why.

[Joemailman]

To summarize the picks:

#55 for #61 & #173
TT moved back six spots, still got a player he had rated equally to the player he would have picked at 55, and got a free late round flyer to boot. Cost, nothing. Received, pick 173

#88 for #93 & #216
TT talked about the middle rounds of this draft being particularly deep. He moved back, likely staying in the deep middle round talent pool and picked up a free pick. Cost, nothing. Received, pick 216

#93 for #109, #146 & #224
Again, listening to Ted say he had a lot of players in the the middle of the draft rated highly so he purposely made picks in that area. Cost nothing. Picked up 146 and 224.

#146 & #173 for #125.
Ted used pick 173 (the freebe pick from his first trade) and pick 146 (a freebe pick from his 3rd trade) to move back into the part of the draft he had highly rated talent available.


Then he had some extra picks to take flyers on some talented college players he might not have been able to get here without using picks on. At the end of the day, if you listen to Ted talk about the draft and understand the concept of players being rated on the same teir, TT ended up getting 2 extra picks in what he considered the sweet spot of this draft and a couple extra flyers (which 3hirty1's analysis shows do matter and do add up over time.)


Ted said he did some things he didn't think he'd be able to do. If I had to guess, listening to him talk about the depth in the middle of the draft, I think getting two extra picks in that area while still keeping his later round picks would be one of thoe things he didn't expect to be able to do. I think the Packers are happy with how the executed this draft. I really do.

To me this is pretty simple. TT didn't think there was value in the 3rd round, but he did think there was value in the 4th round. If he had made his 3rd round pick, in his mind he would have been drafting a player with a 4th round grade. So by masking a few trades, he ended up with 3 4th round picks instead of 2. And he did it without giving up picks in other rounds.

[bobblehead]

I like what you did, but statistics are influenced immensely by the input. For instance, 22 starters is cool, but it takes 45 to make a gameday roster. You don't want to call starks a successful pick, but without that late pick being healthy and contributing we don't win a superbowl.

Is CJ Wilson worthless?? Hell no, he is a legit NFL run stopper. He isn't a stud, but he is valuable to any roster in the NFL...not a single team he gets cut from. How about undrafted FA's that might have been 7ths if we had enough of them...Tramon? Jenkins? Bush? Sam Sheilds? Crosby doesn't count?? In what world? We had a GM that constantly believed he was one player away and sold the farm to get him. Mike Sherman. I don't miss him.

TT won a superbowl. I won't question his method of building a winner just yet. Wist says it was a fluke....but was a fluke that was followed by a 15-1 season. Loss to the Giants? More of a fluke imo. Grants first fumble in forever. Kuhns first lost fumble of his career?? Rodgers fumbled...probably the first or second that season. And don't get me started on dropped passes.

Last season SF was bad ass. We looked soft on D at times...but we still won a lot of games and lost because our OLB didn't know how to STAY THE FUCK HOME!! Amazingly they did the same thing in week 17 against Peterson, corrected it in the wildcard game and reverted back to it vs. SF.

Look, results speak volumes, and we are disappointed after 2 bad playoff losses. Lack of talent? I don't think so, you don't win a SB and a ton of games without talent. Coaching? At times yes, but coaches don't cause 3 non fumblers to fumble in a playoff game.

Bottom line: This is a talented team with SOME weaknesses. We really need Perry and Sherrod healthy. We could really use a S to step up (still not a burnett fan). They will win 12 games this year. Hopefully they don't go bonehead in the playoffs and even MAKE some timely plays ala bush in the SB and run it again. It would be awesome to win it every year, but I can think of 29-30 teams that would pay TT HUGE to come on over if we don't like his team building success.

[3irty1]

Basically if we just wanted to get guys that surpass wist's threshold of excellence, the best thing ted could do was trade the 1322 points worth of picks we started with for about a dozen picks in the top of round 4. From there we'd historically find a starter for every 408 points netting us 3 wist-quality starters out of the bunch.

Of course in this model all picks are the same. Hawk counts just as much as Rodgers and just as much as Burnett. Not really fair IMO. Rodgers is worth like 5 quality starters. Hawk is worth like .75 of one. CJ wilson worth at least .5 of one. I didn't want to get into coefficients for each player though because it'd likely be very subjective. If there were a way to crowd source this, I could dig it.

Guys who have served the franchise well but are not with us like Collins and Jennings count as if they were Brian Brohm because they don't impact our roster as it stands today. I'm not really sure the implications of that.

The last two or three drafts are too premature to bear much fruit but count as nothing but misses including the one we just had. Seems less than ideal.

[bobblehead]

To summarize the picks:

#55 for #61 & #173
TT moved back six spots, still got a player he had rated equally to the player he would have picked at 55, and got a free late round flyer to boot. Cost, nothing. Received, pick 173

#88 for #93 & #216
TT talked about the middle rounds of this draft being particularly deep. He moved back, likely staying in the deep middle round talent pool and picked up a free pick. Cost, nothing. Received, pick 216

#93 for #109, #146 & #224
Again, listening to Ted say he had a lot of players in the the middle of the draft rated highly so he purposely made picks in that area. Cost nothing. Picked up 146 and 224.

#146 & #173 for #125.
Ted used pick 173 (the freebe pick from his first trade) and pick 146 (a freebe pick from his 3rd trade) to move back into the part of the draft he had highly rated talent available.


Then he had some extra picks to take flyers on some talented college players he might not have been able to get here without using picks on. At the end of the day, if you listen to Ted talk about the draft and understand the concept of players being rated on the same teir, TT ended up getting 2 extra picks in what he considered the sweet spot of this draft and a couple extra flyers (which 3hirty1's analysis shows do matter and do add up over time.)


Ted said he did some things he didn't think he'd be able to do. If I had to guess, listening to him talk about the depth in the middle of the draft, I think getting two extra picks in that area while still keeping his later round picks would be one of thoe things he didn't expect to be able to do. I think the Packers are happy with how the executed this draft. I really do.

I believe this is a great summary of TT's thought process. You can disagree with it, but he busts his ass to grade players and if he thought this was the best approach...well, time will tell if it was.

[bobblehead]

To me this is pretty simple. TT didn't think there was value in the 3rd round, but he did think there was value in the 4th round. If he had made his 3rd round pick, in his mind he would have been drafting a player with a 4th round grade. So by masking a few trades, he ended up with 3 4th round picks instead of 2. And he did it without giving up picks in other rounds.

Good logic, but I read somewhere that TT had Franklin with a 2nd round grade. I am still surprised that he didn't use an earlier pick on him, but I believe it was influenced by having already drafting lacy. I think even more likely is that TT had a MOUNTAIN of guys with 3rd round grades and knew most would be there in the 4th so he moved around to get more of them. I think JH summed it up well though. The exact details we will never know.

[bobblehead]

I didn't want to get into coefficients for each player though because it'd likely be very subjective.

This is the statement of the thread and discussion. What seperates a money ball expert from a douchebag isn't the math, its the input. To truly be effective you MUST be the best at subjectively defining that coefficient. I believe TT is as good as anyone at that part, and it happens to be the most important part.

[3irty1]

This is the statement of the thread and discussion. What seperates a money ball expert from a douchebag isn't the math, its the input. To truly be effective you MUST be the best at subjectively defining that coefficient. I believe TT is as good as anyone at that part, and it happens to be the most important part.

I set up the spreadsheet formulas to take coefficients if you or anyone else cares to take a shot at providing them. With the way wist worded his argument I just made them all 1 or 0. Here's all the picks they are needed for. Maybe set Rodgers at a 100 and everyone else relative to that.


Aaron Rodgers
Nick Collins
Terrance Murphy
Marviel Underwood
Brady Poppinga
Junius Coston
Mike Hawkins
Michael Montgomery
Craig Bragg
Kurt Campbell
Will Whitticker
AJ Hawk
Daryn Colledge
Greg Jennings
Abdul Hodge
Jason Spitz
Cory Rodgers
Will Blackmon
Ingle Martin
Tony Moll
Johnny Jolly
Tyrone Culver
Dave Tollefson
Justin Harrell
Brandon Jackson
James Jones
Aaron Rouse
Allen Barbre
David Clowney
Korey Hall
Desmond Bishop
Mason Crosby
DeShawn Wynn
Clark Harris
Jordy Nelson
Brian Brohm
Pat Lee
Jermichael Finley
Jeremy Thompson
Josh Sitton
Breno Giacomini
Matt Flynn
Brett Swain
BJ Raji
Clay Matthews
TJ Lang
Quinn Johnson
Jamon Meredith
Jarius Wynn
Brandon Underwood
Brad Jones
Bryan Bulaga
Mike Neal
Morgan Burnett
Andrew Quarless
Marshall Newhouse
James Starks
CJ Wilson
Derek Sherrod
Randall Cobb
Alex Green
Davon House
DJ Williams
Caleb Schlauderaff
DJ Smith
Ricky Elmore
Ryan Taylor
Lawrence Guy
Nick Perry
Jerel Worthy
Casey Hayward
Mike Daniels
Jerron McMillian
Terrell Manning
Andrew Datko
BJ Coleman
Datone Jones
Eddie Lacy
David Bakhtiari
JC Tretter
Johnathan Franklin
Micah Hyde
Josh Boyd
Nate Palmer
Charles Johnson
Kevin Dorsey
Sam Barrington

[RashanGary]

I'd go something like that.

Aaron Rodgers 100
Nick Collins 40
Terrance Murphy 5
Marviel Underwood 5
Brady Poppinga 15
Junius Coston 5
Mike Hawkins 5
Michael Montgomery 10
Craig Bragg 0
Kurt Campbell 0
Will Whitticker 7.5
AJ Hawk 17.5
Daryn Colledge 20
Greg Jennings 35
Abdul Hodge 10
Jason Spitz 17.5
Cory Rodgers 0
Will Blackmon 10
Ingle Martin 0
Tony Moll 15
Johnny Jolly 20
Tyrone Culver 0
Dave Tollefson 15
Justin Harrell 5
Brandon Jackson 12.5
James Jones 25
Aaron Rouse 5
Allen Barbre 5
David Clowney 2.5
Korey Hall 15
Desmond Bishop 20
Mason Crosby 12.5
DeShawn Wynn 2.5
Clark Harris 0
Jordy Nelson 30
Brian Brohm 0
Pat Lee 15
Jermichael Finley 20
Jeremy Thompson 0
Josh Sitton 35
Breno Giacomini 12.5
Matt Flynn 15
Brett Swain 7.5
BJ Raji 35
Clay Matthews 60
TJ Lang 20
Quinn Johnson 5
Jamon Meredith 0
Jarius Wynn 7.5
Brandon Underwood 5
Brad Jones 15
Bryan Bulaga 25
Mike Neal 15
Morgan Burnett 15
Andrew Quarless 5
Marshall Newhouse 15
James Starks 10
CJ Wilson 12.5


That's as far as I'd go. The rest we'll have to wait on.

[pbmax]

Pro Football Reference says you and Bobble are welcome, 3irty1.

http://goo.gl/sbWaT


Rk Player From To Draft Tm Lg G GS Yrs PB AP1 AV
1 Aaron Rodgers 2005 2012 1-24 GNB NFL 85 78 8 2 1 90
2 Greg Jennings 2006 2012 2-52 GNB NFL 96 86 7 2 0 64
3 A.J. Hawk 2006 2012 1-5 GNB NFL 110 107 7 0 0 55
4 Nick Collins 2005 2011 2-51 GNB NFL 95 95 7 3 0 51
5 Clay Matthews 2009 2012 1-26 GNB NFL 58 55 4 3 1 49
6 Daryn Colledge 2006 2012 2-47 TOT NFL 112 108 7 0 0 48
7 Josh Sitton 2008 2012 4-135 GNB NFL 73 64 5 0 0 37
8 Jermichael Finley 2008 2012 3-91 GNB NFL 64 43 5 0 0 36
9 James Jones 2007 2012 3-78 GNB NFL 90 32 6 0 0 36
10 Jordy Nelson 2008 2012 2-36 GNB NFL 73 25 5 0 0 33
11 Brady Poppinga 2005 2012 4-125 TOT NFL 100 57 8 0 0 29
12 B.J. Raji 2009 2012 1-9 GNB NFL 60 47 4 1 0 24
13 T.J. Lang 2009 2012 4-109 GNB NFL 59 34 4 0 0 22
14 Bryan Bulaga 2010 2012 1-23 GNB NFL 37 33 3 0 0 20
15 Jason Spitz 2006 2012 3-75 TOT NFL 75 45 7 0 0 20
16 Desmond Bishop 2007 2012 6-193 GNB NFL 69 26 6 0 0 19
17 Johnny Jolly 2006 2009 6-183 GNB NFL 48 39 4 0 0 19
18 Randall Cobb 2011 2012 2-64 GNB NFL 30 8 2 0 0 18
19 Brandon Jackson 2007 2012 2-63 TOT NFL 54 16 6 0 0 17
20 Marshall Newhouse 2011 2012 5-169 GNB NFL 32 29 2 0 0 16



Games Games Misc Misc Misc Misc
Rk Player From To Draft Tm Lg G GS Yrs PB AP1 AV
21 Morgan Burnett 2010 2012 3-71 GNB NFL 36 36 3 0 0 13
22 Brad Jones 2009 2012 7-218 GNB NFL 51 23 4 0 0 13
23 Tony Moll 2006 2011 5-165 TOT NFL 63 22 6 0 0 13
24 Breno Giacomini 2008 2012 5-150 TOT NFL 32 24 3 0 0 12
25 James Starks 2010 2012 6-193 GNB NFL 22 4 3 0 0 11
26 Mike Montgomery 2005 2010 6-180 GNB NFL 58 8 6 0 0 9
27 C.J. Wilson 2010 2012 7-230 GNB NFL 42 12 3 0 0 9
28 Jamon Meredith 2009 2012 5-162 TOT NFL 31 16 4 0 0 8
29 Aaron Rouse 2007 2009 3-89 TOT NFL 41 18 3 0 0 8
30 Allen Barbre 2007 2011 4-119 TOT NFL 32 7 5 0 0 7
31 Korey Hall 2007 2011 6-192 TOT NFL 61 26 5 0 0 7
32 Dave Tollefson 2007 2012 7-253 TOT NFL 77 2 6 0 0 7
33 Will Blackmon 2006 2011 4-115 TOT NFL 43 2 6 0 0 6
34 D.J. Smith 2011 2012 6-186 GNB NFL 22 9 2 0 0 6
35 Jarius Wynn 2009 2012 6-182 TOT NFL 43 4 4 0 0 6
36 Alex Green 2011 2012 3-96 GNB NFL 16 4 2 0 0 5
37 Andrew Quarless 2010 2012 5-154 GNB NFL 23 5 3 0 0 5
38 Will Whitticker 2005 2005 7-246 GNB NFL 15 14 1 0 0 5
39 Junius Coston 2005 2007 5-143 GNB NFL 16 7 3 0 0 4
40 Casey Hayward 2012 2012 2-62 GNB NFL 16 7 1 0 0 4



Games Games Misc Misc Misc Misc
Rk Player From To Draft Tm Lg G GS Yrs PB AP1 AV
41 Ryan Taylor 2011 2012 7-218 GNB NFL 31 1 2 0 0 4
42 D.J. Williams 2011 2012 5-141 GNB NFL 26 2 2 0 0 4
43 David Clowney 2008 2010 5-157 TOT NFL 28 3 3 0 0 3
44 Matt Flynn 2008 2012 7-209 TOT NFL 37 2 5 0 0 3
45 Quinn Johnson 2009 2012 5-145 TOT NFL 40 13 4 0 0 3
46 Jerel Worthy 2012 2012 2-51 GNB NFL 13 4 1 0 0 3
47 DeShawn Wynn 2007 2010 7-228 TOT NFL 23 4 4 0 0 3
48 Mike Daniels 2012 2012 4-132 GNB NFL 14 0 1 0 0 2
49 Lawrence Guy 2011 2012 7-233 TOT NFL 8 2 2 0 0 2
50 Justin Harrell 2007 2010 1-16 GNB NFL 14 2 3 0 0 2
51 Clark Harris 2008 2012 7-243 TOT NFL 63 0 5 0 0 2
52 Abdul Hodge 2006 2010 3-67 TOT NFL 35 1 4 0 0 2
53 Davon House 2011 2012 4-131 GNB NFL 11 5 2 0 0 2
54 Patrick Lee 2008 2012 2-60 TOT NFL 38 1 4 0 0 2
55 Nick Perry 2012 2012 1-28 GNB NFL 6 5 1 0 0 2
56 Brandon Underwood 2009 2010 6-187 GNB NFL 23 0 2 0 0 2
57 Michael Hawkins 2005 2006 5-167 TOT NFL 18 1 2 0 0 1
58 Jerron McMillian 2012 2012 4-133 GNB NFL 16 0 1 0 0 1
59 Mike Neal 2010 2012 2-56 GNB NFL 19 0 3 0 0 1
60 Caleb Schlauderaff 2011 2012 6-179 NYJ NFL 6 1 2 0 0 1



Games Games Misc Misc Misc Misc
Rk Player From To Draft Tm Lg G GS Yrs PB AP1 AV
61 Derek Sherrod 2011 2012 1-32 GNB NFL 5 0 2 0 0 1
62 Brett Swain 2009 2011 7-217 TOT NFL 27 2 3 0 0 1
63 Jeremy Thompson 2008 2009 4-102 GNB NFL 15 3 2 0 0 1
64 Marviel Underwood 2005 2005 4-115 GNB NFL 16 0 1 0 0 1
65 Brian Brohm 2009 2010 2-56 BUF NFL 3 2 2 0 0 0
66 B.J. Coleman 2012 2012 7-243 GNB NFL 1 0 0 0
67 Mason Crosby 2007 2012 6-194 GNB NFL 96 0 6 0 0 0
68 Andrew Datko 2012 2012 7-241 GNB NFL 1 0 0 0
69 Ricky Elmore 2011 2012 6-197 TOT NFL 0 0 2 0 0 0
70 Terrell Manning 2012 2012 5-163 GNB NFL 5 0 1 0 0 0
71 Ingle Martin 2006 2006 5-148 GNB NFL 1 0 1 0 0 0
72 Terrence Murphy 2005 2005 2-58 GNB NFL 3 0 1 0 0 0

[pbmax]

Its slightly frightening how close Justin was to Rodgers and Matthews.

[rbaloha1]

Admire your patience and research -- very McGinn like LOL:hrt:

[wist43]

3irty1, thanks for starting the thread - I thought this needed to be discussed, but knew I couldn't be the one to start the thread b/c I'm somewhat of a polarizing figure. That said, I'll dig in...

1) A few things jump out right away, and you mentioned one of them - it would take 244 picks in rds 4-7 to get you to a starting lineup of 22 players; but we don't need all 22, all we need is 12 - but even getting to that number you would need to draft 133 players. In 8 years, you would have to average 17 players per year, every year, and only after the 8 year period would you have a starting lineup... lol :lol:

Obviously undoable, but then again you really don't even need to get to the 12 number, b/c TT has filled in some of the spots thru street FA's and UFA. The reason I would argue that those have to be thrown out though, is b/c I assume most of those signings would have happened either way - and, even if someone argued the signings might be different, we have no way of knowing or projecting that, so we have to agree that those players are neutral.

So out would be EDS, Tramon Williams, Sam Shields, and Pickett. That's 4 more spots off the total - that brings you down to 8. That would bring you down to 90 players you would need to draft, in an 8 year span you would have to average 11 picks per year, every year - and again, only after the 8 year period would you have a starting lineup.

2) The other thing that jumped out at me, is a relatively minor point, but it would affect your numbers - you do have to throw out the 3 guys whose disposition you don't know. You can't assume them misses, and you can't include them as picks either b/c they are unknown variables that cannot be accounted for - to assume them either way would introduce bias, and invalidate your results.

---------------------------------------------

I took a quick look at the value chart you linked - instead of reverse engineering how you arrived at a total (my brain is too fried tonight), can you just tell me how you arrived at the number, and who was included and excluded? In order to look at how you arrived at your conclusion, I have to see how you got there. I could figure it out, but really, lol... my brain is fried :)

How did you arrive at 14,054 and 1,518.70??

---------------------------------------------

3) And finally I would point out the obvious - your odds of hitting on a quality starter are considerably better in the first 3 rounds.

Using the same criteria, In evaluating TT's hit/miss rate in the first 3 rounds we have to treat these draft picks the same as the other group. We have to include all known datapoints, which means Jennings, Collins, Colledge, et al and whoever else have to be included. The only draft picks left off are unknowns (which would be subject to discussion - although I would argue some of them are likely to be hits):

Hits
Rodgers, Collins, Colledge, Jennings, Hawk, J. Jones, Finley, Nelson, Matthews, Raji, Burnett, Bulaga, Cobb, and Hayward.

Misses
Brohm, Lee, Harrell, Murphy, Jackson, Rouse, Hodge, and Spitz.

Unknowns
Perry, Worthy, Sherrod, Green, and Neal.

I suspect Perry is a hit, and Neal is coming on, but we don't know for sure, so I left them off. Throw out the unknowns (bias), that comes to 22 picks, of which 14 are hits.

14/22 = 63.6%

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In summation, by my undermisestimated logic


TT's hit rate in rounds 1-3 = 63.6%

TT's hit rate in rounds 4-7 = 9.09%

I think those numbers support my argument very well.

[3irty1]

Those value numbers are merely the sum of the point values for all picks in the round(s) as given by the draft trade chart I linked to.

One point that I'd like to get opinions on, espeically wist, is the idea of player coefficients. By not including them, it assumes an underlying philosophy that a team is only as good as its worst starter. Do you feel that's right?

What to do with Greg Jennings? He's been a good packer, but his value no longer counts for us. If this is a measure of all the picks we had to make to procure the roster we've got... we took Greg Jennings and now he's not on the team. The benefit to that pick is almost over. I say almost because he'll net us a comp pick in 2014 and that pick will add value in a measurable way. I don't feel we can include Jennings, Collins, Colledge, etc. As far as 2013 is concerned... those guys are bums.

I agree its too early to use many of the players from the last two drafts. Cobb can be counted, probably Hayward as well. I'll update this in the afternoon and post the results.

[3irty1]

I like Harrell's numbers and they are quite close to those that pb found. One big question here though that ultimately boils down to:

Should a draft pick be measured in 2013 by how much it helps the Packers in 2013 or by how much that pick has done for the franchise overall?

This is asking the broader question of the Greg Jennings situation above. Guys like Hawk have done a little each year for a lot of years and Hayward just burst in last year. But who would you rather have in 2013 and is that even the right question?

[Patler]

Isn't the point of this exercise to determine the likelihood of finding capable players at various draft slots? The fact that Jennings, Colledge and others have left in free agency doesn't change TT's success at picking them. In fact, I would suggest that if TT cuts Trotter this year, and he goes on to a long, distinguished career with the Vikings, for the purposes of evaluating the draft, he goes in the "plus" column. If evaluating TT's roster decisions, he would be a big "minus".

[pbmax]

I agree with Patler, finding the player is a separate exercise than roster management or development to keep him. A surplus of CBS shouldn't detract from finding another good one.

There is an associated cost of taking a player at a position of relative strength rather than a position of weakness, but that is going to be hard to quantify. Especially since the weak starter will be accounted for by the drafted player who is still there.

[pbmax]

On young players, if they have surpassed others who were merely backups for one or two years (Matthews if we did this exercise on 2010, Cobb or Hayward) then they have to count. A certain number of starts should count as well. But then there is the question about what to do with others from the same draft class who have done nothing.

I say include them, the results will then reflect the problem of getting a rookie player up to speed.

[3irty1]

Isn't the point of this exercise to determine the likelihood of finding capable players at various draft slots? The fact that Jennings, Colledge and others have left in free agency doesn't change TT's success at picking them. In fact, I would suggest that if TT cuts Trotter this year, and he goes on to a long, distinguished career with the Vikings, for the purposes of evaluating the draft, he goes in the "plus" column. If evaluating TT's roster decisions, he would be a big "minus".

I believe what we're measuring is the value of various draft slots to the Packers when Ted Thompson is the one handing in the cards.

One thing to take into account is why Jennings, Colledge, Giacomini, etc are off the team and the answer is that Ted has displaced them with continued success at the same position. Not including them is a way of accounting for the diminishing returns of finding more starters than can start. Collins on the other hand...

[pbmax]

I believe what we're measuring is the value of various draft slots to the Packers when Ted Thompson is the one handing in the cards.

One thing to take into account is why Jennings, Colledge, Giacomini, etc are off the team and the answer is that Ted has displaced them with continued success at the same position. Not including them is a way of accounting for the diminishing returns of finding more starters than can start. Collins on the other hand...

If you exclude them, the results will reflect more on the current roster. If we choose to exclude young players, the list of players in this exercise gets pretty small.

Doesn't the presence of a replacement starter, who may be less than the departed player, take into account the loss of an established player?

[3irty1]

If you exclude them, the results will reflect more on the current roster. If we choose to exclude young players, the list of players in this exercise gets pretty small.

Doesn't the presence of a replacement starter, who may be less than the departed player, take into account the loss of an established player?

My first, unpolished attempt was to nail down as many assumptions that wist was using as possible. One of those assumptions is that drafted players who aren't good enough to start ever or start yet are no more valuable than street free agents that would displace them had their pick been used to trade up.

[pbmax]

My first, unpolished attempt was to nail down as many assumptions that wist was using as possible. One of those assumptions is that drafted players who aren't good enough to start ever or start yet are no more valuable than street free agents that would displace them had their pick been used to trade up.

Yes, but perhaps predictably, those criteria place an emphasis on the roster for this year, kinda the Mike Sherman mathematical formula for draft pick value evaluation.

Is that the best use of the data?

[3irty1]

Its probably not ideal, no. But we're not serving a different purpose now than my original post which was to explore then show wist the value of picks after the 3rd round.

You're free to come up with any criteria you'd like and I'll post the results.

[3irty1]

.

[3irty1]

Sorry, I found a problem. Will repost.

[3irty1]

Here is the results from the pro-football reference AV numbers from 2005 to 2012:

Total Round 1-3 Player Value: 347
Total Round 1-3 Pick Cost: 13,062.00
Total Round 1-3 Cost/Value: 37.64

Total Round 4-7 Player Value: 563
Total Round 4-7 Pick Cost: 1,195.80
Total Round 4-7 Cost/Value: 2.12

Total Round 1 Player Value: 197
Total Round 1 Pick Cost: 7,500.00
Total Round 1 Cost/Value: 38.07

Total Round 2 Player Value: 110
Total Round 2 Pick Cost: 4,260.00
Total Round 2 Cost/Value: 38.73

Total Round 3 Player Value: 40
Total Round 3 Pick Cost: 1,302.00
Total Round 3 Cost/Value: 32.55

Total Round 4 Player Value: 119
Total Round 4 Pick Cost: 604.50
Total Round 4 Cost/Value: 5.08

Total Round 5 Player Value: 139
Total Round 5 Pick Cost: 331.90
Total Round 5 Cost/Value: 2.39

Total Round 6 Player Value: 120
Total Round 6 Pick Cost: 224.00
Total Round 6 Cost/Value: 1.87

Total Round 7 Player Value: 185
Total Round 7 Pick Cost: 35.40
Total Round 7 Cost/Value: 0.19

[3irty1]

JH, Here is your results:

Total Round 1-3 Player Value: 507.5
Total Round 1-3 Pick Cost: 10,752.00
Total Round 1-3 Cost/Value: 21.19

Total Round 4-7 Player Value: 330
Total Round 4-7 Pick Cost: 1,019.60
Total Round 4-7 Cost/Value: 3.09

Total Round 1 Player Value: 242.5
Total Round 1 Pick Cost: 6,250.00
Total Round 1 Cost/Value: 25.77

Total Round 2 Player Value: 172.5
Total Round 2 Pick Cost: 3,316.00
Total Round 2 Cost/Value: 19.22

Total Round 3 Player Value: 92.5
Total Round 3 Pick Cost: 1,186.00
Total Round 3 Cost/Value: 12.82

Total Round 4 Player Value: 90
Total Round 4 Pick Cost: 523.50
Total Round 4 Cost/Value: 5.82

Total Round 5 Player Value: 65
Total Round 5 Pick Cost: 296.40
Total Round 5 Cost/Value: 4.56

Total Round 6 Player Value: 100
Total Round 6 Pick Cost: 171.60
Total Round 6 Cost/Value: 1.72

Total Round 7 Player Value: 75
Total Round 7 Pick Cost: 28.10
Total Round 7 Cost/Value: 0.37

[Pugger]

I know this could be a pain but don't you also have to consider where TT is picking in each round? With parity the goal of the NFL I give TT credit for keeping us in the upper tier of teams even though we are usually drafting towards the end of each round. To me in this era a superior GM is one whose team is repeatedly successful like TT, Belichick, Newsome, Colbert and Reese.

[Guiness]

First off, well done 3irty1 - a lot of work there, and an interesting read for sure. Appreciate you bringing the discussion all into one thread, I have found myself looking around for bits and pieces of it.

Which players to include and not include is a big debate. I think you could easily add Jennings to the analysis - you mentioned in the OP that he and Collins have done nothing for us 'lately'. Well, the Pack hasn't played a game since he's been gone, that doesn't seem too long ago! He's not with the team now, but it you're analysing picks, I think he's an important data point. Collins as well, and Patler brought up another interesting one in Colledge.

I also think it's important to look at the roster overall. In my response to Woody, I looked at all the players on the roster that were 4th round or later - filling that depth and the STs is as important as anything. So I think Crosby should be included, and the UDFAs definitely should be - since that is bum mining in the extreme, by your analysis it cost nothing to get them, and it got the Pack two starting CBs, I don't know how you can ignore that! And what about benefiting from other team's bum mining? Ryan Grant cost the Pack a 6th, was well worth it and an astute use of a draft pick by TT.

Again, thanks for this 3irty1 - rep points for ya!

[cheesner]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In summation, by my undermisestimated logic


TT's hit rate in rounds 1-3 = 63.6%

TT's hit rate in rounds 4-7 = 9.09%

I think those numbers support my argument very well.

You completely missed the point. Yes the odds of hitting are less. Everyone understands that. What 3hirty1 was saying is that the trade backs increase the numbers of picks and over compensates for hitting. That is, taking a 1st round pick and trading back for 24 7th round picks (not that it is possible, but it may help you to understand) is a smart move because you should get 2 starters. That is more starters than if you hit on your 1st round pick.

What is the alternative? Wist, suppose you traded your 4-7 picks and got a mid 2nd round pick. So – you have 4 picks per season. You hit on 63.% - this gives you 2.4 players per year. It will take you 10 years to get all your starters. But you would never get there, with injuries and FA losses, you would have a forever empty roster of mostly UFAs. Presumably the 4-7th rounders were more highly regarded and better players. I understand you expect TT to fill the roster in with some street FA which he has had some success at. I'm not sure there are enough of those hits to have a competitive roster.

One other point - the influx of more of the late rounders, in the trade back scenario, should generate significantly more competition. Having a big disparity in talent - high draft picks vrs street FA level talent will not foster a competitive team environment. Additionally, the elite team members are then practicing against marginal players. I think a WR competing in practice against a probowl CB is going to advance more than practicing with a scrub.


3irty1 - Really nice work.

[wist43]

You guys are getting yourselves off track by attaching a generic value chart to TT's drafts - that says nothing abut how the actual player turned out. Validating a value chart is not the point.

I'm talking about feet on the ground, how those players turned out (starter for us), and using that data as a measure of how TT is doing at the top (rds 1-3) and bottom (4-7) of the draft.

1) JH, the guys are correct - you have to include Colledge, Jennings, et al. We are evaluating all of TT's drafts - excluding only those players that we do not know their disposition, i.e. (Perry, Neal, Sherrod, et al)

2) And guys, you can't include a player like Giacomini as a hit for TT b/c TT kicked that player to the curb for whatever reason, and once that player is cut he immediately goes into the catagory of UFA, and we got nothing from him as a draft pick.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, my original premise was starters - it has to be starters. As I said, if this is your primary means of player procurement, you better be hitting on enough starters to get ya where ya need to go.

The value chart can't evaluate what you have after the fact.

[wist43]

You completely missed the point. Yes the odds of hitting are less. Everyone understands that. What 3hirty1 was saying is that the trade backs increase the numbers of picks and over compensates for hitting. That is, taking a 1st round pick and trading back for 24 7th round picks (not that it is possible, but it may help you to understand) is a smart move because you should get 2 starters. That is more starters than if you hit on your 1st round pick.

What is the alternative? Wist, suppose you traded your 4-7 picks and got a mid 2nd round pick. So – you have 4 picks per season. You hit on 63.% - this gives you 2.4 players per year. It will take you 10 years to get all your starters. But you would never get there, with injuries and FA losses, you would have a forever empty roster of mostly UFAs. Presumably the 4-7th rounders were more highly regarded and better players. I understand you expect TT to fill the roster in with some street FA which he has had some success at. I'm not sure there are enough of those hits to have a competitive roster.

One other point - the influx of more of the late rounders, in the trade back scenario, should generate significantly more competition. Having a big disparity in talent - high draft picks vrs street FA level talent will not foster a competitive team environment. Additionally, the elite team members are then practicing against marginal players. I think a WR competing in practice against a probowl CB is going to advance more than practicing with a scrub.


3irty1 - Really nice work.

This post is bogus Cheesner... not a very sturdy strawman.

You're assigning to me an advocation of abandoning lower round picks, as if I believe that the draft has no value after the 3rd round. When have I said that?? I'm the one who stated the original premise, pretty sure I'm not missing the point ;)

Missing the point would be evaluating post-draft players with a pre-draft value chart. The point is not to validate a value chart, but to evaluate TT's drafts.

It is you guys who are missing the point.

[wist43]

Those value numbers are merely the sum of the point values for all picks in the round(s) as given by the draft trade chart I linked to.

One point that I'd like to get opinions on, espeically wist, is the idea of player coefficients. By not including them, it assumes an underlying philosophy that a team is only as good as its worst starter. Do you feel that's right?

What to do with Greg Jennings? He's been a good packer, but his value no longer counts for us. If this is a measure of all the picks we had to make to procure the roster we've got... we took Greg Jennings and now he's not on the team. The benefit to that pick is almost over. I say almost because he'll net us a comp pick in 2014 and that pick will add value in a measurable way. I don't feel we can include Jennings, Collins, Colledge, etc. As far as 2013 is concerned... those guys are bums.

I agree its too early to use many of the players from the last two drafts. Cobb can be counted, probably Hayward as well. I'll update this in the afternoon and post the results.

Like I said to Cheesner, I think you're missing the point... I understand that you're trying to establish a means to assign a value to each player, but that's highly subjective. For that reason, it becomes GIGO. You can make the result say anything you want.

Beyond that you'd have to find a means to account for salaries. Take Rodgers - best player, highest salary, highest rated everything... you'd have to account for the negative feedbacks of his salary. If he eats up 20% of your cap, how much does that hurt your player retention and procurement. It likely wouldn't affect our procurement b/c we don't spend money in FA, but it certainly could affect our retention (Jennings - c ya)... on and on.

There are so many variables that the original point gets lost. No matter what, we need to be hitting on more of these lower round picks than we have been - or, we need to fill those holes with low-cost veterans; which TT rarely does.

Your coefficient idea would be necessary if your goal is to come up with a value for the Packers roster - I just think there are too many variables and we need to keep it simple. If Rodgers carried too much weight as a 1st round pick, he could even show up as an outlier. The truth is, GM's hit on players from all over the place. Kurt Warner was in our training camp, and was bagging groceries... next second he's league MVP. Brady was a 6th round pick, etc...

We have to look at TT as an individual GM, and what his batting average is in various areas of the draft.

[Cleft Crusty]

We have to look at TT as an individual GM, and what his batting average is in various areas of the draft.

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.

[3irty1]

We're not evaluating post-draft players with a pre-draft value chart. We're evaluating where is the appropriate level of "bum mining" is using player evaluations and a pre-draft value chart.

People don't think in terms of exponential decay which is what the value of draft picks are. Every draft class is the good half of a bell curve, that's where the values on the pre-draft chart come from. So hypothetically say we had a completely unsaturated exchange on our draft picks, i.g., we could trade all our picks to get the whole 6th and 7th round... or trade all our picks to move up 5 spots in round 1... or anything in between like trade all our draft picks for the first 13 picks in round 4. In that world where should Ted Thompson be drafting to make the most of his picks within the constraints of an NFL roster?

[3irty1]

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.

Nice to see you. Also good point.

[Cleft Crusty]

People don't think in terms of exponential decay....

I think in those terms with respect to my body

[RashanGary]

Its slightly frightening how close Justin was to Rodgers and Matthews.

I'm really not as stupid as I seem.

[Guiness]

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.

Agreed Cleft, but I'm concerned. That post is almost lucid and insightful. I'm not sure if that means you're off your meds, or the doctor has raised the dosages again.

[swede]

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.


Agreed Cleft, but I'm concerned. That post is almost lucid and insightful. I'm not sure if that means you're off your meds, or the doctor has raised the dosages again.

He is always pretty lucid in the first few days following an organ transplant. There was a sale on kidneys at Sendek's last week.

[Cleft Crusty]

He is always pretty lucid in the first few days following an organ transplant. There was a sale on kidneys at Sendek's last week.

sale on kidney beans. It explains the gas and bloating.

[smuggler]

Misses
Brohm, Lee, Harrell, Murphy, Jackson, Rouse, Hodge, and Spitz.

I'm late on this, but Murphy was probably a hit. He was playing pretty well in his rookie year until he got Sterling Sharpe'd. Spitz wasn't bad, either, but had injuries also.

[Pugger]

I wonder how good Harrell could have been had injuries didn't do him in...

[RashanGary]

People don't think in terms of exponential decay which is what the value of draft picks are.

I don't even know what that means :eyes:

I hope I think in those terms tho. It sounds good.

[Gunakor]

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.


The concern Wist is voicing is Ted's predisposition to trade down out of one of those first 3 rounds. We all agree starters generally come from those first 3 rounds, but when a GM uses his picks in those first 3 rounds simply to accumulate picks in the last 4 then we should be looking at what that GM is getting in terms of value from those trades.

Roster turnover is inevitable. The bottom of the roster is reevaluated every year, and fresh blood is brought in while others are let go. But when you continually trade down, all you're doing is reshuffling the bottom of the roster. Where are the starters coming from? That's Wist's point here. You want starters, you don't trade out of the top of the draft to accumulate picks at the bottom of it. If a team has 22 players locked into starting positions before the draft starts and every draft selection is a luxury pick that's one thing - but when there's holes in the starting 11 on either side of the ball...

[wist43]

Interesting analogy there, Mr. Wist#43. Batting average. But your batting average is the equivalent of percent Home Runs. Or better, RBIs. You are comparing whether 1-3 versus 4-7 become starters, not whether they contribute. That's like comparing RBIs between your clean up batter and other positions. Your top picks should be mostly starters, your bottom picks mostly role players and backups, no? Thompson and MM prefer to have backups and role players mostly consist of rookies that come up in the system - they and others claim it's easier to train them, rather than re-train veterans with other habits/learning, maybe other reasons as well. Thompson, with a deep roster, has shown more willingness to move up to get a guy, but he has to be careful, because if he does that too often, he loses his depth.

Well, the problem is that we don't have a fully staffed starting lineup. Teams that will sign the occassional vet can help bridge the gap for the developmental prospects, but TT doesn't do that.


Another thing to consider: Because of TT's success in rounds 1-3 - 63%, there is less space for those 4-7 players to fill in the starting lineup. Again, the numbers support the reality: 1-3 (maybe even 1-4 - what is TT's success drafting starters in 1-4?) should be your starters and 4/5-7 should be your depth.

The main difference is in how to fill out the roster - with rookies and UDFAs or with cast-offs from other teams. Evaluating that way, and TT is doing pretty well.

You didn't read my post, did you?? I don't think any of you did.

I accounted for these things.

There are 10 early picks in the starting lineup that are legit starters; there are 4 FA's/street FA's. That means you have to cover the other 8 starting spots out of the lower end of the draft. TT has hit on 3 picks over the past 8 years that are contibutors in our starting lineup.

Of course players along the way will contribute; of course the team needs developmental players; of course the team needs special team contributors - it also needs 22 starters.

[RashanGary]

Here are three different pools of players. The first group is Ted's 3rd round picks. The 2nd group is his 4th round picks, and the third group are his 7th round picks.

Adding up TT's 4 trades:
He moved back 6 spots in the 2nd round
He gave away 1 pick from group 1
He picked up 2 picks in group 2
He picked up 2 picks in group 3



Hodge
Spitz
James Jones
Rouse
Finley
Burnett




TJ Lang
Jeremy Thompson
Josh Sitton
Allen Barbre
Corey Rodgers
Will Blackmon
Marviel Underwood
Brady Poppinga



Will Whittaker
Kurt Cambell
Tave Tollefson
Clark Harris
DeShawn Wynn
Matt Flynn
Brett Swain
Brad Jones
CJ Wilson


For shits and giggles, I'm going to go create a randomizer online and assign the 3rd, 4th and 7th round picks numbers. Then I'll run a couple of mock drafts to see which draft strategy works best using TT's past draft picks as examples of what we might expect from this years.

[3irty1]

I don't even know what that means :eyes:

I hope I think in those terms tho. It sounds good.

Here is a picture of exponential decay:
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/ALGEBRA/AE7/fixpic1.gif
That highest point on the left is the value of the first pick in the draft and that lowest point of the draft on the right is the value of the last pick of the draft. Ignore the numbers, we're just looking at the shape. We like to think each pick is just a little less valuable than the last one but in reality each pick is a lot less valuable than the last one. Really whenever you measure a diverse group of humans who are competing it looks like this. That left side could be the richest people in the world, or the kids in the class that got A's, or the hottest chicks in the world. Its why a teams first round pick is worth more than the rest of its picks combined.

This is why it takes a lot of picks to find stars among the bums but why its super kick ass when you do. When you do find one its like getting one for 97% off.

[RashanGary]

Here are 10 completely random drafts using random.org/lists to randomize drafts for me.

James Jones

vs

TJ Lang
C Rodgers
B Swain
B Jones




M Burnett

vs

J Thompson
W Blackmon
B Jones
D Wynn



M Burnett

vs

J Thompson
TJ Lang
K Campbell
C Harris




Hodge

vs

Sitton
C Rodgers
B Swain
K Cambell




J Jones

vs

C Rodgers
C Rodgers
C Harris
W Whittaker


Hodge

vs

Poppinga
Underwood
Wynn
Flynn


Burnett

vs


Lang
Poppinga
Wynn
C Harris


Spitz

vs

Lang
Barbre
Wynn
Whittaker




Hodge

vs

Lang
Thompson
B Jones
B Swain


J Jones

vs

Thompson
Sitton
CJ Wilson
C Harris

[RashanGary]

I count it as:

5 W
1 L
4 Tie


5 W for using the "accumulating extra picks" method TT used this year.




Whoever Wist would have taken

vs

JC Tretter/Jonathan Franklin/Charles Johnson/Kevin Dorsey




Pick a guy, Wist and Woody. We'll compare him against these four 3 years down the road.

[hoosier]

This is why it takes a lot of picks to find stars among the bums but why its super kick ass when you do. When you do find one its like getting one for 97% off.

No, it's like Gilligan getting laid with Ginger.

[3irty1]

J Jones

vs

C Rodgers
C Rodgers
C Harris
W Whittaker

2 Corey Rodgers in 1 draft? Gross.

[wist43]

You guys have wandered off the reservation, and want to play a moneyball/statisics game. So have at it. You haven't read anything I've written, so I'm out.

Let me ask ya this before I move on to other threads - how did you feel in your gut when Jeremy Ross was settling under that punt in the playoff game?? I'm sure he'll develop into a fine punt returner some day. I would argue a road playoff game against the toughest team in the NFL is not the place to get his feet wet.

Good learning experience for Ross though, huh??

[RashanGary]

2 Corey Rodgers in 1 draft? Gross.

LMFAO

[RashanGary]

No, Wist, it's not that. TT got 2-4th round and 2-7th round picks for moving back a little in the 2nd round and out of the 3rd.

And Jeremy Ross is an UDFA. If we didn't draft players, we'd have more UDFA's fumbling punts and less draft picks (like Will Blackmon, a 4th rounder in his time) on the roster. Just listen to yourself, "bum mining" and all that. It's just not realistic, Wist. 4th round picks aren't all that different from 3rd rounders. Two picks is a lot different than 1. It's exactly double. And two 7th rounders to boot. That means TT can have his pick of 2 extra UDFA's without 31 other teams having a say-so. It matters.

All of these 4th and 7th round picks. They might seem like nothing, but it's a process. It all adds up.

[sharpe1027]

Respectfully, any analysis that uses rounds to group picks has a fundamental flaw. You end up analyzing the last pick in the first round as if it has the same value as the first overall pick. Meanwhile, the first pick in the second round is analyzed in a completely separate group despite being only one pick away. This happens for each round.

You can't just say, rounds 1-3 net a lot of starters so trading down with a third round pick is bad. the discussion needs to be about how many spots TT traded down. He didn't move that far in IMO.

[Cleft Crusty]

You guys have wandered off the reservation, and want to play a moneyball/statisics game. So have at it. You haven't read anything I've written, so I'm out.

Let me ask ya this before I move on to other threads - how did you feel in your gut when Jeremy Ross was settling under that punt in the playoff game?? I'm sure he'll develop into a fine punt returner some day. I would argue a road playoff game against the toughest team in the NFL is not the place to get his feet wet.

Good learning experience for Ross though, huh??

Ross wasn't in there to get his 'feet wet' - he was in there due to injury to a 'legit starter.' You argue against your own point - Ross was depth, not starter. Perhaps you are critical of TT because he didn't sign Josh Cribbs as a backup, jus in case Cobb was hurt in the Divisional round. Perhaps you should look around at other teams and how they fill gaps on their squad when they have injuries.

[Cleft Crusty]

But when a GM uses his picks in those first 3 rounds simply to accumulate picks in the last 4 then we should be looking at what that GM is getting in terms of value from those trades.

when Thompson starts doing this, I will analyze value.

[Upnorth]

Ross wasn't in there to get his 'feet wet' - he was in there due to injury to a 'legit starter.' You argue against your own point - Ross was depth, not starter. Perhaps you are critical of TT because he didn't sign Josh Cribbs as a backup, jus in case Cobb was hurt in the Divisional round. Perhaps you should look around at other teams and how they fill gaps on their squad when they have injuries.

+1

[Zool]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/03/patriots-sign-19-undrafted-free-agents/

Patriots are bum mining too.

[3irty1]

The Pats are pretty much doing exactly what wist would do. He doesn't deny that you have to sign bums... he would just rather never use draft resources for bums when you can sign them for free.

[denverYooper]

This thread is awesome. I tried to rep the dirty one for the great work but the rep police wouldn't allow it.

Unfortunately I've been balls-deep in google appengine's request processing pipeline and every time I come up for air from that sonofabitch I can barely see straight, let alone engage this information.

But it has the makings of an interesting model. I'll have to give it a good going over once I'm out of the rabbit hole.

[3irty1]

Here are the conclusions that I've reached after playing with this quite a bit:

Wist is right to question trading down and classifying it as "mining for bums." Clearly there exists a level where a team can be relying too heavily on a large volume of long-shot players to farm starters. The NFL roster size, plus the cumbersome task of sorting through a large volume of talents are your bottle necks here that prevent this from ever being a viable strategy.

I also don't blame wist and others for not subscribing to the strategy of trading down even when you've got a big pile of players all rated about the same. In a vacuum it does make sense that when you don't have a preference, take the free pick and let the bones decide which of your players you'll get. This is not a vacuum though and there is phantom value to taking the guy that other GM's wanted rather than letting everyone win. Its hard to quantify that value but its real and should be weighed against the "free" pick you could get. However mid and late round picks do have real value especially if you can hit on 9% of them. Any one of them is a long-shot but as a whole they add to big value with an overhead of roster turnover that is well within the range of acceptable for a 53 man roster. This is evident in the study in this thread. A nice analogy for late picks is the lottery. Now lets say a lottery ticket costs $1 and the odds of winning are 1 in 127M, how high does the jackpot have to get before it makes sense to play? Well in a simple world where obama won't get any, if the jackpot is over $127M, it now starts to make sense. You could buy 127M tickets for $1 each and probably break even. Well this study can be seen as proof that the late round pick lottery is well worth the cost of entering, even at a 9% hit rate!

"Star mining" is also a thing. 1st and 2nd round picks are not always hits and missing on one is exponentially more detrimental to a team than whatever happens anywhere else in a draft. The fact that a 1st round pick signs a 5 year contract can give a team not just 5 starters but 5 cheap starters if they always nail this pick. Its easy for the casual fan to fall in love with the Vikings draft but the truth is that they had quite a bit more draft resources than we did to begin with. The best move they did in the draft wasn't to draft who they drafted or trade up when they traded up... it was to get what they got for Percy Harvin. We lost a start this year too but will get nothing more than a comp pick for him. To overcome the parity in the NFL that comes from the monstrous windfalls at the top of the draft, you've got to get draft picks for the players you can't pay.

22 wist-calibre legit starters is unrealistic and even if attained is probably not sustainable. In today's NFL its also not necessary. 2 specialists can platoon to be as good or better than a starter who never leaves the field. Places where you can't do this is where you want the bulk of your draft resources to go IMO. QB, OL on offense. Secondary and pass rush on defense.