THE draft thread (2013 version)

[wist43]

Let's not judge the last two years yet is what I"m saying, so take those out of this analysis. Look at 37 players, not 55 or whatever it was he was looking at. It's too early for a bunch of them. He sort of sliced and diced those numbers to look as bad as possible by leaving in 1st and 2nd year guys taken at developmental points in the draft. Then he subtracted the three that might turn out from the total number and left the ones he's certain won't turn out in the number. . . I don't think the way he went about using his numbers matched up with common football knowledge (AKA, you can't judge a draft for 3 years)

If you buy into the, "you can't judge a draft for 3 years" saying, and you like the Jolly and Flynn picks, 22% is the hit rate. Wist has it at 5%.

How are you taking 18 players off the top??

There are only 12 players from those drafts on the list - remember, this is 4th round and later.

Of those 12 players, I took off 3 (Daniels, McMillian, and House b/c they are in the mix to contribute, but as yet had done nothing) - most of the rest of them have already been cut.

A couple are still on the team, but they're camp fodder, same as the new crop of low end picks and street FA's. Whoever performs the best, offers the most on special teams, whatever they might could offer... gets the job; but that's a far cry from ripping Colin Kapnerfuckers head off, and spiking it in the end zone - now isn't it??

[HarveyWallbangers]

Of those 12 players, I took off 3 (Daniels, McMillian, and House b/c they are in the mix to contribute, but as yet had done nothing) - most of the rest of them have already been cut.

I haven't been following closely, but let me see if I have this correctly: you aren't counting the three guys that have or have a chance at contributing, but counted the rest of the players from those drafts that haven't?

[wist43]

I haven't been following closely, but let me see if I have this correctly: you aren't counting the three guys that have or have a chance at contributing, but counted the rest of the players from those drafts that haven't?

Yes, and here's why - you can't say that those potential players are hits, or misses. You don't know what they are. They could be hits which would help TT's average, or they could be misses which would lower it - we simply don't know. Since we don't know, they are excluded.

Those who are counted, are ones where we know what their disposition is, i.e. many of them have already been cut; or were cut and signed to the practice squad, which relagates them to FA status b/c they have to clear waivers. As I said, there were a couple of players I counted that were still on the roster, but hadn't contributed much, and don't look to have much upside (Manning and Williams).

I think I gave a fair treatment to the list. As Bretsky said, it really does jump out at you the number of misses.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, that's a pretty bogus skewing of the stats. I think it's best if you just decided to do the analysis without the last couple of years. Thompson has hit more than most late in the draft. That one is pretty clear to most--no matter what your stats say. Because it's such a crapshoot late, I think it's best to give yourself a lot of bullets. Hitting on 3 out of 10 late picks is better than hitting on 1 of 4 late picks. Anyways. It's all a bunch of nonsense if you don't know what Thompson's draft board looks like. He might have had Lacy and Ball rated evenly, figured one would drop to him (which Lacy did), picked up extra draft picks, and still gotten one of the guys he wanted. I'm sure there's been times where it hasn't worked out, but I'm guessing since he's done it so often, he's probably had what he feels is pretty good success with it. We can all bitch and moan that he might have missed out on the likes of Jesse Williams, but we have no idea if the Packers scouts really even like the player that much. Who's to say he would have even drafted him? I'm pretty sure if he really liked the player, he would have just drafted him. He has shown that he will go up and get players he really likes, he'll sit and draft a player he likes, and he'll trade down if there's a group of player he likes. It really isn't that hard to comprehend. No offense, wist. I like you and you bring spice to the board, but the constant negativity is depressing.

This is a draft where the "experts" said didn't have a lot of elite players at the top but had good depth. Thompson turned 8 picks into 12 picks in a deep draft at the expense of moving down a total of 20 spots. So, at the expense of trading down a little over a half round mostly late in the third round, he picked up two 5ths, a 6th, and a 7th round pick. That doesn't sound like a terrible deal to me. Now, whether it was a good move depends on who they would have drafted (which we'll never know) and on who they pick. He needs to hit on his first two picks and on 2-3 of these late round picks.

[Pugger]

No doubt about it. The San Fran 49ers are killing it this off season. So did the Seattle Seahawks and now yes...The Minnesota Vikings are looking much better. Their GM is the real deal.

I'd be calle a silly homer if I didn't demonstrate serious concern. It'll all play out this season.We'll all see the TRUTH then.

It could be alot worse. We could resemble the NY Jets.

GO PACK GO !

If I didn't know this was a Packer board I would have thought this was a Jets' forum.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Here's a fun exercise. Here are the picks I liked the most and liked the least from Thompson's draft:

2005
Loved - Nick Collins (I knew nothing about him, but fell in love with the pick when Rick Gosselin had high praise for him)
Hater - Aaron Rodgers (ugh, where would we be if I was the GM)

2006
Loved - A.J. Hawk
Disliked - Corey Rodgers

2007
Loved - Aaron Rouse
Disliked - James Jones

2008
Loved - Jordy Nelson
Disliked - Breno Giacomini

2009
Loved - Clay Matthews
Disliked - Quinn Johnson

2010
Loved - Bryan Bulaga
Disliked - I didn't hate anybody from this draft

2011
Loved - Alex Green
Disliked - Caleb Schlauderaff

2012
Loved - Nick Perry & Jerel Worthy
Disliked - Mike Daniels

I suck.

[wist43]

Here's a fun exercise. Here are the picks I liked the most and liked the least from Thompson's draft:

2005
Loved - Nick Collins (I knew nothing about him, but fell in love with the pick when Rick Gosselin had high praise for him)
Hater - Aaron Rodgers (ugh, where would we be if I was the GM)

2006
Loved - A.J. Hawk
Disliked - Corey Rodgers

2007
Loved - Aaron Rouse
Disliked - James Jones

2008
Loved - Jordy Nelson
Disliked - Breno Giacomini

2009
Loved - Clay Matthews
Disliked - Quinn Johnson

2010
Loved - Bryan Bulaga
Disliked - I didn't hate anybody from this draft

2011
Loved - Alex Green
Disliked - Caleb Schlauderaff

2012
Loved - Nick Perry & Jerel Worthy
Disliked - Mike Daniels

I suck.

Sir, I concur

[sharpe1027]

So TT traded down a few spots. The relevant analysis, to me, is what is the hit rate for the spot he gave up vs the spots he picked up. I don't think the hit rate changes much after late 3rd round.

realcavsfans.com/showthread.php?38395-NFL-Draft-Success-by-Round

I note that there seems to be good value in the 4th round. There is not a significant dropoff between the 3rd and the 4th in terms of success rate for starters in general.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The only 1st round RB that Thompson has taken was Shaun Alexander in Seattle. Lacy and Alexander are actually quite similar. Both are 5'11" 225-230 with surprising quickness and moves for a big back. Alexander's 40 times was 4.58. Lacy's 40 time was 4.59. Alexander's career was relatively short, but I'll take a similar run out of Lacy.

[wist43]

Well, that's a pretty bogus skewing of the stats. I think it's best if you just decided to do the analysis without the last couple of years. Thompson has hit more than most late in the draft. That one is pretty clear to most--no matter what your stats say.

No it's not - it's the logical, scientific approach to analyzing the evidence. We weigh all of the known data, and necessarily have to exclude all unknown variables - unless you want to do like the global warming alarmists and just make shit up?? The players who are excluded from consideration are excluded b/c we don't know what they are. It's not that complicated.

Maybe it is, in fact, TT's picks you can't come to square with?? hmmmm???

As you look at the list, do you find yourself absorbed, wondering where did it all go wrong?? Then abruptly snap out of it and yell, NYET!!! NYET!!!

More grog!!!

[smuggler]

As to the first trade down with the 49ers: The fact that we got anything as a bonus and still got to take our guy, Lacy, was great.

As an added benefit, we were able to fuck Seattle. Even if it meant assisting the 49ers, I'm okay with it.

As to the second trade down with the 49ers: I have no fucking clue.

As to the trade down with the Dolphins: We won that one, and I think it puts us even.

[sharpe1027]

No it's not - it's the logical, scientific approach to analyzing the evidence. We weigh all of the known data, and necessarily have to exclude all unknown variables - unless you want to do like the global warming alarmists and just make shit up?? The players who are excluded from consideration are excluded b/c we don't know what they are. It's not that complicated.

Maybe it is, in fact, TT's picks you can't come to square with?? hmmmm???

As you look at the list, do you find yourself absorbed, wondering where did it all go wrong?? Then abruptly snap out of it and yell, NYET!!! NYET!!!

More grog!!!

You can't select your sample based upon the end result without skewing the data. Either include the entire draft year or exclude it. Anything else is cooking the books.

[wist43]

You can't select your sample based upon the end result without skewing the data. Either include the entire draft year or exclude it. Anything else is cooking the books.

Good grief, lol...

You're taking all the data that is known to you - read it s-l-o-w-l-y... ALL KNOWN DA-TA - say it together now... we can get a rhythm going ALL KNOWN DATA, ALL KNOWN DATA!!! YAY!!!!

STOMP YOUR FEET AND BANG THE TABLES!!! ALL KNOWN DATA, ALL KNOWN DATA!!!!

As Miss Mona Lisa Vito said, "Now I axe ya..." how can you include samples if you don't know what they are?? They are excluded from the data set, and don't influence the result one way or the other - get it??

[sharpe1027]

Good grief, lol...

You're taking all the data that is known to you - read it s-l-o-w-l-y... ALL KNOWN DA-TA - say it together now... we can get a rhythm going ALL KNOWN DATA, ALL KNOWN DATA!!! YAY!!!!

STOMP YOUR FEET AND BANG THE TABLES!!! ALL KNOWN DATA, ALL KNOWN DATA!!!!

As Miss Mona Lisa Vito said, "Now I axe ya..." how can you include samples if you don't know what they are?? They are excluded from the data set, and don't influence the result one way or the other - get it??

The players you excluded have a higher chance if becoming solid starters than your final hit rate. By excluding them you artificially lowered the hit rate.

[wist43]

The players you excluded have a higher chance if becoming solid starters than your final hit rate. By excluding them you artificially lowered the hit rate.

Oh, I see... you want to 'smooth' the data do you??

Do you have a computer program for that?? How would you define the parameters and variables?? Would you say Daniels should be weighted as 17% of a whole, and House 9%, and McMillian what?? 14% for the purposes of weighing their contributions?? Because that's about what we've seen - and I think that is being generous. So, we'll say we have 17+9 (carry the 2) + 14 = 40% of a player??

So, we now have a 3.4 success rate divided by 3 more units added to the data set of 45, so that is now 48, which doing it your way gives us a batting avg of = 7.08%

Congratulations, I will agree to bump TT's average up by 0.41%