Are all "top 100" picks really going to be solid starters?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    The point, I guess, is that everyone has a lot of "busts" in this part of the draft--Belichick isn't much different from anyone else, neither better or worse for the most part.  Luck probably plays as big a factor as anything in this part of the draft . . .

    RESPONSE: But Rusty, I thought that you have previously crowed that BB was the greatest GM of all-time. But now, you're saying that "Belichick isn't much different from anyone else...neither better or worse"?? Which is it? Is he the greatest?? Or, just average? 

    He's no different than anyone else except for the fact he doesn't whiff in Rd 1 like MANY GMs do and no one uses FA in conjunction with the draft (and UDFAs) as well as he does.

    RESPONSE: A myth. Laurence Maroney in 2006 and Brandon Meriweather in 2007...whiffs? What about the the way he blew the first pick in the 2nd round in 2011 (Ras-I Dowling), the second pick in the 2nd round in 2009 (Patrick Chung), and the fourth pick in the 2nd round in 2006 (Chad Jackson)??  

    I have to say these discussions have grown incredibly tiresome, worse than the shotgun spread debates.

    RESPONSE: Of course. It's hard to defend the indefensible...LOL!!

    These are kids from college and no one has a clue how they will start off and/or progress in the NFL.  The immaturity and naive behavior from frauds like Texas Troll and other dorks who think they know more than BB is embarrassing.

    RESPONSE: A fraud?? All I'm doing is reporting facts. BB made all those poor picks from 2006-12...not I, or Mel Kiper

     




     



    Hey Charmin,

    You do an awful lot of misquoting of people when you start your pontificating. Rusty didn't say anything about "Belichick isn't much different from anyone else", that was someone else.

    Learn to read what is written, not what you want it to be. The man said " he doesn't whiff in Rd 1 like MANY GMs ". He said nothing about round 2 picks. You see, it looks like the guy was right when he said BB doesn't wiff on first round picks but you couldn't let it go. You couldn't find any bad first round picks so you threw the second round in there to try to prove your point that BB whiffs on first round picks.

    You stopped reporting facts once you started labeling players as busts. A player being a bust is an opinion not a fact.

    I really don't see how anyone can take anything you say or write here seriously.

    All you have here is an agenda to prove that you are smarter than BB and everyone else and you can't do that without distorting everything.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: Are all

    Nice research!

    Interesting to note that 3rd round players appear to be 'typical' NFLers with an average of around 4 years in the league. And it really does come down to simple team reality. 53 man roster = 28 non starters/specialists. Adding 7 draftees each year, average 4 year career for non-starters = 28 players over that 4 year period. It obviously doesn't work out that way exactly, but it is a numbers game for draft picks. You cannot add 100 top picks every year to NFL rosters without cutting an equal number.

    I would be curious to see a ten year average for length of career for each draft pick in rounds 1 to 4. It would be informative, and dispell this notion that late 1st through 3rd rounders should be expected to have 10+ year careers. (Even better would be the median number)

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Are all

    Something that becomes increasingly apparent with each post from TP:  he is adept at cherry-picking those who he considers 'busts' to make his point but steadfastly avoids placing any of the BB 'misses' in context with the rest of the league.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    Though I do believe day 2 picks should eventually become starters I don't believe in a hard set cut off point more of a gradation of what to expect. As you move from the back of the 3rd into the 4th range you're hope is they eventually start (not pro-bowl) but also being solid contributors is a hope. If they can't even become contributors then yes they are busts at that point. The one thing I hesistate about your data is you point out pro-bowls for the last 25 of the top 100 picks but don't mention number of starts. I think most would agree that finding a pro-bowl that late in the draft is nearly an impossible task but to find someone who can at least give spot starts is more of what you are looking for. Even if it takes a couple of years for them to develop into that role. I personally like Z's definition. Top 15 picks you expect a pro-bowler, next 30ish picks a starter within the first 1-2 years with pro-bowl upside, next 40ish picks after is a starter within 2-3 years, and the final 25ish picks you hope to find a starter but at least a spot starter and solid contributor with 2-3 years.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    Though I do believe day 2 picks should eventually become starters I don't believe in a hard set cut off point more of a gradation of what to expect. As you move from the back of the 3rd into the 4th range you're hope is they eventually start (not pro-bowl) but also being solid contributors is a hope. If they can't even become contributors then yes they are busts at that point. The one thing I hesistate about your data is you point out pro-bowls for the last 25 of the top 100 picks but don't mention number of starts. I think most would agree that finding a pro-bowl that late in the draft is nearly an impossible task but to find someone who can at least give spot starts is more of what you are looking for. Even if it takes a couple of years for them to develop into that role. I personally like Z's definition. Top 15 picks you expect a pro-bowler, next 30ish picks a starter within the first 1-2 years with pro-bowl upside, next 40ish picks after is a starter within 2-3 years, and the final 25ish picks you hope to find a starter but at least a spot starter and solid contributor with 2-3 years.

     



    Number of starts and number of games played would both be nice additions, but they aren't immediately available on Wikipedia and therefore would be much more time consuming to gather.    However, I'd argue that how long a player lasts in the league combined with the number of times they change teams is a good rough gauge of quality. Sure there's noise in the data (good players, for instance, get injured and have careers cut short) but what I pulled gives you an idea what you can generally expect from players drafted with picks 76 to 100. I think it's pretty telling that more than 70% of the guys drafted between picks 76 and 100 in 2006 and 2007 are already out of the league, and many of them played for three or four teams during a shortish career.  I think what the data suggests is that guys picked in this area of the draft tend to have four to six year careers (and change teams two or three times during that span), which suggests they are back ups or marginal starters who aren't sticking with any team for an extended time.   This isn't to say they don't contribute (they wouldn't stick around at all if they weren't contributing at all), but most of these guys aren't becoming much more than back ups.  

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moskk. Show moskk's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to mia76's comment:

    Nice research!

    Interesting to note that 3rd round players appear to be 'typical' NFLers with an average of around 4 years in the league. And it really does come down to simple team reality. 53 man roster = 28 non starters/specialists. Adding 7 draftees each year, average 4 year career for non-starters = 28 players over that 4 year period. It obviously doesn't work out that way exactly, but it is a numbers game for draft picks. You cannot add 100 top picks every year to NFL rosters without cutting an equal number.

    I would be curious to see a ten year average for length of career for each draft pick in rounds 1 to 4. It would be informative, and dispell this notion that late 1st through 3rd rounders should be expected to have 10+ year careers. (Even better would be the median number)



    Excellent comments. To add to your comments, recall where the Pats pick each year. It's already been mentioned so many times but much of the cream has already been skimmed. Consider also that teams drafting late already have excellent personnel (they are in the playoffs) so making the roster is always at the expense of a pretty good player. While back-ups aren't as valuable as starters (generally speaking) they are still part of a playoff team.

    As MIA has explained, adding 7 draft picks each year is unrealistic in that good teams (drafting late) already have pretty good personnel. It is far more likely to upgrade one or two positions each year but 7? Also, a good draft pick may be no better than the personnel already on the Pats but likely better than  another team's personnel. In like fashion BB does explore castoffs from other teams looking for players with great upside but needing developmental time (PS?).

    I think that fans have grown to expect that every draft pick is an upgrade over current personnel especially since teams do favor taking players at positions of need. In the Pats last draft BB double-dipped at certain need positions with the hope that at least one player could be retained. If two players survive AT THE SAME POSITION then the draft has to be regarded as productive imo.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    Though I do believe day 2 picks should eventually become starters I don't believe in a hard set cut off point more of a gradation of what to expect. As you move from the back of the 3rd into the 4th range you're hope is they eventually start (not pro-bowl) but also being solid contributors is a hope. If they can't even become contributors then yes they are busts at that point. The one thing I hesistate about your data is you point out pro-bowls for the last 25 of the top 100 picks but don't mention number of starts. I think most would agree that finding a pro-bowl that late in the draft is nearly an impossible task but to find someone who can at least give spot starts is more of what you are looking for. Even if it takes a couple of years for them to develop into that role. I personally like Z's definition. Top 15 picks you expect a pro-bowler, next 30ish picks a starter within the first 1-2 years with pro-bowl upside, next 40ish picks after is a starter within 2-3 years, and the final 25ish picks you hope to find a starter but at least a spot starter and solid contributor with 2-3 years.

     



    Number of starts and number of games played would both be nice additions, but they aren't immediately available on Wikipedia and therefore would be much more time consuming to gather.    However, I'd argue that how long a player lasts in the league combined with the number of times they change teams is a good rough gauge of quality. Sure there's noise in the data (good players, for instance, get injured and have careers cut short) but what I pulled gives you an idea what you can generally expect from players drafted with picks 76 to 100. I think it's pretty telling that more than 70% of the guys drafted between picks 76 and 100 in 2006 and 2007 are already out of the league, and many of them played for three or four teams during a shortish career.  I think what the data suggests is that guys picked in this area of the draft tend to have four to six year careers (and change teams two or three times during that span), which suggests they are back ups or marginal starters who aren't sticking with any team for an extended time.   This isn't to say they don't contribute (they wouldn't stick around at all if they weren't contributing at all), but most of these guys aren't becoming much more than back ups.  

     

     



    I'd agree with this, which makes you wonder how much value we really got in that trade, this being the case. A number of people praised the trade for getting so many picks for a single pick but since 2 of these picks fell into the range you are discussing (Ryan and Boyce even though technically Boyce was 102 close enough) those are the one's that need to be followed. So, it's kind of playing the odds that one of these guys will fall into that 30% catagory you are suggesting or the trade wasn't worth the value it produced. You would think given this data it would behove teams to move up and get as many picks in the first 75 spots as possible not move back into the 75-100 range. As I always said though Starting around day 3 (very late 3rd is close enough) is the spot when you want to take chances on high talent players who fall because of injury, drug problems, off-field issues because at that point the talent outweights the % of failure at that pick (ie Cannon, Hern, Dennard).

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    Though I do believe day 2 picks should eventually become starters I don't believe in a hard set cut off point more of a gradation of what to expect. As you move from the back of the 3rd into the 4th range you're hope is they eventually start (not pro-bowl) but also being solid contributors is a hope. If they can't even become contributors then yes they are busts at that point. The one thing I hesistate about your data is you point out pro-bowls for the last 25 of the top 100 picks but don't mention number of starts. I think most would agree that finding a pro-bowl that late in the draft is nearly an impossible task but to find someone who can at least give spot starts is more of what you are looking for. Even if it takes a couple of years for them to develop into that role. I personally like Z's definition. Top 15 picks you expect a pro-bowler, next 30ish picks a starter within the first 1-2 years with pro-bowl upside, next 40ish picks after is a starter within 2-3 years, and the final 25ish picks you hope to find a starter but at least a spot starter and solid contributor with 2-3 years.

     



    Number of starts and number of games played would both be nice additions, but they aren't immediately available on Wikipedia and therefore would be much more time consuming to gather.    However, I'd argue that how long a player lasts in the league combined with the number of times they change teams is a good rough gauge of quality. Sure there's noise in the data (good players, for instance, get injured and have careers cut short) but what I pulled gives you an idea what you can generally expect from players drafted with picks 76 to 100. I think it's pretty telling that more than 70% of the guys drafted between picks 76 and 100 in 2006 and 2007 are already out of the league, and many of them played for three or four teams during a shortish career.  I think what the data suggests is that guys picked in this area of the draft tend to have four to six year careers (and change teams two or three times during that span), which suggests they are back ups or marginal starters who aren't sticking with any team for an extended time.   This isn't to say they don't contribute (they wouldn't stick around at all if they weren't contributing at all), but most of these guys aren't becoming much more than back ups.  

     

     

     



    I'd agree with this, which makes you wonder how much value we really got in that trade, this being the case. A number of people praised the trade for getting so many picks for a single pick but since 2 of these picks fell into the range you are discussing (Ryan and Boyce even though technically Boyce was 102 close enough) those are the one's that need to be followed. So, it's kind of playing the odds that one of these guys will fall into that 30% catagory you are suggesting or the trade wasn't worth the value it produced. You would think given this data it would behove teams to move up and get as many picks in the first 75 spots as possible not move back into the 75-100 range. As I always said though Starting around day 3 (very late 3rd is close enough) is the spot when you want to take chances on high talent players who fall because of injury, drug problems, off-field issues because at that point the talent outweights the % of failure at that pick (ie Cannon, Hern, Dennard).

     

     



    This is a really good point.  When you look at the Pats so-called "value" strategy, it results in a larger number of picks in these mid (and lower rounds) where the odds of getting a true quality starter are fairly low.  In defense of the value strategy, however, I think you can look at several factors that are important for the Patriots:

     

    • First, the team has typically had fairly low picks in each round.  While trading up to the top part of the first round would likely produce more impact players, it would require trading away a lot of picks, resulting in very few picks overall.  
    • Whenever the odds of getting a good player are low, multiplying the number of picks you have helps increase your chances of getting at least one good player.  Trading up would reduce the picks the Pats have in middle rounds.  Trading down increases them.  Essentially, the trading up approach would mean the Pats would be putting all their eggs in one or two baskets.  While those higher picks would have a much greater chance of being good eggs than bad, nothing is 100% certain even in the top part of the draft, and having very few picks in mid and lower rounds really diminishes the chance of getting anything good in those rounds.
    • Trading up prior to the implementation of the rookie cap could create all sorts of salary cap issues, making that approach less desirable. 
    • Staying put (neither trading up or down) may not be significantly better than making a trade to try to turn one pick into two or three other picks, as long as one of those other picks isn't too much lower than the original (traded) pick.  Dropping about 10 spots when you're picking around 30 might not change the odds of getting a good player all that much, but if you pick up another pick you have one more spin of the dice down draft.  

    The one major downside I see of the value approach, however, is petty much what you are saying: that there seems to be a rapid drop off in most drafts as you move from the top of the first round to the middle of the second round.  A fairly large number of top 20 or 30 picks end up very good starters, but there seems to be a rapid drop off as you go from about pick 25  or 30 to about pick 50 or 60, and after about pick 60 the odds seem pretty low.  I think the risk the Pats have run by trading down is moving from a part of the draft where their odds of getting a quality starter were reasonably good (low 20s, high 30s) to a part of the draft (40s and 50s) where their odds of getting a quality starter were much lower.  Trading away the Clay Matthews pick for the Darius Butler and Brandon Tate picks is an example--though that example looks better when you also realize that the picks they got were (combined with additional deals) also used to help get Edelman and (a year later) Gronk.  Still, they may have been able to get Edelman and Gronk by other means--and Matthews would have been a better guy to get than Butler and Tate.  

    I guess I think the jury is out still on the strategy.  Overall it has generally worked to keep the Pats competitive, but I continue to believe that we have lacked enough impact players and that many of our postseason issues really are the result of having too few players with typical first round talent. 

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     You would think given this data it would behove teams to move up and get as many picks in the first 75 spots as possible not move back into the 75-100 range.



    Don't fall into the trap of thinking that pick #75 (or any other) is some magic cut-off; throughout the draft is a very gentle slope of odds that a player will excell/meet expectations/fall short of expectations/bust.  Furthermore, every individual draft is different in terms of talent available;  I maintain that there was no appreciable difference between pick 29 and pick 60 in the 2013 draft.  That's not to say that Cordarelle Patterson won't become an instant All-Pro, but as of right now, there's no way to say that it is any more likely than Collins or Dobson excelling equally.  This is a trade that may not have made sense last year or next year, but it did this year.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Are all

    No matter what anyone says to Texas Fraud, he will ALWAYS be unhappy with this team, BB, and the way they draft. Why bother arguing with him anymore?....just let him be miserable. Isn't it obvious he will NEVER be happy with this team? It would make sense if we were the Detroit Lions....

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     You would think given this data it would behove teams to move up and get as many picks in the first 75 spots as possible not move back into the 75-100 range.

     



    Don't fall into the trap of thinking that pick #75 (or any other) is some magic cut-off; throughout the draft is a very gentle slope of odds that a player will excell/meet expectations/fall short of expectations/bust.  Furthermore, every individual draft is different in terms of talent available;  I maintain that there was no appreciable difference between pick 29 and pick 60 in the 2013 draft.  That's not to say that Cordarelle Patterson won't become an instant All-Pro, but as of right now, there's no way to say that it is any more likely than Collins or Dobson excelling equally.  This is a trade that may not have made sense last year or next year, but it did this year.

     



    This is true and my cut off for the analysis was purely arbitrary.  I was simply testing the claim that a top 100 pick should be expected to become starter.  To do that I arbitrarily looked at the bottom quarter of the top 100, which is why I'm looking at picks 76 through 100.  There is, I'm sure, a steadily (but mabye not linearly) declining chance of getting a starter from pick 1 all the way through pick 256 (and into undrafted free agency). 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    Something that becomes increasingly apparent with each post from TP:  he is adept at cherry-picking those who he considers 'busts' to make his point but steadfastly avoids placing any of the BB 'misses' in context with the rest of the league.

     



    Right. He's afraid to post the hits BB has a GM both in FA, the draft and UDFAs (here and from other teams).

     

    Like, BJGE for example, was UDFA in 2008.  I believe Wendell and Connolly were too. Wendell is one of ours, Connolly from Jax, I believe. He refuses to show us these names as conributors to our team because it exposes his trollish agenda.

    I always knew he was a troll and I never knew why anyone would rush into his "Pick Em" threads every week. He picks against the Pats whenever he thinks it looks legit.  I used to call him out on it and no one else really saw it, apparently.

    Arrington UDFA from Philly and TB in 2009.  That's another one. 

     



    Belichick has pretty good luck with UDRFAs.  That's a good way to look at his talent evaluation skills too, because all teams are in roughly the same situation when it comes to signing UDRFAs.  There's no "draft order" so they all have an equal opportunity to try to sign any of them.  It may be that the Patriots are a more attractive team for an UDRFA to come to then, say, the Raiders, so the playing field isn't completely even, but it's certainly closer to being even than the draft is.  

     

    PS:  I've disagreed with you Rusty on the overall talent level of BJGE, but there is no denying that he represents tremendous value for an UDRFA.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Are all

    I hate to be a "piler on", but what the heck.  Its always fun to see TP go silent.  He's as obnoxious as they come when the arguments begin.  When he's lost his footing he responds with the "off-subject" distractions (e.g. the hockey playoffs), possibly some ad hominems, and then frequently finishes with a "whatever you say. LOL!!!". 

    And then he walks away.  I have no doubt that he may be attempting to put together a reseached retort, but original research has never been TP's M.O.  He seeks insight from other writers'/pundits' material, so we may just have silence until he finds a new subject he likes.  My bet is that it will come from Coldhardfootballfacts.com. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     You would think given this data it would behove teams to move up and get as many picks in the first 75 spots as possible not move back into the 75-100 range.

     



    Don't fall into the trap of thinking that pick #75 (or any other) is some magic cut-off; throughout the draft is a very gentle slope of odds that a player will excell/meet expectations/fall short of expectations/bust.  Furthermore, every individual draft is different in terms of talent available;  I maintain that there was no appreciable difference between pick 29 and pick 60 in the 2013 draft.  That's not to say that Cordarelle Patterson won't become an instant All-Pro, but as of right now, there's no way to say that it is any more likely than Collins or Dobson excelling equally.  This is a trade that may not have made sense last year or next year, but it did this year.

     



    Oh I don't there is a cut off at all and think of it as more of a gradation of talent and odds of getting starters. The issue becomes, as Pro said, if you are only moving 10 spots back then there isn't much of a gradient but the further you move back the larger that gradient becomes. I think the Pats were pushing it on this past draft as Pro's data suggests the 2 major picks (the 3rd and 4th rounder) are in a dangerous range for expectations. I say those are the major picks in the trade because having the 1st pick negates the acquired 2nd pick so really the only added value is those extra picks received as you could of had Collins in the 1st if you wanted. So the question becomes did the Pats move too far back where in the fuzzy grey area forms that the likely hood of them acquiring additional quality depth pieces or duds that fall off the team in a couple years becomes an important factor vs who they could have had with that earlier pick instead of Collins. Ie the 09' example where they could of had Matthews over Butler and Tate, still gotten Vollmer, and had enough flexibility the next year to acquire Gronk and Edelman as well. Sometimes it pays off sometimes not, truthfully imo I'm more comfortable to taking a higher end talent with red flags in that grey fuzzy range then I am players who don't have the higher talent but have less red flags. Lets face it, we got Hern, Cannon, Mallett, and Dennard only because they had question marks vs all the players in those mid rounds we got that didn't make the team without the flags on their backs.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to MattC05's comment:

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     You would think given this data it would behove teams to move up and get as many picks in the first 75 spots as possible not move back into the 75-100 range.

     



    Don't fall into the trap of thinking that pick #75 (or any other) is some magic cut-off; throughout the draft is a very gentle slope of odds that a player will excell/meet expectations/fall short of expectations/bust.  Furthermore, every individual draft is different in terms of talent available;  I maintain that there was no appreciable difference between pick 29 and pick 60 in the 2013 draft.  That's not to say that Cordarelle Patterson won't become an instant All-Pro, but as of right now, there's no way to say that it is any more likely than Collins or Dobson excelling equally.  This is a trade that may not have made sense last year or next year, but it did this year.

     

     



    Oh I don't there is a cut off at all and think of it as more of a gradation of talent and odds of getting starters. The issue becomes, as Pro said, if you are only moving 10 spots back then there isn't much of a gradient but the further you move back the larger that gradient becomes. I think the Pats were pushing it on this past draft as Pro's data suggests the 2 major picks (the 3rd and 4th rounder) are in a dangerous range for expectations. I say those are the major picks in the trade because having the 1st pick negates the acquired 2nd pick so really the only added value is those extra picks received as you could of had Collins in the 1st if you wanted. So the question becomes did the Pats move too far back where in the fuzzy grey area forms that the likely hood of them acquiring additional quality depth pieces or duds that fall off the team in a couple years becomes an important factor vs who they could have had with that earlier pick instead of Collins. Ie the 09' example where they could of had Matthews over Butler and Tate, still gotten Vollmer, and had enough flexibility the next year to acquire Gronk and Edelman as well. Sometimes it pays off sometimes not, truthfully imo I'm more comfortable to taking a higher end talent with red flags in that grey fuzzy range then I am players who don't have the higher talent but have less red flags. Lets face it, we got Hern, Cannon, Mallett, and Dennard only because they had question marks vs all the players in those mid rounds we got that didn't make the team without the flags on their backs.

     

     



    A lot of BB's strategy has definitely been to take players who would have been higher round talent had there not been an injury or off-field incident that scared other teams away.  This is a way of trying to get better odds when picking lower down in the draft.  If the player turns out to be a bust or just mediocre, you haven't lost much, because that's what most players lower down in the draft are going to be anyway.  But if the player lives up to the potential he had absent the injury or off-field incident, you may end up with much more quality than you could normally expect in the round.  Still, there's a lot of risk here, because you may end up with a guy who just never plays . . . or who sits out his first year and falls behind and never catches up. 

     

    I think in any draft the fall off as you go from pick to pick isn't necessarily smooth . . . there are places where the average quality of the players starts to decline faster. And the pace of decline (slope of the curve) as well as the "inflections" in the curve are going to vary from year to year, so it's not completely predictable.  Still, you can almost bet that by the time you get to pick 70, most of the guys are going to be back ups at best, and that depending on the depth of the draft, somewhere between about pick 15 or 20 and about pick 50 or 60 there's going to be a real drop from starter quality to back up quality.  Sometimes that drop could be near the top of the second round, sometimes it might be more like the third round.  But if you're regularly trading down from roughly the 20 to 30 range to roughly the 30 to 60 range, you are going to sometimes drop into that hole where the talent level has fallen off and you're really left with mostly back-up quality guys. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: Are all

    I think there is no question that 'studs' are more likely in the top 15 than in the last 5 picks of round one. But the cost of moving from say #29 into say #12 is either the whole rest of you draft picks, or gutting your future drafts. And the cost to move even higher is devastating to your draft for years to come. So I think we can pretty well forget BB doing that kind of trade.

    The trades that are available at more reasonable costs are the ones like last year moving up 5 or 7 picks later in round #1, but even those moves gutted the rest of the draft and were only possible because BB had so much extra draft cap in that year. So they are going to happen pretty rarely.

    And by pick 29 the quality of player based on evaluation in most years is probably little different from what is available at 40 so if you can find a trade back for good additional value it makes a ton of sense. There are no guaranteed studs at pick 29.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    All you have here is an agenda to prove that you are smarter than BB and everyone else and you can't do that without distorting everything.




    RESPONSE: Whatever...LOL!! When I ponder who is the greater fool...the fool himself or the one who follows the fool...I must conclude that you are an even greater fool than Rusty.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    No matter what anyone says to Texas Fraud, he will ALWAYS be unhappy with this team, BB, and the way they draft. Why bother arguing with him anymore?....just let him be miserable. Isn't it obvious he will NEVER be happy with this team? It would make sense if we were the Detroit Lions....



    RESPONSE: Well well well...if it isn't my good friend, Tanass! Thank you for yet another informative post...LOL!!! 

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to UD6's comment:

    I hate to be a "piler on", but what the heck.  Its always fun to see TP go silent.  He's as obnoxious as they come when the arguments begin.

    RESPONSE: Dog(ggggg), after all the times I've caught you in lies, embarrassed, and humiliated you here...your react is quite understandable...LOL!!!  

    When he's lost his footing he responds with the "off-subject" distractions (e.g. the hockey playoffs), possibly some ad hominems, and then frequently finishes with a "whatever you say. LOL!!!". 

    RESPONSE; That's rich! This from a guy who has admitted to misdirecting and misquoting posters here, in order to re-direct discussions, and buttress his illogical, ignorant arguments...LOL!!!

    And then he walks away. I have no doubt that he may be attempting to put together a reseached retort, but original research has never been TP's M.O.  He seeks insight from other writers'/pundits' material, so we may just have silence until he finds a new subject he likes.  My bet is that it will come from Coldhardfootballfacts.com. 

    RESPONSE: So...your upset because I back up my opinions from time to time with facts, and articles written by knowledgable folks? Quite unlike you...who makes stuff up, and then comically back-peddles faster than Darrelle Revis when caught in a lie...LOL!!! 




     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Are all

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    That tells me he is from Texas and was a Cowboys fan, only to bandwagon over our team. I have no issues with new fans to our fanbase, but you're not going to lecture me. Ain't happening.



    RESPONSE: Too funny...Rusty teaming up with "The Dog(ggggg)". You two idiots together have been banned more times than the Celtics have won championships. Talk about a daily double...LOL!!!  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share