Re: gasoline to the
posted at 11/1/2013 10:06 AM EDT
In response to shenanigan's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
Fair enough, IQ. we both see it differently but the point I am making is that they have a lower % of active picks due to the higher volume, which means more misses.
The draft position is not accurate because they have traded completely out of the first round twice, completely, and have also had 2 picks in the 1st round 5 times and only used them once. Some of those picks were higher than their original, which skews those #'s.
This is where the raw data is NOT accurate. If they had the 21st and 29th , 1st round picks and used the 29th and traded the 21st, you can see the discrepancy. Right?
When you look at the number of first round picks having the best chance of success, why trade to a lower round where the success rate is not so good?
Ya it might give you more chances to gamble but you are gambling with worse odds and a lower % of success.
The pro bowl? Sorry but they are more popular than all 3 Florida teams combined, and more than 2 of the 3 NY teams, so I would expect more in the popularity contest. LOL
BTW, Thanks for the rational and insult free discussion. It's been a pleasure.
oh, here is the complete chart for the one you are using.
See where the fins have 48 active players out of only 78 picks? That's a much better yield.
No, why would that matter? If a team traded it's entire draft for one player like Ricky Williams they would have the greatest record by efficiency. But the Ricky Williams trade was a bad trade and we all know it so why use a measure known to be a failure in real life results.
The Pats have had the worst drafting position since 2001, that is before trades. They have rebuilt several times. The odds are they would have one of the worst teams because they get the worst picks, that is how the system is set up to keep equal competition. The odds of keeping more players and more good players with the lowest picks are low. The poor drafting position is a result of winning- that is a fact. Moving up does not gain you draft position because you have to give up high picks- the average will stay almost the same.
Well that's not true. The team had the worst drafting position twice in those years. They also traded out of the first round entirely, twice, which skews the position, They also had higher picks due to trading down when they actually had ammunition to move up. They also had the 6th, 10th and 17th pick during that time period. Not too shabby!
It matters because the raw data shows one thing and the adjusted data shows another.
No one is talking trading your entire draft for one player, but when you are in the position to improve, why not improve? Remember, the higher pick, the higher chance of success.
See, Seymore, Mayo, Solder.
There is also a problem of WHO they picked with those precious first rounders.
2006-9, yields Maroney (21), Merriweather(24), Mayo (10) and no pick. I'd call that POOR, when only one of 4 picks was a keeper. (IN fact, Wasn't Mayo the only keeper in all the 40+ picks) The others rating extremely low in value or return on investment. Bah! How do you dismiss sucking in the draft for at least 4 of the past 10 years?
But you guys are right, BB is the bestest, GM and none of this has anything to do with not winning a SB in 8 years.
Who needs data when we have actual homers that say so.
My bad for thinking it's the GM's JOB to improve the team.
There is obviously no need for improvement.