gasoline to the "best GM" debate

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre, as stated they only hit on 57% of the money picks.*

    [/QUOTE]

    *citation needed.  10 out of their 13 picks from the first 3 rounds in 2010-2012 are still on the roster.  Only Cunningham, Price and Dowling are gone.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well it was 14 picks and only 8 of them can be considered starters

    only Gronk, McC  and spikes remain from the 2010 class.  Only one extended from their rookie contract.  The others were cut in their rookie contracts, in prison or flipping burgers.

    Don't know if spikes makes it.

    The 2011-12 class is incomplete, although looking more promising.

    Much better yield than 2006-9 but, not complete.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why are you leaving Spikes off the 2010 draft class? Also, if a better or cheaper draft pick like Ryan Allen, comes in and beats out Mesko, why is that considered a bad thing if the GM is improving the team?

    It's like you get angrier and angrier with him improving the team.  Hmm.

    Keep staring at Brady's buttocks during the games, Pissdispenser.

    [/QUOTE]


    I included Spikes, can you read?

    My issue is whether or not he contributes next year, you know, beyond his rookie contract.

    My point is that toooooooooo many don't and end up not starting for other teams.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Oh, boy.

    Do you think those poor drafts for the 4 year period of 2006-2009, hurt or helped the team?

    You do realize most of those picks were on D right? (Exception 2006 where they were on O) Given those picks 3 years to contribute......

    Do you think, maybe, that it had something to do with the poor Defense in 2010-12?



    Do you ever watch football?  This is a serious question, because your knowledge of the game, and especially drafting and team building is absolutely atrocious.

    BB has been consistently the best drafter in the NFL.  This is proven in the link I provided covering 2001-2010 AND PCM's provided stat covering 2011-2013.  #1 in the NFL over both time periods.

    EVERY team makes bad picks and has bad drafts.  It's unavoidable.  Incredibly high hit rates in drafts over small periods of time are partially due to good scouting and decisions and mostly due to luck.  Incredibly low hit rates have the same factors.  A good drafter will have better scouting and decision making to minimize the impact of luck, but you cannot eliminate it entirely.

    When that happens, when you have bad drafts (as it always will at one point or another for every team in the league), the rest of the team building approach comes into play. This includes maximizing the number of picks to minimize the damage of blown picks (BB's much criticized, around these parts anyways, value strategy).

    It also includes taking chances in free agency, and accurately evaluating talent on your roster so you don't take up spots with high picks who aren't worthy of it.  This is part of why NE has so much success with lower drafted and undrafted free agents.  Top picks or high profile free agents don't get all the reps by virtue of their status, and have to earn their reps just like everyone else.  This contributes to cutting top picks earlier than some other teams might, and allows low-knowledge fans like you to point to "failures."  In fact, this propensity is what allows the Patriots to be successful.

    So, in answer to your incredibly over-simplistic question, the misses in 2006-09 didn't help, no.  But the overall approach of our GM led to a consistently competitive team regardless of the downturn, and those misses did not cripple this franchise as it might others.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL!!!

    No, he doesn't watch football, just Brady's buttocks in tights.  

    Overall, excellent, stinging retort.

    Matt - 100

    Pissdispenser - 0

    I've asked them to tell us who had better drafts from 2010-2012 and they can't do it. In fact, Joe PatsFan started a thread on this and it was debunked that no other team, at least in the elite category picking in the 27-32 range every year, only NE has the best yields.

    SF, Seattle, etc, were sitting top 10 for almost a decade every year.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Were they drafting in the top 10, last 3 years?   57% is middle of the pack.  Deal with it.

    Just answer the question, burger boy.  Did the poor 2006-9 drafts hurt or help the team?.

    We are not talking about trades to make up for those failures., because the trades were a result of the failures.  DUH  It's called fixing a problem.

    Gotta run.  I'll expect your answer when I return.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    Haven't seen where their yield is better than the rest.  Was it posted?

    Please show the graft for those years.  Thanks



    You can go to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ and see for yourself.  The source data there is exportable as a CSV.  I did the calculations myself.  The AV of the Patriots 2010-2012 draft classes is 188 which is tops in the league over that time period.  Next closest is Seattle at 181.

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The only way Spikes isn't back here is due to the cap and some team racing in to overpay him,

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry dumbkoff, but we've heard this too many times from you only to see BB cut bait. One thing is certain; you're an imbecile and nothing you say here is worth listening to.

    Spikes is a 50/50 proposition to get more than a half-hearted offer to stay.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    In the past 3 years they have a higher AV (you know the statistic you just used to complain about the 2006 draft) drafted than any franchise in the NFL.  No amount of handwaving or spin can change that.  Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]

    And did you calculate for the number of draft picks in your claim? Didn't think so.

     


    For the drafts 2010-2012 over the top 3 rounds (to this point)...

    The 9ers averaged 13.88 "av" per draft pick,

    The Pats averaged 9.21 "av" per draft pick.

    And the 9ers were the first team I looked at. LMAO

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats ranking for the past 3 years is mediocre

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    In the past 3 years they have a higher AV (you know the statistic you just used to complain about the 2006 draft) drafted than any franchise in the NFL.  No amount of handwaving or spin can change that.  Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]


    oops.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, his spin is flawed, as I pointed out.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

    Haven't seen where their yield is better than the rest.  Was it posted?

     

    Please show the graft for those years.  Thanks

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You can go to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/and see for yourself.  The source data there is exportable as a CSV.  I did the calculations myself.  The AV of the Patriots 2010-2012 draft classes is 188 which is tops in the league over that time period.  Next closest is Seattle at 181.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you calculate for the number of draft picks? Because, you know, if you pick more players, the total might be higher. LMAO

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In the light of all the "av" talk here, I'm finding it rather hilarious that Rusty is expecting Spikes to be a guaranteed keeper; when his career av is the same as Chung's. LMAO

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pezz: I looked up the source of that graph you posted about the 2006 draft.  It uses pro football reference's career AV statistic to gauge a player's value.

    I don't think anyone denies that the 2006 draft was bad.  2007 was below par as well, but was slightly made up for by the acquisitions of Moss and Welker.

    Since 2008 the players the Patriots have drafted rank 4th in the NFL in total AV.  They are 1st in the NFL in both combined pro bowls and the first team all pro teams.

    Since 2010 the players the Patriots have drafted rank 1st in the NFL in total AV.  They are 2nd in the NFL in combined pro bowls and 1st in combined first team all pro teams.

    In addition there have been multiple analyses posted on this board that demonstrate that in BB's full tenure the Patriots rank highly in the NFL in terms of total AV drafted and pro bowls and all-pro teams.

    That is hardly bottom tier drafting.  Particularly when you consider that the Patriots haven't had the benefit of high draft picks because of their consistent winning.  Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually you are wrong.

    I clearly posted a ROI chart (return on investment) not an AVE (value above expectation chart)  They are entirely different.

    ROI simply means, are your  picks performing to expectation.  In the case of the Pats 2006-9, the Answer is a resounding NO!

    It is possible to be rated highly in both comparisons but not entirely true.  Tom Brady rates higher in ROI than he does in AVE, although high in both. 

    One measure is the longevity of the player and what he contributed for the duration and where he is picked in the draft.  high round player underachieving rated low and low round player overachieving, rated high.  RETURN ON INVESTMENT

    For example; Tom Brady rated best in ROI(all time) due to his draft position, longevity and contribution since 2001. OVERACHIEVER 

    Chad Jackson is rated an F because he had no longevity, or contribution.  UNDERACHIEVER

    Underachievers need to be replaced, overachievers don't.  Not for a long time.

    I'm not even talking about super stars, just 1st round picks playing like first round picks, ect.

    The team as a whole has not rated highly because high draft picks are not playing to their expectation. Unfortunately there are many more underachievers and you have to go to late picks and UDFA's to find overachievers.    There are a few...  Sey, wilfork, maybe mayo but the vast majority of (mostly second round picks) are not good picks.

    You want your meat and potatoes to stick around a little bit. 2 and 3 year marginal starters don't cut it.  The average longevity for top ROI players is 10.5 years, not 2 years and a bunch of dead money and several replacements until you get it right.

    Players like Gronk, Jones and all the others in the drafts 2010-12 are yet to be determined.

    They may currently rate high in AVE but the problem is, would you give Gronk the same high ranking now, compared to 2010/11?    How bout hernandez? 

    Do you not believe that high draft picks, under performing or busting is a problem?

    And I really don't give a flip how the gm rates to other GM's.  I care how he improves this team or not.  There is obviously room for improvement, especially when you have the reigning ROI of all times on your team.

    2007-10, bad defensive drafts='s 2010-2012 bad defense.  Those bad drafts catch up to you.

      That's the only measure that makes sense.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    And I don't particularly care for AV, but I used it to expose the hypocrite that is Pezz.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    And I don't particularly care for AV, but I used it to expose the hypocrite that is Pezz.




    Try again, Fanboy!

    Might want to do that with apples to apples and squish the oranges.

    Aren't you wrong on the AV too?

    Fail

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

    [/QUOTE]

    ^^ exactly.

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder if the Belichick haters will tell us how Ozzie Newsome is overrated as a GM and suggest who the Ravens could have signed instead... or is that only reserved for BB.

    Since this thread sat here untouched for a good hour now, I'll have to assume they were going to leave it alone and pretend it didn't happen.  "Hypocrites" is a word that comes to mind...

    [/QUOTE]

         Wozzy...you're such a Homer! LOL!!!

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time and only hit 400% for a single season, I guess by your and others estimation he should have been better and is an underacheiver.  See how silly that sounds?

    RESPONSE What "sounds silly" is your post. Williams didn't hit 400%...he hit .400...meaning he got a hit on 40% (4 out of every 10) of his "At Bats".  See how silly you sound?

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder if the Belichick haters will tell us how Ozzie Newsome is overrated as a GM and suggest who the Ravens could have signed instead... or is that only reserved for BB.

    Since this thread sat here untouched for a good hour now, I'll have to assume they were going to leave it alone and pretend it didn't happen.  "Hypocrites" is a word that comes to mind...

    [/QUOTE]

         You're so ridiculous. No one here is a "BB hater". All of us love BB "The Coach". It's BB "The GM" who we question...not "hate". As for Newsome, he never had Tom Brady as his QB, or BB as his head coach. If he had, no telling how many titles the Ravens would have won.

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ozzie cuts Huff and Spears

    have at it Harvey

    [/QUOTE]

         Big deal. He didn't draft either player...he just took a flier on them, much like BB did with DT Albert Haynesworth and WR Ochocinco.

     

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    Why is it that this generation throws the hate word around so much? This is actually a serious question from an ole timer. I see it everywhere...if someone doesn't agree with someone else they set upon them with the hate label. Where did this come from?



         Because he's a homer. To a homer, any type of criticism directed towards BB is interpreted as "hate". With these BB zealots, any time you question a BB move, you're deemed a troll. Geez!!!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

    [/QUOTE]


    You can have the two 15s. I'll take the 30. LMAO

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

    Re: gasoline to the

    there was a thread previously about Draft picks and how well thay did between 2001 and 2010" BB was no 1 and Ozzie right behind. this also doesnt talk about the number of udfa s that have been developed.

    Winng SBs has a degree of luck involved along with those special players that do special things in the clutch. no GM can know what player really has those qualities. except maybe TB as he was special in his bowl game and was one of the reasons BB drafted him

    TB led go ahead scores late in all 5 SBs What more does anyone want from him or TB? Really

    Too many people here get over exercised about  all the mistakes BB has made . they have already buried him this season, and it's not even over yet. it is so out of this world to listen to how much BB has frugged up

     I think the record clearly shows he is the best GM and the best coach

    But before anyone wants to debate this , or just say he shouldn't be GM, answer me this

    Who else has been better? Who else would you rather have? And what facts back this up?

    There really is only one other person who has ever been in the same league and that is Bill Walsh, who also happened to chose The guy john madden called the greatest QB of all time

    Btw I think Ozzie is also pretty good, but what makes BB special is that he is both

    So please tell me who is better

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

    [/QUOTE]

    ^^ exactly.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not when your value picks turn out to have no value.   When injury prone players get injured repeatedly and character issue guys murder or punch people, or get suspended for substance abuse.

    And not when you are using  those added 2nd round picks on 5th-7th round talent..against the advice of your scouts.  Do they REALLY need 2nd round ST players, when there was a position of need  (the same position of need for years) not satisfied?  AGAIN!

    Do you really need 12 and 14 picks in a draft when only 3 of them are keepers?

    No, no one is perfect and are all going to miss but when you constantly pick value due to "ISSUES", is it any wonder?  Haven't you lowered your chances of success, further, by doing all of the above? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    l

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

     



    ^^ exactly.

     




    Not when your value picks turn out to have no value.   When injury prone players get injured repeatedly and character issue guys murder or punch people, or get suspended for substance abuse.

    And not when you are using  those added 2nd round picks on 5th-7th round talent..against the advice of your scouts.  Do they REALLY need 2nd round ST players, when there was a position of need  (the same position of need for years) not satisfied?  AGAIN!

    Do you really need 12 and 14 picks in a draft when only 3 of them are keepers?

    No, no one is perfect and are all going to miss but when you constantly pick value due to "ISSUES", is it any wonder?  Haven't you lowered your chances of success, further, by doing all of the above? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    l

    [/QUOTE]

    Pezzy,

    Depends on what report you choose to read and believe. They all use different criteria as that is what statisticians do to fit their arguments. I have read ones that say as soon as you hit round 2 it is 50/50 on likelihood of getting player that will last??

    Bottom line is that you are trying to make a total evaluation of the player. Athletic ability, Mental ability, character ability, system fit, durability, desire and passion for the game that is sustainable even after becoming a fat cat etc.

    The method you use to take a shot at getting more of those players into your system whether they stay in your program or not is irrelevant.

    I am not sure why I am bothering to respond to you since you put blinders on once your mind is made up but...

    These are more important numbers, to me, for "total" player evaluation.  2003-2012 draft numbers.

    In that span of time it the Pats have had the lowest average draft position during that time.

    In that span of time the Patriots have had the most drafted players make it to the probowl but honestly how much can you care about pro bowls?? No one can really take the voting very seriously can they?

    The most important one for me would be how many active drafted players were still in the league. The Patriots were not first. However they were tied for 6th most.  Seems pretty good to me. Especially with the lowest avg draft position in that time span. The number of picks had by each team is irrelevant to me. ALL teams have the same options to use whatever method they feel yields them the most players who can play and sustain in the NFL.

    If you are trying to judge an organizations ability to judge the "total and complete" player then that is one of the more important ones to me. Especially if you tie it in with probowl appearances as well.

    Does anyone have any idea how many GM's have been in place for that entire span of time for one team?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the GM trades higher picks for more lower picks, but gets more total value out of those picks it is a better strategy.  Computing value per pick assumes all picks are created equal.  You are the one spinning Babe.  The point of the draft is to get the most value you can get, not maximize per pick efficiency.

     

     



    ^^ exactly.

     

     

     




    Not when your value picks turn out to have no value.   When injury prone players get injured repeatedly and character issue guys murder or punch people, or get suspended for substance abuse.

     

    And not when you are using  those added 2nd round picks on 5th-7th round talent..against the advice of your scouts.  Do they REALLY need 2nd round ST players, when there was a position of need  (the same position of need for years) not satisfied?  AGAIN!

    Do you really need 12 and 14 picks in a draft when only 3 of them are keepers?

    No, no one is perfect and are all going to miss but when you constantly pick value due to "ISSUES", is it any wonder?  Haven't you lowered your chances of success, further, by doing all of the above? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    l



    Pezzy,

    Depends on what report you choose to read and believe. They all use different criteria as that is what statisticians do to fit their arguments. I have read ones that say as soon as you hit round 2 it is 50/50 on likelihood of getting player that will last??

    Bottom line is that you are trying to make a total evaluation of the player. Athletic ability, Mental ability, character ability, system fit, desire and passion for the game that is sustainable even after becoming a fat cat etc.

    The method you use to take a shot at getting more of those players into your system whether they stay in your program or not is irrelevant.

    I am not sure why I am bothering to respond to you since you put blinders on once your mind is made up but...

    These are more important numbers, to me, for "total" player evaluation.  2003-2012 draft numbers.

    In that span of time it the Pats have had the lowest average draft position during that time.

    In that span of time the Patriots have had the most drafted players make it to the probowl but honestly how much can you care about pro bowls?? No one can really take the voting very seriously can they?

    The most important one for me would be how many active drafted players were still in the league. The Patriots were not first. However they were tied for 6th most.  Seems pretty good to me. Especially with the lowest avg draft position in that time span. The number of picks had by each team is irrelevant to me. ALL teams have the same options to use whatever method they feel yields them the most players who can play and sustain in the NFL.

    If you are trying to judge an organizations ability to judge the "total and complete" player then that is one of the more important ones to me. Especially if you tie it in with probowl appearances as well.

    Does anyone have any idea how many GM's have been in place for that entire span of time for one team?

    [/QUOTE]


    OK, That's a raw data collection of stats.  Does not account for Highest number of picks and actually lowers % of active players compared to teams with lower amount of picks.  For example the dolphins have 61.5% active players with only 78 selections as apposed to the Pats 91 selections with only 49% active.  What you hold dear, actually points to inefficiency.  Also is the high draft pick position taking into account no picks in the first round, twice from trading out of the first.  The Patriots have only used more than one pick in the 1st round ONCE, that is despite owning more than one pick in the first round five times.

    Not bad but by no means the best. 

    This is more accurate;

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    OK, That's a raw data collection of stats.  Does not account for Highest number of picks and actually lowers % of active players compared to teams with lower amount of picks.  Also is the high draft pick position take into account no picks in the first round, twice from trading out of the first

    This is more accurate;

    [/QUOTE]

    I know.  I said as much in my post. What is better than Raw data? You are buying into the writer of that article putting a percentage on things by taking into account # of picks.

    Who cares about number of picks?

    I only care how many they end up with who can make a roster spot on the team. Not the percentage of how many.

    Because the Patriots organization decides to increase their odds by making more picks in a 50/50 environment you actually want to penalize them for the strategy instead of saying hmm you know what that is smart to do that. They are not cheating. Every organization has the option to take the same approach as them. Why penalize then in the evaluation process simply because others choose not to do it? Makes no sense to me.

    It is your opinion and right to think that way for sure.

    I disagree. I think it is a much better approach to make more picks in a 50/50 proposition environment.

    Not only do I think it is a better over all approach, I ALSO think it allows you to take risks on players you might not otherwise feel up to taking a risk on. Not to mention taking a player earlier that you do not want to leave to chance that he might end up a UDFA that you have to compete for. I would rather control that players destiny.

    2010 would be an example. They had a lot of picks. Gronk had an injury thing, Hernandez had a character thing, Zoltan was a punter. It allows both flexibility AND a greater chance dealing in a 50/50 or less proposition.

    You don't like it, I like it. No biggie. We'll agree to disagree.

    I simply think it means more to look at the raw data before putting a filter on it. The RAW data says the Pats are doing pretty good so it would make sense you would not like that set of data.

    Kind of like looking at a beautiful woman as long as she's wearing makeup because she is a kick-azz makeup artist but seeing her without it is like looking at the RAW data. The real truth.

    Just my opinion of course. (and you are correct neither option has the Patriots listed as the "best" drafters in this scenario)

    However, I do not think the thread was solely about drafting though. It was about GM which takes into account UDFAs, managing the cap, which means being able to turn over your roster effectively and somewhat frequently, free agency, etc etc. I do not even know how one begins to fully quantify that, especially since I am not sure how many have equal longevity in the role for a single org?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    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.

    Right?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share