Premium/Non-Premium Positions and Super Bowl Wins Over 10 Years

[vegas492]

So....

Brother in law told me this....thought I would post it.

Dak Prescott...cap hit of $726,000 (rounded up a little)

Versus long snappers...

24 long snappers have a higher salary cap number than Prescott.

Long snappers.  Dallas may be wise to draft their next QB now and keep going with rookie QB contracts on that team.  Just something to consider.

 

[Malfatron]

@Outpost31 based on your theory, can we test its predictiveness?

which teams seem destined to lose and which ones seem destined to win the sb this year based only on your theory?

[JBURGE]

I don't have the time to dig up all this crap. I agree with @Outpost31 that there are certain positions, mainly the guard spots and could argue ILB, where a top pick is not a good idea. But if someone like Kuechly, Julio Jones, Mike Evans, Odell etc are there, I have no issue with the pick as long as they hit. Makes no difference if you take an OT or a OG if they're both crap. I would rather hit on Kuechly than pick Morris Claiborne. 

Everyone wants to say you can only draft certain positions in certain places, and that's great in hindsight. Still would never take a Guard high.

[Arthur Penske]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

So....

Brother in law told me this....thought I would post it.

Dak Prescott...cap hit of $726,000 (rounded up a little)

Versus long snappers...

24 long snappers have a higher salary cap number than Prescott.

Long snappers.  Dallas may be wise to draft their next QB now and keep going with rookie QB contracts on that team.  Just something to consider.

 

Yeah but that's also a consideration because Dak isn't that good.

[MacReady]

Just now, squire12 said:

It seems like if a team wins the super bowl, that can justify using a pick on a WR (PHI at #20 or DEN at #22) but if a team does not win a superbowl, then drafting a WR at #24 was a reason they did not win the superbowl?

Yes.  But really, it's all about if you have the team to draft a WR.  The Cowboys didn't.  They valued upgrading WR over other positions.

You see WR work sometimes when teams strong everywhere else take them.  The Eagles, for example, were strong on their fronts, so taking a receiver didn't impede them from necessary upgrades at more premium positions.

This is why a team like the Packers... Not a good idea to go non-premium this year. 

As far as RB, I've already said I'm pretty neutral there. 

[Arthur Penske]

1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

I don't have the time to dig up all this crap. I agree with @Outpost31 that there are certain positions, mainly the guard spots and could argue ILB, where a top pick is not a good idea. But if someone like Kuechly, Julio Jones, Mike Evans, Odell etc are there, I have no issue with the pick as long as they hit. Makes no difference if you take an OT or a OG if they're both crap. I would rather hit on Kuechly than pick Morris Claiborne. 

Everyone wants to say you can only draft certain positions in certain places, and that's great in hindsight. Still would never take a Guard high.

Amen. Of course you want the premium position, but its just not always realistic that they're the best player available.

[MacReady]

Just now, Malfatron said:

@Outpost31 based on your theory, can we test its predictiveness?

which teams seem destined to lose and which ones seem destined to win the sb this year based only on your theory?

Tag me again later after I run some errands and I'll provide my favorite.  Off the top of my head, the favorite would be the Saints. 

Just now, JBURGE said:

I@Outpost31Makes no difference if you take an OT or a OG if they're both crap.

False actually, and I've brought this up before.  A bust at OT can be moved to IOL and usually become a better player.  A bust at IOL?  You've got nothing. 

Robert Gallery is a good example of this.  Drafted to play OT, busted, turned into a nice career at IOL. 

Same concept with DL.  If a DL busts, they can be relief/rotational players in most cases. 

[Arthur Penske]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

Yes.  But really, it's all about if you have the team to draft a WR.  The Cowboys didn't.  They valued upgrading WR over other positions.

You see WR work sometimes when teams strong everywhere else take them.  The Eagles, for example, were strong on their fronts, so taking a receiver didn't impede them from necessary upgrades at more premium positions.

This is why a team like the Packers... Not a good idea to go non-premium this year. 

As far as RB, I've already said I'm pretty neutral there. 

[Arthur Penske]

Barely anyone has any issue with valuing premium positions or perhaps even overvaluing them, but to act like there aren't exceptions to it is foolish.

Remember when we passed on Randy Moss for Vonnie Holliday? Who would you rather have?

[JBURGE]

16 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

False actually, and I've brought this up before.  A bust at OT can be moved to IOL and usually become a better player.  A bust at IOL?  You've got nothing. 

Robert Gallery is a good example of this.  Drafted to play OT, busted, turned into a nice career at IOL. 

Same concept with DL.  If a DL busts, they can be relief/rotational players in most cases. 

Sorry, can't keep track of all the nuts you've buried in the yard. 

I don't agree with this either. If you drafted a tackle and he moved to guard and was able to play, then is it a bust? No. Just because he has an option to play a different position doesn't matter. It becomes a non premium position. It also doesn't hurt that there are way more prospects that come in as a tackle than IOL so out of necessity some move inside.

The only reason Guards get drafted over a tackle is if the team is SO SURE that they will be a hit that they'd rather take the more sure thing. Otherwise the tackle always goes first, as they should

[chillparsi1]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Yes, that's literally my point.  I have provided a hypotheses.  I have been testing that hypotheses.  So far, nobody has been able to disprove it.  That's literally how science works.  I have LITERALLY been treating this like a science, and that is LITERALLY what I'm providing.  Scientific methods to point to success in the NFL.  Just like Moneyball type analytics in baseball. 

I've asked the question.
I've formulated hypotheses.
I've collected data, and I am drawing conclusions.

In order to have a conversation, you need to actually provide countering viewpoints and evidence to suggest I'm wrong.  If you can't find any evidence...

This is good data diving. You've clearly put in some time to get some information. But please don't confuse a counting analysis with scientific research or actual analytics. To your credit, doing actual analysis on these things is VERY challenging especially when you're just relying on Mr. Internet for info rather than having inside info.

That said, I could throw a rock at a kid in high school and find someone who could tell you that you've drawn correlations (technically you haven't, but essentially that's what you're doing) without proving causation. You've also based all of this on a subjective analysis of who was and was not worth it. What makes the subjective analysis worse is that you have a clear agenda and it's hard to believe there's not some degree of confirmation bias in what you've done. 

In the end your post is in line with what many of your posts are: a solid initial premise with decent evidence (by internet forum standards) that attracts more vitriol and backlash because of the extreme and absolute nature to which you take your conclusions. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

why did this team not win a superbowl

 

Houston Texans
Year	No.	Round	Pick	Player	Name	Position	College
2018	1	3	4	68	Justin Reid	DB	Stanford
2017	1	1	12	12	Deshaun Watson	QB	Clemson
2016	1	1	21	21	Will Fuller	WR	Notre Dame
2015	1	1	16	16	Kevin Johnson	DB	Wake Forest
2014	1	1	1	1	Jadeveon Clowney	DE	South Carolina
2013	1	1	27	27	DeAndre Hopkins	WR	Clemson
2012	1	1	26	26	Whitney Mercilus	DE	Illinois
2011	1	1	11	11	J.J. Watt	DE	Wisconsin
2010	1	1	20	20	Kareem Jackson	DB	Alabama
2009	1	1	15	15	Brian Cushing	LB	USC
2008	1	1	26	26	Duane Brown	T	Virginia Tech
2007	1	1	10	10	Amobi Okoye	DT	Louisville
2006	1	1	1	1	Mario Williams	DE	North Carolina State
2005	1	1	16	16	Travis Johnson	DT	Florida State
2004	1	1	10	10	Dunta Robinson	DB	South Carolina

Cause they had crap at QB?

[squire12]

6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Cause they had crap at QB?

But they draft premium positions from 2004 through 2012.

[AlexGreen#20]

9 minutes ago, squire12 said:

But they draft premium positions from 2004 through 2012.

Yes, I don't think anyone is claiming that if you just draft premium positions you're guaranteed to be good. Brandon Whedon isn't helping your football team

[MacReady]

Just now, chillparsi1 said:

In the end your post is in line with what many of your posts are: a solid initial premise with decent evidence (by internet forum standards) that attracts more vitriol and backlash because of the extreme and absolute nature to which you take your conclusions. 

Everybody always says this and it really pisses me off.  The reason I do this is a challenge.  I have countless dozens of hundreds of billions of times challenged people to prove me wrong, to provide counters to my arguments.  I keep providing more and more evidence, I literally spent an hour doing this today.  This is like the tenth major post regarding positional value I've made in the past two years, each with huge amounts of evidence and trends and facts compiled from the history of the NFL to support my claim. 

What do I get?  I get people saying, "It's not as absolute as you make it." 

That means literally nothing to me.  If it's not that absolute, there would be evidence to support counter arguments, there would be evidence to suggest it's not absolute.  Until evidence is brought forth to suggest it's not absolute, it is. 

It is absolute.  There are always exceptions to rules.  I've granted that, and people who say I'm absolute and extreme always seem to neglect that I have granted that.  I've literally granted it in the original post of this thread and several times IN this thread, and yet people still suggest it's not a rule. 

It is a rule.  You don't build Super Bowl teams by drafting non-premium positions in one.  If you do, the rule states that those non-premium positions provided non-premium or non-existent returns on investment.  The higher up in the draft you go, the stronger the rule becomes.  I'm going to grant even more right now... YES, there are exceptions to the rule.  That doesn't change the fact that there is, in fact, a rule, as evidenced by the past ten Super Bowl winners and beyond. 

People get angry because of the rule.  They treat the rule like it doesn't exist when it does, and the only counter argument that they have is that there are exceptions to the rule, and they bring that up as if the exceptions disprove the rule when that is not the case. 

There are people on this board, in this damn thread, that I've literally challenged them to give me something that would convince them and they ignore that challenge completely. 

What you are accusing me of is not true. 

Me = Admitted there are exceptions to the rule.
Others = Refuse to admit there is a rule in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. 

It's like Moon Landing deniers. 

I'm literally here saying we landed on the moon while admitting that, although it's not the case, a moon landing could have been staged on a sound studio in New Mexico. 

They're here saying that because a moon landing could have been faked, it was faked.