Jump to content

Oline is not only found in top 2 rounds


rf54

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Duluther said:

We’ve relied on Olineman drafted outside the first two rounds and FA’s for years. Regardless of how good your OL coaching is, you should still take players in these rounds. 

I’m done with not putting big resources into the most important unit in football.

I understand the frustration, but there are certainly many reasons why they haven't taken them early, most often being that they weren't in the position to take them, as the players weren't there.  Last year was the first year out of several where they had the opportunity and didn't take it because the OL player available that would have been good value was deemed to not be a "scheme fit."  I imagine if they knew then what they know now (that JDF would be a complete bust) that they would have taken Will Hernandez.  This year there should be that opportunity to take offensive linemen early and often, because it is such a deep class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

AS to the argument regarding the role of Luck in drafting players who turn out...I think it has a larger role than most want to admit. 

There's always some sort of luck involved...luck that you've drafted the right player with the right opportunity on the right team at the right time.  It's a very difficult job.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

It's luck for a year or two, it's process and ability after 4-7 years as GM.....

I can't agree with that.  There's always a little luck involved, considering you can't, with 100% accuracy, determine who's going to pick who ahead of you.  It wasn't process and ability that Denny got to pick Randy Moss.  It also wasn't completely process and ability that 5 rounds later, he took Matt Birk...he may have only ended up taking Birk because he missed out on another player that may have been taken a few spots earlier.  There's always a little luck, not just process and ability.  To suggest that's completely process and ability after a certain amount of time is placing way too much responsibility on that.  There's certainly a high percentage of it placed on the process and ability, but you can't discount the luck factor.  The current Vikings' defense wasn't built on process and ability alone.  There was luck involved (along with good coaching) that have made Danielle Hunter, Stephen Weatherly, Shamar Stephen and Anthony Harris into pretty good players.  

Maybe we would view things slightly differently, if they hadn't had 4 different offensive line coaches in 6 years.  You can have all the process and ability you want, but with such a lack of consistency, you need to have a little luck on your side to overcome it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I can't agree with that.  There's always a little luck involved, considering you can't, with 100% accuracy, determine who's going to pick who ahead of you.  It wasn't process and ability that Denny got to pick Randy Moss.  It also wasn't completely process and ability that 5 rounds later, he took Matt Birk...he may have only ended up taking Birk because he missed out on another player that may have been taken a few spots earlier.  There's always a little luck, not just process and ability.  To suggest that's completely process and ability after a certain amount of time is placing way too much responsibility on that.  There's certainly a high percentage of it placed on the process and ability, but you can't discount the luck factor.  The current Vikings' defense wasn't built on process and ability alone.  There was luck involved (along with good coaching) that have made Danielle Hunter, Stephen Weatherly, Shamar Stephen and Anthony Harris into pretty good players.  

Maybe we would view things slightly differently, if they hadn't had 4 different offensive line coaches in 6 years.  You can have all the process and ability you want, but with such a lack of consistency, you need to have a little luck on your side to overcome it.  

 

good golly this board is taking posts to the extreme.....of course there is always a little luck. But after this many years, it isn't just, or mostly, luck. It's also partly their fault they've had multiple coaches.....not totally, obviously.

Edited by PrplChilPill
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

good golly this board is taking posts to the extreme.....of course there is always a little luck. But after this many years, it isn't just, or mostly, luck. It's also partly their fault they've had multiple coaches.....not totally, obviously.

I only responded to the comment you made.  You seemed to completely dismiss the luck factor after a year or 2.  I just tried to make the point that luck is always a factor.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swede700 said:

I only responded to the comment you made.  You seemed to completely dismiss the luck factor after a year or 2.  I just tried to make the point that luck is always a factor.    

I agree that luck is always a factor in any given decision. However, Mr. @PrplChilPill is exactly right. As the timeframe expands the effects of luck are diminished. It evens out over time.

Imagine a blackjack player making a decision on a given hand. His results on that hand depend on "luck". If he is playing just a few hands even if playing by the tables there will be some luck. Spread across many hands, the house knows what percentage they'll win even if every single player is making optimal decisions. Guess what, the house has done pretty well over time even after losing some to cheats and complex schemes that give players that can pull that off an edge.

Of course there are things you can do to improve your results or make them worse at the blackjack table, but given sufficient time, luck is almost inconsequential. It is amazing how close you come to the average math tells you you'll end up at.

For Rick Spielman, the timeframe has been long enough that luck is hardly consequential. But yeah, for any single decision luck was a factor.

There is an inverse relationship between sample size and margin of error. Yes, there is still some margin of error even after all of Rick Spielman's years but that margin of error has continued to decrease every time he has made a move related to the offensive line. By this point, it can be categorically rejected as the major contributor to the poor results that we have seen.  Without counting decisions, I will go out on a limb and say that the offensive line results we have seen are within 2% - 3% of what should be expected from a Rick Spielman run operation.

I would also venture to guess there are other factors that would change the expected results by an order of magnitude more than the current margin of error (for better and also for worse).

Luck is quite predictable. Good luck is when opportunity meets preparation, while bad luck is when lack of preparation meets reality.

Edited by Cearbhall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

I agree that luck is always a factor in any given decision. However, Mr. @PrplChilPill is exactly right. As the timeframe expands the effects of luck are diminished. It evens out over time.

Imagine a blackjack player making a decision on a given hand. His results on that hand depend on "luck". If he is playing just a few hands even if playing by the tables there will be some luck. Spread across many hands, the house knows what percentage they'll win even if every single player is making optimal decisions. Guess what, the house has done pretty well over time even after losing some to cheats and complex schemes that give players that can pull that off an edge.

Of course there are things you can do to improve your results or make them worse at the blackjack table, but given sufficient time, luck is almost inconsequential. It is amazing how close you come to the average math tells you you'll end up at.

For Rick Spielman, the timeframe has been long enough that luck is hardly consequential. But yeah, for any single decision luck was a factor.

There is an inverse relationship between sample size and margin of error. Yes, there is still some margin of error even after all of Rick Spielman's years but that margin of error has continued to decrease every time he has made a move related to the offensive line. By this point, it can be categorically rejected as the major contributor to the poor results that we have seen.  Without counting decisions, I will go out on a limb and say that the offensive line results we have seen are within 2% - 3% of what should be expected from a Rick Spielman run operation.

I would also venture to guess there are other factors that would change the expected results by an order of magnitude more than the current margin of error (for better and also for worse).

Luck is quite predictable. Good luck is when opportunity meets preparation, while bad luck is when lack of preparation meets reality.

Not sure I agree.  I think about those players who seem to set the league on fire their rookie and sophomore seasons, only to regress afterwards.  No injuries, same coaching, same preparation.

Here's my formula for reducing, not eliminating, the role of luck in picking players.  Don't EVER consider a players "potential" if it doesn't match on field performance.  Production AND growth potential usually begets the better players.  If you rely on raw athleticism, size, strength etc...and the production doesn't match...well, you better hope that your team is lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Not sure I agree.  I think about those players who seem to set the league on fire their rookie and sophomore seasons, only to regress afterwards.  No injuries, same coaching, same preparation.

Here's my formula for reducing, not eliminating, the role of luck in picking players.  Don't EVER consider a players "potential" if it doesn't match on field performance.  Production AND growth potential usually begets the better players.  If you rely on raw athleticism, size, strength etc...and the production doesn't match...well, you better hope that your team is lucky.

And part of the issue is that the college game blocks sooooo much differently than the NFL game that it's significantly more difficult to evaluate how those players will adapt.  Therefore, when it comes to offensive line play, I think luck plays a far greater role in the drafting of that position than in others.  I'm sure that Rick has gotten a little better over time of evaluating what characteristics translate better than others when it comes to offensive line play (since it's such a recent phenomenon), but you combine that with the lack of consistency at coaching, it shouldn't come as a tremendous surprise that there have been some difficulties.

Eventually, I may come around to the same opinion as @Cearbhall, but I'm not there yet.  With such little issues elsewhere on the team, I'm giving him and them a little more time to get it right.  How long, I don't know, but I'm not clearly convinced yet that they are completely incapable of doing so.      

Edited by swede700
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...