Jump to content
TL-TwoWinsAway

The Quinn Drafts - 2016-2018

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

If you call Davis and Decker good picks, Harrington was too.  Rogers was a good player who had injuries and drugs derail his career.  He is a bust for sure, as is Harrington and Davis and Decker.  Decker is the only close one but if you don’t want your 1st for a second contract (and not because he will be too expensive), that’s a bust IMO.  

I would agree: if I called Davis and Decker good picks, I should call Harrington that as well. I didn't call Davis and Decker good picks.

Both Davis and Decker were drafted outside of the top 10. Therefore, according to this rough draft standard, they only need to be "solid starters". Harrington, on the other hand, needs to be "good", which he clearly was not.

For reference:

Top 10 picks - good players; 1st and 2nd round picks - solid starters; 3rd round picks - developing into starters/contributors; 4th round picks - on roster/contributors; 5th round picks - on roster; 6th and 7th round picks - cannot bust. (Bold: reaches this standard.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think Davis has been even close to solid.

I'd say below average at best, maybe downright bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, detroitroar said:

I dont think Davis has been even close to solid.

I'd say below average at best, maybe downright bad.

In coverage, absolutely. He's awful in coverage. For some reason, they keep putting him in that situation. He's decent when tasked to stop the run and occasionally pressuring the QB. (I tend to wonder if scheme/usage has anything to do with his play.)

If he was a top 10 pick, he'd clearly be marked as a bust. In my opinion, as of now, he's hovering just above that zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

In coverage, absolutely. He's awful in coverage. For some reason, they keep putting him in that situation. He's decent when tasked to stop the run and occasionally pressuring the QB. (I tend to wonder if scheme/usage has anything to do with his play.)

If he was a top 10 pick, he'd clearly be marked as a bust. In my opinion, as of now, he's hovering just above that zone.

Coverage is a huge part of today's game and he has been a complete liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, detroitroar said:

Coverage is a huge part of today's game and he has been a complete liability.

It can be, sure. He has been, yes. In that facet of the game, he has been awful. In two others, run defense and pass rushing, he has been decent at times. There's also belief that part of his early struggles this year were as he battled a high ankle sprain. As the season moved along, his performance seemed to improve, even having the "best two-game stretch of his career" (against the Bears and Cowboys), according to PFF.

Here's another thought: when Stafford went out, teams were forced to throw less and ran the ball more. This took him out of pass coverage situations and into run defense situations, where he's significantly better.

I still think it's a usage thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

It can be, sure. He has been, yes. In that facet of the game, he has been awful. In two others, run defense and pass rushing, he has been decent at times. There's also belief that part of his early struggles this year were as he battled a high ankle sprain. As the season moved along, his performance seemed to improve, even having the "best two-game stretch of his career" (against the Bears and Cowboys), according to PFF.

Here's another thought: when Stafford went out, teams were forced to throw less and ran the ball more. This took him out of pass coverage situations and into run defense situations, where he's significantly better.

I still think it's a usage thing.

If a LB has this big of a hole in his game, terrible in pass coverage, is he worth a 1st rd pick?  I think this is where I struggle with being a "solid" player.  I consider solid to be not exceptionally good at one thing, but no limiting holes in their game.  However, I'm not sure if my definition would be fair. I would consider Decker to be solid, Davis, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

If a LB has this big of a hole in his game, terrible in pass coverage, is he worth a 1st rd pick?  I think this is where I struggle with being a "solid" player.  I consider solid to be not exceptionally good at one thing, but no limiting holes in their game.  However, I'm not sure if my definition would be fair. I would consider Decker to be solid, Davis, not so much.

No, I wouldn't say that he's worth a 1st round pick (although we should keep in mind that it wasn't an early 1st round pick). If he were a 2nd round pick, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it.

I think this comes down to definitions, which is a good place for this to go. I view "solid" as not good, but not bad. "Decent". Considering usage, which I think hasn't been good, I wouldn't consider Davis bad. He has shown that he can excel at certain aspects of this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't get on or stay on the field, a bust. An every down liability bad. So a situational player would be decent.  An every down player would be solid.  All Pro good.  Top 10 Exceptional?

Would these be fair definitions?

Probably would have been better if I bulleted these, but i'm lazy.

Edited by LionArkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

Can't get on or stay on the field, a bust. An every down liability bad. So a situational player would be decent.  An every down player would be solid.  All Pro good.  Top 10 Exceptional?

Would these be fair definitions?

Probably would have been better if I bulleted these, but i'm lazy.

Ha. Love the honesty.

I think it would require that we define each tier. For example, for a 1st or 2nd round pick (not top 10): can that player ever be a situational player and not be a bust? I think I like the definition of "every down player" being solid, but I wonder if there could be exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, detroitroar said:

I just think your setting the bar awfully low for a 1st round pick, TL.

That's true, I may be.

I separated top 10 picks from the rest of the 1st round, and grouped 1st round picks in with 2nd round picks. My rationale: to be fair in this process, I didn't want to hold the 31st overall pick to the same standard as a top 10 pick, and figured that a late 1st round pick should be viewed in somewhat of the same lens as a 2nd round pick.

The scale is absolutely open for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some random thoughts here.

I think there is also a difference between how a fan would rate it and how an organization would rate it.  You stated there is not a difference between a late 1st and early second, and as a fan I'd agree.  Isn't there a definite contract value difference between a 1st and 2nd round regardless if it is the 32 pick or the 33rd pick? I don't know the numbers on this, but I think a price value would also have to be considered unless this is just for a fans perspective and does not consider any ROI.  Does this even make a difference?

Edited by LionArkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

Just some random thoughts here.

I think there is also a difference between how a fan would rate it and how an organization would rate it.  You stated there is not a difference between a late 1st and early second, and as a fan I'd agree.  Isn't there a definite contract value difference between a 1st and 2nd round regardless if it is the 32 pick or the 33rd pick? I don't know the numbers on this, but I think a price value would also have to be considered unless this is just for a fans perspective and does not consider any ROI.  Does this even make a difference?

Interesting point.

I'm not as concerned about contract as it's not necessarily something that the team controls, and all picks have a lower contract than players picked before them.

Viewing the 11th overall pick in the same lens as a late 2nd round pick also doesn't seem quite right.

Perhaps:

Top 10 Picks - Good

Picks 11-20 - Solid

Picks 21-2nd Round Picks - Decent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

You seem kinda fired up.

I don't view this standard as being the same for coaches. I've always believed, and stated repeatedly, that coaches should get 3 years. That isn't the same for a 2nd overall and 3rd overall pick.

According to this standard, Davis only has to be "solid". He's awful in pass coverage, but decent against the run and has shown that he can provide occasional pressure when tasked. Is that a 'good' player? Absolutely not. If used properly, is he 'solid'? I think so. Has he been used properly? I don't think he has. The beauty of this place is you're welcome to disagree.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a different standard between players and coaches, and players should be viewed after two years. I've been consistent, and I think it's reasonable.

If you think stating you think I'm fired up weakens my points and strengthens yours, you're wrong. 

If JD is "awful" in pass coverage, but "decent" against the run, I don't see how it's a good pick. (I would argue JD isn't very good against the run either, but whatever). You don't pick a LB in the 1st round to be a decent 2 down LB. A solid starter isn't someone you need to take off the field on 3rd downs. 

How can you tell what kind of a player someone will be in 6 games, but not know what kind of a coach someone is in 32?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my own calculations in a different thread, I had Quinn around the 67% success rate in his overall drafting. I was less generous than TL 

I found this article that goes into more detail about first round percentages

https://theriotreport.com/scout-camp-2018-about-the-author/

Quote

 

Pick 1-5 - 77.1%

Pick 6 - 10 - 51.4%

Pick 11 - 15 - 57.1%

Pick 16-20 - 51.4%

Pick 21 - 32 - 47.0%

 

Hit Rate Average for the first round is 56.8%. So just under half of all 1st round picks are busts. If we extrapolate the 1st round rate into the rest of the draft, Quinn is just over the average mark by 11%. I don't know how this compares to the top teams in the league but it's in the middle of the pack which is what the Lions really are as a team right now. 

Despite having not really used the term, we are in the middle of an organizational rebuild. That can take time which is why I'm willing to wait a little bit longer before fully deciding on how I feel about Patricia and Quinn. So far it hasn't been good. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×