goldfishwars Posted April 30, 2021 Author Share Posted April 30, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ray Reed said: @goldfishwars you mind getting me excited about Oweh? Not super big on that pick btw. I get the measurables but man.. I think he could go either way, but i love that fit for him. If he fails, it won't be down to the landing spot. Ravens have done a lot more with a lot less that's for sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 27 minutes ago, goldfishwars said: Stokes is the one who struggles to change direction. 24 minutes ago, .Buzz said: Yeah, I thought Campbell's hips/change of direction were excellent in the bit I watched. I definitely think Stokes is smoother with change of direction. I don't think Tyson is bad there though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 34 minutes ago, goldfishwars said: Stokes is the one who struggles to change direction. Both of them have COD issues, the biggest difference is that Stokes' recovery speed is better and he's longer and more explosive then Campbell. And the numbers back that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJC33 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 35 minutes ago, Gmen said: The way I look at this is if Daniel Jones plays poorly this year and turns out to not be the franchise QB, that extra 1st round pick next year could go a long way in the Giants securing their next QB in the 2022 draft. Fair, but in the event that happens, the success of this trade will ride of the successful of Fields and how he stacks up against the 22' class. The trade value talk will quickly become a misnomer, as the debate will quickly turn to Fields vs. __? 43 minutes ago, Gmen said: In the chart I posted from Lee, I counted 6 QBs that were worth trading up for out of 23. Watson, Allen, Mahomes, Flacco, Cutler, Jackson. Basically 1 in 4 trades ended up being worth it. Not great. It's crappy data. Not a large enough sample size to ignore the nuance of each pick and by shrinking the sample size you discredit the use of bulk averages. For example, Fields is in a different class of prospects compared to guys like Tebow, Lynch and Manziel. Their success (or lack thereof) shouldn't be considered. I work with statistics for a living and love the application in sports, but it's nearly impossible to do in scenarios with so many subjective variables. Comparatively, I wonder what the associated risk is with dropping from 11 to 20? Similar barriers in the way of a statistical analysis, but removing position specific criteria creates a much larger pool of candidates. I think the variance in risk from Slater to Toney is significant here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Sounds like Dalman could go early tonight. A surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted April 30, 2021 Author Share Posted April 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, SBLIII said: Sounds like Dalman could go early tonight. A surprise. Some schemes will love him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, SBLIII said: Sounds like Dalman could go early tonight. A surprise. Like him as an early Day 3 pick. Day 2 is too early for a C only type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 30 minutes ago, solidvikingfan said: Greg Newsome also could've been the CB in question meaning Moerhig ends up being the pick. There's a ton of smoke around Campbell/Jaguars interest. Has been for a while. But thats possible. I guess we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted April 30, 2021 Author Share Posted April 30, 2021 23 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Both of them have COD issues, the biggest difference is that Stokes' recovery speed is better and he's longer and more explosive then Campbell. And the numbers back that up. Trae Waynes 2.0 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmen Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, NJC33 said: It's crappy data. Not a large enough sample size to ignore the nuance of each pick and by shrinking the sample size you discredit the use of bulk averages. For example, Fields is in a different class of prospects compared to guys like Tebow, Lynch and Manziel. Their success (or lack thereof) shouldn't be considered. I work with statistics for a living and love the application in sports, but it's nearly impossible to do in scenarios with so many subjective variables. Comparatively, I wonder what the associated risk is with dropping from 11 to 20? Similar barriers in the way of a statistical analysis, but removing position specific criteria creates a much larger pool of candidates. I think the variance in risk from Slater to Toney is significant here. Cool, me too. I'm a data scientist. And I enjoy applying data analytics to football in my spare time. It's the available data. And it's easy to say Fields is better than Tebow, Lynch and Manziel - in hindsight. But ESPN gave Manziel the same prospect grade as Fields - 91. Paxton Lynch wasn't that far behind with an 85. Timo Riske (PFF_Moo) has done extensive work in assessing draft pick value. I linked some of his work in a previous post. He's a big proponent of trading down in the draft. Because the draft is such a crapshoot, you should acquire as many darts (draft picks) as possible to improve your chances of hitting on players. As a result, he's been highly critical of Dave Gettleman in the past for never trading down - until last night. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, goldfishwars said: Trae Waynes 2.0 Similar. Except Stokes is the 29th pick, and Trae Waynes was what the 14th pick? Stokes is a tad longer and a bit more explosive but similar physical skillsets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamRod Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 22 minutes ago, SBLIII said: Sounds like Dalman could go early tonight. A surprise. Rams new OL coach came from Stanford and need a center. They will be the ones to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 hour ago, goldfishwars said: Some schemes will love him Yep, but that's actually the reason I thought he'd make it do day three or at worst the very tail end of day 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJC33 Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 26 minutes ago, Gmen said: Cool, me too. I'm a data scientist. And I enjoy applying data analytics to football in my spare time. It's the available data. And it's easy to say Fields is better than Tebow, Lynch and Manziel - in hindsight. But ESPN gave Manziel the same prospect grade as Fields - 91. Paxton Lynch wasn't that far behind with an 85. Timo Riske (PFF_Moo) has done extensive work in assessing draft pick value. I linked some of his work in a previous post. He's a big proponent of trading down in the draft. Because the draft is such a crapshoot, you should acquire as many darts (draft picks) as possible to improve your chances of hitting on players. As a result, he's been highly critical of Dave Gettleman in the past for never trading down - until last night. Therein lies the subjectivity of these things, lol. I see a lot of outliers in the list relative to Fields' situation, but to apply a 'buffer' of sorts you're relying on opinionated measurements. It's aberrant to the purpose of data analysis. A larger sample size would serve to mitigate the issue, but without more data the list is just click bait IMO. The Ozzie Newsome approach! Yea I like what the Giants did from a process standpoint. I just view the value for each team as being independent from one another -- Love the return Gettleman got, but if Fields ends up being 'the guy', the Bears just paid pennies on the dollar for a franchise quarterback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gmen Posted April 30, 2021 Share Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, NJC33 said: Therein lies the subjectivity of these things, lol. I see a lot of outliers in the list relative to Fields' situation, but to apply a 'buffer' of sorts you're relying on opinionated measurements. It's aberrant to the purpose of data analysis. A larger sample size would serve to mitigate the issue, but without more data the list is just click bait IMO. I brought up the ESPN grades to disprove your perception that Fields is on a different level as a prospect than Manziel, etc. There is nothing subjective in the chart posted by Lee. It’s an objective analysis comparing received draft value in all trade up scenarios where a QB is drafted since 2002. I don’t think this should be that difficult to grasp for someone working in analytics tbh. It’s simply a linear combination of weights. Edited April 30, 2021 by Gmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.