Defense Discussion [2017]

[squire12]

10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

you're fighting math, good sir.

1/2 < 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5

Your odds are better to get a 'non-bust' from a late 5th, late 6th and late 7th round pick than from a single late 3rd round pick.

https://datascopeanalytics.com/blog/the-chance-of-a-bust-in-the-nfl-draft/

I thought all rookies were ascending players??

[incognito_man]

Just now, squire12 said:

I thought all rookies were ascending players??

I'm still puzzled why you are conflating "ascending" with "good". They are not the same thing.

Moreover, obviously not 'all' rookies (and 2nd year players) are ascending, but it is unquestionable that, at that point in their careers, players are generally improving (i.e. ascending).

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I'm still puzzled why you are conflating "ascending" with "good". They are not the same thing.

Moreover, obviously not 'all' rookies (and 2nd year players) are ascending, but it is unquestionable that, at that point in their careers, players are generally improving (i.e. ascending).

All players are either ascending, descending (regressing/declining) or flat.  Being a rookie or 2nd year player increases your odds of being in the ascending category, but does not guarantee that the player will be.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

All players are either ascending, descending (regressing/declining) or flat.  Being a rookie or 2nd year player increases your odds of being in the ascending category, but does not guarantee that the player will be.

increases it significantly, yes.

glad we agree

[PackyAttacky]

Yeah boy!!!

[TransientTexan]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

So by that theory, we should trade very pick outside of the second round.  They are all lottery tickets with a bust rate of 75% even in the third round.

Got it.

My word.  My only point was that there is on ball and we drafted three backup halfbacks.  And we are a heavy passing team.  There are only so many carries to go around.  It was excessive.  Argue all you want, it was excessive.  Hedging a bet?  You bet.  And it wasn't a wise draft strategy.  Not to the extent that it was hedged.

Yancey was overdrafted.

That is it.  If playing the hindsight game....I'd rather they have traded all of those picks for a guy who had the ability to actually produce.

They are going to be young again next year and deep.  With a ton of picks.  My hope is that they forgo the "hedge their bets" philosophy and the "lottery ticket" philosophy of the draft and use those later picks to move around the draft to get guys better suited to produce.  Even if only on special teams.

Never said that, but thanks for building strawmen. Just because something isn't a certainty doesn't mean every late pick is equally as likely to succeed/fail. I know people like to treat everything as binary situations these days, but there is a progression of varying degrees. 

for instance, (just using random numbers here) say there is a 50% bust rate in the 2nd, a 70% bust rate in the 3rd, and a 80% bust rate in the 4th, and a 85% bust rate in the 5th. which would have more chance to succeed? one second (50% success rate)? or having one of each of the other rounds (65% cumulative success rate)? Obviously, the latter. Therefore in that scenario, you'd be sacrificing value to trade #3+4+5 for #2. You don't draft 3 HB's expected them to ALL be good. You're playing percentages that maybe one of them will turn out good and merit ball distribution. 

Also, each draft has variations. It's not just blind drafting based off a percentage. Players are graded as individuals and compared to both their own draft class and against an absolute (rather than relative) standard (hence statements like "player X's abilities would've put them in R2 o-linemen in Year Y while they are a R5 OL this year"). Plus, team boards tend to diverge alot in Day 3. I'd venture to guess that tons of teams picking then think the players they are selecting were Day-2-quality players in the eyes of their own scouts. The wisdom of their strategy can't be determined based on 1 season, much less one game. 

 

 

 

[Revel8]

3 hours ago, PackyAttacky said:

Yeah boy!!!

Daniels is finally getting some well-deserved recognition. 

 

At the same time, the entire Dline and OLB group helped make it possible.  I think Perry's early dominance helped open things up for Daniels later on.  And the coverage was good too, which also helped them get to the QB before he was able to throw it.

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, PackyAttacky said:

Yeah boy!!!

DPOY?

damn...hope he keeps that up. That's impressive as hell.

[Shanedorf]

[Packer_ESP]

7 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

for instance, (just using random numbers here) say there is a 50% bust rate in the 2nd, a 70% bust rate in the 3rd, and a 80% bust rate in the 4th, and a 85% bust rate in the 5th. which would have more chance to succeed? one second (50% success rate)? or having one of each of the other rounds (65% cumulative success rate)? Obviously, the latter. Therefore in that scenario, you'd be sacrificing value to trade #3+4+5 for #2. You don't draft 3 HB's expected them to ALL be good. You're playing percentages that maybe one of them will turn out good and merit ball distribution. 

Actually, the odds of drafting at least one non-bust in your scenario are 52.4% which is not far off from the 50% of the third round pick. The chance that you pick 3 busts is 0.7 * 0.8 * 0.85 = 47.6% so that leaves 52.4 for at least one good player (could also be two or three good players).

Regarding the overall discussion, I don't think anyone is upset because we actually used those late round picks instead of trading them - like someone said earlier, it's unlikely that any team would have traded a high enough pick for a package of late rounders. I think people that criticize this draft do so based on the positions drafted - too many RBs, too many WRs.

- RBs, even though I would have been fine with just two the truth is that the room was empty like someone said earlier. At the time of the draft Monty had yet to complete a training camp as a RB and we didn't have anyone else from last year. That room needed bodies, though it can be argued that we could have picked up a veteran to help in that regard.

- WRs, again I would have been fine with one or even none but again, how many correctly predicted the WR corps in the 53 thread? How many would have been OK in April with the WRs we finally kept? More than a few would have argued that Janis, Geronimo and even Davis were upgradeable. That's what we tried to do with those late picks - and I'm not sure I'd say that they didn't pan out rather than saying the competition made everyone better.

[spilltray]

RBs we needed at least 2 so picked up 3, all late picks. All 3 look like players, so too many RBs. IF they had drafted 2 and one didn't look great, it would be a problem. This is a good "mistake" to have made.

 

WRs, they look for athletic developmental guys every year. There was every reason to believe at draft time that Yancey and Dupree might be able to compete for a roster spot with Allison/Janis/Davis. Great so neither of them WON that spot. It's still an OK move.

[driftwood]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

RBs we needed at least 2 so picked up 3, all late picks. All 3 look like players, so too many RBs. IF they had drafted 2 and one didn't look great, it would be a problem. This is a good "mistake" to have made.

 

WRs, they look for athletic developmental guys every year. There was every reason to believe at draft time that Yancey and Dupree might be able to compete for a roster spot with Allison/Janis/Davis. Great so neither of them WON that spot. It's still an OK move.

with the RB situation you are 100% correct... they needed bodies & got 3 very young serviceable ones in 1 draft class

with the WR position its hard to argue, but the only slight issue is that you're potentially investing valuable reps to guys who might not be on the roster next year (im talking the guys at the end of the depth like Janis/Davis over a guy who could give you a few more cheaper years like a Yancey/dupre/clark... with that said, Janis & davis simply beat those 2 out of a roster spot so its hard to be mad that the packers genuinely kept the best performers at that position. 

 

im curious to see if a guy like janis or davis get 2nd contracts with the packers... its hard for them to out snap the top 3 beyond injury to cobb/adams/nelson. & Allison is probably gonna come in & immediately get the #4 WR snaps from janis/davis off his suspension (the packers seem to be really high on him getting looks & AR doesnt shy away from him either so there is a clear trust that i dont think davis or janis have yet)

 

at the end of the day were talking about #5 & 6 WR's which arent as critical in the big picture.... its a nice problem to have when you already have the best QB in the game. 

[TransientTexan]

8 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

Actually, the odds of drafting at least one non-bust in your scenario are 52.4% which is not far off from the 50% of the third round pick. The chance that you pick 3 busts is 0.7 * 0.8 * 0.85 = 47.6% so that leaves 52.4 for at least one good player (could also be two or three good players).

Regarding the overall discussion, I don't think anyone is upset because we actually used those late round picks instead of trading them - like someone said earlier, it's unlikely that any team would have traded a high enough pick for a package of late rounders. I think people that criticize this draft do so based on the positions drafted - too many RBs, too many WRs.

- RBs, even though I would have been fine with just two the truth is that the room was empty like someone said earlier. At the time of the draft Monty had yet to complete a training camp as a RB and we didn't have anyone else from last year. That room needed bodies, though it can be argued that we could have picked up a veteran to help in that regard.

- WRs, again I would have been fine with one or even none but again, how many correctly predicted the WR corps in the 53 thread? How many would have been OK in April with the WRs we finally kept? More than a few would have argued that Janis, Geronimo and even Davis were upgradeable. That's what we tried to do with those late picks - and I'm not sure I'd say that they didn't pan out rather than saying the competition made everyone better.

Thanks for the math check. Regardless, the main point is that a collection of lower-probability picks can outweigh the success probability of one higher-probability pick, depending on the number of lower picks and their individual percentages. That also doesn't factor what another team would actually charge you to trade up. They know the relative value of their higher pick just like the Packers do and will charge accordingly.

I'd also add (though I've mentioned it before) both AJones and DMays had significant injuries in college, so the 4 RB's on the roster might translate more like to maybe 3 RB's in terms of reliability. 

[TheOnlyThing]

Well after two games, it is probably safe to say the D is not as good as it performed in week 1 and will hopefully be better than it played tonight in Atlanta especially in the first half when it was still a contest.

What a contrast in opponents. The Seattle O was nearly as awful at home today against the lowly 49ers as it was in Lambeau last Sunday. Meanwhile, the Falcons showed that on turf they are a really, really good offense and exposed some issues on a weakened Packers defensive unit.

Hope the injuries are not too bad, especially to tone setter Mike Daniels, and that the D gets some confidence at home the next two weeks against what have to be 2 of the worst offenses in the NFL.

[TheOnlyThing]

Rob DemovskyESPN Staff Writer 

We may not know if the Packers defense can stop anyone who's any good for a few more weeks. Next up on the schedule: Cincinnati and Chicago -- two teams that have combined to score 31 points in four total games, fewer than the Falcons scored in Sunday night's win.