squire12 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Using games started is a bit flawed. Teams picking at the top generally need more /better starters. That can skew the games started for players they draft just out of ne essay to start someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 7 hours ago, TransientTexan said: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f0ni7GZi5Sskgwxy2WiisNlzVK_eR2NCAqAwJmHWIG8/edit?usp=sharing howbout now? I changed the permissions Works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 2 hours ago, squire12 said: Using games started is a bit flawed. Teams picking at the top generally need more /better starters. That can skew the games started for players they draft just out of ne essay to start someone. Agreed, but not sure what comment this is referring to. If you’re talking about my list, it’s sorted CarAV, not snaps. I’d also add that you will find some amount of flaw in every type of data in existence, yet things can still get close to the mark (including snap counts) inspite of these flaws. There are varying degrees of correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, TransientTexan said: Agreed, but not sure what comment this is referring to. If you’re talking about my list, it’s sorted CarAV, not snaps. I’d also add that you will find some amount of flaw in every type of data in existence, yet things can still get close to the mark (including snap counts) inspite of these flaws. There are varying degrees of correlation. how is CarAV calculated? Is that based on career starts or snaps. Again, that comes down to the someone has to start and play snaps. Just because they play, does not mean that the player should have been starting/playing based on merit, rather someone has to. I have no solution, just pointing out a limitation to the process of determining a draft success based on starts or snaps or whatever CarAV is derived from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 39 minutes ago, squire12 said: how is CarAV calculated? Is that based on career starts or snaps. Again, that comes down to the someone has to start and play snaps. Just because they play, does not mean that the player should have been starting/playing based on merit, rather someone has to. I have no solution, just pointing out a limitation to the process of determining a draft success based on starts or snaps or whatever CarAV is derived from. It’s explained here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index37a8.html While the starter-by-default phenomenon probably results in some non-zero amount of error, I don’t think it drastically affects the results. At least when I compared the AV of the Packers’ picks vs. the expected value I calculated from their draft slot, the “hits” (players with greater AV than expected from their draft slot) pretty much matched the players people consider to be “hits” (and also players the “graded well” under film review) I don’t really see any other way to go about it unless ppl are willing to analyze hundreds of thousands of hrs of game film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 On 10/22/2017 at 7:15 PM, CWood21 said: I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is ... Has the empirical evidence proving your statement that "You look at [TT's] draft record and it stands up as well as anyone's" been posted yet CWood? I know you said you'd be providing the data to back up your oft-asserted claim and I could not locate it in this thread. On a related note, I know you believe that questioning TT's drafting prowess "goes against popular opinion," so I the following blurb from Daugherty's column last weekend interesting. In that column he notes “Thompson’s first five drafts (2005-2009) were outstanding,” but since then there have been “Painfully few big hits in the draft.” http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/10/28/dougherty-without-aaron-rodgers-packers-just-another-team/806393001/ I agree with Daugherty on both counts. In fact, I'd say the first six drafts of Thompson's, between 2005-2010, were outstanding. So, for me, I fully concede that the Packers drafts during the first 6 drafts that Ted Thompson oversaw stand up as well as anyone's as you claim. However, I do not think Thompson's following six drafts (2011-2016) have been outstanding or stand up as well as any other GM in the NFLs drafting record. (Thompson has actually had 13 drafts as the Packers GM, but it is far to early to rate the one earlier this year. It is probably too early to characterize the 2016 draft, but with Clark and Martinez personally I'd say it was at least average). Consequently, I'd still love to see the numbers proving your point about TT being as good at drafting as anyone else in the NFL, especially between 2011-2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 7 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said: Consequently, I'd still love to see the numbers proving your point about TT being as good at drafting as anyone else in the NFL, especially between 2011-2016. Amazing. I challenged you to back up your point, and when I start the legwork of doing it you're nowhere to be found. Nowhere. Now that I've been busy outside of FF (it's weird I have a life I know), you're literally only in here to troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 6, 2017 Author Share Posted November 6, 2017 On a related note, would anyone be interested in divvying up the data? You'd essentially just be C&P from Pro Football Reference. Let me know if you're willing to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaRisMa Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 How have I not noticed this thread before? I was looking through his recent work, specifically 2011 through last year. 2011 will go down as his worst draft. Fortunately for him, he was picking last each round so you can't crucify him. I judge the success of each draft pick individually on a case-by-case basis. But the lazy way to whittle it down for me was to simply ask how many of them got second contracts with us or we would gladly have given a 2nd contract with the knowledge we have now. Those guys are GOOD players. I don't care if you get them early or late, just get GOOD players. Yes, high draft picks are important, but they are important because they have the best odds to produce GOOD players. GOOD PLAYERS IN BOLD EXTENDED NFL CAREERS ELSEWHERE IN ITALICS INJURY BUSTS IN STRIKETHROUGH Busts in regular font. Underlined are CORE players. 20101(23) - OT Bryan Bulaga 2(56) - DL/OLB Mike Neal3(71) - S Morgan Burnett 5(154) - TE Andrew Quarless5(169) - OT Marshall Newhouse6(193) - RB James Starks7(230) - DL CJ Wilson 20111(32) - OT Derek Sherrod2(64) - WR Randall Cobb 3(96) - RB Alex Green4(131) - CB Davon House 5(141) - TE DJ Williams 6(179) - OG Caleb Schlauderaff 6(186) - LB DJ Smith 6(197) - OLB Ricky Elmore 7(218) - TE Ryan Taylor7(233) - DL Lawrence Guy 20121(28) - OLB Nick Perry2(51) - DL Jerel Worthy2(62) - CB Casey Hayward4(132) - DL Mike Daniels 4(133) - S Jerron McMillian 5(163) - LB Terrell Manning 7(241) - OT Andrew Datko 7(243) - QB BJ Coleman 2013 1(26) - DL/OLB Datone Jones2(61) - RB Eddie Lacy4(109) - OT David Bakhtiari 4(122) - C JC Tretter4(125) - RB Jonathan Franklin5(159) - S Micah Hyde 6(193) - LB Nate Palmer7(216) - WR Charles Johnson 7(224) - WR Kevin Dorsey7(232) - LB Sam Barrington 2014Cur1(21) - S Ha'Sean Clinton-Dix 2(53) - WR Davante Adams3(85) - DT Khyri Thornton3(98) - TE Richard Rodgers 4(121) - LB Carl Bradford5(161) - C Corey Linsley 6(176) - WR Jared Abberderis 6(197) - CB Demetri Goodson7(236) - WR Jeff Janis 20151(30) - CB Damarious Randall 2(62) - CB Quentin Rollins 3(94) - WR Ty Montogmery 4(129) - LB Jake Ryan 5(147) - QB Brett Hundley6(206) - FB Aaron Ripkowski 6(210) - DL Christian Ringo 6(213) - TE Kennard Backman 2016 Clark, Spriggs, Mackrell, Martinez, Lowry, Davis, Murphy (only projecting) 2017 King, Jones, Adams, Biegel, Williams, Yancey, Jones, Amichia, Mays, Dupre (again, projecting) So in any given year we are getting 3 or 4 GOOD players and 1-2 CORE players. That's probably league average. The thing is though, other than New England, we've been picking later than everyone over that same span. So yeah, if you are getting average drafts from the second worst draft position, you're doing damn good. That's how you sustain long term success. You see teams have very good individual drafts that propel them to short term success, but the test of time shows what GMs can really do, and Ted has certainly passed that test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoellPreston88 Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 Randall should not be in bold. Nor should Rip or Janis, but they were late rounders so I understand bolding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer_ESP Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 Richard Rodgers is in cursive, I guess he's inherited the formatting of Khyri Thornton. I don't think Monty and Ryan are busts at all, though I wouldn't bold them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaRisMa Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 2014 on is more projecting or confirming those guys. No reason to think Richard Rodgers will be unemployed anytime soon. No reason we wouldn't want Rip or Randall back right now. Also, don't talk trash about Jeff Janis, he's a Pro Bowl caliber gunner. He and that guy in New England are ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.