Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Miguel, May 15, 2006.
Interesting. This grading system is based entirely, and self-admittedly, on Need. The Pats get a D-, which is a slap in the face, but also a backhanded compliment, IMO. That means the Pats drafted players but the motive wasn't Need... clearly it was something else.
After reading about the rookie weekend, I think the rooks are going to have a measurable impact on our offense this year and for years to come. In a year, with some seasoning, I'm starting to believe we may have the most potent O that the Pats have ever fielded... ever. Was that a need?
My concern all offseason has been the D. But if Beisel and Claridge and TBC can step up, I think we can get enough good play from the secondary to keep the team afloat.
It's a different formula from previous years. This has always been a D-first roster, and now it looks like the O will have to carry more of the burden. The days when the D could bend for 80 yards and then force a turnover, with incredible regularity... by all appearances, those days are over.
Well, the fillability method is severly lacking if it came up with a grade of D-
for the PATs draft. IMO.
Coldhardfacts needs to go back to the drawing board.
Here are some of the facllacies I see with the method.
1. It does not take into account the reason(s) why a team was poor in a
certain area. It just assumes the stats give an accurate assesment. Then
it assumes the team 's big need is there.
2. It assumes that since a Team has a "need" that it should fill that biggest need with
their top draft picks even if the best player available for that position at the time of their
top picks for that need won't cut it in the system for which they are to be drafted.
3. The fillablility method has no concept of what team improvements would
make the team better able to handle the challenges of the season.
For example, it sees PATs D as the big need but it fails to recognize that
raising the Offense a notch will ease the pressure on the Defense significantly
..... perhaps even more that drafting for defense.
These are just a few thoughts but there are others but this is already getting
Coldhardfacts tries to use stats and lacks accurate knowlege for making
judgement on the state of a team.
Fillability method maybe Interesting but that's about it. IMO
We are becoming the Colts!
(That was a joke by the way)
Obviously the entire exercise of grading a draft before any of the players have played a down of football in the NFL is complete conjecture.
Love the quote of Rickey Proehl in your sig kurt. LOL. Proehl was right, too bad it was true of the team that was about to play him and not of the Rams!
It reminds me of the quote the seer gave when the Persians were deciding whether to take on the Greeks. The seer forsaw a 'great victory'. LoL alas the Persians took it to mean their own but they were defeated by the gutsy, and vastly outnumbered Greeks.
Wikipedia has a fascinating entry on the naval Battle of Salamis, where 300 Greek ships managed to hold of a fleet of over 1,000 Persian ships.
If you like rooting for underdogs, this is one of the great underdog battles of all time. That and the battle at thermopylae.
Tough to rate drafts before the players pan out. I'd prefer to see a lifetime draft stat compiled for each of the guys buying the groceries. That would give you a little context, although, of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
If you ask me, Superbowl XXXVI ranks right up there with the battle of Thermopylae. Way to bring a little ancient Greek history to the message board!
I closed the link after reading the Patriots grade and this is why...
Throughout the article, the author repeatedly disses the "pundits" for their player assessment, claiming that draft grades are given based on whether or not the team picks the sexy name. They basicly say that these "insiders" don't know sh!t about assessing college talent for the NFL game.
After this, they go ahead and ignore all late round defensive picks. If you think Mincey, Smith and Anderson are turds, go ahead and say it. Just don't claim to be some expert of talent analysis then ignore all players taken after round 3.
Also, they seem to have forgotten about free agency. Yes, our passing offense was #1 in the league, but we lost a starting WR, so it is reasonable to say that we won't be #1 again until we replace that production. Likewise, our passing success is a reflection of a poor running game. Are these peopole trying to tell me that we're not addressing need by going after Maroney?
Value? That's not important if you work for coldhardfootballfacts.
I normally like their site, but they dropped the ball big time here.
You will find it's a much more rational analysis of how the draft went for each team. It will come as no surprise to see that bad organizations tended to make bad decisions on draft day.
I agree that good organizations tend to make good draft decisions and bad organizations tent to make bad decisions, but CHFF grades:
Jets - A-
Phins - B+
Bills - C+
Pats - D-
Yeah, bad decisions, bad organzations. Nice analysis, CHFF.
By their analysis, if a team needed a FB, C and a safety, and they drafted Joe Montana, Barry Sanders and Jerry Rice, they'd get an F for making bad draft decisions.
I think the guys at CHFF are missing something if they don't think we took care of needs - current and possibly near future - at RB, WR, TE & K
WR & K are immediate needs and RB & TE will be needed sooner or later
So how did these picks not meet their "fillability" scale?
Although the fillability method leaves a lot to be desired this topic
is interesting and could stimulate brain storming about how to go about
evaluating a Teams Draft immediately after the draft.
A few years later is better but many are interested in how well a team did
right after the draft.
It would be nice to come up with an objective method, that is one that
takes the bias of the eveluator out of the equation. I do not think that
Maybe listing some factors then giving them some weight is a first step.
Here are some thoughts please feel free to add to the list.
* Fillability is one factor but a way to adjust the stats based on the
last 6 weeks of the season may be useful.
* Players Rating = best Player available at pick + Potential starter factor + fillability facor + System fit factor ( all need to be defined )
* Draft Defense Expected Improvement = D Players Rating + degree of Improved offense
* Draft Special Expected Teams Improvement = ST Player Rating
* Draft Offense Expected Improvement = O Player Rating
Expected Improvements are compared to the way the unit was at the end of
last season . Offseaon losses and gains determine predraft expected
improvement. Then a calculation is done to determine expected improvement
after the draft.
Note: Expected Improvement could be negative.
After Givens signed with the Titians, PATs expected offense improement might be a -5 meaning if they finished 7 in overall Offense they might now be
expected to finish 12th. Give the Caldwell signing a +2 Improvement and PATs may still be a -3 overall. Some mehtod like this might be used.
This might just be a fun thing to do but I doubt there ever could be a
system that would gain wide acceptance.
Like they say Opinions are like AHs eveyone has one.
Of course any such method if it were successful could be used in
predicting the outcome of the seaon.
For the betting world that might be worth something
Well this writing this post has knock off about 30 minutes before TC
starts. Only about 108,000 minutes to go.
I look for a big year from the D.
The underdogs lost at Thermopylae.
And, ominously, while the underdogs won at Salamis, they immediately sacked their brilliant-but-not-media-savvy coach.
Separate names with a comma.