Ultimate Boredom surfing - comparison of Reid and BB draft success

[BTTA]

Philadelphia Eagles: Andy Reid vs. Bill Belichick in Terms of Draft Success | Bleacher Report

 

[IcyPatriot]

Philadelphia Eagles: Andy Reid vs. Bill Belichick in Terms of Draft Success | Bleacher Report

Interesting read ..............

 

[Calciumee]

Cunningham is no where near a hit!

And saying Ras-I and Vereen are misses is harsh! Neither had enough playing time to determine!

 

[Coach42]

calling Vereen, Dowling and Mallet misses is ******ed. Although Maroney was no star I wouldn't call him a complete bust either. He won the 07 afc championship game for us.

 

[Kjmass1]

Nice to see the comparison. Puts things in perspective that BB isn't as bad as everyone on this board thinks he is in the draft.

 

[Deus Irae]

Even for a Bleacher Report article, that's a lousy piece of work. The author should be ashamed of having written that.

 

[NSPF]

This article is unscientific to say the least. Even if he wasn't terrible at determining hits and misses (Mallet's a miss already?), breaking it down like that makes no sense.

 

[plk]

Nice to see the comparison. Puts things in perspective that BB isn't as bad as everyone on this board thinks he is in the draft.

No one is as good as Belichick would have to be before some people would stop complaining. You can only evaluate a general manager's draft success by comparing him to other general manager's success. Otherwise you are like someone complaining that a hitter is only batting 0.333. He is only getting one hit out of every three at-bats. Surely a good hitter would be able to get at least two hits out of every three. A really good hitter, more than that.

Decade in the making: the ultimate NFL draft grades | Cold Hard Football Facts

agrees that Reid and Belichick are close and both very good.

One significant difference in terms of Dave Stoessel's evaluation:

Reid: First: 11 picks, seven hits = 64 percent success rate
Belichick: First: 11 picks, 10 hits = 91 percent success rate

As with all of this, it is a small sample size, but I attribute the difference to Belichick's not gambling more than he has to on first-round picks. That is a policy that some posters strenuously object to and wish that he would abandon.

 

[Deus Irae]

No one is as good as Belichick would have to be before some people would stop complaining. You can only evaluate a general manager's draft success by comparing him to other general manager's success. Otherwise you are like someone complaining that a hitter is only batting 0.333. He is only getting one hit out of every three at-bats. Surely a good hitter would be able to get at least two hits out of every three. A really good hitter, more than that.

Decade in the making: the ultimate NFL draft grades | Cold Hard Football Facts

agrees that Reid and Belichick are close and both very good.

One significant difference in terms of Dave Stoessel's evaluation:

Reid: First: 11 picks, seven hits = 64 percent success rate
Belichick: First: 11 picks, 10 hits = 91 percent success rate

As with all of this, it is a small sample size, but I attribute the difference to Belichick's not gambling more than he has to on first-round picks. That is a policy that some posters strenuously object to and wish that he would abandon.

The CHFF article extended the period being analyzed. That's how it managed to defend BB. Had it done what most people who've complained about the Patriots draft have done, and begun focusing on the drafts post-2005, the results would have been much different. By framing the debate the way they wanted, CHFF was able to make their claims without looking like rump swabs.

The reality is that BB is as good in the first round as anyone, and that his overall performance has been about as good as that of any team in the NFL. The reality is also that he had a multi-year period where he did a poor job with the draft.

It's not an either/or situation. It's an "and..." situation.

 

[IllegalContact]

an incedibly stupid article

he calls daniel graham a hit as a 1st rounder while LJ smith is a miss as a 2nd rounder? moronic

LOL at cunningham being a hit and last year's rookies as being misses.

the whole thing is too stupid to be even called biased

 

[plk]

The reality is that BB is as good in the first round as anyone, and that his overall performance has been about as good as that of any team in the NFL.

Wow. I didn't know that you understood that. I am quite amazed.

The reality is also that he had a multi-year period where he did a poor job with the draft.

Drafting is all a matter of probabilities, and any time you are dealing with probabilities, particularly with a small sample size, there will be runs of good and bad luck. (If you are flipping a coin, you don't just alternate heads and tails; you get amazingly long runs of just heads or just tails.)

Do you know of any general manager who has not had at least the same number of equally "bad" years?

 

[Calciumee]

calling Vereen, Dowling and Mallet misses is ******ed. Although Maroney was no star I wouldn't call him a complete bust either. He won the 07 afc championship game for us.

Didn't notice Mallett was on the list!

Maroney didn't work, he is a miss, not a bust! Ryan Leaf and Russell are busts!

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

calling Vereen, Dowling and Mallet misses is ******ed. Although Maroney was no star I wouldn't call him a complete bust either. He won the 07 afc championship game for us.

Pinkston was considered a hit because he was a 4 year starter( averaging 40 catches and 700 yards?) but Maroney was a bust and he was a 4 year starter????, Granted he was injured for most of one of those years... Calling Mallett a bust when he hasn't seen the field....
Garbage article.....

 

[Deus Irae]

...Drafting is all a matter of probabilities, and any time you are dealing with probabilities, particularly with a small sample size, there will be runs of good and bad luck. (If you are flipping a coin, you don't just alternate heads and tails; you get amazingly long runs of just heads or just tails.)

Drafting is not "all a matter of probabilities". Drafting is a matter of applying knowledge to talent and trying to accurately assess the probabilities of success with each individual player. If it was just probabilities, you could just run a randomizing program on a computer and draft whatever name it produced, regardless of round.

Do you know of any general manager who has not had at least the same number of equally "bad" years?

I haven't bothered to look at the draft history of every single general manager in an effort to determine such an irrelevant thing. What other teams do in the draft doesn't matter when we're discussing the highs and lows of what the Patriots have done, save in the most general terms (teams have highs and lows, etc...). It doesn't matter that the Giants may be a good/bad/indifferent drafting team, for example, but it matters that the Patriots chose Terrence Wheatley over Terrell Thomas in the second round of the 2008 draft.

How good opposing GMs are at drafting would matter if we were comparing GMs. Since I wasn't doing that at that point of my post, it's irrelevant.

 

[jmt57]

No one is as good as Belichick would have to be before some people would stop complaining. You can only evaluate a general manager's draft success by comparing him to other general manager's success. Otherwise you are like someone complaining that a hitter is only batting 0.333. He is only getting one hit out of every three at-bats. Surely a good hitter would be able to get at least two hits out of every three. A really good hitter, more than that.

Decade in the making: the ultimate NFL draft grades | Cold Hard Football Facts

agrees that Reid and Belichick are close and both very good.

This is one of the primary flaws whenever most people complain about how well (or poorly) a person or team drafts; they'll point out a percentage, but with no standard in regards to what is a good, average or poor percentage that number is meaningless. The second biggest flaw is that there is no standard to what is a good, average or poor (bust) pick; everyone seems to have there own fuzzy definition. The third major flaw is that far too many fall into the 'the team drafted Player X; they could have drafted Player Y' argument, which again is meaningless and irrelevant without any context of comparison to other teams.

 

[DW Toys]

The CHFF article extended the period being analyzed. That's how it managed to defend BB. Had it done what most people who've complained about the Patriots draft have done, and begun focusing on the drafts post-2005, the results would have been much different. By framing the debate the way they wanted, CHFF was able to make their claims without looking like rump swabs.

The reality is that BB is as good in the first round as anyone, and that his overall performance has been about as good as that of any team in the NFL. The reality is also that he had a multi-year period where he did a poor job with the draft.

It's not an either/or situation. It's an "and..." situation.

Good analyses. If anything it proves that his dumping top picks for lower quantity has been poor. If you dissect it further and see the lower round "misses", these are actually what BB turned the first rounders into. This validates the fact that his trading down makes a 51% top tier pick to be a good player into a 13% chance. He goes quantity in exchange for quality in his down trading.

I also don't buy the comeback "Well he acquired a first for the following year!" Come on Cousins, who buy into this? If he doesn't use the picks they are worthless until he does. Recycling first rounders every year does not make this roster stronger that year. There is no argument against that statement. He could be taking that recycled first rounder every year to his retirement. Fact is, that has never helped the Team. He is the best Coach in the business but He hits himself with a hammer because it feels so good when he stops! Meaning more talent to start with takes less time to produce the best player.
I love the underdog as much as the next guy, but this article further emphasizes some waste of his valuable time.

The correct theory is you use that added 1st round (or upper end of the Draft) pick to better your position to gain a more talented player. Well all his maneuvering to get more lower end Draft picks in quantity has not worked as his comparison to Reid suggests. Fact is Reid s success in lower end picks is about the same. Advantage of many picks stockpiled?.........Nyet!

No way to sugar coat that for the Koolaiders.
DW Toys

 

[plk]

Drafting is not "all a matter of probabilities". Drafting is a matter of applying knowledge to talent and trying to accurately assess the probabilities of success with each individual player.

Absolutely. It's a matter of picking the player with a 60% probability of success rather than the one with a 50% probability of success. In this example, you still have a 40% chance of failure, and sometimes, as in any gambling, you will have a string of those failures. I believe that a 50% chance of success in the second round is high, and it falls off very rapidly after that.

I haven't bothered to look at the draft history of every single general manager in an effort to determine such an irrelevant thing.

How would you know whether a baseball player batting 0.333 is good or bad except by looking at other batting averages.

How good opposing GMs are at drafting would matter if we were comparing GMs.

I thought the whole point of this was to evaluate the success of general managers in drafting, and the only realistic way to do that is to compare them to the best that anyone accomplishes, not to some ideal standard that no one meets.

 

[Deus Irae]

...How would you know whether a baseball player batting 0.333 is good or bad except by looking at other batting averages.

If a .333 hitter is only batting .250 in July, I don't need to compare him to other players to realize that he's not hitting up to his average.

I thought the whole point of this was to evaluate the success of general managers in drafting, and the only realistic way to do that is to compare them to the best that anyone accomplishes, not to some ideal standard that no one meets.

No you didn't, because you read my post. I was abundantly clear in what I wrote. You decided to take the homer route and defend the down cycle instead of just admitting the obvious, which was that there was a down cycle and that such a cycle was what people were pointing to, and that it's a perfectly valid criticism to point out that BB wasn't drafting well during that time.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is one of the primary flaws whenever most people complain about how well (or poorly) a person or team drafts; they'll point out a percentage, but with no standard in regards to what is a good, average or poor percentage that number is meaningless. The second biggest flaw is that there is no standard to what is a good, average or poor (bust) pick; everyone seems to have there own fuzzy definition. The third major flaw is that far too many fall into the 'the team drafted Player X; they could have drafted Player Y' argument, which again is meaningless and irrelevant without any context of comparison to other teams.

One of the primary flaws of the homers/defenders is that they fail to understand that there are two standards to use, and that they are used in different conversations. To take this out of the BB thing, since that seems to cause people to absolutely brainlock rather than admit the man was a pretty lousy GM for multiple seasons, just look at the QB.

When you compare Brady to the rest of the league, you say that he's the best in the game. However, when you are looking at Brady game by game, you say "He should have made that pass. He makes that 9 times out of 10". It doesn't matter if most QBs are 50/50 with that throw.

It's like general records. When a team sucks, it looks for improvement. When a team is mediocre, it looks to make the playoffs. When a team is a perennial playoff team, it looks for championships. Whether you think that's fair or unfair, that's the way it is, and that's how it is in all professional sports, not just with the Patriots fans.

 

[ATippett56]

It takes at least three full years to evaluate a draft class.

National Football League: NFL Draft History - by Team

Aside from Jerod Mayo and Matt Slater, the New England Patriots 2008 NFL Draft was terrible.

Aside from Pat Chung and Sebastian Vollmer, the the New England Patriots 2009 NFL Draft has been disappointing, to say the least.