DRAFT DAY DISCUSSION The Official Round 1 2013 NFL Draft Thread

[Brady2Moss]

1. - Obviously the later you draft, the lower your probability of success
   
2. - Also consider the possibility that 60%+0%+0% < 30%+25%+15%
   
3. - As I said previously, it seems odd to rate a draft that has not yet happened
   
4. - Honey Badger? That's the answer? Seriously?

*Yes it is blatantly obvious which is why in a crap draft moving back to riskier rounds when you need impact players for the end of Brady's career isn't a move to immediately fawn over. A 1st round pick is more likely to contribute than later round picks because those are guys that need to develop.

*Consider reviewing your middle school math class notes on probability. The probability that a 2nd 3rd and 4th round pick all do not bust using your percentages is not an addition problem its .30 times .25 times .125. That equals 0.011 a 1.1% chance all 3 work out which is sure as hell less than the 60% chance a first round player works out. The chance that 2 of those players work out is .30 times .25 which equals 7.5%. Good job proving that this is more likely to result in quality players though

*You can use past trends to note that this is not some huge coupe by Belichick unless all you care about is the "value chart" maybe he hits on all 3 doubt it though.

*Honey Badger has some balls unlike 95% of the players on this roster that get beat down into submission every playoff game when they aren't getting off to a quick lead. The team is full of front runners.

I'll let you get back to fawning over a 8 point beat down by Belichick on the trade value chart.

 

[mjs34]

In just the last 3 years:

Cunningham, Hernandez, Bequette, Gronkowski, Wilson, Spikes, Ridley, Vereen, Mallett......

Your point?

Your citing Cunningham, Bequette, Wilson , Mallett, and Vereen?

Seriously?

 

[Deus Irae]

In just the last 3 years:

Cunningham, Hernandez, Bequette, Gronkowski, Wilson, Spikes, Ridley, Vereen, Mallett......

Your point?

Mallett, Wilson, Bequette, Cunningham....

All players who don't belong in your response. They fit his response much better, to date.

 

[Brady2Moss]

In just the last 3 years:

Cunningham, Hernandez, Bequette, Gronkowski, Wilson, Spikes, Ridley, Vereen, Mallett......

Your point?

He's been slightly better the last 3 years which is exactly why you left out the entire sample of bust after bust in these rounds.

HAHA Cunningham, Bequette, Mallett? That's my exact point your going to add more players like that when you need impact guys.

Cunningham sucks and has always sucked. Bequette was active for maybe 1 game. and Mallett is a backup QB that has shown nothing in the NFL.

Vereen has had 1 good game in his life lets hold the horses on that and Wilson did what exactly last year?

 

[MrNathanDrake]

We could use a WR, OL Depth, CB Depth

 

[reflexblue]

Given that the Patriots only got chart value, I'd say your post doesn't really apply. You'll claim differently, in all likelihood, but the numbers are what the numbers are.

Maybe we should wait and see what the picks are before we say the picks are before we decide that they are only chart value.

 

[reflexblue]

I don't understand why so many posters are so shocked by BB trading out of the #29th position, thats pretty much been his MO for years.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Mallett, Wilson, Bequette, Cunningham....

All players who don't belong in your response. They fit his response much better, to date.

I think the point was that picks in this range have about a 50/50 shot at turning into valuable contributors. Putting the Cunninghams and Bequettes in there with the Gronkowkis and Vollmers bears that point out, and also makes it clear that he's not cherrypicking to support his point (an act which I'm pretty sure annoys you as much as it annoys me).

If they don't see anyone as being significantly more of a slam dunk at 29 than guys who will be available 15 picks later, then why not trade back and get a couple of more picks in that range? Even in the likely event that one of them ends up being a Butler/Cunningham/Bequette, chances are good that the other will be a Gronk/Vollmer/Spikes.

Add in the fact that #29 could easily bust, plus the chance that they could well hit on multiple of the picks that they got back, and I can at the very least understand why the Pats made the trade. If nobody's wowing them at 29, then they might as well trade back to dramatically increase their chances of getting at least one (and possible more) valuable contributor.

I agree with you to the point that, when the talent is there, I much prefer to stay put or trade up than to trade down. The 2013 Patriots would benefit more from one A-level player than two B's and a C. But if the Pats think that there are no more A's left, and there are a ton of B's still out there, then it makes sense purely as a risk mitigation move.

This also gives the Pats enough picks to try to address S, DE, G and WR, and I think we can all agree that that's a good thing. Now let's hope they make those picks count for something, and we don't end up with three more Jake Bequettes.

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe we should wait and see what the picks are before we say the picks are before we decide that they are only chart value.

Why would you have to do that, when we're talking about points value of the trade? The numbers are the numbers. Do you expect the numbers to trade based upon who's taken?

If so, you need to brush up on how the draft trade value chart works.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the point was that picks in this range have about a 50/50 shot at turning into valuable contributors. So if you don't see anyone as being significantly more of a slam dunk at 29 than guys who will be available 15 picks later, then why not trade back and get a couple of more picks in that range? Even in the likely event that one of them ends up being a Butler/Cunningham/Bequette, changes are good that the other will be a Gronk/Vollmer/Spikes.

If that's the point, then the point is wrong. There's no 50/50 split below round 2.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Trade 52 and the 4th to 42-43, and land one of the remaining tier 1 WRs (ALLEN!!!, Woods, Hunter)

42-WR
59
83
91

One of the 3rds is obviously for Honey badger...that leaves us with a 3rd and a 2nd for a tier 2 WR and another position.

 

[shmessy]

Given that the Patriots only got chart value, I'd say your post doesn't really apply. You'll claim differently, in all likelihood, but the numbers are what the numbers are.

They're drafting players, not numbers.

There is a difference between drafts.

Like I said earlier, I'm no draftnik (I have better things to do with my time), but what most analysts of this thing are saying is that this was NOT a top-heavy draft at all. If what they say is true, the trade down makes a lot of sense.

 

[12+81=TD]

Dear Minnesota Vikings,

Thank you for giving the Patriots your ENTIRE draft.

Lot's of LOL's..
Bill Belichick

 

[TyronePoole]

Given that the Patriots only got chart value, I'd say your post doesn't really apply. You'll claim differently, in all likelihood, but the numbers are what the numbers are.

hard to figure out what's dumber, the chart or this post..

http://datascopeanalytics.com/what-we-think/2012/04/22/nfl-draft-value-chart-controversy

Each draft pick is assigned a value so that general managers can decide whether it is a good deal to trade the #3 pick (2200 points) for picks in rounds two (270-580 points) and three (116-265 points). Was this draft-pick value chart developed based on data? No. It was a qualitative guesstimate that, as others have discussed, has serious flaws that we explore a bit more here...

This is bad, I mean really bad. Teams that still use this old draft value chart are getting absolutely fleeced by more savvy GMs in the league. For early picks in the first and second round, the old draft value chart overvalues those picks while later rounds are substantially undervalued (see inset). A key draft strategy against teams in the stone age is to trade down while you are in the first two rounds and trade up if you are in later rounds (Kevin Meers claims that you should never trade up!).

But hey da numbers are what da numbers are derp de derp

 

[Deus Irae]

Trade 52 and the 4th to 42-43, and land one of the remaining tier 1 WRs (ALLEN!!!, Woods, Hunter)

42-WR
59
83
91

One of the 3rds is obviously for Honey badger...that leaves us with a 3rd and a 2nd for whatever.

Something like this. They've got the ammo to move up on both 2nd round picks while still keeping a 3rd rounder. I've been fine with that from the start. My point about the trade down has been that I don't want them below the teams that could run the WRs off the table. Trading above that tomorrow would solve the problem.

 

[belichick010405]

hard to figure out what's dumber, the chart or this post..

NFL Draft Value Chart Controversy | Datascope Analytics



But hey da numbers are what da numbers are derp de derp

Tyrone - don't worry. He is going to tell you that you are wrong too.

 

[Brady2Moss]

In just the last 3 years:

Cunningham, Hernandez, Bequette, Gronkowski, Wilson, Spikes, Ridley, Vereen, Mallett......

Your point?

You very very very conveniently went back 3 years instead of 4.
Maybe this is why

2nd -Chung (garbage)
2nd -Brace (garbage)
2nd -Butler (garbage)
2nd -Vollmer (great pick)
3rd -Tate (garbage)
3rd -McKenzie (garbage)
4th -Rich Ohrnberger (garbage)

Nice job.

 

[BKBroiler]

What's widely known is that some positions were deep, but some were weak through and through, and others were fairly top heavy. That's not the same as being deep all the way through.

1) Good job explaining to everyone how the talent has been spread out across positions in pretty much every draft over the past 20+ years.

2) As I said before, rounds 2-4 have a lot of good talent remaining. Whether there are two at a position or ten at a position that falls into this group of 60-70+ players, overall there is a lot of depth remaining for tomorrow's rounds and the early rounds on Saturday.

 

[IllegalContact]

2a CB Jonathan banks
2b de margus hunt
3a wr Ryan swope
3b te Jordan reed
4a wr da'rick Rogers

 

[Deus Irae]

hard to figure out what's dumber, the chart or this post..

NFL Draft Value Chart Controversy | Datascope Analytics



But hey da numbers are what da numbers are derp de derp

Oops, my mistake. When I unchecked everyone on ignore, that meant that an unthinking ankle biter like yourself, who thoughtlessly asserts a minority opinion post somehow discredits something that was clearly still in use as the norm, was pushed off it, too. I'll remedy that right now.

Bye, again.