JC Jackson has the best passer rating allowed in the NFL

[ivanvamp]

This is false. It's your opinion, which is wrong. Again we've let a lot of players pass us by in RD1, 2 etc That has nithnot to do with the trade chart & everything to do with missing on players/being wrong on prospects.

It's not my opinion. Its a fact.

Again using the trade chart to prove we're selecting lesser prospects is incredibly dumb on so many levels.

It's a "fact" that teams drafting at the end of each round are at a drafting disadvantage compared to teams that draft earlier. It's literally how the system is designed to work.

Nobody has said we're drafting "lesser prospects" with our picks. You're making that up out of thin air. The point is that you're in a worse draft POSITION by picking 32nd than you are if you pick 23rd. That's objectively true.

Anyone who argues otherwise is a complete, utter moron.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

It's a "fact" that teams drafting at the end of each round are at a drafting disadvantage compared to teams that draft earlier. It's literally how the system is designed to work.

Nobody has said we're drafting "lesser prospects" with our picks. You're making that up out of thin air. The point is that you're in a worse draft POSITION by picking 32nd than you are if you pick 23rd. That's objectively true.

Anyone who argues otherwise is a complete, utter moron.

Yes @ivanvamp, 32 is higher than 23. That's your point? Bc you're not making another one anywhere in this thread besides your opinion.

If you're saying we're looking at lesser prospects bc we pick later that's false & again it's fact, not my opinion.

Look at this past draft & every other one. Some of the best players in each draft will come after RD1. Every. Single. Draft. Fact.

Who's the best rookie LB this year? Best pass rusher? Literally every year mid-late-udfa RB's are putting up insane #'s.

And for w/e "disadvantage" we supposedly have picking later Bill has never had to worry about the most important spot on the team for a second, the QB position.

He's a HOF HC/GM. He doesn't need people making sh it for him.

Again either bring facts or just admit it's your opinion.

 

[1960Pats]

I literally walked through how this works according to the points chart. I compared the #1 pick team with the #16 pick team (middle of the pack) with the #32 pick team.

JC Jackson has the best passer rating allowed in the NFL

And that extra first round pick may be the "only" advantage, but that's ENORMOUS. You are making it seem like it's really not much of a big deal, when it's a HUGE HUGE deal. It's a big deal for one year. Now play that scenario out over the course of 18 years and you see that the Pats - not even counting the lost picks due to the stupid penalties the NFL hit them with - have been essentially been drafting with a huge handicap year in and year out.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself accurately. I agree that there's a disadvantage to picking 32nd vs 23rd, that's obvious, but my point is that it isn't the huge disadvantage that you and some others claim.

I'll be stepping out of this discussion now since you've answered the questions that I had in other responses since this one.

Thank you for the time and effort.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Not even remotely true.

Back in 1989, Jimmy Johnson was looking for a way to gain an advantage in trade transactions involving draft picks (similar to the advantages he'd enjoyed at Miami in recruiting top HS prospects). He had a couple stat geeks in the Cowboys front office compile a history of all picks-for-picks transactions, and then quantify the value exchanged, in relation to what part of a given round was involved. Obviously, a late-2nd is closer in value to an early-3rd than it is to an early-2nd - but nobody had ever bothered to try to calculate the potential value difference before.

Where actual past transactions didn't exist for specific draft picks or ranges of picks, the geeks extrapolated values and adjusted them until all the historical transactions balanced, more or less.

Johnson kept this chart exclusively in-house, and then used it for the rest of his tenure in Dallas to wrangle more pick value out of trades than going purely by back-of-the-envelope history would support. IOW, he was more able to negotiate good deals than his trading partners could.

Contrary to Chase Stuart's claim, the chart was never intended to place a value on the prospect selected at a certain spot. How could it, when those selections hadn't happened yet? The chart was intended solely to reflect how teams had historically valued various places in the "buffet line."

I'm not making this up. This is pretty much what Jimmy Johnson himself has said about the development and intent of the chart.

When Johnson left Dallas at the end of 1993, he took a copy of the chart with him. Even before that, though, scouts and other front office personnel who left the Cowboys for other teams had taken copies with them. So, by the time Johnson became the HC of the 'Fins in 1996, his draft chart had been widely adopted, and had become (informally) a "standard" reference tool for many teams. Because it worked. Even now, although many teams have made their own slight customized adjustments to the values, Johnson's original chart is still the basis for most pick-trade transactions.

A few years back, inspired by AdamJT's work in maintaining a record of such transactions, I reviewed ALL pick-trade transactions back to 1995, transposing the selection numbers into chart values to see how close each transaction came to "balancing".

As it turns out, trades involving top-5 picks have often deviated wildly from chart values (no surprise) - but in both directions - especially before the rookie wage scale was imposed. Deviations have been a bit less frequently "wild" since, but teams holding top picks sometimes still charge a "premium" above chart values, and also sometimes will "sell at discount". For picks #6-#10, the deviations from chart values typically have been much smaller, usually less than 10% "out of balance".

Furthermore, working down from about pick #11 through the rest of the draft, more than 90% of all picks-for-picks transactions come within 4% of actual chart values, with many coming within 2% of balancing exactly.

IOW, the "common wisdom" that the chart is arbitrary and doesn't reflect reality is completely incorrect.

I stand corrected and also learned something. Good stuff.

 

[maineman209]

It's a "fact" that teams drafting at the end of each round are at a drafting disadvantage compared to teams that draft earlier. It's literally how the system is designed to work.

Nobody has said we're drafting "lesser prospects" with our picks. You're making that up out of thin air. The point is that you're in a worse draft POSITION by picking 32nd than you are if you pick 23rd. That's objectively true.

Anyone who argues otherwise is a complete, utter moron.

Well, the draft being organized like a buffet line does offer an advantage to those who are selecting earlier. There's more to choose from, obviously.

However, the advantage offered by selecting earlier is only realized if the person doing the selecting chooses wisely and well. That doesn't always happen.

This is why I consistently argue against the notion that the #10 spot is worth more than the #30 spot because the prospects selected at #10 become superior NFL players. They don't always.

The only value in selecting earlier is the better opportunity to (potentially) select a "better" prospect.

What makes a prospect "better" in the eyes of the choosers - "better" in the sense that they're projected to be more likely to develop into superior NFL players? It's not entirely objective. It consists of a few things that can be directly measured and tested, a few other things that are quantified (though often out of context), personal impressions, and (mostly) second-hand or third-hand "eyeball tests" -- all of which "information" is then filtered through the "wisdom", the ego and/or insecurities of the decision-maker.

Frankly, I'm astonished that early first-round picks turn out well as often as they do.

So, the disadvantage for BB picking at #32 versus picking at #1 is that there are 31 fewer prospects to choose from. However, there are typically about 3,000 draft-eligible prospects every year - roughly 300 of which may be considered "draft-worthy" by a consensus of 3rd-party observers and the teams themselves. So, when BB picks at #32, he still has about 90% of those to choose from. Given that at least a few of the 10% who are already off the board in any given draft are going to bust (or turn out to be no "better" at playing in the NFL than several prospects who were selected later), BB may still have 92% or more of the "best" prospects to choose from.

While it's true that the "10% advantage" that the team picking at #1 has over the team picking at #32 appears to compound with each successive round, it probably doesn't in a literal sense - because the difference in the likelihood that a prospect picked early in a given round will become a better player than a prospect picked at the end of that same round also declines with each successive round.

So, yes, there is an advantage to having the opportunity to select earlier rather than later, and that advantage is quantifiable to some degree, but, in practice, it may not be as large as the numbers would seem to suggest. If it was, the Jete, the Bills, the Browns, and the Lions might all have won at least one championship over the past couple decades.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This thread is beyond off topic

More tire pumping for JC Jackson..

Lazar Focus: Patriots Cornerback JC Jackson | CLNS Media

 

[TB_Helmet]

Well, the draft being organized like a buffet line does offer an advantage to those who are selecting earlier. There's more to choose from, obviously.

However, the advantage offered by selecting earlier is only realized if the person doing the selecting chooses wisely and well. That doesn't always happen.

This is why I consistently argue against the notion that the #10 spot is worth more than the #30 spot because the prospects selected at #10 become superior NFL players. They don't always.

The only value in selecting earlier is the better opportunity to (potentially) select a "better" prospect.

What makes a prospect "better" in the eyes of the choosers - "better" in the sense that they're projected to be more likely to develop into superior NFL players? It's not entirely objective. It consists of a few things that can be directly measured and tested, a few other things that are quantified (though often out of context), personal impressions, and (mostly) second-hand or third-hand "eyeball tests" -- all of which "information" is then filtered through the "wisdom", the ego and/or insecurities of the decision-maker.

Frankly, I'm astonished that early first-round picks turn out well as often as they do.

So, the disadvantage for BB picking at #32 versus picking at #1 is that there are 31 fewer prospects to choose from. However, there are typically about 3,000 draft-eligible prospects every year - roughly 300 of which may be considered "draft-worthy" by a consensus of 3rd-party observers and the teams themselves. So, when BB picks at #32, he still has about 90% of those to choose from. Given that at least a few of the 10% who are already off the board in any given draft are going to bust (or turn out to be no "better" at playing in the NFL than several prospects who were selected later), BB may still have 92% or more of the "best" prospects to choose from.

While it's true that the "10% advantage" that the team picking at #1 has over the team picking at #32 appears to compound with each successive round, it probably doesn't in a literal sense - because the difference in the likelihood that a prospect picked early in a given round will become a better player than a prospect picked at the end of that same round also declines with each successive round.

So, yes, there is an advantage to having the opportunity to select earlier rather than later, and that advantage is quantifiable to some degree, but, in practice, it may not be as large as the numbers would seem to suggest. If it was, the Jete, the Bills, the Browns, and the Lions might all have won at least one championship over the past couple decades.

Still:



From a Panthers blog (sorry). With all the caveats that come with using Pro Bowl as a metric of success, this shows there is a clear advantage in having early draft picks.

What draft position tells us about finding Pro Bowlers and regular contributors

 

[mgteich]

Yup, Belichick rates lots of prospects highly that others rate as 6th or 7th rounders or UDFA's. With some he waits and get a great flyers. On others, he picks them early, and posters go nuts. What would everyone have said if Jackson had be drafted in the 3rd? If there are only a couple of db's that Belichick is interested, then he'll draft one that he wants, and sometimes very early.

It seems to me that BB has explained more than once that they'll take a prospect who he, Caserio, and the scouts have highly-rated - when they need to, based mostly on their perception of the amount of interest that other teams have in that prospect.

IOW, if they have two prospects who they've rated the same, but one of them seems to be in high demand and the other isn't, they'll take the first one earlier and wait on the second one. Same deal from round-to-round, all the way down to the 6th/7th and UDFA, when the difference in prospect ratings between a 6th and a UDFA may be negligible.

 

[Ring 6]

Still:



From a Panthers blog (sorry). With all the caveats that come with using Pro Bowl as a metric of success, this shows there is a clear advantage in having early draft picks.

What draft position tells us about finding Pro Bowlers and regular contributors

If you pick 23rd there are only 22 players selected before your pick.
If I pick 32nd there are 31 players selected before my pick.
Unless I hate your pick as well as the next 8 then I am at a disadvantage.
Teams give up picks to move up.
It’s a no brainer that picking higher is an advantage but that doesn’t mean higher picks are always used well.

 

[Ring 6]

Yup, Belichick rates lots of prospects highly that others rate as 6th or 7th rounders or UDFA's. With some he waits and get a great flyers. On others, he picks them early, and posters go nuts. What would everyone have said if Jackson had be drafted in the 3rd? If there are only a couple of db's that Belichick is interested, then he'll draft one that he wants, and sometimes very early.

I’ve heard that most teams only get to the top 100-150 players on their board.
After the top 50 or so there is nothing close to a common agreement about where players rank.

 

[maineman209]

Still:



From a Panthers blog (sorry). With all the caveats that come with using Pro Bowl as a metric of success, this shows there is a clear advantage in having early draft picks.

What draft position tells us about finding Pro Bowlers and regular contributors

Ummm .... the thing is that being voted to the Pro Bowl is at least 50% winning a popularity contest among fans. Given that the top prospects in a given draft are already pretty famous among NFL fans before they're even selected, they kinda start out with popularity advantages that successful prospects from later rounds may never enjoy to the same degree.

Making the All-Pro team may be a slightly better measure, but neither is sufficient (to me) for this kind of evaluation.

 

[maineman209]

Yup, Belichick rates lots of prospects highly that others rate as 6th or 7th rounders or UDFA's. With some he waits and get a great flyers. On others, he picks them early, and posters go nuts. What would everyone have said if Jackson had be drafted in the 3rd? If there are only a couple of db's that Belichick is interested, then he'll draft one that he wants, and sometimes very early.

Again, the point in the draft that BB takes a prospect that he and his team have rated highly depends mostly on what they know (or think they know) about the prospect's "popularity" among teams that are in line behind them - information that we'll likely never have access to (and draft "analysts" probably won't either).

Just because Kiperdoodle and his buddies aren't particularly familiar with a prospect and they have him ranked as a 7th-rounder doesn't mean that all the other teams but the Pats feel the same way.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Ummm .... the thing is that being voted to the Pro Bowl is at least 50% winning a popularity contest among fans. Given that the top prospects in a given draft are already pretty famous among NFL fans before they're even selected, they kinda start out with popularity advantages that successful prospects from later rounds may never enjoy to the same degree.

Making the All-Pro team may be a slightly better measure, but neither is sufficient (to me) for this kind of evaluation.

Yeah, like I said it’s not a perfect metric. But it’s not that far off. Most people in the Pro Bowl deserve to be there. Certainly there aren’t enough errors made by the fans to invalidate the conclusions put forth by that chart.

 

[maineman209]

Yeah, like I said it’s not a perfect metric. But it’s not that far off. Most people in the Pro Bowl deserve to be there. Certainly there aren’t enough errors made by the fans to invalidate the conclusions put forth by that chart.

Yeah, I'm not saying that the fans ever vote in totally undeserving schlubs.

However popularity with fans often makes the difference between two players (or more) who are of arguably equal value, production-wise. Fans also often seem to vote for older stars over younger players who may be slightly more productive, but much less famous.

And the influence of fan popularity probably varies greatly from position to position ... a huge difference in O-line winners, for instance.

The whole "one guy gets the value points while the others get zero" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to give a lot of weight to in player value calculations. There are far more objective measures that are more meaningful.

 

[ivanvamp]

Yes @ivanvamp, 32 is higher than 23. That's your point? Bc you're not making another one anywhere in this thread besides your opinion.

Have you followed this whole discussion? It sure feels like you're jumping into the middle of it without understanding the context, so I'll explain again.

Some people here argue that BB sucks at drafting. And I simply pointed out that any evaluation of BB's drafting needs to take into consideration the fact that the Pats, year-in and year-out, are drafting at or towards the end of each round (unless they make trades). So that puts them at a drafting disadvantage.

This is so obviously true that I cannot believe anyone with even half a brain is arguing against it.

And yet....some people are.

It doesn't mean that the Pats always get lesser players. Obviously. Drafting isn't a science, and nobody can really take into account random injuries or whatever that may derail promising careers. So ultimate outcomes have many factors besides actual draft acumen.

But when you're routinely drafting at the end of every round, yes, that disadvantage really really really adds up. And that's by DESIGN. When they designed the draft this way, it was meant to give worse teams a leg up in acquiring new talent, and forcing better teams to have to wait. It's a way to even the overall playing field vis-a-vis the talent pool.

This is objectively true.

And to help illustrate it, I used the draft value chart to help get a sense of it. If you don't like it, tough crap.

If you're saying we're looking at lesser prospects bc we pick later that's false & again it's fact, not my opinion.

NOBODY. IS. SAYING. THAT. Who KNOWS which prospects ACTUALLY are lesser than others? Drafting is an art, not a science.

But it is objectively true that drafting last gives you fewer players from which to choose. Every team ahead of you gets more players - and if they're halfway competent, more QUALITY players - from which to choose. Whether they ACTUALLY select a higher quality player, who knows.

Look at this past draft & every other one. Some of the best players in each draft will come after RD1. Every. Single. Draft. Fact.

No kidding. Who ever suggested otherwise?

Who's the best rookie LB this year? Best pass rusher? Literally every year mid-late-udfa RB's are putting up insane #'s.

And for w/e "disadvantage" we supposedly have picking later Bill has never had to worry about the most important spot on the team for a second, the QB position.

And yet he's drafted NINE quarterbacks since Brady:

2002 - Rohan Davey
2003 - Kliff Kingsbury
2005 - Matt Cassel
2008 - Kevin O'Connell
2010 - Zac Robinson
2011 - Ryan Mallett
2014 - Jimmy Garoppolo
2016 - Jacoby Brissett
2018 - Danny Etling

That's nine QBs drafted in 17 seasons following their first SB victory, or about one QB every two years. QB is always a need, even if it's not a STARTING need.

He's a HOF HC/GM. He doesn't need people making sh it for him.

Again either bring facts or just admit it's your opinion.

Oh just stop it. You've brought literally nothing to the table in this conversation.

 

[ivanvamp]

Well, the draft being organized like a buffet line does offer an advantage to those who are selecting earlier. There's more to choose from, obviously.

However, the advantage offered by selecting earlier is only realized if the person doing the selecting chooses wisely and well. That doesn't always happen.

This is why I consistently argue against the notion that the #10 spot is worth more than the #30 spot because the prospects selected at #10 become superior NFL players. They don't always.

The only value in selecting earlier is the better opportunity to (potentially) select a "better" prospect.

What makes a prospect "better" in the eyes of the choosers - "better" in the sense that they're projected to be more likely to develop into superior NFL players? It's not entirely objective. It consists of a few things that can be directly measured and tested, a few other things that are quantified (though often out of context), personal impressions, and (mostly) second-hand or third-hand "eyeball tests" -- all of which "information" is then filtered through the "wisdom", the ego and/or insecurities of the decision-maker.

Frankly, I'm astonished that early first-round picks turn out well as often as they do.

So, the disadvantage for BB picking at #32 versus picking at #1 is that there are 31 fewer prospects to choose from. However, there are typically about 3,000 draft-eligible prospects every year - roughly 300 of which may be considered "draft-worthy" by a consensus of 3rd-party observers and the teams themselves. So, when BB picks at #32, he still has about 90% of those to choose from. Given that at least a few of the 10% who are already off the board in any given draft are going to bust (or turn out to be no "better" at playing in the NFL than several prospects who were selected later), BB may still have 92% or more of the "best" prospects to choose from.

While it's true that the "10% advantage" that the team picking at #1 has over the team picking at #32 appears to compound with each successive round, it probably doesn't in a literal sense - because the difference in the likelihood that a prospect picked early in a given round will become a better player than a prospect picked at the end of that same round also declines with each successive round.

So, yes, there is an advantage to having the opportunity to select earlier rather than later, and that advantage is quantifiable to some degree, but, in practice, it may not be as large as the numbers would seem to suggest. If it was, the Jete, the Bills, the Browns, and the Lions might all have won at least one championship over the past couple decades.

That's all reflected in the draft value chart, really. For example, consider the difference between the 1st and 32nd picks in each round:

1st: 3000 - 590 - difference of 2410
2nd: 580 - 270 - difference of 300
3rd: 265 - 116 - difference of 149
4th: 96 - 40 - difference of 56
5th: 36.5 - 23.4 - difference of 13.1
6th: 21 - 8.6 - difference of 12.4
7th: 3.4 - 1 - difference of 2.4

So yeah, you're 100% right. The relative difference between 1st and 32nd picks in the later rounds is minimal compared to the difference between the 1st and 32nd picks in the first round. The chart reflects that reality.

That's why the guy arguing that once you remove the worse team's 1st round pick, it all evens out is being absurd - because in order to make it even....you have to *remove the worse team's most valuable commodity*, the first round pick.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Have you followed this whole discussion? It sure feels like you're jumping into the middle of it without understanding the context, so I'll explain again.

Some people here argue that BB sucks at drafting. And I simply pointed out that any evaluation of BB's drafting needs to take into consideration the fact that the Pats, year-in and year-out, are drafting at or towards the end of each round (unless they make trades). So that puts them at a drafting disadvantage.

This is so obviously true that I cannot believe anyone with even half a brain is arguing against it.

And yet....some people are.

It doesn't mean that the Pats always get lesser players. Obviously. Drafting isn't a science, and nobody can really take into account random injuries or whatever that may derail promising careers. So ultimate outcomes have many factors besides actual draft acumen.

But when you're routinely drafting at the end of every round, yes, that disadvantage really really really adds up. And that's by DESIGN. When they designed the draft this way, it was meant to give worse teams a leg up in acquiring new talent, and forcing better teams to have to wait. It's a way to even the overall playing field vis-a-vis the talent pool.

This is objectively true.

And to help illustrate it, I used the draft value chart to help get a sense of it. If you don't like it, tough crap.



NOBODY. IS. SAYING. THAT. Who KNOWS which prospects ACTUALLY are lesser than others? Drafting is an art, not a science.

But it is objectively true that drafting last gives you fewer players from which to choose. Every team ahead of you gets more players - and if they're halfway competent, more QUALITY players - from which to choose. Whether they ACTUALLY select a higher quality player, who knows.



No kidding. Who ever suggested otherwise?



And yet he's drafted NINE quarterbacks since Brady:

2002 - Rohan Davey
2003 - Kliff Kingsbury
2005 - Matt Cassel
2008 - Kevin O'Connell
2010 - Zac Robinson
2011 - Ryan Mallett
2014 - Jimmy Garoppolo
2016 - Jacoby Brissett
2018 - Danny Etling

That's nine QBs drafted in 17 seasons following their first SB victory, or about one QB every two years. QB is always a need, even if it's not a STARTING need.



Oh just stop it. You've brought literally nothing to the table in this conversation.

You've proved yourself clueless & are embarrassing yourself.

You also contradicted yourself in less than 30 letters after saying you're not trying to say the Pats are looking at lesser players bc they pick late.

That's absolutely 100% false.

Your only other point is 32 is higher than 23 etc, congrats.

Again you have 0 facts to prove that. While I can name countless good-great players that were graded high by many, that we overlooked.

You're assuming the best players are taken in order 1-32 & teams don't make mistakes that cause good players to fall.

LOL Using the trade chart to prove this. If this guy has a friend please PM him & save him from more embarrassment please. Or at least construct an argument an adult could make.

 

[ivanvamp]

You've proved yourself clueless & are embarrassing yourself.

You also contradicted yourself in less than 30 letters after saying you're not trying to say the Pats are looking at lesser players bc they pick late.

That's absolutely 100% false.

Your only other point is 32 is higher than 23 etc, congrats.

Again you have 0 facts to prove that. While I can name countless good-great players that were graded high by many, that we overlooked.

You're assuming the best players are taken in order 1-32 & teams don't make mistakes that cause good players to fall.

LOL Using the trade chart to prove this. If this guy has a friend please PM him & save him from more embarrassment please. Or at least construct an argument an adult could make.

1. Why do you think the NFL has worse teams pick ahead of better teams in the draft? Why does the worst team pick first in each round and the best team pick last?

2. If you gave any NFL head coach or GM the opportunity to pick in any of the 32 spots in each round, where would they pick and why? Where's the LAST place they'd choose to pick and why?

I'll give you a chance to answer these elementary questions before I start ignoring you. Let's see how you do.

 

[Tony2046]

Yes @ivanvamp, 32 is higher than 23. That's your point? Bc you're not making another one anywhere in this thread besides your opinion.

If you're saying we're looking at lesser prospects bc we pick later that's false & again it's fact, not my opinion.

Look at this past draft & every other one. Some of the best players in each draft will come after RD1. Every. Single. Draft. Fact.

Who's the best rookie LB this year? Best pass rusher? Literally every year mid-late-udfa RB's are putting up insane #'s.

And for w/e "disadvantage" we supposedly have picking later Bill has never had to worry about the most important spot on the team for a second, the QB position.

He's a HOF HC/GM. He doesn't need people making sh it for him.

Again either bring facts or just admit it's your opinion.

This "might be the dumbest fuc kin thing I've ever heard".

Seriously, from now on I'm ordering LT's. Screw the BLT's because the Bacon makes me want to puke.

"Der her..... the teams picking #1 have the same advantages as the team picking #32..... hyuck yuck...."

 

[ivanvamp]

This "might be the dumbest fuc kin thing I've ever heard".

Seriously, from now on I'm ordering LT's. Screw the BLT's because the Bacon makes me want to puke.

"Der her..... the teams picking #1 have the same advantages as the team picking #32..... hyuck yuck...."

Shhhh... because there are good players drafted late in rounds, or in later rounds, that proves that there's no advantage to drafting earlier in rounds. Don't you get it?