DRAFT DAY DISCUSSION The Official Round 1 2013 NFL Draft Thread

[VJCPatriot]

LOL, I think you might be the one who needs to take a math course. The percentages you are multiplying would be the probability of ALL 4 picks panning out. That means we end up with 4 studs instead of one. But the fact is we don't need 4 studs to pan out to come out ahead.

If we get two good players out of four and Patterson is only good, we come out ahead. If Patterson busts, and we only get two good players out of four, we come out WAY AHEAD. If Patterson busts and we only get 1 good player out of four, we STILL come out ahead.

To put it simply -- It's harder to screw up 4 picks than 1. Basic math. Please don't try to give us math lessons, when the example you provide is obviously flawed.

Pats got a 4 for 1. You don't need to be a brainiac to know those odds are far more favorable. Go to any of your local bookies and ask him if 4 chances to win are better than 1. I think you'll get the same answer from each of them.

*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.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Why do people keep harping that this draft isn't deep? Its been widely known for a while that while the draft lacked high-end prospects, but the sweet spot of this years draft are rounds 2-4 where there will be a bunch of good players available. Now the Pats have 5 picks in that range to address any of the following: WR (maybe 2), DL, DB, coverage LB, G. Not to mention, they now have the flexibility to trade up to target specific players over the next few rounds. Plus as an added bonus, only two WR have come off the board in round 1, leaving a ton of talent available for rounds 2-3 including Allen, Woods, Wheaton, Hunter, etc.

i don't see the pats Drafting two WR's they may not even Draft one until round 4 a guy like Josh Boyce, if the pats use both picks in round two i think they will take Larry Warford, G and Jonathan Jenkins DT or Johnthan Banks CB

 

[shmessy]

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.

You are completely wrong.

If you look up from your calculator, someday you may learn that there are players on the field.

 

[TyronePoole]

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

no he has me on ignore which he'll probably alert everyone to shortly (it allows him to avoid addressing my arguments while continuing to carry on with his terribleness)

 

[Joker]

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.

967 totally negative anti-Patriots posts in a row

nice job

 

[Big Bucks]

Dear Minnesota Vikings,

Thank you for giving the Patriots your ENTIRE draft.

Lot's of LOL's..
Bill Belichick

Did they, I am sure they just took 3 first rounders hiome

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Overall depth doesn't mean a damned thing to a team that doesn't need "overall depth". The Patriots don't need to worry about QB depth. They don't need to worry about the quality of 6th round TEs.

They need specific positions dealt with.

 

[belichick010405]

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

That could happen too......and that would be pretty nice.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are completely wrong.

If you look up from your calculator, someday you may learn that there are players on the field.

I'm not wrong at all. You didn't bother actually reading the posts before responding with what you did.

Go back and reread them. It should help, if you're not just in troll mode again.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yeah, people claiming the Patriots killed on this overlook the big drop from #29.

The point differences get smaller now, though, so they can package picks and move up twice in round 2 while still keeping some of the later picks. The question is whether or not BB will actually pull the damned trigger instead of trying to corner the market on 7th round picks.

Agreed. It's anyone's guess what happens here, but I definitely hope that they get a pick in before the 50s. One thing that this team doesn't need is a bunch more backup-level talent.

 

[patsinthesnow]

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.

Well said. WR is definitely the priority as well as the slight hope of landing Cyprien at S.

I really don't want a tier 2 DE/DT (Hankins, Short, Hunt, Moore), wonder what BB will do there.

 

[belichick010405]

Overall depth doesn't mean a damned thing to a team that doesn't need "overall depth". The Patriots don't need to worry about QB depth. They don't need to worry about the quality of 6th round TEs.

They need specific positions dealt with.

Yea - except outside linebacker who knows how to cover a running back or a tight end. Right Deus?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Dear Minnesota Vikings,

Thank you for giving the Patriots your ENTIRE draft.

Lot's of LOL's..
Bill Belichick

They just picked 3 times in the first round. I'm pretty sure that they're fine with it if they don't pick again in this draft. It's basically a moderately more extreme version of what the Patriots did last year.

Makes sense to me. They're plugging in as much top-line talent as they can so that, when they finally get a good quarterback, they'll be able to hit the road running. Makes no sense to build a team full of lunch-pail overachievers when Matt Cassel is your quarterback.

 

[Brady2Moss]

LOL, I think you might be the one who needs to take a math course. The percentages you are multiplying would be the probability of ALL 4 picks panning out. That means we end up with 4 studs instead of one. But the fact is we don't need 4 studs to pan out to come out ahead.

If we get two good players out of four and Patterson is only good, we come out ahead. If Patterson busts, and we only get two good players out of four, we come out WAY AHEAD. If Patterson busts and we only get 1 good player out of four, we STILL come out ahead.

To put it simply -- It's harder to screw up 4 picks than 1. Basic math. Please don't try to give us math lessons, when the example you provide is obviously flawed.

Pats got a 4 for 1. You don't need to be a brainiac to know those odds are far more favorable. Go to any of your local bookies and ask him if 4 chances to win are better than 1. I think you'll get the same answer from each of them.

Guy said 60% < 30% +20% +15%

If he is adding them together what is he trying to do say they are all good or that the probability that 1 is good is higher? Either way its stupid. I expressly acknowledged that the percentages were if 3 panned out, if 2 panned out, and obviously if 1 pans out than thats a 30% chance.

Yes if we get 2 good players in lower rounds and they get a good player in the 1st we come out ahead. But because of the percentages that is unlikely. You really do not understand a thing about probability do you?

You think you've made some great point about percentages and how I don't understand it means that all 3 are hits (when I said it right in the post). And then turn around and say that if 2 of ours hits, which using his percentages would be a 7.5% chance of happening we come out ahead of the Vikings. Ya if something improbable happens we win That is the whole freaking point of my post we've now made it harder to draft impact players. Unless we trade up again.

 

[belichick010405]

no he has me on ignore which he'll probably alert everyone to shortly (it allows him to avoid addressing my arguments while continuing to carry on with his terribleness)

No way - me too. We should start a Deus the Ignored Fan Club.:rocker:

 

[Deus Irae]

...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.

I hear you. I've not opposed a trade down, and I wasn't complaining about the trade, despite the conclusion that some seemed to have jumped to. There are still good WRs an Ss on the board, and the Patriots have the ammo to trade up to get them will still having picks on the back end, which is what I was noting while agreeing with a poster who'd pointed out that the chart trade points were actually right where they should have been. Too many people here (not referring to yourself) seem to have ignored what was actually being posted.

 

[Brady2Moss]

967 totally negative anti-Patriots posts in a row

nice job

Sorry just supporting my point that our track record in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are not good when people are blatantly ignoring the track record and bringing up exceptions to the rule to disprove my point.

Maybe I should incoherently ramble in italics because that adds a lot to the board.

 

[Peachhead]

We didn't draft the next perennial all pro superstar at 29. If we don't draft a honey badger, **** BB.

I'll go on record to say that IMO Honey Badger won't even be in the league long enough for his second contract. Be it multiple failed drug tests or just general boneheaded-ness.

 

[TyronePoole]

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

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.

so as predicted he "accidentally" unchecked everyone on ignore so that he could alert everyone that he's not actually ignoring my argument, he's just above it because i'm an unthinking ankle biter or something.

What can I say? Lol analytics I guess, the truth is just a popularity contest, all hail the infallible value chart and long live Joe Morgan. Something that is the norm and still in use can never be flawed or completely stupid especially when we have a pantheon of masterminds who like to punt from fourth and short past the 50 yard line in charge.

 

[belichick010405]

Sorry just supporting my point that our track record in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are not good when people are blatantly ignoring the track record and bringing up exceptions to the rule to disprove my point.

Maybe I should incoherently ramble in italics because that adds a lot to the board.

Maybe you should check what Caserio (you know the guy that replaced Pioli) and BB have done over the last three years because that is what Caserio's track record is.