- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,963
- Reaction score
- 13,331
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.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.
Wow. I didn't know that you understood that. I am quite amazed.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.
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.)The reality is also that he had a multi-year period where he did a poor job with the draft.
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.
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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.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.
How would you know whether a baseball player batting 0.333 is good or bad except by looking at other batting averages.I haven't bothered to look at the draft history of every single general manager in an effort to determine such an irrelevant thing.
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.How good opposing GMs are at drafting would matter if we were comparing GMs.
...How would you know whether a baseball player batting 0.333 is good or bad except by looking at other batting averages.
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.
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.