“Bears have only one pick in the top 50!”

[JoJoBoxer]

You're talking about exceptions. That's eight players out of 320 second round picks in the last decade. Do you want to bump it up to the entirety of the third round? That's 640 picks in 10 years. That's a hit rate of 1.2-percent.

I understand that math is hard but try and deal with reality.

George Kittle 146th pick in 2017

Those exceptions are more common than you think. People are just too lazy to look for all of them.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

I get what you are saying but the chances of hitting are higher with a top 50. We have no idea how well Poles can evaluate talent. Let’s hope he’s the the outside top 50 guru!

Do you?

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Go ahead and give me the a lot more then. I'll wait for you to do the research that's already been done. Maybe the a lot more boosts it up to 10 percent?

I mean what's the hit rate that you would find acceptable?

I did. Did you not read my post?

 

[Dumpster Fire]

I like that Poles and Cunningham can collaborate for another offseason. We know Cunningham will probably be employed elsewhere soon, possibly as soon as next offseason. I think these guys have a good idea on how to get the franchise on the right path, drawing from their experience in KC and Philly. It doesn’t guarantee success or anything but the offseason chatter has been a lot more positive on Poles and Fields than I’m used to. I think the league and media see Poles and Cunningham as up-and-coming executives worth watching.

 

[Chicago Staleys]

Do you?

Yes

 

[Doubledown]

It's almost like the Bears also didn't receive an actual #1 WR in addition to the #9 pick?

But but. Could have Drafted A 5’ 10” QB

 

[Britbuffguy]

I think Poles goes straight BPA and shocks us with a few of the picks.

As I’ve said all along I don’t give a shit if the dline is bad another year if that means he takes a CB at 9 for example.

He’s been upfront that not everything gets fixed this year.

I just hope he has something up his sleeve at RT. That’s really my one big “worry”.

With how much cap space he still has to spend, I wouldn't doubt if some sort of trade for a bigger name is still in play. Other teams will make late cuts and what not. Maybe something comes up?

 

[rawdawg]

Do you?

I kind of agree with him. 50 is definitely an arbitrary cut off. And 4 picks in the top 64 is great in a vacuum, but when you consider they traded Roquan Smith and had the #1 pick in the draft, 1 of the top 50 and Chase Claypool isn't a great return to show for those 2 very valuable assets. That being said, that will be made up with what will likely be 3 top 50 picks in the next 2 drafts.

****I am 100% good with the Carolina trade, don't get it twisted****

 

[DanielCCSBears]

I did. Did you not read my post?

You went all the way back to Joe Montana. So how many picks outside the Top-50 have their been since Joe Montana have failed?

I'm talking percentages and you're talking 1 percent of all players.

Why is math so hard for you?

You threw out Montana in 1979 NFL Draft.

You then followed up with a small list of players out of approximately 1200 players drafted since 1979 and you believe that means the Bears are likely to hit on those picks outside of the top-50.

Do you not see how absurd your take is?

No one is saying it never happens what they are saying is it very rarely ever happens. The odds are stacked against Poles that he'll find a long term starter outside of the number 9 overall pick.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

You went all the way back to Joe Montana. So how many picks outside the Top-50 have their been since Joe Montana have failed?

I'm talking percentages and you're talking 1 percent of all players.

Why is math so hard for you?

You threw out Montana in 1979 NFL Draft.

You then followed up with a small list of players out of approximately 1200 players drafted since 1979 and you believe that means the Bears are likely to hit on those picks outside of the top-50.

Do you not see how absurd your take is?

No one is saying it never happens what they are saying is it very rarely ever happens. The odds are stacked against Poles that he'll find a long term starter outside of the number 9 overall pick.

Why is writing a good article so hard for you?

 

[Discus fish salesman]

Why is writing a good article so hard for you?

Sausage fingers and brain fog from diabetes

 

[Clint Eastwood]

You went all the way back to Joe Montana. So how many picks outside the Top-50 have their been since Joe Montana have failed?

I'm talking percentages and you're talking 1 percent of all players.

Why is math so hard for you?

You threw out Montana in 1979 NFL Draft.

You then followed up with a small list of players out of approximately 1200 players drafted since 1979 and you believe that means the Bears are likely to hit on those picks outside of the top-50.

Do you not see how absurd your take is?

No one is saying it never happens what they are saying is it very rarely ever happens. The odds are stacked against Poles that he'll find a long term starter outside of the number 9 overall pick.

I had no take. You asked someone to name others. I named others. If you want more others, google them yourself. It took me 2 minutes.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

You went all the way back to Joe Montana. So how many picks outside the Top-50 have their been since Joe Montana have failed?

I'm talking percentages and you're talking 1 percent of all players.

Why is math so hard for you?

You threw out Montana in 1979 NFL Draft.

You then followed up with a small list of players out of approximately 1200 players drafted since 1979 and you believe that means the Bears are likely to hit on those picks outside of the top-50.

Do you not see how absurd your take is?

No one is saying it never happens what they are saying is it very rarely ever happens. The odds are stacked against Poles that he'll find a long term starter outside of the number 9 overall pick.

Math not your forte either. Is that your best estimate? 1200 players drafted in 43 years? There's an average 250 drafted each year. Make it about 200 if you want to just talk about those drafted after pick 50, and that would be 8600 players drafted after #50 in the past 43 years. Post you quoted mentioned about 22 taken after #50 pick. That would be a about .3% hit rate. To get to an even 1%, Clint Eastwood, if that's his real name, needs to come up with 64 more.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

You went all the way back to Joe Montana. So how many picks outside the Top-50 have their been since Joe Montana have failed?

I'm talking percentages and you're talking 1 percent of all players.

Why is math so hard for you?

You threw out Montana in 1979 NFL Draft.

You then followed up with a small list of players out of approximately 1200 players drafted since 1979 and you believe that means the Bears are likely to hit on those picks outside of the top-50.

Do you not see how absurd your take is?

No one is saying it never happens what they are saying is it very rarely ever happens. The odds are stacked against Poles that he'll find a long term starter outside of the number 9 overall pick.

This is laughably false.

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

This is laughably false.

The bold that you are referencing from @DanielCCSBears is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I mean someone who is an NFL fan can’t be that stupid right? Just using 2022 NFL draft, pick 10 & 11 not only had great rookie seasons but they proved they could be legit threats. But according to @DanielCCSBears, Wilson and Olave are not long term starters.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Math not your forte either. Is that your best estimate? 1200 players drafted in 43 years? There's an average 250 drafted each year. Make it about 200 if you want to just talk about those drafted after pick 50, and that would be 8600 players drafted after #50 in the past 43 years. Post you quoted mentioned about 22 taken after #50 pick. That would be an about .3% hit rate. To get to an even 1%, Clint Eastwood, if that's his real name, needs to come up with 64 more.

Why do I need to come up with anything. A question was posed to a poster about who ”others” were. A 2 minute google search gave me a list of many others, so I listed some of them. I can assure you I am far better at math and statistics than the posters in this thread who are criticizing my hit rates or anything of the sort. I made no comments, opinions or commentary on the subject, I simply listed some players since someone requested it. Y’all need to chill a little bit.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

NFL Draft: Where do Pro Bowlers come from and who might be next in 2022?

What can a closer look at 10 years of Pro Bowl players teach us about the draft? A position-by-position look, starting with the offense.

theathletic.com

 

[Montucky]

This is like saying you don't need to draft quarterbacks in the first round because look where the Patriots got Tom Brady. What's laughable is that for a time this was actually the en vogue thinking in the NFL, particularly after the Seahawks won it all with Russell Wilson.

The top fifty and top one-hundred are two entirely fair places to draw lines in the sand on draft order. Great players come from late in the draft, but these are usually the cases of them being not great prospects. The history of the NFL is littered with cases of great prospects being bad players, or even bad prospects being great players. But the latter is distinctly more rare and if you just look at these drafts you'll see very plainly that after around fiftieth overall of most drafts it gets very sparse in terms of high quality starters.

Look back even three or four years ago and most guys are literallywho's and most of the guys you remember you just remember as prospects. For every DK Metcalf there are always at least two or three Trysten Hills or Nassir Adderly's.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Why do I need to come up with anything. A question was posed to a poster about who ”others” were. A 2 minute google search gave me a list of many others, so I listed some of them. I can assure you I am far better at math and statistics than the posters in this thread who are criticizing my hit rates or anything of the sort. I made no comments, opinions or commentary on the subject, I simply listed some players since someone requested it. Y’all need to chill a little bit.

Was merely correcting some rogue math I saw. And, perhaps his point would have been better made with the better math. Look at the teams who have 3 picks in the top 50 and one would be willing to bet they'd have a better draft than a team that only has 1. Especially with a team with so many needs, you don't just want to be hoping for potential starters, but rather potential impactful starters and those are the ones that come off the board quickest.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Was merely correcting some rogue math I saw. And, perhaps his point would have been better made with the better math. Look at the teams who have 3 picks in the top 50 and one would be willing to bet they'd have a better draft than a team that only has 1. Especially with a team with so many needs, you don't just want to be hoping for potential starters, but rather potential impactful starters and those are the ones that come off the board quickest.

Well, in my case, he was arguing with himself. And we don’t need to be math experts to understand that higher picks have higher chance of being good picks than lower picks. It’s the reason why there are trade ups and downs and tanking for higher picks. But math can also be used to show that adding up percentages of hit rates at different pick levels can show the advantage of trading down for more picks. Overall, the hit rate might be higher for more bites at the apple despite every bite individually being slightly less fruitful (pun intended)