Pace Panicked

[PrideisBears]

Getting colder...

Laconfora?

 

[WindyCity]

I much prefer my GM not to allow other teams to dictate the entire draft to him.

You are not always going to come out on top of the deal, but I think more often then not you are going to be ahead.

 

[DaaBears]

I much prefer my GM not to allow other teams to dictate the entire draft to him.

You are not always going to come out on top of the deal, but I think more often then not you are going to be ahead.

That's an interesting concept. On appearance, whether you trade down or trade up, there is somebody on the other side of the trade, so for every winner there should be a loser. But in this case, both sides can come out a winner if they both made the trade that met their individual needs.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

I don't think Trump would do well in a draft.

 

[xer0h0ur]

Thanks captain obvious. A politician or businessman that doesn't know how to evaluate and draft talent. Its almost like there are 32 of those already. They're called franchise owners.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

Thanks captain obvious. A politician or businessman that doesn't know how to evaluate and draft talent. Its almost like there are 32 of those already. They're called franchise owners.

Lol, srsly xer0? It was a joke on DaaBears idea that drafting is maybe not a zero sum game. A bad one maybe, but I appreciate the Cliff Clavin style lecture.

 

[DaaBears]

Lol, srsly xer0? It was a joke on DaaBears idea that drafting is maybe not a zero sum game. A bad one maybe, but I appreciate the Cliff Clavin style lecture.

I am impressed. I was actually going to use the phrase zero sum game but wasn't sure people would understand that.

 

[Novak]

Thanks captain obvious. A politician or businessman that doesn't know how to evaluate and draft talent. Its almost like there are 32 of those already. They're called franchise owners.

Tbf, i wouldn't call Trump a businessman or a politician. At least not a good one. That's probably why he gets clowned so much.

However, he is exceptional at dodging drafts, to malcores point.

 

[MDB111™]

This thread is gold

it is starting to run its course...i am panicking as Pace did.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I am impressed. I was actually going to use the phrase zero sum game but wasn't sure people would understand that.

Or is it xer0 sum game?

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I much prefer my GM not to allow other teams to dictate the entire draft to him.

You are not always going to come out on top of the deal, but I think more often then not you are going to be ahead.

Not at all. The metrics strongly recommend against trading up. It is much more advantageous to have multiple draft picks than to have a certain draft position. This is just from a few days ago:

The other takeaway is that almost all the picks are more valuable, and that is not a function of small sample size: it’s a function of the rookie wage scale. Players taken in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds are now expected to contribute, because the bar has been lower. If a 4th round pick costs a fraction of what a veteran costs, teams will be more willing to give that player a chance to produce even if he isn’t very good. This artificially inflates AV, since AV is tied to metrics like starts and games played. Teams are giving more starts and snaps to players on rookie contracts because of the rookie salary cap, and that leads to more AV — and distorts the draft value chart a bit.

My overall suspicion is the success of first overall picks from ’08 to ’14 distorts the steepness of the graph — it doesn’t appear like the 2nd and 3rd picks are doing any better than they used to — and that is likely due to small sample size (although the first overall picks since ’14 also seem pretty good so far, too!). And on a relative basis, I am not sure much has changed in the draft value chart world. But I do think it’s fair to acknowledge that draft picks are more valuable than they used to be and my Draft Value Chart implies, and that’s worth thinking about when teams trade multiple picks for one pick.

 

[Bearly]

That's an interesting concept. On appearance, whether you trade down or trade up, there is somebody on the other side of the trade, so for every winner there should be a loser. But in this case, both sides can come out a winner if they both made the trade that met their individual needs.

Good trades can have 2 winners and this one may be an example. We got our guy and NE got there's plus some currency for the risk. You would be correct if both parties had identical goals. They never do. Rory is correct on the metrics and Pace goes both ways but when he has important skill position targets, he gets them. Edge and QB are always viable gets. RB less so but in this case he was accommodating his HC for what was considered a missing piece of his puzzle. We won't know if it's worthwhile for a year or 2.

Floyd may look like overreaching but check out that draft and what came after. Tunsil was likely not an option due to things beyond his play and he hasn't been better than our own LT. Mitch may have been a case of spending more than needed which has many viewing Pace as a sucker but it was his QB so I get it and it's certainly not unprecedented for the top rated QB in a draft. Nagy got his swiss army knife and I truly doubt Montgomery would still be available in out original position.

I'd be curious where Henderson was ranked on our board vs Montgomery. I'd guess they had Henderson behind Montgomery for this scheme since Darrell works best in outside zone runs. He's obviously able to do more than that but that's his forte so he's perfect for the Rams O.

 

[HeHateMe]

Thanks captain obvious. A politician or businessman that doesn't know how to evaluate and draft talent. Its almost like there are 32 of those already. They're called franchise owners.

Ya boi Drumptffffff couldnt even own a team in the 1st place hahaha

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Ya boi Drumptffffff couldnt even own a team in the 1st place hahaha

Haha he's such a slimy shitbird even other billionaire shitmouths wouldn't allow that orange Cheetoh into their club. Hahahahah.

 

[E.F.Hutton]

Here is how Nagy described the similarities between Hunt and Montgomery. Both are about the same size with the ability to run between the tackles. Both are physical, run angry. Both are true three down backs.

You can say that about a lot of backs. If Montgomery has the same success as Hunt that is a Good Thing.

 

[modo]

Not at all. The metrics strongly recommend against trading up. It is much more advantageous to have multiple draft picks than to have a certain draft position. This is just from a few days ago:

The other takeaway is that almost all the picks are more valuable, and that is not a function of small sample size: it’s a function of the rookie wage scale. Players taken in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds are now expected to contribute, because the bar has been lower. If a 4th round pick costs a fraction of what a veteran costs, teams will be more willing to give that player a chance to produce even if he isn’t very good. This artificially inflates AV, since AV is tied to metrics like starts and games played. Teams are giving more starts and snaps to players on rookie contracts because of the rookie salary cap, and that leads to more AV — and distorts the draft value chart a bit.

My overall suspicion is the success of first overall picks from ’08 to ’14 distorts the steepness of the graph — it doesn’t appear like the 2nd and 3rd picks are doing any better than they used to — and that is likely due to small sample size (although the first overall picks since ’14 also seem pretty good so far, too!). And on a relative basis, I am not sure much has changed in the draft value chart world. But I do think it’s fair to acknowledge that draft picks are more valuable than they used to be and my Draft Value Chart implies, and that’s worth thinking about when teams trade multiple picks for one pick.

I haven't gone in depth on this data, but I suspect that the current strength of the roster and slots that need to be filled have something to do with this. I wonder if shitty teams have a propensity to trade down because they are depleted of talent and draftees naturally make the roster.

Do good teams have a propensity to trade up to target a specific player for the limited slots available on the team?

I think that needs to be taken into perspective. Not all teams fill their roster or have a need to fill their roster the same way.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I haven't gone in depth on this data, but I suspect that the current strength of the roster and slots that need to be filled have something to do with this. I wonder if shitty teams have a propensity to trade down because they are depleted of talent and draftees naturally make the roster.

Do good teams have a propensity to trade up to target a specific player for the limited slots available on the team?

I think that needs to be taken into perspective. Not all teams fill their roster or have a need to fill their roster the same way.

That could be true. Its somewhat of a complex issue. Even gauging the "success" of a draft is wonky...I remember Angelo drafting tons of starters, because they would simply replace the previous drafted starters.

I think the general idea is that the draft has a vast amount of randomness. So if you are randomly going to draft a great player, would you rather have higher picks, or more picks?

 

[dabears70]

Nagy picked him. So perhaps your knowledge of Nagy's system is not as strong as you like?

They could have moved up for Henderson, they could have taken Singletary or Harris, they could have stood pat and take Justice Hill. Nagy chose Montgomery and we have to have some faith in that.

Could the difference be as simple as they see Montgomery as a 3 down RB and all 3 of D.Harris, D.Singletary and J.Hill as complimentary pieces to go with another RB? I love J.Hill and i wanted us to get him badly and think he would of been the perfect RB to go with M.Davis. Hill and M.Ingram will be a great 1-2 punch in Balt.

 

[modo]

That could be true. Its somewhat of a complex issue. Even gauging the "success" of a draft is wonky...I remember Angelo drafting tons of starters, because they would simply replace the previous drafted starters.

I think the general idea is that the draft has a vast amount of randomness. So if you are randomly going to draft a great player, would you rather have higher picks, or more picks?

The best round to draft great players is round 1. After that it becomes a crap shoot.

If a team has limited slots to fill and a lot of depth it is harder for lower draft slot players to make the team or have a meaningful impact I would imagine. So more may not be better in that case. Even if a player could make an impact at some point, he may not get a chance to realize that on a team with great depth.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

His NFL comparison is Kareem Hunt!!

but hey take CCS' word for it over the professionals all day everyday and twice on sundays