Hey Butkus... Do you think White still has a chance of playing this year?
LOL...as I said in a previous post, I put his chances at playing again this year at less than 1%. I'm just going off the recovery time table and adding in the fact he'll have done nothing football related for weeks. Maybe....MAYBE he's ready to go week 15 or 16...but at that point...what would be the point of activating him?
Hey Butkus... Do you think White still has a chance of playing this year?
LOL...as I said in a previous post, I put his chances at playing again this year at less than 1%. I'm just going off the recovery time table and adding in the fact he'll have done nothing football related for weeks. Maybe....MAYBE he's ready to go week 15 or 16...but at that point...what would be the point of activating him?
"The results of the research show that 60 % of the running backs and wide receivers in the 3rd-7th round sample have amassed greater
average career statistics than the 1st and 2nd round players they were compared with."
Not sure what exactly that has to do with my post...but why are people surprised that players in a group that includes 5 rounds of drafting amassed greater stats than players amassed from a grouping of 2 rounds? I also have a problem with the way they selected the players for this study...but whatever...
they controlled for numbers of players from both groups. the methodology is questionable, but results still telling. WRs and RBs are (at least) not being scouted well enough to justify 1st round selections.
Not sure what exactly that has to do with my post...but why are people surprised that players in a group that includes 5 rounds of drafting amassed greater stats than players amassed from a grouping of 2 rounds? I also have a problem with the way they selected the players for this study...but whatever...
they controlled for numbers of players from both groups. the methodology is questionable, but results still telling. WRs and RBs are (at least) not being scouted well enough to justify 1st round selections.
But its because the methodology is questionable that the results are meaningless. If they ran the random selection again, they should get the same results but they won't. The results aren't verifiable or reproducible meaning that any results are worthless. Anyone can do the same thing. Cut and paste the names into a spreadsheet and see who you get. I listed names that would skew the results completely.
Not only that, a real study would have controlled for the randomness by running the same test over and over and presented the results with a +/- qualifier. As far as I can tell, he ran the test once and then drew a massive conclusion from a flawed methodology.
The simple fact remains, players drafted in the first two rounds do better over time as a group than players selected in later rounds. Finding a 6th round WR doesn't mean 6th round WRs are better than 2nd round WRs. To make that conclusion you have to compare all the 6th round receivers to all the second round receivers. And this study doesn't do that. Its picks players at random and randomly compares them. In one of the years, if you didn't even change the players but simply changed who they were compared to, instead of the 3-7 round players being better 50% of the time (1 out of 2 mind you, a coin flip) the 1-2nd rounders were better 100% of the time.
I actually think teams miss out quite often on lower ranked players because scouting is still instinct and hit and miss especially in the lower rounds. Jordan Howard is proof of this. But you can't make the claim that because Jordan Howard is better than some 2nd round RB that 3-7th round Rbs are 60% better than 1-2rd running backs.
Does it mean that a player taken in round 1-2 has a 40% chance of being better than a 3-7th round player? Really? So are we willing to say that drafting a RB in the 7rh round is always better than taking one in round 1-2? Because that's what the study is saying.
You can compare this to edge rushers. I can find edge rushers taken in rounds 3-7 that have outproduced edge rushers taken in rounds 1-2. So how come its pretty much universally accepted that high first round draft picks should be used on pass rushers?
Consider QBs, because the study includes them you can't just drop them from your conclusion. Are we willing to say that drafting a QB in rounds 3-7 is better than drafting a QB in rounds 1-2? The success rate on QBs after round 2 is almost non-existent when you consider the number of QBs drafted. But no one remembers this because no one cares about Fales or Lefevre.
There are ways to conclude that teams should take more chances on late round WRS and RBs, but this study is not one of them.
they controlled for numbers of players from both groups. the methodology is questionable, but results still telling. WRs and RBs are (at least) not being scouted well enough to justify 1st round selections.
But its because the methodology is questionable that the results are meaningless. If they ran the random selection again, they should get the same results but they won't. The results aren't verifiable or reproducible meaning that any results are worthless. Anyone can do the same thing. Cut and paste the names into a spreadsheet and see who you get. I listed names that would skew the results completely.
Not only that, a real study would have controlled for the randomness by running the same test over and over and presented the results with a +/- qualifier. As far as I can tell, he ran the test once and then drew a massive conclusion from a flawed methodology.
The simple fact remains, players drafted in the first two rounds do better over time as a group than players selected in later rounds. Finding a 6th round WR doesn't mean 6th round WRs are better than 2nd round WRs. To make that conclusion you have to compare all the 6th round receivers to all the second round receivers. And this study doesn't do that. Its picks players at random and randomly compares them. In one of the years, if you didn't even change the players but simply changed who they were compared to, instead of the 3-7 round players being better 50% of the time (1 out of 2 mind you, a coin flip) the 1-2nd rounders were better 100% of the time.
I actually think teams miss out quite often on lower ranked players because scouting is still instinct and hit and miss especially in the lower rounds. Jordan Howard is proof of this. But you can't make the claim that because Jordan Howard is better than some 2nd round RB that 3-7th round Rbs are 60% better than 1-2rd running backs.
Does it mean that a player taken in round 1-2 has a 40% chance of being better than a 3-7th round player? Really? So are we willing to say that drafting a RB in the 7rh round is always better than taking one in round 1-2? Because that's what the study is saying.
You can compare this to edge rushers. I can find edge rushers taken in rounds 3-7 that have outproduced edge rushers taken in rounds 1-2. So how come its pretty much universally accepted that high first round draft picks should be used on pass rushers?
Consider QBs, because the study includes them you can't just drop them from your conclusion. Are we willing to say that drafting a QB in rounds 3-7 is better than drafting a QB in rounds 1-2? The success rate on QBs after round 2 is almost non-existent when you consider the number of QBs drafted. But no one remembers this because no one cares about Fales or Lefevre.
There are ways to conclude that teams should take more chances on late round WRS and RBs, but this study is not one of them.
Thank you Brasil for explaining the flaws with this "study".
But its because the methodology is questionable that the results are meaningless. If they ran the random selection again, they should get the same results but they won't. The results aren't verifiable or reproducible meaning that any results are worthless. Anyone can do the same thing. Cut and paste the names into a spreadsheet and see who you get. I listed names that would skew the results completely.
Not only that, a real study would have controlled for the randomness by running the same test over and over and presented the results with a +/- qualifier. As far as I can tell, he ran the test once and then drew a massive conclusion from a flawed methodology.
The simple fact remains, players drafted in the first two rounds do better over time as a group than players selected in later rounds. Finding a 6th round WR doesn't mean 6th round WRs are better than 2nd round WRs. To make that conclusion you have to compare all the 6th round receivers to all the second round receivers. And this study doesn't do that. Its picks players at random and randomly compares them. In one of the years, if you didn't even change the players but simply changed who they were compared to, instead of the 3-7 round players being better 50% of the time (1 out of 2 mind you, a coin flip) the 1-2nd rounders were better 100% of the time.
I actually think teams miss out quite often on lower ranked players because scouting is still instinct and hit and miss especially in the lower rounds. Jordan Howard is proof of this. But you can't make the claim that because Jordan Howard is better than some 2nd round RB that 3-7th round Rbs are 60% better than 1-2rd running backs.
Does it mean that a player taken in round 1-2 has a 40% chance of being better than a 3-7th round player? Really? So are we willing to say that drafting a RB in the 7rh round is always better than taking one in round 1-2? Because that's what the study is saying.
You can compare this to edge rushers. I can find edge rushers taken in rounds 3-7 that have outproduced edge rushers taken in rounds 1-2. So how come its pretty much universally accepted that high first round draft picks should be used on pass rushers?
Consider QBs, because the study includes them you can't just drop them from your conclusion. Are we willing to say that drafting a QB in rounds 3-7 is better than drafting a QB in rounds 1-2? The success rate on QBs after round 2 is almost non-existent when you consider the number of QBs drafted. But no one remembers this because no one cares about Fales or Lefevre.
There are ways to conclude that teams should take more chances on late round WRS and RBs, but this study is not one of them.
Thank you Brasil for explaining the flaws with this "study".
look, another study suggesting NFL teams have no idea how to draft WRs in the first round! QBs in the 1-2 rd did perform better than those in later rounds 60 percent of the time. i linked the persons work not because it was perfect, but because it still provides useful data and unlike the 25 year data above, compares productivity of WR in later rounds to 1-2 rd picks instead of just measuring 1st round picks in a vacuum. i think this is more useful because it suggest teams need not focus on something NFL teams suck at (drafting the right WRs in the 1st) when they are more likely to get production out of later round picks.
here is more data about production for draft value that includes data back to the 70s:
look, another study suggesting NFL teams have no idea how to draft WRs in the first round! QBs in the 1-2 rd did perform better than those in later rounds 60 percent of the time. i linked the persons work not because it was perfect, but because it still provides useful data and unlike the 25 year data above, compares productivity of WR in later rounds to 1-2 rd picks instead of just measuring 1st round picks in a vacuum. i think this is more useful because it suggest teams need not focus on something NFL teams suck at (drafting the right WRs in the 1st) when they are more likely to get production out of later round picks.
here is more data about production for draft value that includes data back to the 70s:
"the correlation coefficient between draft value spent on receivers and NFL production has been negative"
For those who don't care about my nerdiness here, I'll provide a tl:dr:
The articles don't even address the issue of later round WRs v early round WRs. One measures the AP/BP % of all position groups in round 1 and the other tries (and the author admits he fails at) to draw a correlation between # of draft picks spent in the whole draft on WRs and WR production.
For those who want to nerd out with me:
But it (first study provided in a post above) doesn't compare productively correctly. To compare correctly you can't pick randomly. Any study that ignores the production of Randell Cobb, Jordy Nelson and others completely misses the point.
And this sentence isn't true: "when they are more likely to get production out of later round picks."
You are less likely to get production out of later round picks solely on the number of WRs drafted in rounds 3-7. The first study admits that by only choosing two WRs from each group. By limiting your picks to two you eliminate all the WRs drafted in the later rounds that didn't make it.
Furthermore, go to any year in the draft.--2015 a terrible year for WRs. There were 34 WRs drafted. Of these 34 only 4 have AV of 10 or better. The top WR is Cooper (1st round.) Out of the 8 WRs taken in round 1-2, only 1 has had 'success." That's a 12.5 success rate. Pretty bad I guess. But there were 34-7=27 WRs taken in rounds 3-7 and only 3 had AV greater than 10 for a 'success' rate of 11.1%. So even in a terrible year for 1/2 round WRs you were still better off pulling the trigger on a WR in rounds 1-2.
Don't like 2015, try 2014. 34 WRs drafted--12 in rounds 1/2 and 22 in rounds 3-7. Pick your poison. Want to stay with double-digit AV? ok. Out of the 12 drafted in rounds 1/2 10 have AV>10. a 83% success rate. Rounds 3-7? 3 out of 22. 13.6% success rate. OK is just double digits too low? How about AV>15 (5 for every year in the league). Rounds 1-2 still win 75% to 4.5%.
OK pick a year at random then--what about 2006? 30 WRs drafted, 4 in rounds 1/2 and 26 in rounds 3-7. AV>10? 50% in rounds 1/2 and 30.7% in rounds 3-7.
Its simply not true that late round WRs outperform WRs drafted in rounds 1-2. What is true is that players across all positions will get missed by the scouts and outperform their draft position, but not by the margin that people think. We only remember the ones that make it not all the ones that don't. When a team is drafting in the first round and they are looking at WRs there are only a handful of players they would consider. Chances are better than the player they pick will be successful than if they were drafting in round 3-7 and were considering all the WRs available at the point.
If the opposite was true than a team should consider drafting any WR in rounds 1/2 regardless of their pre-draft ranking. Mike Hass and Greg Jennings would be interchangeable as draft picks. But no one in their right mind would have suggested drafting Mike Hass over Greg Jennings. Sticking with 2006, it was Santanio Holmes, Greg Jennings, Chad Johnson and Sinorice Moss as the 1/2 round WRs. Moss and Johnson were pretty bad. But I'd take either of those two over: Marques Hagans, Todd Watkins, Adm Jennings, Willie Reid, Skyler Green, Travis Wilson, Brandon Williams, Cory Rogers, Mike Hass, Jonathan Orr, Ethan Kilmer, Bennie Brazell and Mevin McMahan. Because these are the guys we are looking at when we look at WRs drafted 3-7. ( 5 of those guys were drafted in the 3/4 rounds.)
As far as the studies you supplied:
The bleacherreport one doesn't even compare late round picks to early round picks. It only measures position groups among first round picks, not to mention going into the second round. Its not trying to say that later round WRs have better production than early round WRs. Its saying that when drafting in the first round, you have only 15% chance of drafting an AP WR and 30% chance of drafting a PB WR. Thats going back 25 years.
The foootballprospective one isn't measuring later round v early round either. Its measuring draft capitol spent v production across the whole draft. Its not trying to answer when to draft a WR. Later in the article, he says this: "But even after you adjust for era, the correlation coefficient — while now positive — only rises to 0.07, which is essentially zero." Its not negative, its actually positive. The author even says in the comments that: "I will say I am surprised that there is no relationship here. It makes me wonder if I am measuring this properly, so I'll ask: is there another/better way to measure this? One would think that the WR classes with the most draft capital spent on those players would do better here." He admits that the data doesn't show anything, it proves nothing either way. In other words, he is still looking for a way to answer the question "Do NFL teams know how to draft WRs?"
Its simply not true that WRs drafted in rounds 3-7 are more productive than WRs drafted in rounds 1-2. For every Julian Edleman (round 7) someone can name, someone else rattle off: Manuel Johnson, Demetrius Byrd, Dominique Edison and Quinten Lawrence
To repeat: Every draft will have multiple players across multiple positions that outperform higher drafted players. That doesn't mean you shouldn't draft a pass rusher in the rounds 1/2 because some pass rusher in round 4 did better the year before. It means that there is value to be found all over the draft, and a team can get lucky when they draft Marquis Colston in the 7th round.
Once again Brasil has absolutely killed it with that explanation. Thank you. And I'm still trying to figure out why I was quoted and what these studies have to do with my initial post.
Once again Brasil has absolutely killed it with that explanation. Thank you. And I'm still trying to figure out why I was quoted and what these studies have to do with my initial post.
I'm not sure why either, I just get twitchy when I read things like 60% of 3-7 round draft picks do better than 1-2 round draft picks. Yes positional value exists, yes certain positions are 'safer' at the top of the draft than others. But you have more of a guarantee that the guy you pick in rounds 1-2 will do better than a guy picked in rounds 3-7 (kickers excluded.)
Once again Brasil has absolutely killed it with that explanation. Thank you. And I'm still trying to figure out why I was quoted and what these studies have to do with my initial post.
I'm not sure why either, I just get twitchy when I read things like 60% of 3-7 round draft picks do better than 1-2 round draft picks. Yes positional value exists, yes certain positions are 'safer' at the top of the draft than others. But you have more of a guarantee that the guy you pick in rounds 1-2 will do better than a guy picked in rounds 3-7 (kickers excluded.)
hey, this all starts with me saying i'd rather not spend a 1st rd pick on a WR. my reasons: size and speed are over drafted at the position. would you say the adjusted for era #s justify using draft capital on WR in rd 1? when does it make more sense to trade that pick for more picks and draft more than 2 wrs later?
