He does admit that he counts Wims and Nichols as starters because they play a significant number of downs. That seems.....iffy. So take it with a grain of salt.
4 starters out of 12 picks or 6 out of 19 picks. 33% for the Bears 31% for the Pack, 6 of 12 is 50%. So it's a good number either way.
But let's keep believing you can fill vital starting rolls with day three picks. A quote posted too often around here is "You can find an All-Pro [insert position of choice here--rb,te,wr,c,g,ilb,s,qb] late in the draft, don't pick one early."
Well that is the problem, NO rounds are guaranteed to fill vital role's, early or late. top 5 picks are about as close as you will find and that is still only 75% of the time, after that the rest of the 10 and 1st round are closer to 50%. It's why you need closer to 10-12 picks and not 5-7. The rate of finding quality players that fit your team needs and what it does is really small.
+1,000
Ric you hit the nail on the head. You only get 1 first round pick each year and Pace hasn't even had that every year. So it's pretty glaring when he whiffs on a pick. But when you have several picks in the rounds following that 1st round, you don't notice a miss as much, and if you DO get a pleasant surprise it stands out in a good way. Having more picks allows you to make up for misses. You still need 1st round picks, obviously, due to those guys having a higher success rate than later round picks (we've seen those stats posted here numerous times) but I'm with you on this - you need closer to 10-12 picks and not 5-7.
If you miss on a draft pick but you have plenty more picks to cover the miss, you can be okay. But if you trade away draft picks it puts more pressure on getting it right when you do that. Mitch Trubisky may still work out okay, but if he doesn't then that was a costly miss because the Bears traded the Nos. 3, 67 and 111 picks, as well as a 2018 third-round pick, to the San Francisco 49ers in exchange for the second overall pick. If Trubisky does work out then it's all good. But if he doesn't then Pace burned up some serious draft resources.
Pace has done his best work in rounds 4-5, no question.
Cohen, Amos, Bush, Kwiatowski, Nichols, and Howard were all VERY GOOD PICKS. Eddie Jackson was a GREAT PICK.
If he had done even half that well in the top-10 (1st round), the Bears would be the best roster in the NFC right now.
Well the thing is finding any hits is rare regardless of round. 50% of that years draft's pro bowlers were Bears and not day 1 picks, beyond that assuming the the other 2 were first rounders, that means 2 out of 32 players made the pro bowl, 4 out of 253 players made a probowl. that is a REALLY small %. .0625 % of 1st rounders and .0158 in all picks. Chances are minute to say the least.
No doubt he needs to be better early, but we all need to be less myopic about how bad the Bears are and start looking at how bad EVERY team is. Be demanding of wanting better early, but be happy that he at least hits, anywhere.
As the tweet pointed out, 18 of the 22 pro-bowlers came from the top-100 draft picks so no question it's easier to find that kind of talent early rather than late in the draft. Nothing controversial there as it stands to reason.
I am happy that Pace has done a good, maybe even GREAT, job in rounds 4-5. But that also pisses you off when you realize he had 4 straight top-10 picks (pretty rare) and whiffed on 3 of them so far. Or at least "disappointed" on 3. And 2 of those he traded UP to get, which cost us additional Day 2 & 3 opportunities.
Like I said, if he had a commensurate level of success in the 1st round, as he has had on Day 3, you could argue the Bears would have already been to a Super Bowl or two by now and would have a stacked roster.
Post by GrizzlyBear on Apr 21, 2020 13:58:37 GMT -6
43: R2P11 S ANTOINE WINFIELD JR., MINNESOTA 50: R2P18 RB JONATHAN TAYLOR, WISCONSIN 163: R5P17 EDGE ALTON ROBINSON, SYRACUSE 196: R6P17 QB NATE STANLEY, IOWA 200: R6P21 OT TREY ADAMS, WASHINGTON 226: R7P12 LB SHAUN BRADLEY, TEMPLE 233: R7P19 WR TRISHTON JACKSON, SYRACUSE
TEAM DRAFT ASSESSMENT: CB - NONE DRAFTED QB - NATE STANLEY , IOWA C - NONE DRAFTED S - ANTOINE WINFIELD JR., MINNESOTA OT - TREY ADAMS, WASHINGTON WR - TRISHTON JACKSON, SYRACUSE G - NONE DRAFTED
Post by GrizzlyBear on Apr 21, 2020 14:00:43 GMT -6
43: R2P11 WR BRANDON AIYUK, ARIZONA STATE 50: R2P18 QB JACOB EASON, WASHINGTON 163: R5P17 CB A.J. GREEN, OKLAHOMA STATE 196: R6P17 OT TREY ADAMS, WASHINGTON 200: R6P21 EDGE CARTER COUGHLIN, MINNESOTA 226: R7P12 DL ROBERT WINDSOR, PENN STATE 233: R7P19 S EVAN FOSTER, SYRACUSE
TEAM DRAFT ASSESSMENT:
CB - A.J. GREEN, OKLAHOMA STATE QB - JACOB EASON, WASHINGTON C - NONE DRAFTED S - EVAN FOSTER, SYRACUSE OT - TREY ADAMS, WASHINGTON WR - BRANDON AIYUK, ARIZONA STATE G - NONE DRAFTED
Well the thing is finding any hits is rare regardless of round. 50% of that years draft's pro bowlers were Bears and not day 1 picks, beyond that assuming the the other 2 were first rounders, that means 2 out of 32 players made the pro bowl, 4 out of 253 players made a probowl. that is a REALLY small %. .0625 % of 1st rounders and .0158 in all picks. Chances are minute to say the least.
No doubt he needs to be better early, but we all need to be less myopic about how bad the Bears are and start looking at how bad EVERY team is. Be demanding of wanting better early, but be happy that he at least hits, anywhere.
As the tweet pointed out, 18 of the 22 pro-bowlers came from the top-100 draft picks so no question it's easier to find that kind of talent early rather than late in the draft. Nothing controversial there as it stands to reason.
I am happy that Pace has done a good, maybe even GREAT, job in rounds 4-5. But that also pisses you off when you realize he had 4 straight top-10 picks (pretty rare) and whiffed on 3 of them so far. Or at least "disappointed" on 3. And 2 of those he traded UP to get, which cost us additional Day 2 & 3 opportunities.
Like I said, if he had a commensurate level of success in the 1st round, as he has had on Day 3, you could argue the Bears would have already been to a Super Bowl or two by now and would have a stacked roster.
but 18 out of 100 picks isn't a good %, definitely nothing you would want to rely on; .18%, you staking your job, your retirement, or your future on that? I'll take being happy w/starters and/or probowlers/all pro's no matter where he gets them when the odds are so terribly stacked in your favor.
It's why I no longer have a negative outlook on this stuff; and choose to be positve. You can be negative on 100% of moves a GM does and come out right 80% of the time. That is a TON of false positive results feeding your negative feelings. I know I'm not likely going to be right, but I'd rather be disappointed after the fact then be negative all the time.
As the tweet pointed out, 18 of the 22 pro-bowlers came from the top-100 draft picks so no question it's easier to find that kind of talent early rather than late in the draft. Nothing controversial there as it stands to reason.
I am happy that Pace has done a good, maybe even GREAT, job in rounds 4-5. But that also pisses you off when you realize he had 4 straight top-10 picks (pretty rare) and whiffed on 3 of them so far. Or at least "disappointed" on 3. And 2 of those he traded UP to get, which cost us additional Day 2 & 3 opportunities.
Like I said, if he had a commensurate level of success in the 1st round, as he has had on Day 3, you could argue the Bears would have already been to a Super Bowl or two by now and would have a stacked roster.
but 18 out of 100 picks isn't a good %, definitely nothing you would want to rely on; .18%, you staking your job, your retirement, or your future on that? I'll take being happy w/starters and/or probowlers/all pro's no matter where he gets them when the odds are so terribly stacked in your favor.
It's why I no longer have a negative outlook on this stuff; and choose to be positve. You can be negative on 100% of moves a GM does and come out right 80% of the time. That is a TON of false positive results feeding your negative feelings. I know I'm not likely going to be right, but I'd rather be disappointed after the fact then be negative all the time.
There multiple posters here and at windycity that simply play those odds. Oppose anything Pace does and you can claim to be right 80% of the time. Yet they almost never put forth a prediction of their own and if they do, they never and I mean never talk about it again.
I'm with you, I don't care ( within reason) what Pace does. I enjoy the anticipation every season.
edit to add on wild-eyed rant: [rant] This is why you can disregard the blowhards talking about how Mitch was going to bust. With a few exceptions, the posters here and on windycity that banged the pick the most where the guys that banged everything Pace did. They were simply playing the odds. Chances are Mitch wasn't going to pan out. And guess what? If you predicted he wouldn't make it you weren't being brave, you were actually taking the easy way out. Congrats you predicted a QB drafted high wouldn't make it. One of the posters who did it the most actually claimed before the draft that Mitch was the best QB in the draft. As soon as Mitch was picked it turned into--bust bust bust bust wish Pace would have drafted Mahomes/Watson. Get that %^#* out of here. Troll. [/rant]
Well that is the problem, NO rounds are guaranteed to fill vital role's, early or late. top 5 picks are about as close as you will find and that is still only 75% of the time, after that the rest of the 10 and 1st round are closer to 50%. It's why you need closer to 10-12 picks and not 5-7. The rate of finding quality players that fit your team needs and what it does is really small.
+1,000
Ric you hit the nail on the head. You only get 1 first round pick each year and Pace hasn't even had that every year. So it's pretty glaring when he whiffs on a pick. But when you have several picks in the rounds following that 1st round, you don't notice a miss as much, and if you DO get a pleasant surprise it stands out in a good way. Having more picks allows you to make up for misses. You still need 1st round picks, obviously, due to those guys having a higher success rate than later round picks (we've seen those stats posted here numerous times) but I'm with you on this - you need closer to 10-12 picks and not 5-7.
If you miss on a draft pick but you have plenty more picks to cover the miss, you can be okay. But if you trade away draft picks it puts more pressure on getting it right when you do that. Mitch Trubisky may still work out okay, but if he doesn't then that was a costly miss because the Bears traded the Nos. 3, 67 and 111 picks, as well as a 2018 third-round pick, to the San Francisco 49ers in exchange for the second overall pick. If Trubisky does work out then it's all good. But if he doesn't then Pace burned up some serious draft resources.
As the tweet pointed out, 18 of the 22 pro-bowlers came from the top-100 draft picks so no question it's easier to find that kind of talent early rather than late in the draft. Nothing controversial there as it stands to reason.
I am happy that Pace has done a good, maybe even GREAT, job in rounds 4-5. But that also pisses you off when you realize he had 4 straight top-10 picks (pretty rare) and whiffed on 3 of them so far. Or at least "disappointed" on 3. And 2 of those he traded UP to get, which cost us additional Day 2 & 3 opportunities.
Like I said, if he had a commensurate level of success in the 1st round, as he has had on Day 3, you could argue the Bears would have already been to a Super Bowl or two by now and would have a stacked roster.
but 18 out of 100 picks isn't a good %, definitely nothing you would want to rely on; .18%, you staking your job, your retirement, or your future on that? I'll take being happy w/starters and/or probowlers/all pro's no matter where he gets them when the odds are so terribly stacked in your favor.
It's why I no longer have a negative outlook on this stuff; and choose to be positve. You can be negative on 100% of moves a GM does and come out right 80% of the time. That is a TON of false positive results feeding your negative feelings. I know I'm not likely going to be right, but I'd rather be disappointed after the fact then be negative all the time.
That's the stats for making the Pro-Bowl, Ric. There's a lot of useful real estate between making the pro-bowl and being a bust/disappointment. Most 1st round picks, even top-10s, don't, make the pro-bowl. But they are expected to be or become solid starters.
For instance, what if Kevin White had just become a solid starter @ WR? We would now have our speed threat on the roster and have a 1-2-3 punch of Robinson-White-Miller....that's damn good! Even with no pro-bowls.
How about Floyd? Obviously, he ended up being a better pick than White but imagine if he had just panned out a solid #OLB/edge rusher. We wouldn't have had to pay Quinn or, if we had anyway, we would have 3 good edge rush threats at OLB.
I don't think I need to even bother talking about Trubisky. Deshaun Watson level of play at QB probably gets us to the Super Bowl in 2018 and into the playoffs last year.
I think a lot of GMs fall into the same destructive pattern of thinking that investors tend to do. Both dream of that one big score, that one huge HIT, that one great choice that became a windfall. While it's great to get that, it's actually more important to just avoid big misses and large losses. The Bears are poised to have 3 straight top-10 picks who aren't good enough to warrant a 2nd contract with the team. That's the stock equivalent of taking a bath on a major portfolio investment.