Spreadsheet of most effective drafters (teams) or: Why I miss Parcells

[superpunk]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...-drafting.html

There are some problems with methodology I think (bad teams are more prone to start young players) but it's pretty decent. The dropoff from when we lost the Tuna's guiding hand to the Wason Pharrett garbage we've seen recently really just jumps off the page. Who was the last pro-bowler we drafted? Mike Jenkins? lawd have mercy

[Erik_H]

Originally Posted by superpunk

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...-drafting.html

There are some problems with methodology I think (bad teams are more prone to start young players) but it's pretty decent. The dropoff from when we lost the Tuna's guiding hand to the Wason Pharrett garbage we've seen recently really just jumps off the page. Who was the last pro-bowler we drafted? Mike Jenkins? lawd have mercy

Dez made the Pro bowl, but had to pass due to injury (as per Nick Eatman via the lunch break). But that's really besides the point since the pro bowl has become less and less about talent and more about which player ESPN chooses to over hype.

Overall I think our drafting has improved significantly the last 2 years, so we may have what you were missing back (to a degree). It was the 2009 draft that haunts us and will do so for years. That was a disaster piled on top of a disaster.

That said, Parcells made his mistakes too. Getting all excited about drafting a son of a former player hurt us pretty bad. Especially when the alternative was Nick Mangold. (Yes, I am rueing).

I do think that there is reason for hope due to our last 2 drafts.

[SWG9]

Interesting. Also of note: over the last five years, Dallas is 31st in number of starts from its draft classes, and 30th in % of players still in the league in 2012.

[theebs]

The good old days.

Larry lace well says everything's cool now That we ditched that Yankees defense and have him offering his services to the jones family.

Btw

I got an email telling me a number of seats had opened up in the 100 and 200 levels and were available to buy as season tickets. Are people ditching there seats after the last two seasons?

Ironic. The day parcells was hired I believe they sold something like 177 season ticket packages.

Its cool, shanahan and coughlin don't know what they are doing anyway...

[Yakuza Rich]

Very flawed logic here.

Would I really care that the Chiefs are #1 in the last 5 years or how low the Giants ranked?

No, not really.

I'll put it this way. For the most part we've drafted at least 6 players a year outside of the 2009 season. We are 42-38 in the last 5 years (Parcells was fairly long gone after then).

So, it's not like we have been a squad built heavily on FA and yet our record is above .500. That indicates to me that we are doing a decent job drafting the past 5 years. I would have to see all of the other teams' records the past 5 years to get a better comparison.

It also doesn't include UDFA's, which Dallas has done quite well with over the years.






YR

[Shinywalrus]

Very interesting, but isn't the bigger story that 3 of the Super Bowl winning squads are in (or extremely close to...) the bottom 5 of the 5-year list and that the exception is only barely in the top half?

The top squads on the right are not a who's who of excellent teams. They are a who's who of the worst teams in football and the Seahawks.

Our biggest problem over the last 5 years in terms of this statistic has been drafting injured players who continued to have injury issues. I don't think we can conclude that post-Parcells has been a disaster from these data.

[Angus12]

Like all stats, which are fun to look at, but are for the most part worthless, so is this. Or should we take this seriously with the Chiefs, Dolphins, Cardinals, and Browns leading the way...? We've drafted far better in the last few years. Give it time to come to fruition.

[jobberone]

For me you have to look at each draft three and four years down the road.

[dogberry]

theebs do fans purchasing 100s and 200s have to pick up the remainder of the seat licenses? Or did those seats not require a license? thanks

[theebs]

Originally Posted by dogberry

theebs do fans purchasing 100s and 200s have to pick up the remainder of the seat licenses? Or did those seats not require a license? thanks

Not sure.

Can't imagine you don't have to buy the psl. It's mandatory.

[jimnabby]

Parcells was responsible for the horrendous '04 and '06 drafts, don't forget.

The 5 year ranking is killed by the disastrous '09 draft and some slow development & injuries (Dez, Lee, Carter in particular) that limited starts and potential Pro Bowls. It will be interesting to see the five year ranking two years from now. In the best case, we'll have a boatload of Pro Bowls from Dez, Lee, Carter, Smith & Claiborne. In the worst case, the injuries never go away for Lee & Carter, Smith & Claiborne don't develop the way we hope, and Dez doesn't put his knucklehead days behind him the way he seems to be doing.

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

In the worst case, the injuries never go away for Lee & Carter, Smith & Claiborne don't develop the way we hope, and Dez doesn't put his knucklehead days behind him the way he seems to be doing.

hooray

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by Angus12

Like all stats, which are fun to look at, but are for the most part worthless, so is this. Or should we take this seriously with the Chiefs, Dolphins, Cardinals, and Browns leading the way...? We've drafted far better in the last few years. Give it time to come to fruition.

All stats are not worthless.

Just the 'bad' stats that are ill conceived, illogical and incomplete like this one.

The problem with this metric is if I were to run a regression analysis on it, I would be willing to bet that the correlation coefficient would be 0 (meaning: no correlation) or perhaps a negative number (meaning: indirect correlation)

If we went purely on that math, we would conclude that either drafting has no correlation to a team's success or an indirect correlation to a team's success (meaning, the worst you draft the better you do).

Does anybody believe that?

Of course not.

Unfortunately, people like yourself conclude that stats are worthless when in reality it's about somebody coming up with a ludicrous way of determing draft classes and never really checking out what they are saying and that gets lumped in with stats that tell a very accurate picture of what is really going on.

This is great for the fans of hating Jerry because they erroneously think this proves something when it doesn't.

It would have been nice if the creator of this chart had just taken a glance at how the worst teams do better on this chart and come up with a different way to view the draft. Let's say you are the Pats and you have Rob Gronkowski as your TE, you still need a #2 and #3 TE because those are important parts on the roster. But, your #2 (Hernandez) will not play nearly as much unless Gronkowski gets hurt. So if Gronkowski never got hurt, the Patriots look like idiots for drafting Hernandez because he can't start over Gronkowski and likely won't make the Pro Bowl either.







YR

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

The 5 year ranking is killed by the disastrous '09 draft and some slow development & injuries (Dez, Lee, Carter in particular) that limited starts and potential Pro Bowls. It will be interesting to see the five year ranking two years from now. In the best case, we'll have a boatload of Pro Bowls from Dez, Lee, Carter, Smith & Claiborne.

I disagree. While I can see Dez making a few Pro Bowls, none of the other fore-mentioned players will sniff the Pro Bowl.

Lee and Carter don't even have a full season of starts if you add their starts together. Mo will be a good CB, but there are plenty better.

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

Very flawed logic here.

Would I really care that the Chiefs are #1 in the last 5 years or how low the Giants ranked?

No, not really.

I'll put it this way. For the most part we've drafted at least 6 players a year outside of the 2009 season. We are 42-38 in the last 5 years (Parcells was fairly long gone after then).

So, it's not like we have been a squad built heavily on FA and yet our record is above .500. That indicates to me that we are doing a decent job drafting the past 5 years. I would have to see all of the other teams' records the past 5 years to get a better comparison.

It also doesn't include UDFA's, which Dallas has done quite well with over the years.

Or it indicates that the core we built 5 years ago is carrying the crap we've built since then.

The article wasn't arguing for a correlation anyway so idk what you're carrying on about. For this the easiest thing to conclude for Dallas is that something changed 5 years ago in our drafting way way way for the worse.