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

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, this is a pure metric describing overall draft effectiveness ... and it is mightily flawed.

Why? Because it isn't tied in any form or fashion to wins. And the over-riding factor of draft effectiveness is win %.

Would you rather draft 3 guys who start on a SB winner or 7 guys who started on a 4 win team? Not everything is equal.

And there is a large gap between Pro Bowl status and just really good.

We know the Cowboys had a terrible, terrible draft within the last 5 seasons. That shows up in these metrics. We don't know that the past couple drafts are bad. 5 years is a solid time frame for grading a draft. Grading the entire previous 5 year block is rather too early.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by junk

I completely agree with this. He has his faults, no doubt. So did Belichick, Landry and Johnson.

However, his time in Dallas was beneficial to the franchise and set in the right direction.

Agree with both of you.

All that said the very best players we acquired under Parcells were Romo (who BP ignored for his old hand me downs) and Ware who he didn't want to draft.

So BP was a good football guy but he also made very human but real mistakes as well.

No one is clairvoyant in this business. It is all educated guesses.

[cowboysooner]

There are 3 players from the Parcels era that can't be replaced with a comparable contract in free agency: Witten, Ware and Romo. We have about a 3 more year run with these guys as very productive players if we are lucky.

Miles is a good player, but if you spend money you can find a player of that caliber in free agency every year for the same dollars. Ratliff was hurt and you can find players like him on the market for the money.

It is not shocking that the Browns rate highly. They have a very good offensive line and defensive line. They are what an NFL team looks like with no one to throw or catch the ball for about 10 years running in a passing league. But DeQwell Jackson, Haden, TJ, Sheard, Joe Thomas, Mack, Rubin, Taylor and Mack are all good to great drafted players.

Too few of them have a profound impact on the passing game for the Browns to win lots of games. If Weeden is good (which I doubt), they will be fine. If not, they will top out at about 7 or 8 wins.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by cowboysooner

There are 3 players from the Parcels era that can't be replaced with a comparable contract in free agency: Witten, Ware and Romo. We have about a 3 more year run with these guys as very productive players if we are lucky.

Miles is a good player, but if you spend money you can find a player of that caliber in free agency every year for the same dollars. Ratliff was hurt and you can find players like him on the market for the money.

It is not shocking that the Browns rate highly. They have a very good offensive line and defensive line. They are what an NFL team looks like with no one to throw or catch the ball for about 10 years running in a passing league. But DeQwell Jackson, Haden, TJ, Sheard, Joe Thomas, Mack, Rubin, Taylor and Mack are all good to great drafted players.

[View Full Quote]Too few of them have a profound impact on the passing game for the Browns to win lots of games. If Weeden is good (which I doubt), they will be fine. If not, they will top out at about 7 or 8 wins.

You hit the nail on the head there.

AND expound upon what I stated above.

CLE can rank highly in these things but really has FAILED in what matters: Winning. Until they invest resources into QB. WR that have no real shot.

We talk about how solid the SB teams are on the lines but let's also be real here.

SF: They have Alex Smith who was 1st overall. They selected a QB with the 4th pick in round 2 as well. They have a top 10 pick for Crabtree and a 6th overall pick for the TE. They used 7th overall in 2011 for OLB Aldon Smith. And they used the late 1st in 2012 for another WR.

BALT: 1st round QB, 2nd round RB.
Went and paid for AnQuan Bolden and used a 2nd rounder for Torrey Smith.
Also used a 1st rounder for a CB in 2011.

Until CLE can add a top notch QB and put some skill around that QB to score points they won't win jack. And thus the drafting will be a failure.

[cowboysooner]

Originally Posted by jterrell

You hit the nail on the head there.

AND expound upon what I stated above.

CLE can rank highly in these things but really has FAILED in what matters: Winning. Until they invest resources into QB. WR that have no real shot.

We talk about how solid the SB teams are on the lines but let's also be real here.

SF: They have Alex Smith who was 1st overall. They selected a QB with the 4th pick in round 2 as well. They have a top 10 pick for Crabtree and a 6th overall pick for the TE. They used 7th overall in 2011 for OLB Aldon Smith. And they used the late 1st in 2012 for another WR.

BALT: 1st round QB, 2nd round RB.
Went and paid for AnQuan Bolden and used a 2nd rounder for Torrey Smith.
Also used a 1st rounder for a CB in 2011.

Until CLE can add a top notch QB and put some skill around that QB to score points they won't win jack. And thus the drafting will be a failure.

Kansas City is another one. They have 3 top 12 defensive linemen and another highly drafted guy in their rotation. They have a pro bowl inside backer, a first round wolb that averages more than 10 sacks for a team that is behind, they have a solb that is a very good player and had more than 10 sacks, they have a pro bowl free safety, they have a $50mm corner and another second round pick and a $6mm corner. They have a pro bowl wideout. They have an explosive 1,500+ yard back. They have a goal line power guy. They have a top 5 right tackle and a first round top 10 in the league left tackle. They have a good 3rd round pick as a swing backup. They have 3 interior starters that are 2-3rd round picks. They have 1 pro bowl receiver and other medium compensated free agents.

But they have a hot garbage turnover machine at qb so they suck.

[wileedog]

Originally Posted by cowboysooner

But they have a hot garbage turnover machine at qb so they suck.

All the more reason this team needs to win something while Romo is still effective.

We've seen a QB search done by Jerry. It was not pretty, and with Lacewell and 'Ol Boy Gang back in the fold I expect the next one will be worse.

[cowboysooner]

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

The most impressive thing about the chart is the Patriots being in the top 5 in expected results despite having one of the winningest teams over the decade. Usually trading down from the 20's is a brilliant idea because you would rather have 40 and 70 rather than drafting at 29. It is easier to hit a target from 100 and 150 yards with 2 chanced than 1 target from 75 yards.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by jterrell

You hit the nail on the head there.

AND expound upon what I stated above.

CLE can rank highly in these things but really has FAILED in what matters: Winning. Until they invest resources into QB. WR that have no real shot.

We talk about how solid the SB teams are on the lines but let's also be real here.

SF: They have Alex Smith who was 1st overall. They selected a QB with the 4th pick in round 2 as well. They have a top 10 pick for Crabtree and a 6th overall pick for the TE. They used 7th overall in 2011 for OLB Aldon Smith. And they used the late 1st in 2012 for another WR.

BALT: 1st round QB, 2nd round RB.
Went and paid for AnQuan Bolden and used a 2nd rounder for Torrey Smith.
Also used a 1st rounder for a CB in 2011.

Until CLE can add a top notch QB and put some skill around that QB to score points they won't win jack. And thus the drafting will be a failure.

That's really the crux of the issue.

They can scream and holler that the 'models don't pretend to show winning and losing' until they are blue in the face.

But all they are really doing is taking the subjective opinion of the creator's of the charts that their way of creating the chart accurately depicts drafting skill.

If it is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN that you are likely to do better by *ranking worse* on the 5-year model, then why would I ever want the Cowboys to rank well in the 5-year model?

I still can't get that answer because it doesn't fit their vendetta against Jerry.








YR

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

That's really the crux of the issue.

They can scream and holler that the 'models don't pretend to show winning and losing' until they are blue in the face.

But all they are really doing is taking the subjective opinion of the creator's of the charts that their way of creating the chart accurately depicts drafting skill.

If it is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN that you are likely to do better by *ranking worse* on the 5-year model, then why would I ever want the Cowboys to rank well in the 5-year model?

I still can't get that answer because it doesn't fit their vendetta against Jerry.

Because the thing that still hasn't sunk into your brain yet is the thing I've said over and over and over again - the draft is not the only way to build your team. Therefore there may not be a 100% direct correlation between drafting well and winning, when you factor in all the other things. However that doesn't change the fact that you want to draft well, as it is one of the things that factors into success.

I'm sure you'll ignore that and just obliviously repost the same poorly thought out stuff, as you have the previous 80 billion times I've said it, but there it is.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by superpunk

Because the thing that still hasn't sunk into your brain yet is the thing I've said over and over and over again - the draft is not the only way to build your team. Therefore there may not be a 100% direct correlation between drafting well and winning, when you factor in all the other things. However that doesn't change the fact that you want to draft well, as it is one of the things that factors into success.

I'm sure you'll ignore that and just obliviously repost the same poorly thought out stuff, as you have the previous 80 billion times I've said it, but there it is.

I'm not asking for 100% direct correlation.

If I got a direct correlation of 0.5 or better I would be content with what the 5-year model shows.

Even if I got something like a 0.2 direct correlation, which is weak mathematically, you could see that there is some correlation between the 5-year chart and winning and losing and some things could be derived from it.

Instead I got a -0.37 correlation coefficient.

That is an INDIRECT correlation.


You can sit here and say that the draft is not the only way to build your team but it still does NOT answer then WHY I would want the Cowboys to do well in this chart?

By YOUR logic the chart realistically and MATHEMATICALLY indicates that you're better off not doing well in the draft in favor of using other ways to build a team (whatever they may be). Whether you like it or not...that's what the chart and the math shows.

That's where you keep talking in circles. And that's where this is not sinking into your brain.

There is no reason for me as a Cowboys fan to want this team to do well in this 5-year model chart.








YR

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by superpunk

I'm sure you'll ignore that and just obliviously repost the same poorly thought out stuff, as you have the previous 80 billion times I've said it, but there it is.

oh well I tried.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by superpunk

oh well I tried.

I'm just trying to get a straight answer.

I'll make the question simpler for you.

Why would I want my team to do well in ANYTHING that has an indirect correlation to winning and losing in the NFL?


Forget about other ways to build the team, etc. Just answer that question.






YR

[blindzebra]

The only bigger waste of time than this thread was the time put into making that useless chart.

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

Forget about other ways to build the team, etc. Just answer that question.

Impossible to do. Free agency, coaching, etc all factor into winning, so isolating any one method of success is pointless. You want to do well at all of them. For example the Chiefs, they have drafted very well, they have alot of home grown talent on their squad. But they are atrocious or completely inactive in free agency, and they hire imbeciles like Romeo Crennel and Todd Haley to coach their team while trading for Matt Cassel and giving him a six year 63 million dollar deal...so they don't win.

You can draft well, and still get poor results. Just as in the NFL, you can pass well, and still get poor results if your head coach is an imbecile, you can't force punts or turnovers and you lose half your lineup to injury. See: The Dallas Cowboys.

I realize the chart makes you cranky because you don't like what it implies, and without a doubt there are some flaws in it - but trying to make it into something it isn't (as you have this ENTIRE thread) is just stupid.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by superpunk

Impossible to do. Free agency, coaching, etc all factor into winning, so isolating any one method of success is pointless. You want to do well at all of them. For example the Chiefs, they have drafted very well, they have alot of home grown talent on their squad. But they are atrocious or completely inactive in free agency, and they hire imbeciles like Romeo Crennel and Todd Haley to coach their team while trading for Matt Cassel and giving him a six year 63 million dollar deal...so they don't win.

You can draft well, and still get poor results. Just as in the NFL, you can pass well, and still get poor results if your head coach is an imbecile, you can't force punts or turnovers and you lose half your lineup to injury. See: The Dallas Cowboys.

Of course you won't answer my question. As I've said, you would rather provide conjecture rather than facts. Yet, you accused me of the same.

One would have a much stronger argument provided by the MATHEMATICAL FACTS that you would be better off doing WORSE on the chart and trying to 'build your team thru other ways.'

Why would the Steelers want to do differently?

You're posing 1 example of the Chiefs, but the MATH shows that LEAGUE-WIDE over a 5-YEAR span that doing well in the model will more likely mean your team will perform poorly.

I realize the chart makes you cranky because you don't like what it implies, and without a doubt there are some flaws in it - but trying to make it into something it isn't (as you have this ENTIRE thread) is just stupid.

I didn't like the chart because I could see the horrible flaws in the chart. I love statistics. I'm a statistician by trade. I just dislike charts like this because it's 'bad statistics.'

Why is it bad statistics?

Because it's flawed, incomplete and has an INDIRECT correlation to winning in the NFL.

What makes me 'cranky' is your attitude towards my dislike of the chart. You've been nothing but curt, rude, obnoxious and incredibly condescending. Because I disagree with you, that makes you think I blindly support Jerry's decisions which could not be further from the truth.

Until you can answer the question 'why would I want my team to do well in anything that has an indirect correlation to winning in the NFL?'...your point will be taken with a grain of salt.









YR