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

[superpunk]

I've answered it 80 billion times you just don't like the answer. Not my problem.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by superpunk

I've answered it 80 billion times you just don't like the answer. Not my problem.

No, you haven't.

You've evaded it the entire time.

And that's why virtually nobody takes your word with more than a grain of salt.

And that is your problem.









YR

[Mr_Bill]

Originally Posted by superpunk

I've answered it 80 billion times you just don't like the answer. Not my problem.

For crying out loud!

You are claiming that the Cowboys have drafted poorly. OK! That is an arguable claim that many will support, and others not.

Your problem is that you are trying to support that argument with this spreadsheet. It's problem is that it shows mathematically that you are better off drafting poorly than drafting well. Since this is patently absurd, the spreadsheet is poorly formulated and, therefore, worthless.

Everyone understands that there are several ways to build a team. But, when so many good teams (as measured by winning -- the object of all team-building plans) are at the bottom of this chart, and so many poor teams are at the top, it should indicate that the chart originators were mistaken in their parameters for draft success.

Regardless of how any individual team builds its roster, good drafting should correlate to winning when you measure all 32 teams over 5 years. You need to find a chart that demonstrates this.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

No, you haven't.

You've evaded it the entire time.

And that's why virtually nobody takes your word with more than a grain of salt.

And that is your problem.









YR

Not really. I think some of us take various posters words at different spectrums. I happen to respect SuperPunks's "word".

Word.

[M'Kevon]

Originally Posted by Mr_Bill

For crying out loud!

You are claiming that the Cowboys have drafted poorly. OK! That is an arguable claim that many will support, and others not.

Your problem is that you are trying to support that argument with this spreadsheet. It's problem is that it shows mathematically that you are better off drafting poorly than drafting well. Since this is patently absurd, the spreadsheet is poorly formulated and, therefore, worthless.

Everyone understands that there are several ways to build a team. But, when so many good teams (as measured by winning -- the object of all team-building plans) are at the bottom of this chart, and so many poor teams are at the top, it should indicate that the chart originators were mistaken in their parameters for draft success.

[View Full Quote]Regardless of how any individual team builds its roster, good drafting should correlate to winning when you measure all 32 teams over 5 years. You need to find a chart that demonstrates this.

And this should be the final word on the thread. Won't be, of course.

But it should.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

Not really. I think some of us take various posters words at different spectrums. I happen to respect SuperPunks's "word".

Word.

I said 'virtually nobody.' That's does not mean every one.

If you happen to have the logic that we should do well in something that has a mathematic indirect correlation to winning in the NFL, so be it. At least we know where you stand.








YR

[SWG9]

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.

YR

For the life of me I can't understand your thinking on this.

If I were to create a similar chart with UDFA's, Dallas would likely be tops on the list or very high.

If I were to run a similar analysis on that chart, it would likely show no correlation or a negative correlation between winning and losing.

By your logic, that would mean that Dallas either did poorly with UDFA's, or that UDFA's don't matter at all.

Both of those statements are clearly false.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by SWG9

For the life of me I can't understand your thinking on this.

If I were to create a similar chart with UDFA's, Dallas would likely be tops on the list or very high.

If I were to run a similar analysis on that chart, it would likely show no correlation or a negative correlation between winning and losing.

By your logic, that would mean that Dallas either did poorly with UDFA's, or that UDFA's don't matter at all.

Both of those statements are clearly false.

It would mean that doing well in terms of starts by UDFA doesn't result in more winning, and so is not a very useful measure of how an organization is run. I think that's pretty cut and dry.

[Trajan]

Originally Posted by Idgit

It would mean that doing well in terms of starts by UDFA doesn't result in more winning, and so is not a very useful measure of how an organization is run. I think that's pretty cut and dry.

Actually, it could be a good indicator of how poorly an organization is run.

[SWG9]

Originally Posted by Idgit

It would mean that doing well in terms of starts by UDFA doesn't result in more winning, and so is not a very useful measure of how an organization is run. I think that's pretty cut and dry.

So Dallas's success in acquiring UDFA's is meaningless and not a credit to the organization?

[Kristen82]

Originally Posted by SWG9

So Dallas's success in acquiring UDFA's is meaningless and not a credit to the organization?

Seriously, where would DAL's O be without Austin and Romo?