1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

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

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by superpunk, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,468 Messages
    1,291 Likes Received
    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.
  2. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,468 Messages
    1,291 Likes Received
    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.
  3. cowboysooner

    cowboysooner Well-Known Member

    1,382 Messages
    30 Likes Received
    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.
  4. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,468 Messages
    1,291 Likes Received
    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.
  5. cowboysooner

    cowboysooner Well-Known Member

    1,382 Messages
    30 Likes Received
    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.
  6. wileedog

    wileedog Well-Known Member

    10,067 Messages
    771 Likes Received
    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.
  7. cowboysooner

    cowboysooner Well-Known Member

    1,382 Messages
    30 Likes Received
    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.
  8. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,106 Messages
    1,130 Likes Received
    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
  9. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    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.
  10. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,106 Messages
    1,130 Likes Received
    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
  11. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    oh well I tried.
  12. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,106 Messages
    1,130 Likes Received
    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
  13. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    9,388 Messages
    634 Likes Received
    The only bigger waste of time than this thread was the time put into making that useless chart.
  14. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    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.
  15. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,106 Messages
    1,130 Likes Received
    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 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
  16. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    I've answered it 80 billion times you just don't like the answer. Not my problem.
  17. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,106 Messages
    1,130 Likes Received
    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
  18. Mr_Bill

    Mr_Bill Member

    383 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    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.
  19. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    Not really. I think some of us take various posters words at different spectrums. I happen to respect SuperPunks's "word".

    Word.
  20. M'Kevon

    M'Kevon A Love Supreme

    3,255 Messages
    129 Likes Received
    And this should be the final word on the thread. Won't be, of course.

    But it should.

Share This Page