AdamJT13 said:
No, they did not "use math to support a theory," they researched the history of draft picks and players and came to the conclusion that mid-second-round picks are the best value.
Did you even read this thread?
After the first eight picks, the chances of picking a Hall of Famer in the first round is no better than the chances of picking one in the early to middle of the second round.
Early in the first round, you do have a greater chance of hitting big, but it comes with a greater risk. As you move lower in the first round, the risk drops at a faster rate than the chance of hitting big. And in the middle of the second round, the chances of hitting big compared to the risk involved is at its optimum -- the risk is now far less than the chances of hitting big. After that, the chances of hitting big drop faster than the risk does, since the cost of a third-round pick isn't much less than that of a second-round pick, etc.
Your comment was weak. If a team "hits" on a second-round player, he becomes a starter or becomes a Pro Bowl player or becomes a Hall of Famer, the same as when a team "hits" on a first-round player. If a team misses on a second-round player, there is a cost to the team of the money and pick that was wasted, but it is a fraction of what that cost is when a team misses on a first-round player, and even a smaller fraction compared to an early first-round pick. The research concluded that for about 30 percent of the cost (in picks and dollars) of the average first-round pick, the average second-round pick yields a much higher percentage of the production of the average first-round pick, and many second-round picks produce more than any first-round pick.
Imagine you have $30 to buy raffle tickets for either $10, $6 or $3 apiece, with various amounts available in prizes. The $10 tickets pay out, on average, $6, but there is a 0.5 percent chance (1 in 200) that you could win $1,000. The $6 tickets pay out an average of $4.50, with a 0.2 percent chance (1 in 500) of a $1,000 winner. And the $3 tickets pay out an average of $2.75, also with a 0.2 percent chance (1 in 500) of winning $1,000. You have to spend all of your money on one type of ticket -- no mixing and matching.
Are you going to buy three for $10 apiece, five for $6 apiece or 10 for $3 apiece? The individual $10 tickets might have a higher average payout per ticket, but the average total you'd get is only $18, compared to $22.50 for the five $6 tickets and $27.50 for the 10 $3 tickets. And the chances of winning $1,000 with the three $10 tickets (1.5 percent total) might be more than with the five $6 tickets (1.0 percent total), but it's less than with the 10 $3 tickets (2.0 percent total).
That particular analogy applies only to the value of the picks involved, not the dollars spent. A similar analogy for the monetary risks and rewards involved would be if you had only $10 in your pocket and you had to buy at least one ticket. If you buy a $10 ticket, you have a 1 in 200 chance of winning $1,000, but you'll end up with only $6 on average, and you could walk away with nothing. If you buy one $6 ticket, you have a 1 in 500 chance of winning $1,000, you'll end up with $8.50 on average, and you'll still have at least $4 no matter what. If you buy two $3 tickets, you have a 1 in 250 chance of winning $1,000, you'll end up with $9.50 on average, and you'll also have at least $4 no matter what.
Correct, but the difference in cost (in both picks and dollars) is far greater than the average difference in production, and the maximum production is identical. And the most efficient picks, on average, come in the second round.
Then maybe you need to post the article and not paraphrase it.
You always seem to be up on your stuff.
But I want to see the criteria for this theory. How they determined the value. Not just dollars and sense. But real value to a team.
Production. Pro Bowls.
How they elevated the players around them.
You see, this falls into a stats type of argument.
And while you are the stat king. Stats can be made to suggest anything.
So pardon me if I want to read the article and see exactly how they rated each player, and how that rating was used to make this enlightening determination.
But...
And this is even more important of a fact in regard to your assertion trading down is the smart thing because of rate of return.
Kevin Burnett
Julius Jones
Jacob Rogers
Stephen Peterman
Al Johnson
Jason Witten
These are the second and third round picks since Bill Parcells joined the team.
Witten speaks for himself.
Maybe the best pick we have made in the last three years. His value versus return is undisputed.
But we haven't exactly broken the bank on the rest of those picks.
Jones may end up being a player. But to date, he has been injured and is inconsistent. Somewhat like his brother in Chicago.
Rogers was an outright bust.
Peterman can't get on the field. And with the looks of last year's line, that makes quite a statement.
Burnett is injured, and the date of his season ending injury suggests he will not be back in time for camp, the first game, or maybe even the middle of the season.
So we go into his third year waiting for him to show us what he has.
I reserve my comments on Johnson until I see the bulked up version this season.
But the early returns show a guy who gets shoved around by DTs.
You may be absolutely correct the second round is the best dollar for dollar acquisition.
But the history of this team, under this coach/talent evaluator indicates we have one winner, and a bunch of also-rans. With maybe two outright busts in Rogers and Peterman.
So theories are great. Stats are wonderful.
But practical factions say this team has difficulty recognizing talent in the second and third round.
Maybe they reach. Maybe they are inept.
But they have failed more than succeeded.
And with that, I'd be more inclined to stay where we are and pick someone in a round where they have shown a propensity for making sound choices.
Which is what this is all about.
Want to PM me the article. I'll be glad to read it and reply.
Or post it here. Either way.
But be advised that article is going to have to be one charming article. More charming than that pig on Green Acres, for me to look at the list above and come away with a new found respect for second and third rounders chosen by this team.
By the way Adam. I do understand a bust in the second is less of an impact than a bust in the first. But your raffle tickets analogy, while amusing, doesn't factor in that the rate of return is subjective in the NFL.
Put Montana in the Raiders long ball offense as a player and he still would have been one of the smartest players going. But his rag arm would have prevented him from being the guy he was with the 9ers.
Emmitt Smith would not have been the greatest behind Barry Sander's line. Now Sanders excelled behind a line that blocked the very way they did. I am not saying they were a bad line. Fact is, they did exactly what he needed to improvise.
But Emmitt was not that type of runner.
And in that little acorn of truth you will find any analysis consisting of feast/famine ie. your raffle ticket analogy is flawed. Because it comes down to a subjective analysis and math.
And sometimes the results are predictaed by the team surrounding the player.
