ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   NFL Draft Top 5 Pick Success Rate (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203083)

Deberg_1990 02-25-2009 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5525649)
This is just a snapshot and isn't enough info to make any claims. You're looking at success rate without looking at value. OG had the highest success rate - but you can get an OG later in the draft and still have a pretty good success rate. However, when you look at other positions like QB, DT, etc. the success rate drops off much more. Therefore, while an OG might be the 'safer' pick it is not a good value pick because you can get one later. Whereas a QB might have a lower top-5 success rate - the rate in lower rounds gets lower and lower and lower.

Basically elite skill position players will always have a larger boom or bust ratio. Thats why they are valued.

SenselessChiefsFan 02-25-2009 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5525503)
Personally I always find things like this funny because it never takes into account who the players are.

The position of WR has a high bust rate, if this was Calvin Johnson I'd be like sure take him but it's Michael Crabtree you have to adjust for the players.

It's basically a guy doing a giant stats breakdown to tell us that we shouldn't take a QB because god forbid he might bust.

I agree here. There are going to be busts at every position. The reason that there are more QB busts is that more teams reach for what is known to be the most important position on the field.

Busts are caused most often when teams have a need and then reach for that need as opposed to drafting better players at less of a need position.

GM's aren't above rationalizing the talent that is there is what they need. And, clearly fans aren't, as evidenced by all the support for Sanchez.

SenselessChiefsFan 02-26-2009 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arc (Post 5525539)
To be intellectually honest, he should have broken the percentages down in all areas of the draft, too. Who's to say that the top 5 isn't the safest spot to get a QB, percentage-wise, than anywhere else in the draft, despite the low number?

Top five should be safest spot in the draft to pick ANY position. It is when you have your pick of everyone in the draft class. The percentages would go down with any position as you drop in the draft.

DaKCMan AP 02-26-2009 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5528571)
Top five should be safest spot in the draft to pick ANY position. It is when you have your pick of everyone in the draft class. The percentages would go down with any position as you drop in the draft.

Some positions drop off at a higher rate than others.

Frosty 02-26-2009 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5528571)
Top five should be safest spot in the draft to pick ANY position. It is when you have your pick of everyone in the draft class. The percentages would go down with any position as you drop in the draft.

Which is exactly what I was implying. Just because the number is low (29% or whatever) doesn't mean it isn't much worse later.

Just Passin' By 02-26-2009 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5525649)
This is just a snapshot and isn't enough info to make any claims. You're looking at success rate without looking at value. OG had the highest success rate - but you can get an OG later in the draft and still have a pretty good success rate. However, when you look at other positions like QB, DT, etc. the success rate drops off much more. Therefore, while an OG might be the 'safer' pick it is not a good value pick because you can get one later. Whereas a QB might have a lower top-5 success rate - the rate in lower rounds gets lower and lower and lower.

Oh, for crying out loud.... What this shows is that, despite the inane bleatings of Mecca and company on this issue, quarterback is the most likely position to be a wasted pick if the player is taken in the top 5. It doesn't mean that no QB taken in the top 5 will ever pan out. The asinine notion that people are "scared" because they don't want to piss away a top 5 pick on a QB that they don't think will succeed against the odds is just taking hit after hit.

As for value, what the hell is the 'value' of failure? What's the longterm value of drafting Ryan Leaf?

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-26-2009 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5528739)
Oh, for crying out loud.... What this shows is that, despite the inane bleatings of Mecca and company on this issue, quarterback is the most likely position to be a wasted pick if the player is taken in the top 5. It doesn't mean that no QB taken in the top 5 will ever pan out. The asinine notion that people are "scared" because they don't want to piss away a top 5 pick on a QB that they don't think will succeed against the odds is just taking hit after hit.

As for value, what the hell is the 'value' of failure? What's the longterm value of drafting Ryan Leaf?

It is not surprising whatsoever that the logic of that post was completely lost on you.

You wonder why I say you're afraid to pick a QB, and you launch in to diatribes like this.

We had a poll in the draft forum a week or so ago. Potential percentiles were assigned for each position, 98, 90, and 80, meaning that a QB with an 80 would have the potential to be better than 4/5 of the league.

Every person who voted picked 3 "players".

Who are you picking in that case, and why?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202444

SenselessChiefsFan 02-26-2009 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5528678)
Some positions drop off at a higher rate than others.

The other part of this is that there is MORE opportunity for nearly every other position than QB.

There is only one starting QB in the NFL.

Guys get better with experience and a QB doesn't get on the field unless he is the best QB on the roster.

A WR gets on the field as the fourth best WR. A linebacker can get playing time on special teams and situational defense. An OT, may move to guard.

The third or fourth corner would get time on the field. The third or fourth safety can get time on the field.

That is why, to ME, experience in college is a very important piece of the QB picture. Mainly, it will be very tough for that QB to overcome a lack of experience in the NFL.

Because it is very hard to get a QB experience when he gets to the NFL if he isn't ready.

SenselessChiefsFan 02-26-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arc (Post 5528709)
Which is exactly what I was implying. Just because the number is low (29% or whatever) doesn't mean it isn't much worse later.

To me, that is just logic. It is worse for all positions.

The risk is also much less.

Just Passin' By 02-26-2009 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5528772)
It is not surprising whatsoever that the logic of that post was completely lost on you.

More irony from you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5528772)
You wonder why I say you're afraid to pick a QB, and you launch in to diatribes like this.

I don't wonder why you say I'm afraid to pick a QB. I could care less why you say it. Having seen the depth of your football knowledge, your seal of approval is nowhere on my list of desired things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5528772)
We had a poll in the draft forum a week or so ago. Potential percentiles were assigned for each position, 98, 90, and 80, meaning that a QB with an 80 would have the potential to be better than 4/5 of the league.

Every person who voted picked 3 "players".

Who are you picking in that case, and why?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202444

Couldn't care less, and I'm not going to let you sidetrack the issue. Despite your claim, I fully understood the 'logic' of DaKCMan AP's post. It's just piss poor logic. You know... your specialty. Again, what was the long-term value of the Ryan Leaf pick?

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-26-2009 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 5528775)
The other part of this is that there is MORE opportunity for nearly every other position than QB.

There is only one starting QB in the NFL.

Guys get better with experience and a QB doesn't get on the field unless he is the best QB on the roster.

A WR gets on the field as the fourth best WR. A linebacker can get playing time on special teams and situational defense. An OT, may move to guard.

The third or fourth corner would get time on the field. The third or fourth safety can get time on the field.

That is why, to ME, experience in college is a very important piece of the QB picture. Mainly, it will be very tough for that QB to overcome a lack of experience in the NFL.

Because it is very hard to get a QB experience when he gets to the NFL if he isn't ready.

No one is debating any of that, with the exception of the last part of your post....yeah, it's difficult to get him in-game, on-field exp., but that doesn't mean that film study and working with the 2nd and 3rd teams offer no benefits. If they didn't, teams would just throw rookies to the wolves.

With regards to the first, the lack of good QBs and the difficulty in finding one is precisely why we are arguing for one of these two quarterbacks. They have all the tools that you could want for a franchise signal caller, and since we all lack precognition, we're going to have to take a leap of faith that they will work out at the NFL level, because going on what we know, they have the skillset that very few other people on this earth do.

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-26-2009 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5528786)
More irony from you.



I don't wonder why you say I'm afraid to pick a QB. I could care less why you say it. Having seen the depth of your football knowledge, your seal of approval is nowhere on my list of desired things.



Couldn't care less, and I'm not going to let you sidetrack the issue. Despite your claim, I fully understood the 'logic' of DaKCMan AP's post. It's just piss poor logic. You know... your specialty.

You do an excellent job of nailing yourself to the cross without ever taking a stand on any issue.

You're like a jaded woman. You bitch just to bitch. You don't offer any kind of analysis, you just rag ass all the time.

And regarding my football knowledge, I guaran****ingtee that the overwhelming majority of posters on this board would take mine over yours.

philfree 02-26-2009 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5528797)
You do an excellent job of nailing yourself to the cross without ever taking a stand on any issue.

You're like a jaded woman. You bitch just to bitch. You don't offer any kind of analysis, you just rag ass all the time.

And regarding my football knowledge, I guaran****ingtee that the overwhelming majority of posters on this board would take mine over yours.

Oh.....make that a poll.

PhilFree:arrow:

Just Passin' By 02-26-2009 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5528797)
You do an excellent job of nailing yourself to the cross without ever taking a stand on any issue.

You're like a jaded woman. You bitch just to bitch. You don't offer any kind of analysis, you just rag ass all the time.

And regarding my football knowledge, I guaran****ingtee that the overwhelming majority of posters on this board would take mine over yours.

Your football knowledge isn't quite nonexistent, but my dog probably knows more than you've shown in the past month or so. And the irony of you claiming that I "rag ass" all the time was yet another fun little tidbit in your post.

Do you even realize what an idiot you make yourself out to be?

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-26-2009 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5528812)
Oh.....make that a poll.

PhilFree:arrow:

I'm not cluttering up the board with yet another stupid ****ing thread. If someone else wants to do it, fine.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.