What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

★☆★ NFL DRAFT Thread. ★☆★ (1 Viewer)

PlasmaDogPlasma said:
To me it seems clear that the Vikings have already locked up a great draft. If they find someone that can play with one of those late picks it's just gravy.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think they got 2 players who were the best prospects at their position, Floyd and Patterson. Both filled huge voids as well. On top of that, they picked up a great CB prospect. Another position of huge need.

What I really like about the Patterson pick the most is the fact that he will get to work with Jennings. Jennings should be able to provide solid leadership to help Patterson develop is game.

Vikings did exceptionally well in round 1 IMO.

 
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heatman said:
So the Falcons give up a 3rd(92) and a 6th(198) to move up 8 spots from 30 to 22.

The vikings give up a 3rd(83) 4th(102) and 7th(229) to move up 23 spots from 52 to 29.

But the Vikings got raped?
Click to expand...
If you put stock in draft pick value:

Falcons gave up 764 worth of value to get 780 worth of value

Vikings gave up 649 worth of value to get 640 worth of value

So the Falcons made out better than the Vikings in their respective trades.

 
Snotbubbles said:
Heatman said:
So the Falcons give up a 3rd(92) and a 6th(198) to move up 8 spots from 30 to 22.

The vikings give up a 3rd(83) 4th(102) and 7th(229) to move up 23 spots from 52 to 29.

But the Vikings got raped?
Click to expand...
If you put stock in draft pick value:

Falcons gave up 764 worth of value to get 780 worth of value

Vikings gave up 649 worth of value to get 640 worth of value

So the Falcons made out better than the Vikings in their respective trades.
Click to expand...
There's no science to it - it's just implied. If any of the guys bust the value chart goes out the window

 
Tackling Dummies said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Tackling Dummies said:
twistd said:
Boy, did the Patriots rape the Vikings on this trade.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, Hoodie is back in the 2nd and 3rd after losing picks from previous deals.
Click to expand...
Explain to me why people think this.
Click to expand...
Not sure it will make any difference, but...

(a) Draft's WR position is not loaded with game changing talent.

(b) MIN reached for a project.

© Gave up too much in relation to other traded picks in the first, much less the tail end of the 1st.

(d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd

(e) Hit/miss ratio for WRs is not a good gamble

There ya go.
Click to expand...
The Ravens say that in slots 24-32, the position that busts most – by far – is WR. So I just did some quick research on WRs taken in that range over the last 10 years.

Interesting. 12 guys. 3 complete busts (AJ Jenkins, Davis, Woods), 4 kind-of busts (Baldwin, Meachem, Gonzalez, Michael Jenkins), 5 good picks (Bryant, Nicks, Britt, Holmes, White). I would have thought that more than 12 WRs would have been picked in that range over the course of a decade.

201230. A.J. Jenkins – San Francisco

2011

26. Jonathan Baldwin – KC

2010

24. Dez Bryant – Dallas

2009

29. Hakeem Nicks - NYG

30. Kenny Britt - TEN

2008

None

2007

27. Robert Meachem - NO

30. Craig “Buster” Davis – SD

32. Anthony Gonzalez - IND

2006.

25. Santonio Holmes – PIT

2005.

27. Roddy White – ATL

2004

29. Michael Jenkins – ATL

31. Rashaun Woods – SF

2003

None

2002

None

 
Way too early to call AJ Jenkins or Baldwin a bust. As an Ohio State fan, Anthony Gonzales has been a complete bust, though.

 
Man, that was a crazy first round. Still not sure how I feel about the Fins moving up to grab Jordan, glad they didn't do it for Lane.

Vikings got three really good players in the first round.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
 
Here's one huge thing nobody had really talked about with the Vikings trade. By trading into the first, they now have a team option for an additional year on Patterson. That's absolutely huge, especially when talking about a guy that may be a little raw. If it takes him a year, or 2, or 3 you still have a few years of relatively cheap production from him before losing him or handing him a huge contract. Take that option away and you're either forced to accelerate the learning curve a great deal, or have to invest all your time and work into developing a player only to watch him leave or demand a huge contract just as he gets good (trust me, I saw this with Jason Peters the ungrateful lout).

With the first round contracts not being nearly as onerous, it actually seems to make more sense to take a more raw prospect in the first than in the 2nd round due to that option year. That's value that I don't think that trade charts reflect.

 
GroveDiesel said:
Here's one huge thing nobody had really talked about with the Vikings trade. By trading into the first, they now have a team option for an additional year on Patterson. That's absolutely huge, especially when talking about a guy that may be a little raw. If it takes him a year, or 2, or 3 you still have a few years of relatively cheap production from him before losing him or handing him a huge contract. Take that option away and you're either forced to accelerate the learning curve a great deal, or have to invest all your time and work into developing a player only to watch him leave or demand a huge contract just as he gets good (trust me, I saw this with Jason Peters the ungrateful lout).With the first round contracts not being nearly as onerous, it actually seems to make more sense to take a more raw prospect in the first than in the 2nd round due to that option year. That's value that I don't think that trade charts reflect.
Click to expand...
This is a really :goodposting: .

 
MDSkinner said:
GroveDiesel said:
Here's one huge thing nobody had really talked about with the Vikings trade. By trading into the first, they now have a team option for an additional year on Patterson. That's absolutely huge, especially when talking about a guy that may be a little raw. If it takes him a year, or 2, or 3 you still have a few years of relatively cheap production from him before losing him or handing him a huge contract. Take that option away and you're either forced to accelerate the learning curve a great deal, or have to invest all your time and work into developing a player only to watch him leave or demand a huge contract just as he gets good (trust me, I saw this with Jason Peters the ungrateful lout).With the first round contracts not being nearly as onerous, it actually seems to make more sense to take a more raw prospect in the first than in the 2nd round due to that option year. That's value that I don't think that trade charts reflect.
Click to expand...
This is a really :goodposting: .
Click to expand...
A very good point indeed. Of course I think that's appropriate for a QB where the $$ can get out of hand fast. Sure you get one less year in the second round, but they are also that much cheaper for the first 4 you do have them.

 
One hidden aspect with the value chart is that it looks at the value of the pick at the given spot but not the value of the player in the eyes getting him.

Let's say that the Vikings had Patterson rated as the 20th best player on their board. In their eyes they aren't getting 640 points worth of value - they are getting 850.

I'm not saying the Vikings are correct in this assessment but it's definitely a hidden factor that should be considered when evaluating some of these deals.

-QG

 
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-nfl-draft/news/20130426/2013-nfl-draft-first-round-reaction-peter-king/index.html

Looking back on a strange first round, ahead to a starry second

Peter King

ST. LOUIS -- After the strangest first round of an NFL draft that I have seen, here's a look at the bizarro-world day-one (yes: Justin Pugh and Travis Frederick; no: Geno Smith and Matt Barkley) and a look ahead to a second day that will be starrier than the first.

Ten Things I Think About the Draft's First Round1. I think the story line of this draft always will be this: In the most unfamous draft in years, the most famous, noteworthy and worthy players went home with long faces. The quarterback we all thought a year ago would be a very high first-rounder, Matt Barkley, wasn't chosen in the first round. The quarterback who appeared a lock for the first overall pick last September, Geno Smith, wasn't picked. The stars from the two teams that played in the national title game in January, Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o and Alabama running back Eddie Lacy, weren't picked. I talked to the agent for Barkley, Jimmy Sexton, early this morning, and he said he had no idea who'd pick Barkley Friday night. Smith said he planned to go home, his head apparently sore from hanging it in the Green Room for four hours Thursday. What a strange night.

2. I think the Bills could be CIA agents. E.J. Manuel over Matt Barkley and Ryan Nassib? If you had that one, you are either Doug Marrone's wife or Buddy Nix's mantra-keeper. But Manuel is the kind of versatile quarterback -- the guy Jon Gruden firmly believes is the best all-around quarterback and team leader in the draft -- who should have a long career in the league. Great career? No one knows, and God knows the Bills have had their failures since Jim Kelly retired.

3. I think Ryan Nassib might not be inviting Doug Marrone to many family functions as life goes on.

4. I think, for me, the take-your-breath-away moment in the first round was Kyle Long over Manti Te'o, Tyler Eifert and Menelik Watson at 20 to the Bears. Chicago GM Phil Emery called him the highest-rated guard he's scouted in his last 12 draft classes. That's a wow -- and a good example of how different scouts and GMs look at players. Stunning, too, when you consider that universally, around the league, Chance Warmack or Johnathan Cooper -- or both -- were ranked higher on a vast majority of draft boards.

5. I think Tavon Austin became the most desired skill player in the draft because of the way the game is going. People want multi-faceted offensive players, and Austin, though very small, scored four ways last fall. The Rams might get him killed doing it, but they plan to use him as a slot receiver (maybe 700 snaps) and a punt-returner (maybe 50 punts) and are open to using him as a kick-returner too. Think of Austin -- after watching his highlights over the last few days -- playing on the Ed Jones Dome turf. What a weapon.

6. I think the NFC West, in the span of 16 months, has gone from the seventh- or eighth-best of the NFL divisions to the best. Seattle trading for Percy Harvin and this Austin pick, to me, solidified that.

7. I think I never thought I'd see a draft, in this day of offensive explosiveness, with one skill player (Austin) picked in the top 15. Or with one quarterback, one wideout and zero running backs in the top 25. Amazing.

8. I think the Ravens went into the day hoping they'd have one of the following players available at 32: Matt Elam, Johnathan Cyprien, Manti Te'o and Arthur Brown. And all four were. Luck of the Ravens, baby.

9. I think I'd have loved to have been in the Dallas area Thursday night at a draft party, with all the Cowboys people drooling in anticipation of the draft, which is a regional holiday in that area. And so the Cowboys didn't like how the board looked at 18, and traded down 13 spots and picked up a third-rounder in the process. OK. But then to hear Roger Goodell say, "With the 31st pick in the 2013 National Football League Draft, the Dallas Cowboys select Travis Frederick, center, Wisconsin,'' I can just imagine the joy in Mudville over that one.

I'm sure what Dallas was acting on was a desire to get a good offensive lineman almost regardless of position, then pick up needed secondary help in the second and third rounds. But for the record, I looked at approximately 1,649 mock drafts in the last month, and I never saw Frederick's name. "I thought I probably fit in the second round somewhere,'' he said. Listen: Let's not get up in arms because the Cowboys drafted the second- or third-rated center 31st overall in a weak draft. It's nitpicky.

10. I think, and I don't know Nolan Nawrocki at all, that he's looking quite a bit like Nate Silver this morning. Here's the thing about the plummeting of Geno Smith: So many of us in the business heard it might happen, and we kept trying to fit Smith with a team with a quarterback need, and we had the theory that even though we didn't know where he'd go, that by golly he had to go somewhere ... and then he didn't. What Nawrocki foreshadowed -- that NFL teams had serious reservations about Smith -- turned out to be correct. It's a good lesson in the mock business: Just because everyone is sure a guy's going to be drafted in a certain area of picks, there's no guarantee he will be. And there are a few painful illustrations of that this year.

Five Things I Think I Think About Day 2

1. I think the second round mock draft is the province of my friend Don Banks, and you can look for it on this site shortly. But I wouldn't put Geno Smith in Jacksonville; the Jags have many other positions they want to solidify, I'm told. But what if Jags GM David Caldwell gets into the office today and has three calls from teams wanting that pick to take Geno? And what if one of those calls involves a first-round pick in 2014? If I'm Caldwell, and Cleveland calls with that offer (plus a small sweetener), I'm going to have to do it. In any case, Geno Smith at 33 overall, even with his leadership and decision-making flaws, is the kind of gamble a quarterback-needy team should make.

2. I think, if you want to put money down on one particular pick tonight, I'd put Eddie Lacy to the Bengals at pick 37, the one acquired from Oakland. I believe there's a good chance if Tyler Eifert had been gone at 21, the Bengals would have chosen Lacy in the first round. Now that he's likely to be there five picks into tonight's proceedings, I'd bet the Bengals target him there.

3. I think the Patriots are gambling on the fact that their draft board was obviously so closely stacked in dealing down 23 picks with Minnesota. New England wasn't slated to pick until the 29th overall spot in round one; now the Patriots will be on the clock at number 22 in the second round tonight. The Patriots, as it turns out, are slated to have zero picks in the top 51, then five in the next 51, with (overall), the 52nd, 59th, 83rd, 91st, and 102nd choices.

4. I think you should watch for a run on corners today. I'm predicting 12 of the 62 picks today, minimum, will be corners.

5. I think, after the docked second-round pick for New Orleans, 45th overall, passes, the Bountygate sanction is finished. Good for the people of New Orleans, and good for the Saints -- even though the team appealed to Roger Goodell to give them the second-round pick back this offseason. No dice. Would have been a nice little cornerback there for them. Now they'll have to hope a corner, or a potential starter, lasts until 75th overall, which is their next pick -- the 44th of the day today.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tackling Dummies said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Tackling Dummies said:
twistd said:
Boy, did the Patriots rape the Vikings on this trade.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, Hoodie is back in the 2nd and 3rd after losing picks from previous deals.
Click to expand...
Explain to me why people think this.
Click to expand...
Not sure it will make any difference, but...

(a) Draft's WR position is not loaded with game changing talent.

(b) MIN reached for a project.

© Gave up too much in relation to other traded picks in the first, much less the tail end of the 1st.

(d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd

(e) Hit/miss ratio for WRs is not a good gamble

There ya go.
Click to expand...
:bs:

There ya go.

 
Faust said:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-nfl-draft/news/20130426/2013-nfl-draft-first-round-reaction-peter-king/index.html

Looking back on a strange first round, ahead to a starry second

Peter King

ST. LOUIS -- After the strangest first round of an NFL draft that I have seen, here's a look at the bizarro-world day-one (yes: Justin Pugh and Travis Frederick; no: Geno Smith and Matt Barkley) and a look ahead to a second day that will be starrier than the first.

Ten Things I Think About the Draft's First Round...

5. I think, after the docked second-round pick for New Orleans, 45th overall, passes, the Bountygate sanction is finished. Good for the people of New Orleans, and good for the Saints -- even though the team appealed to Roger Goodell to give them the second-round pick back this offseason. No dice. Would have been a nice little cornerback there for them. Now they'll have to hope a corner, or a potential starter, lasts until 75th overall, which is their next pick -- the 44th of the day today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nice note there by King. The Saints are still getting shellacked by this as they really need that pick. Regardless of what happens with the pick today we finally truly put this behind us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tonight we enter the meaty phase of the draft for FFL dynasty owners. Rounds 2 & 3 are where you unearth the gems. This year's round 1 was so defensive oriented, I packed it in at the 49ers pick.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
And with Ponder as QB, his ceiling is lower.

 
Bracie Smathers said:
Tackling Dummies said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Tackling Dummies said:
twistd said:
Boy, did the Patriots rape the Vikings on this trade.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, Hoodie is back in the 2nd and 3rd after losing picks from previous deals.
Click to expand...
Explain to me why people think this.
Click to expand...
Not sure it will make any difference, but...

(a) Draft's WR position is not loaded with game changing talent.

(b) MIN reached for a project.

© Gave up too much in relation to other traded picks in the first, much less the tail end of the 1st.

(d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd

(e) Hit/miss ratio for WRs is not a good gamble

There ya go.
Click to expand...
:bs:

There ya go.
Click to expand...
(f) Ponder is a bottom tier QB.

There ya go. :shrug:

 
GroveDiesel said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
Click to expand...
Except it leaves out the other side of the coin.

 
Tackling Dummies said:
Bracie Smathers said:
Tackling Dummies said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Tackling Dummies said:
twistd said:
Boy, did the Patriots rape the Vikings on this trade.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, Hoodie is back in the 2nd and 3rd after losing picks from previous deals.
Click to expand...
Explain to me why people think this.
Click to expand...
Not sure it will make any difference, but...

(a) Draft's WR position is not loaded with game changing talent.

(b) MIN reached for a project.

© Gave up too much in relation to other traded picks in the first, much less the tail end of the 1st.

(d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd

(e) Hit/miss ratio for WRs is not a good gamble

There ya go.
Click to expand...
:bs:

There ya go.
Click to expand...
(f) Ponder is a bottom tier QB.

There ya go. :shrug:
Click to expand...
You're take about the actual deal is off.

Doesn't matter about Ponder.

There ya go.

 
I hated that trade for the patriots and loved it for the vikings.

The vikings managed to replace Harvin with greg jennings AND patterson, and for similar/less money combined than Harvin wanted. And in doing that, they went from a team with two weapons on offense to three, plus rudolph. And they used the earlier harvin pick, plus their own pick on defensive players that should help them move from a borderline playoff team to a legit contender. Absolutely love the talent infusion.

The patriots, on the other hand, had a chance to get a top player, and decided to get a bunch of ok ones instead. That makes no sense for them. Sure, they didn't have many draft picks. But the patriots are in a better situation than most teamas when it comes to signing veteran free agents to one year deals, and they always end up with a surplus of guys who don't make the opening day roster but are waiting by the phone at midseason. Stockpiling day 2 and 3 picks totally wastes that advantge. I hated the trade on its face, but when you add in the fact that andruzzi was there to announce the pick, and that all of new england was watching hours of other guys picking only to once again find out that our participation in the draft would be delayed to friday, it was a very frustrating trade. I do understand that the patriots value players differently, and that they usually don't want that guy who is slipping in the first round and is a huge value on mayocks board, but I can only hope that they have a bunch of good guys in the 50-100 range that they're looking forward to taking because I don't see it.

 
Tackling Dummies said:
twistd said:
Boy, did the Patriots rape the Vikings on this trade.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, Hoodie is back in the 2nd and 3rd after losing picks from previous deals.
Click to expand...
Depends on who the Hoodie picks. He has blown a lot of picks especially the last few years. His track record hasn't been great.

 
bostonfred said:
I hated that trade for the patriots and loved it for the vikings.The vikings managed to replace Harvin with greg jennings AND patterson, and for similar/less money combined than Harvin wanted. And in doing that, they went from a team with two weapons on offense to three, plus rudolph. And they used the earlier harvin pick, plus their own pick on defensive players that should help them move from a borderline playoff team to a legit contender. Absolutely love the talent infusion.The patriots, on the other hand, had a chance to get a top player, and decided to get a bunch of ok ones instead. That makes no sense for them. Sure, they didn't have many draft picks. But the patriots are in a better situation than most teamas when it comes to signing veteran free agents to one year deals, and they always end up with a surplus of guys who don't make the opening day roster but are waiting by the phone at midseason. Stockpiling day 2 and 3 picks totally wastes that advantge. I hated the trade on its face, but when you add in the fact that andruzzi was there to announce the pick, and that all of new england was watching hours of other guys picking only to once again find out that our participation in the draft would be delayed to friday, it was a very frustrating trade. I do understand that the patriots value players differently, and that they usually don't want that guy who is slipping in the first round and is a huge value on mayocks board, but I can only hope that they have a bunch of good guys in the 50-100 range that they're looking forward to taking because I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Speculation on my part, but I think the Patriots probably looked at their draft board and saw little distinction between the 29th player and the 99th player. Better to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall to see what sticks than throw one thing at the wall and hope it sticks.

As for the Harvin v. Jennings/Patterson, more doesn't necessarily mean better.

 
QuizGuy66 said:
One hidden aspect with the value chart is that it looks at the value of the pick at the given spot but not the value of the player in the eyes getting him.

Let's say that the Vikings had Patterson rated as the 20th best player on their board. In their eyes they aren't getting 640 points worth of value - they are getting 850.

I'm not saying the Vikings are correct in this assessment but it's definitely a hidden factor that should be considered when evaluating some of these deals.

-QG
Click to expand...
Good point - and right now, you could argue that you could pay a heck of a lot to get Jacksonvilles spot tonight to take Geno - and you could overpay a lot because in somebody's eyes his value is still first round.

 
Man, I'm watching video this morning on Justin Hunter and Tyler Bray is just brutal. Constantly missing wide open WRs. With Hunter and Patterson, Bray should have had HUGE numbers. Hunter looked very good though. Very athletic and nice hands.

 
GroveDiesel said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
Click to expand...
And brings up one of the most important and least talked about things both in real football and fantasy: talent evaluation. Making good trades on the draft calculator is great but it has to be translated into players.
 
GroveDiesel said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
Click to expand...
Ditto
 
Snotbubbles said:
Snotbubbles, on 26 Apr 2013 - 13:18, said:As for the Harvin v. Jennings/Patterson, more doesn't necessarily mean better.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but in this case I think it does (and I'm a huge Harvin fan). Jennings is a better pure WR than Harvin and he and Patterson can both make plays with the ball in their hands. Ponder has more quality options now.
 
Slapdash said:
GroveDiesel said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
Click to expand...
Ditto
Click to expand...
What about when it works out the other way?

 
Slapdash said:
GroveDiesel said:
FreeBaGeL said:
Tackling Dummies said:
© (d) Could have had a (roughly) similar player in the 2nd
Click to expand...
Funny thing about similar prospects. They rarely end up becoming similar players. I think this is a big mistake people make when analyzing the draft, and to a similar extent a big mistake that FFers make when doing fantasy drafts. People approach similar prospects as if one guy is just a little worse which means he's going to have 30 less receiving yards per year. That's not how it works. It often means that guy has a higher chance of having 1000 less receiving yards per year. Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were similar prospects. San Diego would have been chastised for trading a future 1st to trade up one spot to grab Peyton when they could have had a similar player with the next pick. Settling on Leaf instead didn't cost them 1 TD per year, it cost them a decade. People get too caught up in "value". If you have a group of similar prospects and you clearly think one is better then the rest then you go get that guy. The likelihood that those similar prospects will end up becoming similar players is low.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I've ever read here.
Click to expand...
Ditto
Click to expand...
I agree with FreeBaGel that similar prospects seldom end up as similar players. But what teams are drafting are prospects. When a team has two prospects rated evenly, they should not give up extra draft picks to get one instead of the other. One will likely end up being a lot better than the other in hindsight, but if each guy has a 50% chance of ending up the better player, he's not worth any more as a draft pick, i.e., as a prospect. Many people, including Bobby Beathard, had Manning and Leaf rated about evenly. If the Chargers had traded up to number one, they may still have picked Leaf anyway. That would have been even worse than picking him at #2. (The Colts did not reveal their pick until they were on the clock, so if the Chargers had a strong preference for Leaf over Manning, they would have had to trade up to get their guy. Thankfully, they did not have a strong preference for Leaf over Manning. As a Charger fan, I wish they had had a strong prefernce for Manning over Leaf, but they were not sufficiently prescient.) I agree with FreeBaGel that if a team clearly thinks that one prospect is better than another (in which case the prospects are not similar), it should get the prospect it thinks is better. Moreover, I do not necessarily agree with Tackling Dummies that a similar prospect (not player) would have been available in the second round. But if Tackling Dummies is correct, and if there would have been a similar prospect available in the second round, then FreeBaGel's point that similar prospects seldom become similar players is immaterial. Teams can only draft prospects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
datonn said:
mr roboto said:
BassNBrew said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Kleck said:
Congrats Vikings! You may be a front runner for the April Super Bowl. The real one... Not so much.
Click to expand...
Hey Jealousy! :hey:
Click to expand...
Jealous of the 4th best team in their division?
Click to expand...
Which teams made the playoffs?
Click to expand...
Don't even try...Mr. Roboto and Andy Dufrense. Anything, ANYTHING positive or exciting happens for the Purple (or the Bears, FWIW), and it's pretty-much "tool-time" out of anyone who cheers for the Green and Gold. As far as fans go, probably the worst winners there is (gloating and taking credit for titles that happened before most of them were even born). And just about some of the worst, sorest losers you'll ever come across. Packers fans are generally terrible. And that's BEFORE you add alcohol to the mix.
Click to expand...
Coming from a team that generally has trolls in every Packer game thread cheering anything bad for the Packers...this is funny.

 
Sabertooth said:
As a Packers fan, I think the Vikings did very well. They've had good to great Dts for about the past 25 years going back to Jon Randle and Henry Thomas.
Click to expand...
They had a good night...I think there was some fun in congratulating them for winning april though.

:)

 
datonn said:
mr roboto said:
BassNBrew said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Kleck said:
Congrats Vikings! You may be a front runner for the April Super Bowl. The real one... Not so much.
Click to expand...
Hey Jealousy! :hey:
Click to expand...
Jealous of the 4th best team in their division?
Click to expand...
Which teams made the playoffs?
Click to expand...
Don't even try...Mr. Roboto and Andy Dufrense. Anything, ANYTHING positive or exciting happens for the Purple (or the Bears, FWIW), and it's pretty-much "tool-time" out of anyone who cheers for the Green and Gold. As far as fans go, probably the worst winners there is (gloating and taking credit for titles that happened before most of them were even born). And just about some of the worst, sorest losers you'll ever come across. Packers fans are generally terrible. And that's BEFORE you add alcohol to the mix.
Click to expand...
:bowtie: Alcohol is in my mix 24/7. I only get really terrible when I run out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also wondering with some that thought taking a guard top 10 was a terrible pick.

GIven how the NFL is now...why not take a guy that could be a pro bowler or pro bowl caliber guy for 10 or so years...pretty safe and solid.

Rather than a chance on a guy that might flame out in 3-5 years?

Especially a team like the Titans that have to line up twice a year against a guy like JJ Watt.

 
Kleck said:
datonn said:
mr roboto said:
BassNBrew said:
Andy Dufresne said:
Kleck said:
Congrats Vikings! You may be a front runner for the April Super Bowl.

The real one... Not so much.
Click to expand...
Hey Jealousy! :hey:
Click to expand...
Jealous of the 4th best team in their division?
Click to expand...
Which teams made the playoffs?
Click to expand...
Don't even try...Mr. Roboto and Andy Dufrense. Anything, ANYTHING positive or exciting happens for the Purple (or the Bears, FWIW), and it's pretty-much "tool-time" out of anyone who cheers for the Green and Gold. As far as fans go, probably the worst winners there is (gloating and taking credit for titles that happened before most of them were even born). And just about some of the worst, sorest losers you'll ever come across. Packers fans are generally terrible. And that's BEFORE you add alcohol to the mix.
Click to expand...
:bowtie: Alcohol is in my mix 24/7. I only get really terrible when I run out.
Click to expand...
http://jerkassclothing.com/images/2.0/popular/not-drunk-from-wisconsin-t-shirt.jpg

 
sho nuff said:
Also wondering with some that thought taking a guard top 10 was a terrible pick.

GIven how the NFL is now...why not take a guy that could be a pro bowler or pro bowl caliber guy for 10 or so years...pretty safe and solid.

Rather than a chance on a guy that might flame out in 3-5 years?

Especially a team like the Titans that have to line up twice a year against a guy like JJ Watt.
Click to expand...
Should they take a really good fullback just because he's Pro Bowl caliber?

I dunno. I think both those guards make their respective teams better, but it's still hard to value a guard, pro bowl or not.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hot Sauce Guy
Happy Thanksgiving, Sharks!
Replies
7
Views
251
Hot Sauce Guy
Hot Sauce Guy
JohnnyU
ja'Tavion Sanders TE Texas declares for the NFL Draft
Replies
16
Views
911
travdogg
T
RC94
FBG Mock Draft
14 15 16
Replies
797
Views
19K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top