|
|
Post by bavarobeast on Apr 5, 2024 11:20:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bavarobeast on Apr 5, 2024 12:40:27 GMT -5
Silence is golden - 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by DJones19 on Apr 5, 2024 13:03:48 GMT -5
 I'm glad Waldman put it to rest - JJ is a better prospect than Zach Wilson. Got to give Waldaman credit there, looks like he was more accurate on Wilson than most. He still has JJ as the 5th best QB in this class though - I'd be hesitant taking the #5 QB #6 overall or higher, especially with the level of support there is on the Giants. The writer also noticed that the NFL doesn't do a great job developing QBs. |
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Apr 5, 2024 13:04:26 GMT -5
Waldmen is excellent evaluator of QBs, still don't want to trade half this draft and a first next year for any of these guys nothing against them just our roster needs bluechip help and can get it if they don't squander their premium draft capital. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuyRich on Apr 5, 2024 15:45:39 GMT -5
I'm glad Waldman put it to rest - JJ is a better prospect than Zach Wilson. Got to give Waldaman credit there, looks like he was more accurate on Wilson than most. He still has JJ as the 5th best QB in this class though - I'd be hesitant taking the #5 QB #6 overall or higher, especially with the level of support there is on the Giants. The writer also noticed that the NFL doesn't do a great job developing QBs. My God they look like brothers. I do think JJ is going to be much better than Zack Wilson. |
|
|
|
Post by Analyst on Apr 5, 2024 16:33:05 GMT -5
Actually, I think he is top 3 QBs in this draft. Its not saying much though. This class is such a tough class to evaluate. I think Williams has the most talent, but he is wired differently. Not sure he will be good everywhere, in fact, he will have a limited amount of landing spots where he can succeed with that head of his. He is the first true Gen Z / Alpha QB entering the NFL. He could one practice show up in a dress and mean it. Daniels is still my QB 1 but had the best 1-2 as far as WRs of all of them. Both those WRs could be 1st rounders. Exceptional talents. And he is raw. A straight line speed guy, not so much a scrambler. Arm talent for sure. Legs for sure. Weird elbow for sure. JJ is probably my next guy up... Not confident in that though. He was limited at Michigan. Corum was the scorer there IMO. JJ has talent but it wasnt on full display which means its a lot of projections. Maye I think is a bust (unless he goes to the perfect team to protect him). Nix, has to fit the perfect system. And that system isnt here. Tough group of QBs to analyze. |
|
robl
Special Teams
Posts: 1,402
|
Post by robl on Apr 5, 2024 16:35:27 GMT -5
Wait. Who says Analyst is respected?
|
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Apr 5, 2024 16:40:46 GMT -5
Wait. Who says Analyst is respected? They're respected if they support your opinion. |
|
robl
Special Teams
Posts: 1,402
|
Post by robl on Apr 5, 2024 17:19:20 GMT -5
Wait. Who says Analyst is respected? They're respected if they support your opinion. Sorry didn’t make myself clear. I meant Analyst here on our board. (Jk) |
|
|
|
Post by cdngfan on Apr 5, 2024 20:13:12 GMT -5
Great article. Takeaways for me: franchises don’t really understand QBs and contribute to their failure, what we don’t see on tape (eg: work ethic, ability to work on things you hate working on but need to, etc) is just as or more important as their on field performance.
Some team is going to copy GB and bring their drafted QBs up slowly and if more teams do that we may see an improvement in the success of 1st rd QBs.
As it stand today, 60-70% of the 1st rd QBs (I think at least 5 will go) won’t get resigned by their drafting team.
That’s 3 QBs of the 5 that won’t make it past their rookie deal with the drafting team.
|
|
giantsalmon
Starter
Came over from a defunct board. Formerly LakeO Giant fan
Posts: 3,900
Member is Online
|
Post by giantsalmon on Apr 5, 2024 20:17:49 GMT -5
Enjoyed his take on Lock, JJ, and Maye. I agree with most of it, and in Locks case it is EXACTLY why I wanted him to be the vet FA QB that NYG signed. I do not believe he has scratched his potential yet. I used to think it was because of the situations he was dropped into and all the turnover. Now I know he himself had a part in not reaching his potential. I'm not sure how everything will pan out regarding the draft but I would say he has a better chance of being with NYG in 2025 than DJ does.
As for JJ and Maye, I do not think his assessment is inaccurate, in fact in another thread I stated that both of them would need coaching and that would fit what I think NYG plans to do if they pull the trigger on either of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Apr 6, 2024 19:36:43 GMT -5
Actually, I think he is top 3 QBs in this draft. Its not saying much though. This class is such a tough class to evaluate. I think Williams has the most talent, but he is wired differently. Not sure he will be good everywhere, in fact, he will have a limited amount of landing spots where he can succeed with that head of his. He is the first true Gen Z / Alpha QB entering the NFL. He could one practice show up in a dress and mean it. Daniels is still my QB 1 but had the best 1-2 as far as WRs of all of them. Both those WRs could be 1st rounders. Exceptional talents. And he is raw. A straight line speed guy, not so much a scrambler. Arm talent for sure. Legs for sure. Weird elbow for sure. JJ is probably my next guy up... Not confident in that though. He was limited at Michigan. Corum was the scorer there IMO. JJ has talent but it wasnt on full display which means its a lot of projections. Maye I think is a bust (unless he goes to the perfect team to protect him). Nix, has to fit the perfect system. And that system isnt here. Tough group of QBs to analyze. This is the only Analyst I respect.
Daniels is #1 for me as well. I like Drake Maye just because he has a cannon. No one in this class really blows me away though. For being such a highly touted class does anyone think they have a chance to be as good as 2004? There are just so many "maybe this guy or maybe that guy" comments. There's not a single one that's just blowing people away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Apr 7, 2024 6:44:25 GMT -5
Actually, I think he is top 3 QBs in this draft. Its not saying much though. This class is such a tough class to evaluate. I think Williams has the most talent, but he is wired differently. Not sure he will be good everywhere, in fact, he will have a limited amount of landing spots where he can succeed with that head of his. He is the first true Gen Z / Alpha QB entering the NFL. He could one practice show up in a dress and mean it. Daniels is still my QB 1 but had the best 1-2 as far as WRs of all of them. Both those WRs could be 1st rounders. Exceptional talents. And he is raw. A straight line speed guy, not so much a scrambler. Arm talent for sure. Legs for sure. Weird elbow for sure. JJ is probably my next guy up... Not confident in that though. He was limited at Michigan. Corum was the scorer there IMO. JJ has talent but it wasnt on full display which means its a lot of projections. Maye I think is a bust (unless he goes to the perfect team to protect him). Nix, has to fit the perfect system. And that system isnt here. Tough group of QBs to analyze. This is the only Analyst I respect.
Daniels is #1 for me as well. I like Drake Maye just because he has a cannon. No one in this class really blows me away though. For being such a highly touted class does anyone think they have a chance to be as good as 2004? There are just so many "maybe this guy or maybe that guy" comments. There's not a single one that's just blowing people away.
I'm on the same page as you. |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2024 8:39:14 GMT -5
That is exactly why QBs fail. They are drafted wrong. Any player in the first 10 picks is expected to be ready in their first season. And rightfully so. If a QB is taken in with Pick 4 and he needs the development of pick 130. Who is the Dumbass. The QB for not getting himself ready for the onslaught of top 10 pressure. Or the GM that picked him? That stats say it. QBs picked in every round are the most likely to fail at a higher rate than the other position groups in the round they were all picked in.
In the cap era over a decade 2013-2022
How many were drafted over that time period.
Quarterback: 113..............5%
Running Back: 229..........10%
Wide Receiver: 319..........13%
Tight End: 144....................6%
Offensive Line: 425............18%
Defensive Line: 441...........19%
Linebacker: 320.................14%
Cornerback: 210.................9%
Safety: 128.........................5%
Kicker/Punter: 37..............2%
When the entire 7 rounds are placed into a box as a total average, I had to place the entire draft in a bubble, it places all 32 teams on an equal drafting field.
Here are the eye-opening numbers on how ineffective cap era drafting techniques are.
Highest to lowest
OL has a 37.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team if drafted 1 O-linemen in each draft . It would take 2.5 drafts to get a serviceable one..
TEs have a 35.3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 TE in each draft. It would take 2.8 drafts to get a serviceable one.
LBs have a 33,3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 3-10 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 LBs in each draft , It would take 3.3 Drafts to draft a serviceable one.
DBs have a 25.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4 consecutive drafts to draft a severable one,
WRs have a 23.9% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4.5 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one,
DL has a 21.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-5 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1-D-linemen in 4.75 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one,
RBs have a 17.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1- 6 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 RB in 5 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one.
QBs have 17.3 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-6 success ratio
in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 QB in 5.2 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one.
The entire draft has an over average of 26.6%.
It is a complacent model of failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Apr 7, 2024 8:39:44 GMT -5
you what they say about the loudest one in the room. |
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Apr 7, 2024 8:59:29 GMT -5
Waldmen is excellent evaluator of QBs, still don't want to trade half this draft and a first next year for any of these guys nothing against them just our roster needs bluechip help and can get it if they don't squander their premium draft capital. I agree, if Jones comes back is healthy and plays well we arr good to go. If he doesn't, we'll be drafting in the top 10 again next year. We have a roster to build before. We can worry about a quarterback. You can't give away so much high draft capital to roll the dice on an unproven quarterback.. Not this year anyway |
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Apr 7, 2024 9:20:24 GMT -5
That is exactly why QBs fail. They are drafted wrong. Any player in the first 10 picks is expected to be ready in their first season. And rightfully so. If a QB is taken in with Pick 4 and he needs the development of pick 130. Who is the Dumbass. The QB for not getting himself ready for the onslaught of top 10 pressure. Or the GM that picked him? That stats say it. QBs picked in every round are the most likely to fail at a higher rate than the other position groups in the round they were all picked in. In the cap era over a decade 2013-2022 How many were drafted over that time period. Quarterback: 113..............5% Running Back: 229..........10% Wide Receiver: 319..........13% Tight End: 144....................6% Offensive Line: 425............18% Defensive Line: 441...........19% Linebacker: 320.................14% Cornerback: 210.................9% Safety: 128.........................5% Kicker/Punter: 37..............2% When the entire 7 rounds are placed into a box as a total average, I had to place the entire draft in a bubble, it places all 32 teams un an equal drafting field. Here are the eye-opening numbers on how ineffective cap era drafting techniques are. Highest to lowest OL has a 37.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team if drafted 1 O-linemen in each draft . It would take 2.5 drafts to get a serviceable one.. TEs have a 35.3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 TE in each draft. It would take 2.8 drafts to get a serviceable one.
LBs have a 33,3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 3-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 LBs in each draft , It would take 3.3 Drafts to draft a serviceable one. DBs have a 25.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4 consecutive drafts to draft a severable one, WRs have a 23.9% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4.5 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, DL has a 21.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-5 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1-D-linemen in 4.75 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, RBs have a 17.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1- 6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 RB in 5 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. QBs have 17.3 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 QB in 5.2 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. The entire draft has an over average of 26.6%. It is a complacent model of failure. Thanks for putting numbers to it TEM it confirms some things that I believe. #1 if your roster is stripped to the bone it could take several years to rebuild at worst, 4 or 5 at best I always say teams that are bad for years have been building they just aren't seeing the fruits of their labor yet, they are getting NFL players and some good ones but finding the game changers is even harder than the numbers you gave us show. #2 RBs don't grow a on trees and teams are not getting them in every round in every draft. #3 DL and OL are not as easy to find as some think even when drafting top 10. I do appreciate when you take the time to give a non negotiable look at the true facts in all aspects of football the numbers don't BS it is what it is there are out liars from time to time . |
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Apr 7, 2024 9:26:50 GMT -5
I'm glad Waldman put it to rest - JJ is a better prospect than Zach Wilson. Got to give Waldaman credit there, looks like he was more accurate on Wilson than most. He still has JJ as the 5th best QB in this class though - I'd be hesitant taking the #5 QB #6 overall or higher, especially with the level of support there is on the Giants. The writer also noticed that the NFL doesn't do a great job developing QBs. My God they look like brothers. I do think JJ is going to be much better than Zack Wilson. McCarthy is better in so many ways from processing to just using the middle of the field out he will challenge every blade of grass Wilson isn't even close as far as their college careers. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Apr 7, 2024 9:27:23 GMT -5
That is exactly why QBs fail. They are drafted wrong. Any player in the first 10 picks is expected to be ready in their first season. And rightfully so. If a QB is taken in with Pick 4 and he needs the development of pick 130. Who is the Dumbass. The QB for not getting himself ready for the onslaught of top 10 pressure. Or the GM that picked him? That stats say it. QBs picked in every round are the most likely to fail at a higher rate than the other position groups in the round they were all picked in. In the cap era over a decade 2013-2022 How many were drafted over that time period. Quarterback: 113..............5% Running Back: 229..........10% Wide Receiver: 319..........13% Tight End: 144....................6% Offensive Line: 425............18% Defensive Line: 441...........19% Linebacker: 320.................14% Cornerback: 210.................9% Safety: 128.........................5% Kicker/Punter: 37..............2% When the entire 7 rounds are placed into a box as a total average, I had to place the entire draft in a bubble, it places all 32 teams on an equal drafting field. Here are the eye-opening numbers on how ineffective cap era drafting techniques are. Highest to lowest OL has a 37.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team if drafted 1 O-linemen in each draft . It would take 2.5 drafts to get a serviceable one.. TEs have a 35.3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 TE in each draft. It would take 2.8 drafts to get a serviceable one.
LBs have a 33,3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 3-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 LBs in each draft , It would take 3.3 Drafts to draft a serviceable one. DBs have a 25.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4 consecutive drafts to draft a severable one, WRs have a 23.9% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4.5 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, DL has a 21.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-5 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1-D-linemen in 4.75 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, RBs have a 17.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1- 6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 RB in 5 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. QBs have 17.3 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 QB in 5.2 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. The entire draft has an over average of 26.6%. It is a complacent model of failure. What consituttes success? Getting on the field? Obvious if you 5 starters and some backups on the LOS they likely all get time whereas there is basically 1 QB. You have roughly 160 starting OL and 32 starting QBs. So yeah, finding the QB will have a lower success rate. |
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Apr 7, 2024 9:33:29 GMT -5
I'm glad Waldman put it to rest - JJ is a better prospect than Zach Wilson. Got to give Waldaman credit there, looks like he was more accurate on Wilson than most. He still has JJ as the 5th best QB in this class though - I'd be hesitant taking the #5 QB #6 overall or higher, especially with the level of support there is on the Giants. The writer also noticed that the NFL doesn't do a great job developing QBs. Since the salary cap era the NFL has been negligent in their process for QB development the structure does not allow time for development being if the QB gets to the5th year option he will start taking up a huge chunk of the cap not allowing teams to sign their own or outside help. Pushing QBs out on to the field has changed the way offenses are designed also and has stunted the growth of rookie QBs |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Apr 7, 2024 9:35:49 GMT -5
I'm glad Waldman put it to rest - JJ is a better prospect than Zach Wilson. Got to give Waldaman credit there, looks like he was more accurate on Wilson than most. He still has JJ as the 5th best QB in this class though - I'd be hesitant taking the #5 QB #6 overall or higher, especially with the level of support there is on the Giants. The writer also noticed that the NFL doesn't do a great job developing QBs. Since the salary cap era the NFL has been negligent in their process for QB development the structure does not allow time for development being if the QB gets to the5th year option he will start taking up a huge chunk of the cap not allowing teams to sign their own or outside help. Pushing QBs out on to the field has changed the way offenses are designed also and has stunted the growth of rookie QBs Works for Green Bay and Kansas City was patient. Imo, that’s why the Giants should go QB. They can go with Jones and develop a QB. I think the options are greater and it’s a better strategy than going with other positions b/c this team is likely not going to win anyway, |
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Apr 7, 2024 9:37:27 GMT -5
Since the salary cap era the NFL has been negligent in their process for QB development the structure does not allow time for development being if the QB gets to the5th year option he will start taking up a huge chunk of the cap not allowing teams to sign their own or outside help. Pushing QBs out on to the field has changed the way offenses are designed also and has stunted the growth of rookie QBs Works for Green Bay and Kansas City was patient. Imo, that’s why the Giants should go QB. They can go with Jones and develop a QB. I think the options are greater and it’s a better strategy than going with other positions b/c this team is likely not going to win anyway, I agree 100% |
|
|
|
Post by DJones19 on Apr 7, 2024 9:39:28 GMT -5
My God they look like brothers. I do think JJ is going to be much better than Zack Wilson. McCarthy is better in so many ways from processing to just using the middle of the field out he will challenge every blade of grass Wilson isn't even close as far as their college careers. I think I'm just conditioned to resist the hype after disappointments in the past. A lot of people were higher on Zach Wilson than they are with McCarthy at the time of Wilson's draft...some even compared him to Mahomes. I remember getting texts from Jets fans thinking they hit a home run in the draft and laughing at me/Giants for having Jones. The next year we made the playoffs, Wilson has never thrown for 10 TDs in a season. Even favorite Jayden Daniels has a relatively weak arm...weaker arm that Jones...was a mid-round guy for 4 years until he switched teams that has better WRs on it than the NYG even though it's a college team and then he magically turned good. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Apr 7, 2024 9:53:38 GMT -5
McCarthy is better in so many ways from processing to just using the middle of the field out he will challenge every blade of grass Wilson isn't even close as far as their college careers. I think I'm just conditioned to resist the hype after disappointments in the past. A lot of people were higher on Zach Wilson than they are with McCarthy at the time of Wilson's draft...some even compared him to Mahomes. I remember getting texts from Jets fans thinking they hit a home run in the draft and laughing at me/Giants for having Jones. The next year we made the playoffs, Wilson has never thrown for 10 TDs in a season. Even favorite Jayden Daniels has a relatively weak arm...weaker arm that Jones...was a mid-round guy for 4 years until he switched teams that has better WRs on it than the NYG even though it's a college team and then he magically turned good. so thankful Trevor Lawrence is not a Jet |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2024 9:54:22 GMT -5
That is exactly why QBs fail. They are drafted wrong. Any player in the first 10 picks is expected to be ready in their first season. And rightfully so. If a QB is taken in with Pick 4 and he needs the development of pick 130. Who is the Dumbass. The QB for not getting himself ready for the onslaught of top 10 pressure. Or the GM that picked him? That stats say it. QBs picked in every round are the most likely to fail at a higher rate than the other position groups in the round they were all picked in. In the cap era over a decade 2013-2022 How many were drafted over that time period. Quarterback: 113..............5% Running Back: 229..........10% Wide Receiver: 319..........13% Tight End: 144....................6% Offensive Line: 425............18% Defensive Line: 441...........19% Linebacker: 320.................14% Cornerback: 210.................9% Safety: 128.........................5% Kicker/Punter: 37..............2% When the entire 7 rounds are placed into a box as a total average, I had to place the entire draft in a bubble, it places all 32 teams on an equal drafting field. Here are the eye-opening numbers on how ineffective cap era drafting techniques are. Highest to lowest OL has a 37.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team if drafted 1 O-linemen in each draft . It would take 2.5 drafts to get a serviceable one.. TEs have a 35.3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 TE in each draft. It would take 2.8 drafts to get a serviceable one.
LBs have a 33,3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 3-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 LBs in each draft , It would take 3.3 Drafts to draft a serviceable one. DBs have a 25.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4 consecutive drafts to draft a severable one, WRs have a 23.9% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4.5 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, DL has a 21.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-5 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1-D-linemen in 4.75 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, RBs have a 17.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1- 6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 RB in 5 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. QBs have 17.3 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 QB in 5.2 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. The entire draft has an over average of 26.6%. It is a complacent model of failure. What consituttes success? Getting on the field? Obvious if you 5 starters and some backups on the LOS they likely all get time whereas there is basically 1 QB. You have roughly 160 starting OL and 32 starting QBs. So yeah, finding the QB will have a lower success rate. My model shows per draft pick. In a good statistical model. That is built for success. Pharmaceutical companies use samples all the time to prove the or disprove the visibility of their product. I have a friend that is a statistician for one of them. 1 in 100 drugs meets, it doesn't kill everyone and works for the ailment. and is allowed for human testing. The data that is produce is terabytes for each product sent to the FDA to allow testing on people. When the model works. The lower the sample size. The better the results. The larger the sample size produces anomalies and the probability of those abnormality occurring. When those statistical theorems are applied to the draft. It follows a bad product model. The lower sample size (QBs) is producing a bad result. ( in reality the entire way players are draft is a failure.) If how players are drafted is vetted correctly in the current model, A model of failure. (the success rate of a draft pick) QBs should be at rate of 25%. I will say it again, AI is going to rip the roof off conventional drafting techniques. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Apr 7, 2024 10:03:33 GMT -5
What consituttes success? Getting on the field? Obvious if you 5 starters and some backups on the LOS they likely all get time whereas there is basically 1 QB. You have roughly 160 starting OL and 32 starting QBs. So yeah, finding the QB will have a lower success rate. My model shows per draft pick. In a good statistical model. That is built for success. Pharmaceutical companies use samples all the time to prove the or disprove the visibility of their product. I have a friend is a statistician for One of them. 1 in 100 drugs meets it doesn't kill everyone and works for the ailment. The data that is produce is terabytes for each product. When the model works. The lower the sample size. The better the results. The larger the sample size produces anomalies and the probability of those abnormality occurring. When those statistical theorems are applied to the draft. It follows a bad product model. The lower sample size (QBs) are producing a bad result. If how players are drafted is vetted correctly in the current model, A model of failure. (the success rate of a draft pick) QBs should be at rate of 25% . I will say it again, AI is going to rip the roof off conventional drafting techniques. I’d like to learn more about that pharma visibility. Is the visibility to the consumer, the doctor, etc. Fascinating I will push back on the QB as teams will take longer to find one b/c not only are their fewer positions yet they draft the position less. I think teams need to be drafting QBs more often b/c you are really looking for the cerebral player who can read the defense and be lucky enough to stay healthy. |
|
mendy
Starter
Posts: 3,939
|
Post by mendy on Apr 7, 2024 10:03:50 GMT -5
That is exactly why QBs fail. They are drafted wrong. Any player in the first 10 picks is expected to be ready in their first season. And rightfully so. If a QB is taken in with Pick 4 and he needs the development of pick 130. Who is the Dumbass. The QB for not getting himself ready for the onslaught of top 10 pressure. Or the GM that picked him? That stats say it. QBs picked in every round are the most likely to fail at a higher rate than the other position groups in the round they were all picked in. In the cap era over a decade 2013-2022 How many were drafted over that time period. Quarterback: 113..............5% Running Back: 229..........10% Wide Receiver: 319..........13% Tight End: 144....................6% Offensive Line: 425............18% Defensive Line: 441...........19% Linebacker: 320.................14% Cornerback: 210.................9% Safety: 128.........................5% Kicker/Punter: 37..............2% When the entire 7 rounds are placed into a box as a total average, I had to place the entire draft in a bubble, it places all 32 teams on an equal drafting field. Here are the eye-opening numbers on how ineffective cap era drafting techniques are. Highest to lowest OL has a 37.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team if drafted 1 O-linemen in each draft . It would take 2.5 drafts to get a serviceable one.. TEs have a 35.3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 4-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 TE in each draft. It would take 2.8 drafts to get a serviceable one.
LBs have a 33,3% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. A 3-10 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 LBs in each draft , It would take 3.3 Drafts to draft a serviceable one. DBs have a 25.6% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4 consecutive drafts to draft a severable one, WRs have a 23.9% success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-4 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 DB in 4.5 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, DL has a 21.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-5 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1-D-linemen in 4.75 consecutive drafts to draft a serviceable one, RBs have a 17.9 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1- 6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 RB in 5 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. QBs have 17.3 % success rate in all 7 rounds combined. 1-6 success ratio in the statistical probability model a team would have to draft 1 QB in 5.2 constitutive drafts to draft a serviceable one. The entire draft has an over average of 26.6%. It is a complacent model of failure. Not to change the subject but this post is a great example of what you bring to the discussions . This is amazing work on your part . Thank you for it. |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2024 10:04:48 GMT -5
My model shows per draft pick. In a good statistical model. That is built for success. Pharmaceutical companies use samples all the time to prove the or disprove the visibility of their product. I have a friend is a statistician for One of them. 1 in 100 drugs meets it doesn't kill everyone and works for the ailment. The data that is produce is terabytes for each product. When the model works. The lower the sample size. The better the results. The larger the sample size produces anomalies and the probability of those abnormality occurring. When those statistical theorems are applied to the draft. It follows a bad product model. The lower sample size (QBs) are producing a bad result. If how players are drafted is vetted correctly in the current model, A model of failure. (the success rate of a draft pick) QBs should be at rate of 25% . I will say it again, AI is going to rip the roof off conventional drafting techniques. . Is the visibility to the consumer, the doctor, etc. Fascinating I will push back on the QB as teams will take longer to find one b/c not only are their fewer positions yet they draft the position less. I think teams need to be drafting QBs more often b/c you are really looking for the cerebral player who can read the defense and be lucky enough to stay healthy. FDA |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers13 on Apr 7, 2024 10:15:03 GMT -5
I’d like to learn more about that pharma visibility. Is the visibility to the consumer, the doctor, etc. Fascinating I will push back on the QB as teams will take longer to find one b/c not only are their fewer positions yet they draft the position less. I think teams need to be drafting QBs more often b/c you are really looking for the cerebral player who can read the defense and be lucky enough to stay healthy. FDA wait, what?? Define what you mean by visibility. The visibility of a product has nothing to do with the FDA. The FDA evaluates clinical research based on both safety and often efficacy based on the direction of a regulatory consultation. Visibility has more to do with brand or benefit awareness along with market acceptance/demand. |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Apr 7, 2024 10:43:39 GMT -5
wait, what?? Define what you mean by visibility. The visibility of a product has nothing to do with the FDA. The FDA evaluates clinical research based on both safety and often efficacy based on the direction of a regulatory consultation. Visibility has more to do with brand or benefit awareness along with market acceptance/demand. This is the abridged version. (what he told me) if the drugs kills over the prescribed about of Mice it should. The research is stopped. It will most likely kill as many Rats. If the initial trial of dosage on mice is under the accepted death rates, Then the life span of the mice in the test is compared a placebo and not test subjects. If there are anomalies in life span. The research is stopped. Than Rats Than higher Mammal Species Until it gets to Primates The research can be stopped at any step. if there are problems. Years of research to get to Human trials. The FDA needs to see the data on every step of the process. If the FDA does not like what it sees. They stop the research. Damn auto correct viability not visibility. It is millions in dollars invested. And it may get squashed. To try to counter failures. Each Pharma has competitive research division. A no war zone. They are basically researching the same ailments. When one of the research studies starts to fail. And are lost on how to bring it back on track They send feelers out on how to correct the issue. One or two companies may suggest we had success by doing this. Even with them working together. It is still 1-100 that make to human trials. |
|
