He just answered a question in his JSOnline chat asking if Thompson had hit a "home run" over the weekend.
Home run? Strikeout? I don't know, Ted doesn't know, you don't know. People who have already rated drafts or will do in the next week are just filling space. That's all garbage.
Amen, Bob. Amen.
Eh, I disagree. It's really hard to predict who will blossom and who will wilt. However, I do think it is useful to give an initial grade following a draft. The grade following the draft has more to do with draft strategy and execution more than anything. Then, in a few years, you grade out the players. So it's a two step grading process. I think Ted handled this draft beautifully and did a nice job balancing needs and talent.
As for McGinn. His chat quote notwithstanding, it didn't stop him from subtley criticizIng Thompson for passing over Crabtree for a nose tackkle.
In statistics, judging a decision is much more complex than simple cause and effect analysis. The first step is to judge the decision based on the process used to come to that decision. Then you judge the process by the results of many decisions. The most important step is revising the process in order to make better decisions in the future. This is why weathermen still have jobs even though they are wrong all the time. They make the best prediction possible, given the information that they have, then do their best to use the new information to make better decisions in the future.
In a draft context, if all of the evidence suggests that a player will be totally dominant in every aspect of the game, the proper decision is to take the player. If it comes out later that the player has been taking steroids, and the player then starts to abuse painkillers and becomes a total bust, that doesn't change the fact that, based on the information you had at the time, you made the best decision you possibly could have hoped to make. Likewise, if you draft a player in the 7th round and he becomes a great, consistent, player that sticks around on your team for many years, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you made a mistake by not drafting him sooner. By all indications at the time, the player was not worth more than a 6th round draft pick.
By this approach, you CAN grade a draft immediately. You can tell which drafters are gathering the most information and which are using the proper analysis to make their picks. You can also tell the ones that don’t do enough research, get emotional, and draft a guy strictly because he’s the fastest player available in the draft. There’s a reason the Patriots consistently grade out very well on the immediate draft grades, and grade out very well 3 years later.
That being said, Mel Kiper is horrible, absolutely horrible, at grading drafts. He gives the highest marks to those who make the biggest splash. If you pick the best player available for every pick, you get a C. If you trade up and pick based on need, you get an A.
How did the Packers do? I’d say that they did very well. Then again, I’m way too biased for anyone to take that seriously.
PS. I hate how the comments take out the spaces between my paragraphs, it makes my comments more difficult to read, when they are often jumbled enough already.
Thank you Bob. Nailed it.
Jayme - I feel the same way. I'll ask Corey if anything can be done.
Ahhhh. Corey just called onto the mat.
Oh DDD - always the instigator. Trust me, you don't want me near anything having to do with the inner workings of the site - place would explode.
Jayme - your voice is heard- working on it. btw- replying here to your tweets- site was down for a moment. turns out 3 system admins pointed out our site for being resource hogs so I am currently dealing w that.... I have a solution for your comments and will let u know when I have fixed it :)
we are gonna have to change the Buy us a beer to Buy us a New server soon...
Don't know? Kind of like your unknown executives, Bob? From my perspective the GB draft payoff was round one. 4 through 7 were and always are, a crap shoot. Just like all other teams. If TT has made the right move in one the Packers have an A+. Success with those picks means success for the team.
To that point there is no disagreement. No one knows until they hit the field.
RLC: Actually it's rounds 1-7 that are a crapshoot every year for every team.
Which is it Ron? In the post directly above this one "Barnett Insurance?" you state: "Preston may help but the draft is all gamble. And gambles usually take some time to develop, if at all."
Round 1 is as much a gamble as rounds 4 - 7.
Probably should have said, there is more information available to make a less risky pick. I'm guessing, but I'd bet big bucks that the failure rate by round will follow the round chosen fairly close. The risk is how much you lose if the number one flops.
It may be filler and garbage to grade it, but at least let me bask in my happiness for a week. That's all I ask. There's plenty of time to be skeptical. It's still April.
Peace and love, man.
I cant think of a grade given out that was not based on the draft filling the needs of the team. Few pundits give out grades based on who got the most highly rated players, McGinn might be one of those. Nobody grades high for accumulating picks (unless they are first round picks), and conversely they dont grade low for trading up (unless the player is overrated in some way).
I'd say NE did well to get 6 players in the first 100 picks, who cares about names. Cleveland also picked often and acquired three players on top of that.
Detroit got the top rated player at 3 positions, and they need every one of them.
bomdad: Exactly. The names don't really matter so much in grading the draft so much as the strategy and execution of the draft. Each team should have a different strategy because every team is at a different phase in the NFL life cycle. Immediate draft grades should be based on that strategy, how much it will improve the team, and how well that strategy is executed.
Detroit had a great draft because they have a ton of needs and they got a bunch of really good players at positions of need. They would have traded the first pick if they could have, but nobody was willing to take it. The Packers had a good draft because they had a few specific needs and they put themselves in a position such that the player that they wanted was the best player on their board.
Now, as far as how well the players turn out, that's where the long term grades come in. But as I said in my previous post, the only thing that the long term grades should determine is how to change a team's draft strategy.
At least, that's my take on it.
Maybe Jayme' could have a side column here? Good chatter all-round.
I would ask everyone. Is it a good thing to have Mel Kiper suddenly in our corner?
Is it fair to say TT may be transforming himself into a real GM, now that we have some veteran coaching on the staff, as opposed to two rookies behind the desks? I think having Capers around was the spark in this Draft. I gave TT an A- for this Draft, even though points-wise, Belicheat took Teddy to the cleaners a bit. It just means CM3 needs to surprise the NFL a bit more out the gate.
Do you think a final grade needs to wait 2 years, 3years, 4years? Which? Speaking on how well a draft might have been overall. I mean, we know Jennings is good, and Rodgers? I'd be redundant to keep hashing how well he's turning out. Surprises are James Jones, Collins (finally), Bigby, and a few others, of course. If Justin Harrell ends up being the only real bust we get under THIS GM, I'm gonna relax and enjoy that Leinie, bigtime. It sure ain't us getting Joe Johnson, or BJ Sander, or Ahmad Carroll, or Jamal Reynolds.. now is it!
Not a member yet? Join free.
If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you.
Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.