Re: gasoline to the

posted at 11/1/2013 7:19 PM EDT

In response to pcmIV's comment:

In response to pezz4pats' comment:

Like I said, Please post those stats.

Also post where they rank in return of investment. ROI

I have already shown you that their draft index does not support your findings (agenda). In fact in the past 5 years it has dropped. Probably due to 07-09 drafts, but dropped none the less.

When you can come up with something that disputes the posted player index. let me know.

Also do you consider the 11-13 drafts conclusive?

Would you still give the 2010 draft an A-. today? I wouldn't even consider **one of the** **remaining players** worthy of that A- grade, never mind the whole draft where 3 of the 6 high round picks were busts..... sorry

I told you where you can look up the stats genius. I exported the data from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ and did the computations myself.

The CareerAV of Patriots players drafted from 2010-2012 is tops in the league at 188. The CareerAV of Patriots players drafted from 2008-2012 is 331 which is 4th in the league. The Patriots players drafted from 2008-2012 have been named to 4 pro bowls and 2 first team all pro teams both of which are tops in the league. I am not going to post the AV and pro bowl and all pro teams for the 1,275 players that have been drafted from 2008 to 2012. Why don't you go look at the data and tell me where my mistake is. I assure you it isn't there.

Your obsession with this ROI statistic is laughable. I looked at the article that explained how this "metric" was calculated and it is misguided to say the least. What it does it look at the careerAV/seasons played for each player drafted in a particular spot and averages them to compute an "expected value" for each draft spot. It then compares a pick to this "expected value" to compute ROI. This is silly because the draft is a high variance event. This means that the average (which is the basis for the ROI calculation) provides very little statistical value. Consider one of the most extreme examples. Since Tom Brady was drafted 199th overall in 2000 here are the players that have been drafted in that spot, their CareerAV and how many seasons they played. Note that the 2013 season does not count as AV does not get calculated on partial seasons.

The expected value for this spot would be 1.65 which is the average AV/season of the 13 players drafted. This value doesn't have any real meaning though. There is exactly one player that is even remotely in the ballpark to this value and he was still 15% lower. After that each player is at least 40% larger or smaller. This is reflected in the fact that the standard deviation is 3.11 which is practically twice the average. As I said before, the draft is a high variance event and the average of a high variance population is not valuable. This is statistics 101 which apparently both you and the author from NinersNation (the source of this statistic and the ROI chart you posted earlier) flunked. The larger question is why would you be reading a 49ers fan blog? Do you really have nothing better to do than google for "articles" that purport to show that BB sucks at drafting (and btw that article only talks about the 2006 draft which I said was bad so dunno why you think it generalizes to other years).

As for your other chart it doesn't show what you think it does. What it shows is in the last 10 years the Patriots have drafted the 5th most players that are still active in the NFL despite having the highest winning percentage over that period meaning they have a highly competitive roster and lower draft picks before any trade downs. That must mean they drafted some pretty good talent which is reflected in the most pro bowlers over that period. Your obsession with "efficiency" completely misses the point of the trade down strategy. The whole point is that you think the loss in efficiency will be more than made up for by the additional picks. The fact that in absolute terms the Patriots have gotten more out of the draft than most teams in the NFL in terms of active players and have gotten the most pro bowlers speaks to the effectiveness of that strategy.

I would also point out that I find it amusing that this "analysis" treats all draft picks the same when calculating "efficiency" whereas the ROI "article" you referenced specifically argues that each draft spot is different (not each round, but each individual pick). It appears consistency isn't really important to you when pushing that agenda of yours huh Pezzy?

So it looks like that agenda of yours has once again gone down in flames just like that 9 win prediction. I guess you're just going to have to stew through another double digit win season. I'll enjoy every moment of course. Keep throwing out those predictions though buddy. Even blind squirrels find an acorn from time to time. LMAO @ U.

We'll think what you want but the ROI value is significant for all ayers and especially when applied to top picks as their contribution and time is paramount. The top picks are not meant to last a couple of years with little or no contribution. That's why it is measured. The chart you supplied amounts to the top , lifetime but each player is given a value. That is why in the previous chart it rated the Pats 2006 as an F with each second and first rounder with a negative value and why it rated the top team with each as a positive value. , 6 years later. So, no! The past few drafts would not be relevant or computable unless a pick were already out with no contribution and no time Based on that and AV stats. Which are dynamic, the last few drafts are incomplete and no value can be assigned. Like I said, look at the 2010 draft. Would you still give it an A grade, 3 years later.? And another thing, if you feel things like longevity and contribution of players is irrelevant. As apposed to replacing the same player over and over two years into his contract because he sucks, then there really is no more need to discuss anything with you. You might as well live on another planet.

And the last thing before I put you to bed. The way I read the other chart is 100% accurate. You don't understand that if 2 teams have 45 players in the league but one had 23 more picks than the other, then that means that the team with 23 more picks to achieve the same results, also had 23 more misses. Really?

sorry but that points directly to inefficiency and not the way you see it.