gasoline to the "best GM" debate

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The draft, beyond a doubt, is the #1 factor in team building. A smaller percentage of your team is going to be FAs or trade acquisitions.

     

    BB has been a pretty good drafter, though he has had his duds as well. It's his mediocre drafting that has been the biggest problem, and has denied us Lombardi rings.

    [/QUOTE]

    You say it's the number 1 factor in team building but don't look at the team record?  Makes no sense.  

     

    You can look at active players or pro bowls or all-pro or wins or SB championships and the Patriots come out on top despite poorest drafting position.  The fact that every metric shows the Patriots as good drafters makes your GM case extremely weak.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your posts are pretty much the only reason I still come here

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Not when your value picks turn out to have no value.   When injury prone players get injured repeatedly and character issue guys murder or punch people, or get suspended for substance abuse.

    And not when you are using  those added 2nd round picks on 5th-7th round talent..against the advice of your scouts.  Do they REALLY need 2nd round ST players, when there was a position of need  (the same position of need for years) not satisfied?  AGAIN!

    Do you really need 12 and 14 picks in a draft when only 3 of them are keepers?

    No, no one is perfect and are all going to miss but when you constantly pick value due to "ISSUES", is it any wonder?  Haven't you lowered your chances of success, further, by doing all of the above? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Earth to Pezz.  Patriots picks since 2010 lead the league in AV.  Patriots picks since 2008 are 4th in the league in AV.  Patriots are at the top of the NFL in pro bowlers and all-pros drafted since 2008.  There is no way you can spin that into bottom tier drafting.  Wasn't this the year that all you moaners predicted was the year that BB's failure as GM was going to be exposed?  Didn't you boldly predict 9 wins?  That sure looks like a winning prediction.  LMAO @ U.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    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

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pezzy being bludgeoned on this topic along with his angry, embittered ilk.  The board is finally enjoying it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Bludgeoned?  Says who?  You???????

    Bwahahaha.

    The board knows that 90% of what you say, isn't true.

    I like those odds.  Thanks

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    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.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    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.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    You can look at active players or pro bowls or all-pro or wins or SB championships and the Patriots come out on top despite poorest drafting position.  The fact that every metric shows the Patriots as good drafters makes your GM case extremely weak.

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? The Pats come out on top in SB championships in the last 8 years?

    Let me see, ZERO is less than the one or two a half dozen other teams have won in that time.

    Ohhhhh, you must be referring to the 3 SBs BB won with a slew of players he didn't acquire. Just keep counting 2001-2004 and in another 10 years you can say we won 3 SBs in the last 22 years.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The one true indisputable measure, is Lombardi trophies.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The funniest part of this is I know for a fact you don't actually believe it is that black and white.

    You are more than smart enough to know how much a lil luck and injuries play a factor in any run.

    Well that and the fact I have seen you write as much on various occassions.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    What's even funnier is that earlier in this thread he was talking about the "last decade," when this idea was demolished by the simple fact that the Pats had gone to four Super Bowls and won two over the last decade (more than any team) he had to start talking about the last eight years only.

    Then he keeps referring about Belichick inheriting all the players who made it possible to win three Super Bowls, when confronted with the FACT the Patriots would not have won any of those rings without Brady, Seymour, Light, Andruzzi and Pleasant (all Belichick acquisitions) he just ignores it and recycles the same garbage a few posts later.

    He can't answer these basic questions so he simply ignores and avoids them.

    Fail

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Until he wins a couple Super Bowls as GM with all his own guys then we have a full right to question, not whether he is good - he is very good - but whether he is God and beyond any cricism.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He won three Super Bowls and went to two more with "his guys," if he didn't want these players he would have cut them. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So if BB retired and McD took over next year and won the SB with Brady, Brady would then be "McD's guy"?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Spin it any way you like, but better GM work by BB would have resulted in more SB wins than zero in the last 8 years.

    Game, set, match.

    [/QUOTE]

    And I love how you went from talking about the last decade to now talking about the last eight years because the last time you made this statement I reminded you that we've gone to four Super Bowls in the last decade and won two of them, more than any other team.  Now your only concerned about the last eight and the two Super Bowls we've lost... lol

    Game, set, match?

    [/QUOTE]


    I have distinctly referred to the last 8 years time and time again, and that is what my first reply here refers to. It's the homers who keep including the 3 for 4 in the equation. It's gone from 3 in 4 to 3 in 12 and will continue until it's 3 in 50 from the homers I suspect.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    What's even funnier is that earlier in this thread he was talking about the "last decade,"

    [/QUOTE]

    You must be confusing me with someone else. I said the last 8 years.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pezzy being bludgeoned on this topic along with his angry, embittered ilk.  The board is finally enjoying it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Bludgeoned?  Says who?  You???????

    Bwahahaha.

    The board knows that 90% of what you say, isn't true.

    I like those odds.  Thanks

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, you shouldn't. The board is more on my side than yours and your little group of about 15 here, I can tell you that.

    I like MY odds.

    [/QUOTE]


    In any poll on your honesty, you would lose at a 9:1 ratio Megatool. You're a born liar that is proven wrong daily.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: gasoline to the

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The one true indisputable measure, is Lombardi trophies.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The funniest part of this is I know for a fact you don't actually believe it is that black and white.

    You are more than smart enough to know how much a lil luck and injuries play a factor in any run.

    Well that and the fact I have seen you write as much on various occassions.

    [/QUOTE]


    Luck and injuries play a role when the final teams are closely matched. The dynasty teams were mostly a cut above the rest. The reality is they simply didn't play all that well in either the 2003 or 2004 SB. Those teams were by far the best.

     

     

Share