2018 NFL Draft

[soxfan49]

38 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

It isn't just a Bears fan thing. Look at Bill Belliceck's history of drafting. I'd say its largely worked out well for him. It takes a GM who is comfortable in his skin to move down, with some of the times, the moves being to accumulate future draft capital (i.e., picks in the following year).  Bottom line, if you statistically have guys who are all closely graded and you can move down a few picks and add additional quality players without much degredation in talent, you do it. I also generally believe numbers play into it, so the more quality picks you have, the better the overall chances.  

If an elite player was sitting there who you had a #3 overall type grade on, than I'm not trading down, unless I get paid the draft capital to make it worthwhile. My view was the probability you get much different of a player within those couple picks was minimal. Might be true / might not. In terms of who we picked, I have zero problem with who we took. He also very well might have been there had we been able to move down with the Bills (who knows).  Of course that is a major hypothetical since it was the Bucs who made the offer with the Bills and they picked ahead of us and I presume Bills were under the impression that if they didn't move up with the Bucs, the Cardinals were moving up to the Bucs spot.  

It actually hasn't worked out all too well for Belichick, but agree to disagree. Since 2014, I've found 4-5 good players they've drafted- Cam Fleming, Jimmy Garoppolo, Deatrich Wise, Trey Flowers and arguably Shaq Mason. They have Tom Brady, and their system makes all of the other guys great.

 

37 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

What percent of 1st rounders pan out? I think that is a valid statistic so you can compare an apples-to-apples of wherever your stat is coming from.  

It's about 25% historically, but for apples to apples, it was 33% from 2013-2015.

Edited April 27, 2018 by soxfan49

[soxfan49]

15 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Now that the Packers have two first round picks next year, they can pretty take any player they want.  Nick Bosa please enter the draft.

Not sure either the Saints or Packers' slot will be high enough to get him, even with a trade up (and thank god too, because he's going to be a star)

Edited April 27, 2018 by soxfan49

[GoSox05]

1 minute ago, soxfan49 said:

Not sure either the Saints or Packers' slot will be high enough to get him, unless they're going to package both + some mid rounders.

They could package both and go into the top 5.  Might have to throw in something else, but it won't totally wreck their draft.

[soxfan49]

3 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

They could package both and go into the top 5.  Might have to throw in something else, but it won't totally wreck their draft.

You're right. Assuming GB is picking at about 20 and NO at about 30, it'd have to be those 2 picks plus their 2nd rounder to get to #5. Not bad.

[GoSox05]

It could depend on one of them having a bad year.  More likely the Saints, with an aging QB and tough division. 

They are probably both playoff teams.

[Dick Allen]

So basically you're lucky to get 1 good player in the draft, but there are 32 teams with 53 man rosters, and short careers, with . So 95% of the NFL must suck.

 

[southsider2k5]

41 minutes ago, TheTruth05 said:

 

Really thought this number would be higher,not saying it's a bad percentage.

It is also way higher than the 15 we were just told earlier in this thread.

[Chisoxfn]

47 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

It actually hasn't worked out all too well for Belichick, but agree to disagree. Since 2014, I've found 4-5 good players they've drafted- Cam Fleming, Jimmy Garoppolo, Deatrich Wise, Trey Flowers and arguably Shaq Mason. They have Tom Brady, and their system makes all of the other guys great.

 

It's about 25% historically, but for apples to apples, it was 33% from 2013-2015.

So if I follow your logic, if 1st round is historically 25% and that compared to the 2nd round at 15% (historically). Just using the metrics you shared, if I were to keep my 1st round pick (just moving down 5 slots) and add 2 2nd round picks...your statistics would seem to back up the fact that I should make that trade every single time.  I'm over-simplifying since stats vary based upon when you are picking in the draft, but even with some form of distribution to front load top-picks and weaken back end picks, when you get to 8 vs. 12, you aren't talking about a significant difference in percentage and adding in 2 2nd rounders would be a massive upgrade. 

[Soxbadger]

49 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

It actually hasn't worked out all too well for Belichick, but agree to disagree. Since 2014, I've found 4-5 good players they've drafted- Cam Fleming, Jimmy Garoppolo, Deatrich Wise, Trey Flowers and arguably Shaq Mason. They have Tom Brady, and their system makes all of the other guys great.

 

It's about 25% historically, but for apples to apples, it was 33% from 2013-2015.

 

So by your own math trading 1 first for 1 first and 2 seconds results in a higher chance of getting 1 good player. 

/shrugs

Different people have different beliefs, but as long as Ive been on this board, Ive always been a proponent of accumulating picks/talent in the NFL. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

So if I follow your logic, if 1st round is historically 25% and that compared to the 2nd round at 15% (historically). Just using the metrics you shouted, if I were to keep my 1st round pick (just moving down 5 slots) and add 2 2nd round picks...your statistics would seem to back up the fact that I should make that trade every single time.  

 

lol You beat me to it.

[Chisoxfn]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

 

lol You beat me to it.

Haha. 

[soxfan49]

26 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is also way higher than the 15 we were just told earlier in this thread.

No, it's not, but since it goes with your belief, continue to push whatever you want.

What I said was 15% of second rounders "moderately (or better) directly effect a team's success." So yeah, 4 years later Cody Latimer was still starting for the Broncos. In that time he caught 35 passes. What a great selection! (thus not directly effecting or resulting in success for the Broncos)

In other words, 15% of second round picks are good or great players. The others are just average, below average or complete s***. The Colts, Browns, hell even the Bears have had MANY second round picks who are crap likely starting for their teams 4 years after they were drafted because the roster was and still is awful.

Edited April 27, 2018 by soxfan49

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, soxfan49 said:

No, it's not, but since it goes with your belief, continue to push whatever you want.

What I said was 15% of second rounders "moderately (or better) directly effect a team's success." So yeah, while 4 years later Cody Latimer was still starting for the Broncos, his 35 career catches were a result of the Broncos being terrible and having terrible players, thus not directly effecting or resulting in success for the Broncos.

In other words, 15% of second round picks are good or great players. The others are just average, below average or complete s***. The Colts, Browns, hell even the Bears have had MANY second round picks who are crap likely starting for their teams 4 years after they were drafted because the roster was and still is awful.

So you are talking about my "belief" while discarding an actual statistic in exchange for your made up definition...  Sure.  Ok.  Keep ranting.

[soxfan49]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So you are talking about my "belief" while discarding an actual statistic in exchange for your made up definition...  Sure.  Ok.  Keep ranting.

Had you read, you would have saw that it's not my definition.

15% of second round picks are good or great players. It's relatively easy to understand.

Just because guys are starting for the team that drafted them 4 years later doesn't make them good.
 

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Had you read, you would have saw that it's not my definition.

15% of second round picks are good or great players. It's relatively easy to understand.

Just because guys are starting for the team that drafted them 4 years later doesn't make them good.
 

That doesn't really make sense with the other statistic.  If 50% of second rounders are starting, but only 15% are "good" you are trying to tell me that 2/3 of people (15% being about 1/3 of 50%) who are starting aren't good... all without the article to reference what your "stat" actually came from and see if what you are saying here is actually valid.  But yet they are able to spend 4 years starting, on the same team, without being replaced by someone else who comes in after them.

It doesn't pass the eye test for me.

[Dick Allen]

26 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Had you read, you would have saw that it's not my definition.

15% of second round picks are good or great players. It's relatively easy to understand.

Just because guys are starting for the team that drafted them 4 years later doesn't make them good.
 

So basically, you should sign good players as Free Agents, and trade all your draft picks for good players, because expecting one or two or several out of any draft is not being realistic. 

[Soxbadger]

I dont even mind someone saying "Player X was worth not trading down." But the whole condescension towards anyone who believes in trading down is pretty absurd.

 

Here is an article (not written by stupid Bears fans) that supports the theory of trading down:

 

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/how-nfl-teams-ignore-basic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally

 

Quote

 

Again, the data was unequivocal. On average, trading down and getting two players gave a team five more starts per season and slightly more total Pro Bowls.

You could chalk this up to the simple fact that more players start more games, but it's more than that. Even if you imagined that the team trading down could only keep the better one of the two players it drafted, it'd still get slightly more total starts and the same number of Pro Bowls. The truth is that teams are imperfect talent evaluators, so having two later picks is better than a single early one. Risk diversification at work. 

 

Basically, Soxfan49 is a victim of the "overconfidence effect."

 

Every conceivable statistic supports trading down. That does not mean that every time trading down will work, nor does it mean that 1 player cant be worth more than 5. It just means that over time teams with more picks are more successful at drafting than teams with less picks. Since trading down = more picks, it is generally preferable.

 

But Im just a stupid Bears fan. 

 

(wow that formatting was all fucked)

Edited April 27, 2018 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

13 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So basically, you should sign good players as Free Agents, and trade all your draft picks for good players, because expecting one or two or several out of any draft is not being realistic. 

And to add to this, if "good" players were really that highly valued, teams would be sending MUCH higher draft picks for those players, but instead the deals that are made happen for mid to late round picks.

[soxfan49]

We can all agree to disagree. I think the Bears are already loaded with decent to good players. I don't need more Adrian Amos' and more Nick Kwiatkoski's. I want the Derwin James/Minkah Fitzpatrick or Roquan Smith's of the world, and those caliber players are USUALLY only around in the first round. I absolutely love a philosophy of moving up or staying pat and getting your guy.

If a trade makes sense, fine, but Bears fans were mad about Floyd, pissed about Trubisky, and now we're somewhat upset, not because they got a good player, but because they could have gotten someone else + some mid rounders. Nothing pleases the fan base.

BTW, it looks like 2013-2015 had a 20% hit rate on 2nd rounders (6/30 in 2013, 9/32 in 2014, and 4/32 in 2015).

Edited April 27, 2018 by soxfan49

[Soxbadger]

15 hours ago, soxfan49 said:

Well no because then they wouldn’t have the draft’s best linebacker and instead they’d likely have a SS or FS that wouldn’t see the field much in 2018

 

11 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

We can all agree to disagree. I think the Bears are already loaded with decent to good players. I don't need more Adrian Amos' and more Nick Kwiatkoski's. I want the Derwin James/Minkah Fitzpatrick or Roquan Smith's of the world, and those caliber players are USUALLY only around in the first round. I absolutely love a philosophy of moving up or staying pat and getting your guy.

BTW, it looks like 2013-2015 had a 20% hit rate on 2nd rounders (6/30 in 2013, 9/32 in 2014, and 4/32 in 2015).

 

Its strange when you put those posts together, because 2/3 guys you mentioned are SS/FS. If the Bears had made the trade TB did, the Bears could have had James + 2 additional second rounders. Fitzpatrick was selected 1 pick before Tampa's and James was selected at 17. 

It seems like you are now changing the argument to the Bears should have never traded out of the first round, which is entirely different than what most people were suggesting which was to trade down a handful of picks in a draft where 4 of the top 10 players who were picked were never going to be selected by the Bears anyway.

And of course everyone can "agree to disagree", but when you say "Is every fan base this disgusting? " in response to Bears fan who thought the Bears should do a Tampa style deal it doesnt leave a lot of room for reasonable people having reasonable differences.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but it is not statistically sound. Your basis is that you believe Smith is so much better than anyone else that the Bears could have taken, and that value could not be offset by other players. There is nothing wrong with that opinion, but dont insult the rest of us by trying to argue that its somehow based on statistics that dont exist. 

[Chisoxfn]

11 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

Its strange when you put those posts together, because 2/3 guys you mentioned are SS/FS. If the Bears had made the trade TB did, the Bears could have had James + 2 additional second rounders. Fitzpatrick was selected 1 pick before Tampa's and James was selected at 17. 

It seems like you are now changing the argument to the Bears should have never traded out of the first round, which is entirely different than what most people were suggesting which was to trade down a handful of picks in a draft where 4 of the top 10 players who were picked were never going to be selected by the Bears anyway.

And of course everyone can "agree to disagree", but when you say "Is every fan base this disgusting? " in response to Bears fan who thought the Bears should do a Tampa style deal it doesnt leave a lot of room for reasonable people having reasonable differences.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but it is not statistically sound. Your basis is that you believe Smith is so much better than anyone else that the Bears could have taken, and that value could not be offset by other players. There is nothing wrong with that opinion, but dont insult the rest of us by trying to argue that its somehow based on statistics that dont exist. 

What badger said. I was not saying we should have traded out of the 1st round. Tampa Bay flat out got a haul. They moved down 5 spots and got 2 2nd round picks.  You are going to still have impact players on the board with your 1st pick, plus get a shot at 2 2nd round picks.  If the proposals were we trade entirely out of the 1st round or way back, I might have a different answer (albeit that answer ultimately depends on the entirety of the value proposition).  

[Wanne]

4 hours ago, TheTruth05 said:

I wouldn't be surprised he tries to move up in the 2nd,they obviously really want someone they feel might be gone early tonight.

trying to figure out who that might be.  I sure as hell hope it's not Landry.  I've heard rumbles of medical red flags on him...besides I think he's too small.  I'd love Hernandez...but would be shocked if he fell to us.  I've also read a few places possibly James Daniels.

[bmags]

Hard to keep up. Missed the draft and will miss tonight’s and tomorrow’s, terrible timing for a friends wedding

the tampa trade illustrates why I was upset a few weeks back on how bears always seem one pick back of the “fulcrum” pick. The bills clearly were going to move up but 8 was likely too late. They miss on getting to 5, Indy decides to stay, then Tampa got the spoils.

but the az trade was less enticing. Likely not available to bears as the price should have been steeper and AZ may not have paid. A 3rd and 5th for 7 spots and likely a much lesser talent not worth it.

i love getting Roquan Smith. He was amazing every game I saw him, then I bought into the “shed blocks” thing, the. I realized that was all about 1/2 of a game, then bought in again.

i also said bears may go Landry, so I know nothing. His medical may be way worse than fans knew.

Love what’s on board in 2nd, if we get Hernandez or Iowa C I’m happy, but feel weak can recoup some 4ths and still get a target.

[soxfan49]

3 minutes ago, Wanne said:

trying to figure out who that might be.  I sure as hell hope it's not Landry.  I've heard rumbles of medical red flags on him...besides I think he's too small.  I'd love Hernandez...but would be shocked if he fell to us.  I've also read a few places possibly James Daniels.

Really, I'd be fine with Daniels, Key, Kirk or Anthony Miller. I'm not sure how well Hernandez fits into this scheme; he's more road grader than he is athletic. I'm guessing he goes to NYG anyway,

[Chisoxfn]

34 minutes ago, Wanne said:

trying to figure out who that might be.  I sure as hell hope it's not Landry.  I've heard rumbles of medical red flags on him...besides I think he's too small.  I'd love Hernandez...but would be shocked if he fell to us.  I've also read a few places possibly James Daniels.

Do people think Landry's ankle injury was permanent? Or is there something else?