Dibs

I've always thought that once a player is in the NFL his draft position should be totally ignored. If they are good/bad, they are good/bad....regardless of having been the #1 or #250 in the draft.

He still sucks your left nut?

If the Jets don't pick a QB with their 1st or 2nd round pick.....who will they be looking at to be their starting QB?

I didn't notice that on my initial reading. Mathematically it would be 65%....not 85% Using the initial numbers, the chance of drafting a QB not succeeding is 50% & 70%. Therefore the chance that both don't succeed is 0.5 x 0.7 = 0.35 or 35%. Therefore the chance that one or both succeed would be 100% - 35% = 65% More realistic numbers would be 17%(being generous) for both of our 1st & 2nd round picks. This would give us a 31% chance that one or both succeed.

I don't think so. The article linked says he was the target of 55 balls....44 were catchable....and he caught 43. Since his actual number of catches was 43 it appears that they have calculated all together. I'd love to see how they class what a catchable ball is.

Playing in a pro bowl is IMO not a very good way to assess the success of a player....especially a QB(due to the higher percent of starters making the PB compared to most other positions). There are many players that have only one very good year.....and many that have their good year(or three) later in their careers when they have moved away from the team that drafted them. In the study/breakdown I did here....http://forums.twobil...ing-success-qb/....I focused on teams getting success from their 1st round QB draft pick. I included single pro bowls for interest sake but it became clear that your chance of finding a 5+ year starter is very high inside the top 4 picks (47%).....and very low outside of the top 4 (17%)(& that includes picks #33 so we include Favre & Brees in that number). To me this highlights the concept that we need to be drafting a lot of QBs to find one that will be good....and we should have been doing this for the last 20 years.

lol.....that's sooooo revenge of the nerds.

That's the term I was looking for! We don't typically tip over here(Australia) so that obvious term didn't occur to me.

I've got one.... If there was an imaginary girl who lived in an imaginary house, and she had an imaginary relationship with a non imaginary person.....could she be killed by imaginary cancer?

That one is more a logic problem rather than a math problem. I have heard it(solved it) before so I won't spoil your fun.

The "no solution" answer is based upon an incorrect calculation/assumption. The math does not add up in the way in was given because the way it was given did not represent the actual situation. It is a trick. You wrote... "Originally, the 3 guys gave exactly $10 each. That totals $30. In the end, the 3 guys gave exactly $9 each. That totals $27. So the guys gave $27 and the bell hop only kept $2, so mathematically the total calculation now comes out to $29 rather than $30." That is incorrect! It sounds correct....but any good trick sounds/seems correct. That is the beauty of a good trick. The reality is "...So the guys gave $27 out of which the bell hop kept $2...."

I can't tell if you are playing with people here or not. Physical dollars.... The owner has $25 The bell hop has $2 Each of the 3 renters have $1 each. Total = $30 The confusing tricky part is the bit saying "the 3 friends only paid $27....and the bell hop only has $2". This is not the actual situation but is only made to sound like it is the situation. The bell hop's $2 comes out of the $27. The true way to say it is "the 3 friends only paid $27.....out of which $2 was paid to the bell hop." ....or using the original "So, that means, each friend paid $9 each for the room after receiving a $1 back each, for a total of $27...the Bell Hop has the other $2...well that only totals $29, so what happened to the 30th Dollar?"... As stated above....the bell hop's $2 is accounted for in the $27. $27 and $3 back equals $30. It's a nice trick. I hope I didn't spoil your fun if you were wanting to confuse others.

Geez....just from the title you'd have to pay me to go see it.

I'll likely cop a backlash for saying this but..... You don't have to believe that to be a Christian. I'm a Christian and I don't believe that.

I counted Schaub as if he "qualified" on the one team due to the uniqueness of the QB position.... But I don't think that was what you were asking.... In terms of the two 2nd round picks.....they are irrelevant and are ignored. The reason for this is that picks used for trades will be used by the trading team to draft other players. Those players will then be assessed in their relevant group(QB, LB, RB etc). The analysis was not about how much one spends on any given group....rather how well the player drafted performs for the team that spent the pick.

Are we still on that? I'll spell things out clearly for you. When somebody is not convinced of guilt or innocence in a situation like this they think about all of the possibilities of what the actual truth might be. Scenario #1 might be viewed as very unlikely. Scenario #2 might be viewed a quite unlikely. Scenario #3 & 4 might be viewed as quite possible. Scenario #5 might be viewed as a bit more than quite possible. I listed my scenario #5. It was the scenario I saw as "most likely". It wasn't what I thought was "very likely" or even "quite likely".......it was the scenario that made the most sense to me at the time. I wasn't married to it. I never proclaimed that I believed it was the truth of the situation. I never stated that I believed he was guilty. It was my BEST GUESS. ....and it certainly wasn't the worst case scenario for him in my mind at all. Can you understand that there is a differentiate between statements showing a belief in the possibility of guilt and statements showing a belief of guilt?

You misunderstood me. All I was meaning was that it still needs to be verified. By stating the 99% of guilt thing, I mistakenly made the assumption that my comment would show that it had greatly changed my views.....which I clarified to you in my follow up post. I think we are cool

In specifics to QBs though(since that is the position covered in this thread).....it seems to be a great deal harder to find a QB who will lead your team to a SB win outside of drafting him. It certainly happens....but there have not been many SB wins in recent times by QBs who were not drafted by the winning team. The Brees situation was an extraordinary and solitary situation as far as I am aware. I can't think of any other young star QBs who have hit the FA market and changed teams.

Ta. To me the stats show that only a 1st round pick can be considered a major draft investment when considering the QB position. The two 2nd round starters were Brees(who KellyDog pointed out was the 32nd pick)....and Favre who was the 33rd pick. If you are picking outside the 1st round(& #1 in R2) you are looking at needing to pick 20ish guys on average to find a 5+ year starter.

Thanks for the clarification AlphaD. All's good In terms of the goal, I'll elaborate/discuss a bit.... My main goal was to determine the average chance of getting a player who will minimally have 5 seasons where he is good enough to start for the drafting team. It is more a reflection of "bang for bucks" with the draft picks. I was focusing in that particular way due to the fact that every draft, a large number of fans(and media) assume that their 1st, 2nd, usually 3rd and sometimes 4th round selections are going to solve the problems at whatever position for a good number of years to come. Effectively I was trying to find out how many players drafted actually do that. That is why I won't count a superstar who gets injured and then has reduced ability or retires after the 3rd year.....nor players that start for 4 years for the drafted team and then leave....nor players who play mediocre and then play like superstars at another team. It's not an analysis of how many players end up being good players.....it's an analysis of how many players end up plugging the required holes for the team that drafted them....because in the crux of it, that is what they are drafted to do in the first place. I hope I've explained myself well enough there.

I really don't understand why you say something like that. You understand that it is quite possible that "if" he was guilty.....then creating a spreadsheet to represent his phone conversations is quite possible? "If" he helped organize such an elaborate hoax in the first place, it stands to reason that he could spend a day making a spreadsheet of phone calls. That being said.....I don't believe that that is the case......and I am now strongly leaning towards him being totally duped. ....and you are correct. I guess I am acting like a juror. That's because I am interested in the astounding puzzle that this situation has been presented as.....and I have not been shown information to make me believe beyond reasonable doubt that he is either guilty or innocent. I find this part very offensive and insulting. Surely you read my responses recently to joe6pack? You made up your mind about this very early in the thread.....please show other people the courtesy of making up their own minds without accusing them of being one of the "bad guy" hating mob, or irrational in their thoughts. As it happens, I personally think that for anyone to have made up their minds one way or the other on this that they are doing so based upon some sort of emotionally charged bias. I have not stated this as it is basically insulting and offensive and could only result in an unproductive negative situation.

I'm kicking myself that I didn't split the 2nd round into two sections.....which i had initially thought of doing. I totally agree with what you are saying. Splitting up the 1st round however shows(and likely will for other positions) the gradual percentage changes. I didn't do what you suggested as it would have majorly compounded the difficulty in data collection. No....I stated that I included Favre, Hasselbeck, Schaub etc. I tried to get a base criteria that I could use for all positions that did not rely on opinion. I did not want to get bogged down with who thinks what player does or does not qualify for stardom etc. For example....imagine the argument over whether Bledsoe was a star QB or not. Many think he was.....many think he wasn't. Only Rodgers didn't fit the criteria....Favre etc fit the criteria but moved teams early due to issues specific to the QB position. The young guys get left out because some may regress....while others may come on in their 3rd years etc. Imagine if RG3 gets an injury next year that ends his career? He would & should then count as a failed draft pick as his team did not get the production hoped for from him.

Sigh...whatever. I had to draw some line. I chose to start from 2005....Rodgers is relatively unique as he spent 3 years on the bench. I mentioned this specifically because Rodgers is a star and doesn't fit into the criteria. What's the problem?

Yep...fixing now. I will be discovering if you are correct about hit rate as I go through the other positions. What I said was correct though....outside of the top 4 the hit rate is very low. Even including Rodgers it would be only 3 in 22. Rodgers is not a star player under the criteria that I set.....hence me specifically mentioning him.

Hi all, This is the first in a series of threads that I am doing where I will be breaking down past drafts in order to determine the average chance of finding: (Star) A star player (4+ Pro Bowls) (Starter) A starting calibre player (12 or more games for 5+ seasons) (probowl) A pro bowl player (1+ Pro Bowls) Category 1 and 2 are by far more important to drafting success than category 3. I am only interested in players that succeeded for the original team that drafted them, thus determining the odds of a successful draft selection for the team doing the selecting. Players who succeeded for teams other than the team that drafted them will not be counted. I am doing this for my own personal interests and figure that other posters here may also find it interesting. I will be breaking the draft up into rounds 1, 2, 3, 4/5, 6/7, as well as breaking the 1st round into 5 sections. #1, #2-4, #5-10, #11-20 & #21-32. The data pool will be selected from 20 years of drafts from 1986 – 2005. This ensures all draftees have a full 8 years of NFL experience to achieve my benchmarks. (Rounded to the nearest percent) Quarterbacks Round 1 41 players selected 4 Stars 10% (1 in 10.3) 11 Starters 27% (1 in 3.7) 15 probowlers 37% (1 in 2.7) R1 Pick 1 11 players selected 2 Stars 18% (1 in 5.5) 6 Starters 55% (1 in 1.8) 6 probowlers 55% (1 in 1.8) R1 Picks 2-4 8 players selected 2 Stars 25% (1 in 4) 3 Starters 38% (1 in 2.7) 3 probowlers 38% (1 in 2.7) R1 Picks 5-10 6 players selected 0 Stars 0 Starters 2 probowlers 33% (1 in 3) R1 Picks 11-20 7 players selected 0 Stars 1 Starters 14% (1 in 7) 3 probowlers 43% (1 in 2.3) R1 Picks 21-32 9 players selected 0 Stars 1 Starters 11% (1 in 9) 1 probowlers 11% (1 in 9) Round 2 16 players selected 2 Stars 6% (1 in 8) 2 Starters 6% (1 in 8) 3 probowlers 19% (1 in 5.3) Round 3 27 players selected 0 Stars 0 Starters 3 probowlers 11% (1 in 9) Rounds 4/5 53 players selected 0 Stars 2 Starters 4% (1 in 26.5) 2 probowlers 4% (1 in 26.5) Rounds 6/7 79 players selected 1 Stars 1% (1 in 79) 4 Starters 5% (1 in 19.8) 6 probowlers 8% (1 in 13.2) Notes & Observations: Due to the singular nature of the QB position I felt it necessary to include several QBs who did not fit my criteria due to being traded very early in their careers because of having a quality starter in front of them in the cases of Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck & Matt Schaub, and unique situations in the cases of Brett Favre & Drew Brees. I should also note that due to Aaron Rodgers(1st round) backing up to Favre for 3 years he has not yet qualified for a Star nor a Starter and I would think he is bound to qualify for both after next season. As one would expect, the 1st round has by far the greatest chance to end up with a starter. Oddly enough the 2nd round has shown a better success rate in finding star QBs than the 1st. It should be noted that that upon removing the top 4 selections from the 1st round, the odds of finding a star or starter are drastically reduced. It works out to be zero stars and only 2 starters from 22 selections. Again, the 2nd round has better odds in both of those catagories. Another interesting aspect is that when removing the aberration that is Tom Brady(6th round), there is very little difference in the success rate between rounds 3 to 7…..with the 3rd round being devoid of successful QB draftees. I will also note that it appears the starter category for QB would likely be lower than most positions as the QB position is typically only manned by a player for 5+ years if they are considered to be “good”. “Average” QBs will rarely if ever see 5+ years of starting on the team that drafted them. As a Bills fan looking forward to this draft where we have the #8 pick and desperately need a good QB….this study has depressed me somewhat.