OCinBuffalo

Sounds good....but who leads it? And, part 2 of that question: who manages the privatized efforts? Surely you aren't suggesting that this idea can succeed given the record of the leadership in the Federal government. (Not talking Obama, am talking the career, GSA hot tub guy) Can we trust GSA hot tub guy, or the 50k incompetents/miscreants like him, to lead this effort? Can we trust him to teach these kids a F'ing thing, besides how to be a douche? Do you think these kids will be = served, in terms of getting their careers going, by working for the government, as they would working for a company who hires entry level college kids all the time, and puts meticulous, unmitigated bastards like me in charge of making sure they learn the job...properly? If the same entrenched bureaucrats lead, or are the government version of what we call "client-side" mangers of these efforts, then all you are doing is moving the bottleneck from one place to another. The problem with these government programs is: mostly crap leadership from these bureaucrats, and no way for them to push back on untenable scopes. Rather, they are given incentives to grow these scopes. Ergo, why not extend these same benefits to experienced recent older graduates with a BS(<--non negotiable) degree in engineering, business, etc.? No women's studies majors. Why not also extend this to recent MBA grads, etc., and put them in charge of overseeing the privatized efforts? (Not sure what you mean by privatized, but I'm running with it. Let me know if I'm running in the wrong direction. ) Hey, if we want to get "out there", then let's do it. It's not a bad idea, but if you plan on using the same leadership that is currently in place, it becomes a terrible idea.

You know I tossed that in there....just so you would have something to say, right? Actually, I'm not drinking at all. Simply an exercise in maintaining my trolling skills. In reality, I'm trying to figure out why the F this turd CIO keeps pushing this poorly designed integration tool. I've done 3 prototypes in it tonight, it's buggy, lame and its asynchronous messaging was designed by an unmitigated moron. The only conclusion appears to be: it's political (yeah, that's for your benefit too)..... working on it........................................................................................................................Hmmm....yes!! I have an idea!

....while funding the very same green organizations, who apparently do care about the existence of the world so much...that they will gladly take this oil money. Yes, they will be living very nice lives studying the effects of said oil spill...for the next 10 years. They will be bashing the oil companies and execs who pay them, but never disclose where their dinner really hangs. Meanwhile, said green people will be adding 0 value to the economy, except for basic consumption, and spending those 10 years to tell us what we already know: "um, oil spills are bad, mmkay? They kill birds." Hey, you said you wanted to be more cynical, well, there it is. Except, let's replace the word cynical...with factual. As in ALL the facts, not the just the ones that fit our delusions. I'm pretty well buzzed, and feeling happy, but that doesn't mean I don't know the difference between being cynical...and being...factual. What's your excuse? Are you ready to admit that the "science" here is inseparable from the politics and the funding, and that your premise is false...or is that going to take another 6-7 posts?

This. Scare the hell out of 14-18 and make them all think you are taking Barron, which builds value in the #10 pick. Scare the hell out of 6 and make them think you will trade up and get Kalil, which means they may panic, and we get Blackmon. Scare the hell out of 3 and make them think you won't offer more than a 2nd to trade up, which sets the bar too high for anybody else to trade up...per the DRAFT TRADE CHART. "Poison the well"! I am liking this. Buddy is doing maximum damage from his position. Speaking of wells, "Give them nothing. Take from them, everything!" Thwis is Thwparta!

Yeah. No schit. Like I said...I was expecting this response, 6-8 posts ago. Business people doing the smart thing and hedging, and also buying themselves the "we've been funding research on this for years" insurance policy. That's pretty much why we pay PR/Marketing people. They don't just sit in meetings telling themselves how smart they are, and bang secretaries all day, like on TV. Dude, I've met a lot of executive clowns, and studs, in my time. But, I've never met a CEO who is revered for his/her "low profit generating practices". Hah Hah Hah Hah...." " How does any of this prove that Republican politicians are anti-science? How does any of this prove your science vs politics battle? The reality: there has been a politics vs. POLITICS battle going on when it comes to Global Warming. As per standard practice when it comes to political stuff that might significantly affect the bottom line: corporations fund both sides. Edit: what would you have them do? Nothing? Only fund one side, guess wrong, take a beating and get fired? We're talking about CEOs here, not Obama.

Nice. If we take him he will be: Barron Von PickhofenTM

Doesn't she have a brother, Cody Hart, who wrote a song about wearing sunglasses all day? "I wear my sunglasses all day, so I can, so I can..."

I save up the most arcane for the most absurd. Read further, where I said: "The fact is, you can't quantify a single pick. However, you can get pretty close if you value it relative to other picks, over a...for the sake of argument...10 year period." Yes, I am sure that Washington is relieved....in freeing themselves from further draft F ups going forward. Now, they don't have to defend their moronic picks in the 1st and 2nd this year, and the moronic 1st rounds for the next 2 years. I suppose if you look at it that way....it's liberating...like running around in prison without no pants on. You know you're screwed anyway, but for those 30 seconds...you are freeeeeee!

I thought Joe Monhegna did charity work for autism? Doesn't at least one of Dan Marion's kid have autism, too? I thought Monhegna was on Fox and Friends, talking about Bam Newhouse, and saying that Newhosue should tell the Panthers "I've made you rich, and I asked for little. Good. You will not give, I'll take!"

What was Ricky Williams worth? Who should Ditka have slugged, besides himself? Worth is not solely about what YOU are willing to pay...it's about what the market as a whole is willing to pay. If you are paying 3x times the market price, an no one else is, it doesn't matter what it's worth to you, you are still an idiot. Oh, and I didn't see anything about Bennett, but. I wasn't around here much for the original trade...working, not drinking.

Of course...that's why i said "multiple ways". Multiple ways, averaged, weighted and averaged, etc., is the best way to say it. And, the pro personnel scouts have to have some way of grading players, to determine who to go after in FA, and who to trade for, etc.? Right? Also, perhaps you don't need to put every single player and every single play into the context that you accurately described? We don't necessarily care about UDFAs, because this is about actual draft value, and they...weren't. In terms of determining draft value, perhaps some categories: Stud Plays better than expected Plays as expected JAG FAIL/cut/traded for bag of balls, etc. would be all you need to classify play on the field? Ultimately all you are looking for is a way to determine whether a pick was a good one, relative to where they were drafted. Also, another way to attack it is: use the same method the QBR uses = outcome of play vs. outcome of same play for all other QBs, all time. The assumption is that the data regresses accurately once you are dealing with ALL data. We could also set an arbitrary baseline expectation for each draft pick, and then measure the actual player against the pick. That probably has an inherent bias, as the best players won't live up to the standard consistently, and, the 7th rounders who stick will outperform their expectation consistently. I will think about the problems you posed....and see if I can figure a way through, around, etc. But...only at the bar.

"What happens if the best player available for a team in Round 1 is, say, a wide receiver? And that's the case again in Rounds 2-3-4-5-6-7? You really think that team will "go by its board" and pick seven wideouts?" Good point. BPA is a murky, murky thing.

Nice turn of phrase there wawrow.

yeah...just like Drew Stafford, right?

The value chart helps to remove the guesswork. Especially when you apply draft grades, trade costs later on, and actual play on the field. I keep saying this would be an easy OLAP(data warehousing) task. Perhaps some day I will be pissed off enough, and have enough time, to just do it myself....but that would also require me to cut into my boozing time, and I doubt I will ever be...really...pissed off enough...so it's not likely. What you are forgetting: what is the opportunity cost of not being able to draft next year's RG3? I mean, come on, it's not like we don't hear how awesome QBs rated 1-3 are going to be almost every year. The fact is, you can't quantify a single pick. However, you can get pretty close if you value it relative to other picks, over a...for the sake of argument...10 year period. Now, as has been stated the CBA probably plays hell with the precision of that model. But that's why we hire production support people. Yeah...I'm really tempted to start working on the data model for that warehouse now. Perhaps I will have it ready by next year. It has to be funny though...or I won't bother. Need to have some prefabbed way, or probably, multiple ways, of grading players in the league objectively and getting that data into a technical format. I have no time to do that myself.

Heh.....I've been waiting for somebody to bring this up.....for the last 6 weeks. Of course it took a TSW heavyweight to finally do it. I was really starting to wonder if this would ever be brought up. But, then I remembered which board I was on. Anyway, this = The exception that proves the rule. Hey, RG3 could be this as well....but the batting average on these trades? You say Bennett...and I say: Ricky Williams....which was my standard response to when Bennett was brought up...for the last 6 weeks.

What if you woke up tomorrow and found a gold nugget in your ass? Jesus. Now it's "what if"? There's an easy answer to your question: go look at the draft chart, and do an analysis. Then, come back here, and we'll see if your analysis is any good. Perhaps you could look at the last 5 years of players drafted in the "mid 20's" and see if it's worth losing 2 of them, and a guy drafted in the top 10 of the second round. How? What if their mid 20's pick is another Clay Matthews(#26)? See, I can do "what if", too. I've said it enough, update it, fine. Throw it out, especially as way to make life more convenient for dopey thread posters? No. There's no way in hell. And, you can't base this solely on the Rams. Who the Redskins trade with is irrelevant(Edit: within the division is more relevant). The only thing that matters is: the opportunity cost they gave up. That's because, there's no way in hell that the Redskins would have drafted exactly who the Rams end up drafting with the picks they stole. Edit: Although, you could look at it this way: The Redskins are better off not having those draft picks, as they would likely draft busts and generate more negative headlines. But then, headlines, positive or negative, is what Snyder wants. Nah, it's better that the Rams get to use them, since the Redskins have such a sterling record when it comes to FA accquistions. Who need the draft?

Section 122: ummm yes something can be obsolete and need to be updated. I won't argue language with you as this is a football board, however obsolete and irrelevant are exactly things you would want to update to make them current and relevant. Yes, but when we use the words "throw out the draft value chart" they don't mean "update and make it current" now do they? Don't blame me if you can't express yourself properly. Peyton Manning was selected without a trade being made as was Rodgers. SO this doesn't really work for your argument. If the redskins had stayed put they would not have had a shot at rg3. It is seminal to my argument. The problem here appears to be: you don't understand my argument. RG3 doesn't exist in a vacuum. And, pretending that RG3 is worth 3 times the draft value of Manning, and taking 3 starters off your team, is ludicrous. For your argument you need to address qbs that were traded for in their position and as I already stated we know the sanchez trade was a bad one because he is a bad player. Where do you fall on the Jay Cutler trade? He was traded for essentially the same thing as rg3 (2 #1's and a #3 as well as a starting qb in orton). The only difference being a #2 instead of a #3 and they didn't give up a qb. Your argument doesn't really pertain to the draft chart at all. To be 3 times the player (or the trade to have 3x the value) as the Manning pick the Redskins needed to trade the #1 overall pick not just first round picks. What if he ends up being 3x the player Tim Couch or Jamarcus Russell was? They too were #1 overall picks. So if RG3 is 3x0...which is what Couch and Russell ending up being worth....doesn't that still = 0? My argument is based absolutely on the draft chart, as both are relative to the opportunity cost of giving away picks. You are acting as if the RG3 trade happened independently of this draft, and the next 2. Nope. That's now how it works. It is how it works if you are Dan Snyder, and now you won't be drafting in the 1st for the next 2 years. What happens if there is a #1 all time great DE, or WR, or hell, another QB, in those 2 years? Now, somebody else gets them, because Synder has given away the opportunity to draft them. That, is the other reason why the draft chart exists.

Dude, look at my sig: I come after everybody. If you take it personally, that's your problem. I've stated my objective multiple times: I don't want to see 1000 "we could have traded up/down" threads next week, based on nothing but BS. So, this year, I decided to be proactive, and pre-bash people who refuse to base their posts on reason, data, and confirmed information. Some "league source" is probably an agent, who is doing his job spinning things to get deals for his players. I have no problem with him. I do have a problem with the people that listen to him and start telling us our team sucks because we didn't buy in to his intentional BS. Again, I ask: how many times did Mario Williams leave Buffalo? Who were the "sources" on that "story"? Once more, you are tempting fate trying to make this about you. Go ahead. I am sure the board can use the lulz. Dude, you literally used the words "throw out the trade value chart" in the title of your dopey thread. Words...mean....things. Now, you are backing off those words. Keep backpedaling, Deion, and you might just cover your ass on this topic.

I make each post worthy of those that will read it. Therefore, my posts are no more or less ridiculous than the subject matter/posters involved. Something can't be obsolete, or irrelevant, and need to be updated at the same time. Words mean things. Yes, it's possible that some teams, like the Redskins, have a 10 years running Dan Synder pattern of f'ing up in the draft. It's possible that owners like Jerry Jones, or even Ralph Wilson when it comes to RBs , are willing to throw away a year's worth of analysis, because their gut? tells them to go another way. IF you look at who does what, over the long term, it's no surprise why teams like the Ravens/Steelers draft well, and teams like...well the Bills, have drafted poorly. As I already said: this isn't about you. As I already said: you can choose to make it about you, but I doubt you'll like that. No. RG3 is not going to be 3X the player Peyton Manning is. Look at the draft chart: you add up the value, and then compare that to the value that was required to obtain Manning, Rodgers, etc. (I'm not even gonna bother with Brady, because that is an outlier) RG3 costs you 3-4 times what these lock HOFers did. Now, is he 3X more valuable than Peyton Manning? No. In fact, due to the limitations of the human body, and physical science....it is a practical impossibility to be 3X better than Manning. So, in all cases, I know right now that there's no way in hell the RG3 trade makes any sense at all. When we add in the fact that having RG3 means you take 2 probable and one likely starter off your roster? Now it makes -sense. This is the football equivalent of dividing by zero.

As I have said: you need to modify the chart to reflect change. But, that's true with every single model, statistical, economic, financial, accounting, weather, whatever. What you don't do? Throw out your entire model and replace it with nothing, as has been suggested here, so that the jackass opinion that Jackass Trade #1 can't be challenged. That makes no sense, because like all models, the need to interpret data quickly, and turn it into actionable information, drives their creation. Yeah, those trades are foolish. Cleveland and the Rams stole picks, period. The draft chart, and common sense, have both made that clear. The only thing that remains: eventual confirmation on the field. I've thought of creating a long-term draft value vs. actual play wager system. Basically an over/under. Yes, and yes. Both teams have a lot more historical draft idiocy than smarts. And, that's the point: do you want to hang your hat on the Skins football decision making ability to prove your point? Please, don't let me stop you: I can always use the lulz. Ok, I will stop you: look a the long term patterns of perennial draft losers. Shooting from the hip, departing from your big board, and ignoring the value chart are the behaviors you will find consistently. The argument you should be making: Sometimes owners like Dan Snyder, who can't stand being in a division...room...elevator...where he isn't the most important person, use the draft to assuage other needs besides helping the football team. He needs headlines, because that's how he tries to keep the Skins relevant in an area that has the Ravens. Sometimes owners like Jerry Jones, misguidedly believe that the draft is for selling tickets, not building football teams. Now, hey, it's their business, and they have the right to run it however they like. However, we have the right to mock them for it. Yeah...that's pretty much WTF the chart tells us. Again, it may need to be modified for the 1st round....but what about rounds 2-7? NOTHING has changed there. Now, we have to see if the modifications necessary in round 1....mean that the rest has to be adjusted. I assume they do, as the chart appears to be based on relative measure. The only thing that is set in stone: teams needs a fast way to evaluate draft trades when they are on the clock. Until something better comes along....that means the current draft chart, however modified, is set in stone as well.

I did. Look, the guy sounds like he really knew WTF he was about. I don't begrudge him or you. Yeah, we have certainly come a long way since then. It sounds like the guy deserves some of the credit for making this the now-national institution that it is. All too often, nobody remembers the original guy. I'm glad you shared this with us, as history is key to understanding and appreciation. As I said above, this type of approach is great for fans, because it gives us new perspective, and is therefore interesting. I mean, Janoris Jenkins at #5? However, when you have teams like the Bills, who won't touch a poor character guy with a 10' pole, or system-first teams, it loses some of its importance in terms of figuring out who is taking who.

....by the player personnel guy on your team, sot that when a trade comes in, you don't even have to think about it." Also, "there can't be chaos in the war room". Etc. Those of you saying that the trade chart is no longer relevant/should be thrown out/whatever: It's over. You are wrong because of the NECESSITY that the trade/draft value chart addresses. Understand, the trade/draft value chart doesn't exist to destroy your dopey "we could have, therefore, should have, traded up/down because I heard it on internet, therefore, Ralph is cheap/Buddy asleep/the team is moving to LA" threads. It does a fine job of that, but that is not it's primary purpose. It's primary purpose has just been defined in the direct quote above. This also means: the RG3 trade was horrible, as was the Sanchez trade. Simple reason: how much draft value did it cost to get the top 10 QBs in the league, and how much did RG3 cost? And, you are telling me that RG3, right now, is 3X better than all of those, including 4 HOF locks, and 2 more probables? How will anyone ever be 3X better than Aaron Rodgers? Peyton Manning? Is zombie Otto Graham coming back to start for the Browns? Never mind that RG3 is taking 3 expected/potential starters off your roster? Not ever. There's opinion, and then, there's opinion based on the Redskins/Jets drafting history. You are entitled to either, but the second one gets you laughed at. (MOD: hey I have no problem if you smush this into another thread....as long as you change the title of that thread to accurately reflect reality)

Did Joel Bushbaum get fired for making bad draft picks...or did the GMs? The difference lies in the accountability and having to execute.