You also have a higher chance of getting a bad player because there are more players still to choose from. You see how meaningless an argument about the chance to get a better or worse player is? You are still dependent on your ability to evaluate the talent and if you can you can draft as equal a player anywhere in the first round. That's a fact. It's basic statistics. You have a finite amount of players to choose from. If the teams picking ahead of you pick poorly you actually increase your chances of getting a better player drafting afterwards because they have eliminated the bad players from the pool. The team picking after the raiders when they picked Jamarcus Russell had a better chance of picking a good player drafting #2 than the Raiders at 1, even though they picked later, because the Raiders had Russell as part of the player pool. Having more players to choose from is as equally bad as it is good. It evens out. Revis wasn't getting drafted by the Jets that year if we had a top ten pick but he was certainly one of the top three players in that draft. That's the point - evaluation is influenced by external factors that do not reflect a players ability to succeed or fail and players who should be top picks are available later because teams follow these factors. I didn't hand pick anything in a vacuum. They were simply examples to show the fact that if you can evaluate talent you don't need a high pick as long as the teams in front if you make mistakes in their evaluation.
This is a poor argument because having more players to choose from ultimately increases the value of a draft pick. In fact, that's the only reason having the first overall pick is valued much more than having the 32nd overall pick; and that's the only reason having a first round draft pick is valued over a 7th round draft pick. I get it: some teams make bad decisions, and if a team makes a bad decision ahead of you it prevents you from making a bad decision. But that argument in no way invalidates the time-proven truth that earlier draft picks tend to perform better than later draft picks. Yes, it's a correlation and not necessarily causation. Yes, the traditional draft value chart overstates the value of top picks. But no, picking later doesn't improve a team's chances at securing talent. This chart shows it all: https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/
everything i hear is that the titans are very happy with mettenberger. if thats the case why would they draft another qb at the top of the first round?
I would love to trade down and grab both of Cleveland's first round picks. Especially if a player like Winston is OTC.
Cooper has not shown he can go up and grab the ball like Green can over a CB. Sorry Cooper not the next Green.
I'm not talking about "value" of a pick which is subjective. I'm talking about your chances to get a good player which is a statistical argument. Statistically your chances increase or decrease the further you go in the draft based on the picks before you; it isn't absolute based on where you draft. A simple example proves this. Let's say you have a 10 player draft. Out of those 10 only three are any good. The 1st team to draft only has a 30% chance of getting a good player. Based on who they pick the next teams chances to get a good player can either increase or decrease. Team 1 picks a bad player. Now team two has 3/9 chance to get a good player -- 33% chance which is greater than only the 30% chance team one had. Your argument would make this impossible but it happens every year and is factually correct. If team 2 picks a bad player team 3 has a 3/8% chance, 37%, at a good player. The chance at getting a good player is going up, but you say this is false. Considering teams draft bad players early in the draft this is actually what occurs in the NFL draft. The only way it would not occur is if every team drafting only picked the good players first, leaving only worse players for the teams drafting afterwards. That is not what happens in the draft. the 10th team could have a 0% or 100% chance of getting a good player. It's dependent on how the teams draft before them not where they draft.
What?!? If your knock against Winston is his opponents, then what does that make Oregon/Mariotta (who almost ALWAYS play inferior competition)? I'm not a 100% sold on either, but I think either would be an improvement over what the JETS have...... Then you want Jay freakin Cutler?!?! LOL
you can't look at it like you are.. it's making the assumption that every pick is a crapshoot - which it's definitely not. You want to look at it statistically? look at the pro bowl every year and where the players are drafted. You will see that most are coming from early in the draft. Again not rocket science. Better pick = better chance at better players.
This is true, however Pro Bowl decisions are made based on talent *and* perception. A good player taken higher in the draft has an edge over a good player taken lower because the perception is and always has been that the higher drafted player is the better player all other things being equal. That's why he was drafted higher.
idk. maybe early in the career that perception makes a difference but at some point its just talent/productivity. But fine point taken... look at hall of famers then: the majority of them are taken early in the draft as well. surely the perception of being drafted early would have nothing to do with HOF voting
A player taken early will be given more opportunity to make his case on the NFL field. He'll get more second chances. He'll stay on the field longer after his skills begin to diminish. Players taken earlier should go to the Hall of Fame more often than players taken later in the draft. They're better players as a group and they will receive substantially more opportunity to prove that. That doesn't resolve the question of how players with equal skill levels and production are perceived in Pro Bowl balloting. It doesn't resolve the question of how players with equal skill levels and production are perceived in Hall of Fame balloting.
We need to sign a veteran cornerback...I am tired of getting these corners in the draft that fail to do anything. No high picks on CBs. Must go offense for the love of all things that is RIGHT! (QB, WR, OL)
I agree. Save CBs for FA signing and yes they have to go offense in the draft. Some people might not like this but if top QBs are gone before the Jets pick, I would be fine with drafting an OT with the top ten pick. Particularly if the OT can play RT over Guacamole for a couple years before taking over for Ferguson on the left side. Not the worst idea in the world. Any upgrade on offense is a good one for this team. Would prefer an impact skill position player though.
