No, it is accurate. You aren't talking "chance" but likelihood. Clearly if you are comparing talent available in the first round vs 7th round you are going to see shifts in the percentages because at some point all the good talent will be gone. But in the first round, and especially the top 10, my position is fact and supported by empirical evidence. There are at least 10 great players available in every draft, so if you are drafting in the top 10 and don't get one it isn't because you drafted 6th instead of 3rd it is because you drafted poorly. But the chance of getting a great player, which is a statistical measure and can be quantified, could be better at 6th than the team drafting 2nd, so all of the knit picking over drafting 6th or 4th because it gives us a better chance is false. History has proven that great players can be found at any spot in the first.
Assuming the QBs aren't an option and the pick comes down to Cooper vs. Gregory I can easily see a new GM going with Gregory. If a new coach wants to move us to a 4-3 front then we will really need an OLB for the transition. It may not be the sexy pick but it would make a lot of sense.
After 6 seasons of averaging around or under 20 PPG, I can't take it anymore. Keep devoting the elite draft picks to defense, and nothing will ever change. Ever. You don't get Odell Beckhams in round 2. Sure, a new GM could make that move, but if he studies the past 6 years of this organization and where everything has gone wrong, he would see how potentially devastating picking Gregory over Cooper could be to continuing the "no offense" culture that pervaded the Rex era.
The question is if they select Cooper (who isn't a big guy-I think he's 6-1 plus) will they keep Percy. I think they would if they can work out a deal, nothing close to 10 mil per. As for Qb not impossible that Mariotta could fall to the Jets at 4 or 5. In that case they'll probably take him. But they have to take the Vick money and spend it on a vet Qb. But not on Vick.
I would probably dump Harvin no matter what. Or maybe I tell him, "look, we are cutting you but will bring you back on a 1 year, $3-4 million prove it deal." Take it or leave it. I assume Harvin would leave it and this team will not be worse because of it.
I don't have the time to do a detailed analysis of the draft, but if you go to this website: http://www.mynfldraft.com/NFL-First-Overall-Draft-Picks and check out draft picks in the first round, you can see there are a lot more names that jump out at you the earlier you go. Also, there are premium players in each draft, and those go very early, so depending on how many are available, there can be a lot of difference between 4th and 6th pick for example. It's not about offense vs defense. It's about drafting players with the most impact early on. The position with the most impact is the QB, after that it's the pass rushers, and then maybe the left tackle. So if there's no QB available, pass rusher is a good position to grab, unlike a WR, which is a relatively low impact position. Look at your own example of Odell Beckham. He's having a historic season, and the Giants still suck, just like the Lions have sucked for most of Calvin Johnson's career. In my personal opinion, drafting a WR this early is a waste of a pick, better to trade down if nobody else is available.
That would be because the team drafting 4th made a better choice than the team drafting 6th, not that the team drafting 6th didn't have an opportunity to draft a great player or even have a statistically greater chance of doing so than the 4th pick. You are confusing what you should be looking at. If a team at 4 drafts well and teams drafting 7 and below get good players but the team picking 6th drafts a bad player it isn't because a great player wasn't available at 6. They got a bad player because they did a horrible job scouting the players and passed on good players they could have drafted. The jets drafted a bad player in Gholston at 6 because they did a bad job scouting him, not because the top 5 teams drafted the only good players and every team afterwards were just picking bums.
No, this is just a statistical analysis of the draft picks. It doesn't look at the causes of the picks, just the results. Over a period of many years, there would be teams making smart decisions and stupid decisions at every pick, so that becomes irrelevant. If picks were roughly the same, as you are arguing, then over time, the results would be the same as well, e.g. 10th pick would net roughly the same number of big names as the 2nd pick, since over time different teams would make both smart and stupid decisions at each position, taking decision making out of the equation. But we can see clearly that's not the case, and higher picks net you better players.
No, you are mis-applying that data. It doesn't reflect that good players are not available at those lower picks in the 1st it shows the teams picking there do a worse job. That does not reflect chance which is a term that reflects statistical probability for that specific draft. You would have to look at each draft independently to analyze if a team drafting 5th had a better, worse or equal chance if getting a good player as a team drafting 4th. That would be completely dependent on the players left available at 5, and history shows plenty of great players get drafted after 5 of 6 so that lack of good players reflects poor decisions by the teams not lack of good players available to them as you claim.
So you are saying that in order to explain better players being drafted early (which the data shows), the teams drafting late are constantly making bad decisions, even though them picking later means that they are actually better run teams (since they have a better record)? Come on, now. The teams picking really early have their pick of the crop. They can grab players who are very close to a certain thing. Once you get to 6th pick, or 9th, sure, there are still good players available, but there is a lot more uncertainty at that point, you don't know who the good players are to the same degree, and you have to gamble more.
Can't tell if that other guy is trolling or not but you're right so just don't worry about what they say.
I think if Tampa picked before Tennessee and they took mariota tenn might pass on winston because he could bring back flashed of vince young? but other then that im on the cooper bandwagon
Seriously? Just look at the past draft and early impact of Clowney v. Watkins, Evans, and Beckham. The Giants do not suck because they took Beckham, they are 6-9 instead of 3-12 right now because they took Beckham. This is a passing league and we do not have a top 30 WR. Jets get plenty of pass rush from Wilkerson and Richardson, both of whom will command massive contracts. You want to add another top 5 pick to that who will one day need huge money too? Also, to call WR a "low impact" position shows me you aren't really in tune with trends in today's NFL. The only elite team that has devalued the WR is the Pats, and they have a top 5 QB of all-time. Every other top team has invested high resources into the position. And that includes Seattle, who even though they got rid of Harvin, did think it prudent to invest a 1st round pick on him (and then used a 2nd rounder on Paul Richardson the next season too).
Comparing Clowney to anyone right now is kinda silly, hard to make any kind of impact when you missed the entire year with injuries. I am not saying Beckham made them worse, I am just saying there isn't much impact from him in terms of winning for such a dominating player at his position. And Giants would not be 3-12 right now without Beckham, they would be pretty much the same team, if you recall they did just fine with the likes of Cruz and Nicks and Manningham. Both Decker and Harvin are top 30 receivers, the only reason you dont think so is because they are playing in a terrible offense with a bad QB. Wilkerson and Richardson are really good, but not the same as a dominant outside pass rusher. As good as Richardson has been this year, he s got 7 sacks. Dominant outside pass rushers get 15+ in a good year. Plus, there's also synergy, outside pass rushers force qbs to step up into richardson, richardson forces qbs to back up and out into outside pass rushers. Actually, think about the best WRs in the NFL over the last several years, and their teams' success during that time. Calvin Johnson in Detroit, AJ Green in Cincinnati, Andre Johnson in Houston, Brandon Marshall in Chicago, Larry Fitzgerald in Arizona, Dez Bryant in Dallas, Josh Gordon in Cleveland. Have any of these teams been successful during that time? Arizona made the Superbowl with Kurt Warner one year, but has mostly sucked. Bengals got bounced first round. Remember us taking Keyshawn? Went 1-15 next year. No evidence of impact. On the other hand, look at the most successful teams in the league. Patriots obviously, just plugging in all kinds of 4th rate players (Edelman, Amendola, LaFell) and being successful. Yeah, the Seahawks traded away a first round pick for Harvin, but it wasn't an early first round pick, and they were a stacked team by that point, filling holes for their championship run. Think about the WRs they actually won the Superbowl with (since Harvin missed most of that year) and the ones they are playing really well with now (Golden Tate, Daniel Baldwin, Paul Richardson, etc). None of these are elite WRs, none were taken in early first round. 49ers with Crabtree and Boldin, Ravens with Boldin, Jacoby Jones, Torrey Smith, Giants with Nicks and Cruz. The Broncos have one blue chipper in Demariyus Thomas, but Sanders and Welker and Decker before were playing just as well with Peyton, much like with Brady, they can just plug anyone in. Did Rogers have elite WRs when they won the Superbowl? Did Brees? Seems like most teams that win the big one do it with decent receivers, but not the kind you draft in the first 10 picks.
That's not what I says at all. Nothing I said even remotely intimates that drafting later in the round equates to drafting poorly. Nice Strawman though, and I see you even fooled a few like - minded people. Let me know when you are ready to address what I said and not argue against your made up position of what you want me to have said.
No need to make it personal, we are just a couple of fans talking about the NFL and the Jets. I was just referring to your point of "It doesn't reflect that good players are not available at those lower picks in the 1st it shows the teams picking there do a worse job." So I don't see how I made any strawman arguments, but feel free to show it to me. There are pretty much good players available at any spot, as Brady going in the 6th round and Romo and Kurt Warner being undrafted shows, but it's much harder to nail those players with later picks than with early ones, which is why early picks tend to be more successful on average.
The Jets are probably the absolute worst at picking players in the second round. And it's not that they always whiff. It's that they whiff a very high percentage of the time. I can think of two second-round whiffs in the last four years: Hill and Ducasse. You just can't have that low a rate of success in the first through third rounds. These have to be certainties. And, please, don't let me even start with the Gholstons and Kyle Wilsons and, possibly, Milliners. Gigantic whiffs that really set a franchise back. Especially, if you're not coming up with hidden gems in the later rounds, which the Jets surely do not seem to be doing.
There is so much wrong with this post it is not even worth addressing in full. The Giants would not be the same team right now without Beckham, he singlehandedly saved Coughlin's job the past few weeks and makes the Giants a serious playoff contender next season. Your argument going for causation between a great WR and a team doing poorly is just lunacy. The league is a passing league, there is major value to have an elite WR. As an actual WR, Harvin is not even top 50 in the NFL. He is a gimmick player that cannot play consistently outside and the Seahawks valued him lower than players such as Doug Baldwin and Jermaine Kearse, who are marginal NFL starters. Decker is not top 30 either in my opinion. I could make an argument for him as a top 40-50 WR, which isn't bad, but shows he is better suited as a #2 WR. We have no elite talent at the position. Haven't had any for many many years. That is an utter organizational failure with today's rules and emphasis on the passing game. The fact that you bring up Keyshawn and 1996 as an example is just crazy, we are two decades beyond that!!! Many of the guys you reference specifically were 1st round picks so you are making my argument for me (Nicks, Crabtree, D. Thomas, etc.). The Saints just used a 1st round pick on WR. The Bengals have become a perennial playoff contender in part because of a top 5 pick used on WR, same with the Lions. The most successful teams in the league outside of the Pats and Seahawks have elite talent at WR. The Seahawks recently placed a serious premium on the position, but just failed to find it. The Pats are the one example that doesn't seem to value the position as highly, but they have a HoF QB. Get me a Tom Brady caliber QB (good luck) and we can talk about WR not mattering. Or keep drafting defense in the first round and continue wondering why your offense can never even average 20 PPG.
That's cute, but meanwhile in the real world, the Giants started the season 2-2 (.500), during which time Beckham did not play due to an injury. After he started playing for them, they've been 4-7, with their last 3 "Coughlin-saving" wins coming against Titans, Redskins, and Rams. So yeah, 2-2 without him, 4-7 with, I can see a lot of impact there. You seem to misunderstand me. I never said the elite WRs caused the teams to suck, I merely said they did not do much to improve them, meaning they are a relatively low impact position, compared to some others, like the QB or pass rushers, or left tackles. You must've missed the part where he had a lot of success in Minnesota playing on the outside roughly half the time, or the part where he's had multiple 100+ yard games for us this season, in our anemic passing offense. He routinely gets open on the outside, it's just Geno usually tends to miss him with the long throws. The point is that none of the WRs on Superbowl winning teams are elite WRs. Yeah Nicks might have been drafted in the first round (29th overall), but is he an elite WR? Of course not, just a decent one. Neither is Cruz, Boldin, Jacony Jones, Torrey Smith, Golden Tate, Daniel Baldwin, and so on, going back many years. The last truly elite WR on a Superbowl winning team that I can think of is probably Plaxico Burress in Pittsburgh, although even that is debatable. How is that working out for the Saints? The Bengals a perennial playoff contender must mean getting bounced in the wild card round every year. And the Lions, if they make the playoffs this year, this will be just their second postseason appearance in Calvin Johnson's 8 year career. Again, name the last "elite talent at WR" on a Superbowl winning team.
