- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trading out of the first round
Posted on 4/13/14 at 12:30 am to bonethug0108
Posted on 4/13/14 at 12:30 am to bonethug0108
I'm starting to really warm up to Allen Robinson the WR from Penn State...Plus they say he has a very good work ethic.
0
Posted on 4/13/14 at 12:57 am to iAmThatMan
quote:
If we trade back...Imagine getting a combo of say Matthews/Robinson and Van Noy.
:Boner:
thing is.. I can't think of the last time the Saints traded out of the 1st round.
his..to..ry isn't our side.
but its always possible for that to happen with every new year
Posted on 4/13/14 at 1:03 am to bonethug0108
Bush(1st) Underperformed for 2nd pick in draft
Harper(2nd) Average player
Meachem(1st) Underperformed for 1st round pick
Ellis(1st) A disaster.
Porter(2nd) Worth the pick.
Jenkins(1st) Average at best and not worth a 1st
Robinson(1st) Average at best and not worth a 1st
Graham(3rd) A gamble that paid off big
Jordan(1st) Solid pick
Ingram(1st) Average player at best; not worth a 1st and 2nd
Hicks(3rd) Nice player
Vaccaro(1st) Looks like a solid pick
Armstead(3rd) Looks like a solid pick
Jenkins(3rd) Looks solid
It's not a "myth". Your list proves the point. There are more solid players picked in the 3rd than 1st and 2nd. If you go further down the food chain, you'll see that the team under Payton has as many contributors from the 5-7th (and UFAs) as 1 & 2.
2006 7th Zach Strief
2006 7th Marques Colston
2008 5th Carl Nicks
2009 5th Thomas Morsted
2012 5th Corey White
2013 5th Kenny Stills
2013 6th Rufus Johnson
Who the hell said this? Point that out for me.
Harper(2nd) Average player
Meachem(1st) Underperformed for 1st round pick
Ellis(1st) A disaster.
Porter(2nd) Worth the pick.
Jenkins(1st) Average at best and not worth a 1st
Robinson(1st) Average at best and not worth a 1st
Graham(3rd) A gamble that paid off big
Jordan(1st) Solid pick
Ingram(1st) Average player at best; not worth a 1st and 2nd
Hicks(3rd) Nice player
Vaccaro(1st) Looks like a solid pick
Armstead(3rd) Looks like a solid pick
Jenkins(3rd) Looks solid
It's not a "myth". Your list proves the point. There are more solid players picked in the 3rd than 1st and 2nd. If you go further down the food chain, you'll see that the team under Payton has as many contributors from the 5-7th (and UFAs) as 1 & 2.
2006 7th Zach Strief
2006 7th Marques Colston
2008 5th Carl Nicks
2009 5th Thomas Morsted
2012 5th Corey White
2013 5th Kenny Stills
2013 6th Rufus Johnson
quote:
I also want to dispel the myth we always hit on late round Olinemen.
Who the hell said this? Point that out for me.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 1:35 am
Posted on 4/13/14 at 2:45 am to adono
quote:That's if you call the 3rd round late, which it isn't. Not sure why people think this.
Your list proves the point. There are more solid players picked in the 3rd than 1st and 2nd
Also, like I said(and you pointed out) we've only had 3 of our 8 2nd rounders. So adding that together with the 1st round that's 11 out of 16 picks.
Out of those 11, Brown was the only one we missed on(and he still started 22 games).
We've had 8 3rd rounders and missed on 4 of them.
We've had 6 4th rounders and missed on at least 3(jury still out on Toon).
We've had 8 5th rounders and missed on 4(though Ninkovich went on to star for the Pats).
We've had 5 6th rounders and missed on 4(jury still out on R. Johnson).
We've had 8 7th rounders and missed on 5(jury still out on M. Jones).
With 3rd round included that's 20 out of 35(with 3 pending) that we missed on. Or we missed on at least 57%, and as high as 66%.
Take out the 3rd round and we missed 16 of our 27(with 3 pending) late round picks, or 59% and as high as 70%.
Compare that to the 1 of 11, or 9%, missed in the 1st or 2nd(and that one miss still started 22 games) and you can see the myth take shape.
Yes we've hit in the later rounds, but we've had more opportunities to do so(12 1-2 round picks to 35 3-7 or 27 4-7 round picks).
Like I said, quality can be argued, but I don't care about the talent to pick level comparison because that is way beside the point here. Bush played a big role, as did Harper, Meachem, Ellis(for at least 2 years he did well; and trust me I hate him for 2011-12), Jenkins, Robinson, and Ingram. Hell even Brown played a big role though he was poor at it.
quote:
the team under Payton has as many contributors
quote:Not saying he's a bust, but he did not contribute. Jury is out on him.
2013 6th Rufus Johnson
quote:1st round talent.
2008 5th Carl Nicks
quote:Punter so of course he's going to be late round.
2009 5th Thomas Morstead
So you pointed out 4 guys that are actual contributors that had late round grades at full time positions, only 2 so far which are absolutely gems, 1 who is still questionable, and 1 who has a ton of potential. Even adding in Nicks and Morstead, that's still 6 compared to 10 or 11.
quote:I'd have to go back and look, but a bunch of people last year around draft time, many of which are regulars.
Who the hell said this? Point that out for me.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 2:48 am
Posted on 4/13/14 at 11:14 am to bonethug0108
quote:
That's if you call the 3rd round late, which it isn't. Not sure why people think this.
I guess that's the case because most drafts don't go 64 deep in expected starting talent. This coming draft is considered one of the deepest in a while and you'd be hard pressed to find any expert predicting that guys projected in the 3rd round stand a good chance of starting (there are always guys who have enough talent to start but fall for certain possible health or personal problems).
This means the expectation is that a 1st or 2nd rounder hits the ground as a starter (or major contributor) from the get go.
quote:
Now, with early round picks, the expectation is a lot higher than just contributing on the field. With a first or second round pick, an NFL team is expecting a player that can come in, start, and contribute for years to come. With that in mind, our second method for setting the bar for a “bust” is that the player starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. Here's the same visual with the different way of measuring busts:
LINK
quote:
A couple of interesting notes from the graph. First, picking at the end of the second round only gives your team a 50% chance of finding a starter. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%.
LINK
quote:
Another interesting note, in the later rounds, an NFL team has a really slim chance of finding the next Tom Brady in round 6 or Donald Driver in round 7. The data shows that finding a starter in round 6 or 7 is only 10 - 20%. Further strengthening the argument to search for players that are effective on special teams in later rounds.
(Same Link as above)
It's common sense that it's harder to find starters in the later rounds because the talent pool gets smaller with each passing round. This isn't even considering what the odds are for finding talent in the UFA pool.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 11:23 am
Posted on 4/13/14 at 11:37 am to adono
I've read all that before and agree with most of it.
But you have to remember the draft is about long term and not just instant starters. 3rd rounders are expected to start eventually and/or be key role players. So I include them with the first and second round because they all should have starting potential.
Rounds 4-7 is where teams try to find gems, key special teams players, and guys that could do spot starts if needed.
So yeah we have found some better than expected players late, but so have many other teams.
I'm just pointing out that, while maybe lower than most teams, we still have a high number of misses (a lot of which didn't make the team or didn't even contribute much to special teams).
So again, I'm not saying we don't hit on late rounders or that we aren't around the top of the league. I'm saying the notion that some people have that we suck at rounds 1 and 2 and can hit on late rounders almost at will is quite silly.
We are better at rounds 1 and 2 and still good at the late rounds, but not insanely good. Just better than most.
But you have to remember the draft is about long term and not just instant starters. 3rd rounders are expected to start eventually and/or be key role players. So I include them with the first and second round because they all should have starting potential.
Rounds 4-7 is where teams try to find gems, key special teams players, and guys that could do spot starts if needed.
So yeah we have found some better than expected players late, but so have many other teams.
I'm just pointing out that, while maybe lower than most teams, we still have a high number of misses (a lot of which didn't make the team or didn't even contribute much to special teams).
So again, I'm not saying we don't hit on late rounders or that we aren't around the top of the league. I'm saying the notion that some people have that we suck at rounds 1 and 2 and can hit on late rounders almost at will is quite silly.
We are better at rounds 1 and 2 and still good at the late rounds, but not insanely good. Just better than most.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 12:51 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
We are better at rounds 1 and 2 and still good at the late rounds, but not insanely good. Just better than most.
They should be but they aren't when everything is throw into the equation.
I contend that the team's success in finding starters in the late rounds and UFA far outweighs any arguable success they've had in the 1st and 2nd rounds. The only real success (meaning, performance = cost) they've had is Jordon and Porter. As I pointer out in an earlier post, the other 1st and 2nd rounders did not create value compared to their cost (Ingram is on the new rookie scale so the salary is less important than the 2 picks given up).
Finding a Colston, Strief, Nicks, Graham, White, and Stills is a greater feat than picking a Jordan or Porter...because they were expected to play right away and were paid as such.
There is a reason Vegas pays 35 to 1 putting money on #10 and 1 to 1 on money place on red in roulette...the odds of picking the winner are considerably harder.
When you throw in their success in getting quality players in UFAs, it clearly shows our this staff does much better finding talent at the shallow end of the pool.
quote:
The New Orleans Saints have used six undrafted rookies in their lineup this season after defensive end Glenn Foster and tailback Khiry Robinson made their debuts last Sunday. (The others are guard Tim Lelito, tight end Josh Hill, linebacker Kevin Reddick and cornerback Rod Sweeting.) According to ESPN Stats & Information, that’s tied, with Cleveland, for the most in the NFL.
quote:
But that’s nothing new around New Orleans during the Sean Payton era.
quote:
According to ESPN Stats & Information, the Saints have used a total of 64 undrafted players since 2006, the third most in the NFL. The league average is 47 during that span. And dating back to 2008, the Saints have had undrafted players take 22.3 percent of all offensive or defensive snaps, the fifth most in the NFL.
ESPN
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 4/13/14 at 1:08 pm to adono
You are vastly underrating Harper, and Jenkins, while not always good, was still a key piece for a few of those years.
And Ingram cannot be compared to 2 picks when we aren't talking about the VALUE of where these guys are taken. You keep putting value in when I'm talking strictly has a guy played a role or not.
So saying Colston, Strief, Graham, etc. have great value is also equally non important in this.
It was never the value I was arguing. It was the fact that guys we have taken early always have a role(hell even Brown though he sucked arse), where as we are below 50% in rounds 3-7 as far as finding guys to contribute. While that is good, it isn't the near automatic most people say it is and it is NOT better than the 1-2 round success despite the lack of picks. That was my original point.
Again, my argument has nothing to do with the value of the picks at all.
And I separated the UDFAs for a reason because we have been very successful there, but we've also had so many complete busts there too(especially on guys people here were creaming their pants over). All the stuff I was talking about was strictly in the draft itself.
And Ingram cannot be compared to 2 picks when we aren't talking about the VALUE of where these guys are taken. You keep putting value in when I'm talking strictly has a guy played a role or not.
So saying Colston, Strief, Graham, etc. have great value is also equally non important in this.
It was never the value I was arguing. It was the fact that guys we have taken early always have a role(hell even Brown though he sucked arse), where as we are below 50% in rounds 3-7 as far as finding guys to contribute. While that is good, it isn't the near automatic most people say it is and it is NOT better than the 1-2 round success despite the lack of picks. That was my original point.
Again, my argument has nothing to do with the value of the picks at all.
And I separated the UDFAs for a reason because we have been very successful there, but we've also had so many complete busts there too(especially on guys people here were creaming their pants over). All the stuff I was talking about was strictly in the draft itself.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 4/13/14 at 1:20 pm to bonethug0108
NFP had a series of articles on this specifically. Here are a couple, more there if ya look-
https://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Which-teams-are-the-most-efficient-in-the-NFL-Draft.html
https://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Boom-or-bust-A-look-at-draft-probabilities.html
https://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Which-teams-are-the-most-efficient-in-the-NFL-Draft.html
https://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Boom-or-bust-A-look-at-draft-probabilities.html
Posted on 4/13/14 at 1:24 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
Again, my argument has nothing to do with the value of the picks at all.
Then there's no reason to continue this conversation. I don't know how "success" can be determined without consideration of the cost vs. performance element...that doesn't make sense to me.
We'll agree to disagree!
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 4/13/14 at 1:28 pm to adono
Because I'm ignoring cost and considering just performance, and the reason why is cost for a 4th rounder will always be lower than cost for a 1st rounder. That will never change.
I'm not arguing the value because I agree from that aspect. I'm arguing the notion that we can keep getting that value almost at will. Maybe that will make more sense for where you are coming from?
It's not the value, it is the idea that we ALWAYS get it.
Edit:
blues, still have the first bookmarked.
Thanks for the other one too.
I'm not arguing the value because I agree from that aspect. I'm arguing the notion that we can keep getting that value almost at will. Maybe that will make more sense for where you are coming from?
It's not the value, it is the idea that we ALWAYS get it.
Edit:
blues, still have the first bookmarked.
Thanks for the other one too.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 1:29 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News