Could Easterbrook be right?

[Coach55]

I know people have been discussing Coleman a lot and Easterbrook typically has a good handle on NFL assessment. Excerpt from Greg Easterbrook's TMQ from last week:

 

Something's Not Right Here: In the 2008 draft, Jersey/B used the sixth selection on Vernon Gholston; in the 2009 draft, Buffalo used the 11th choice on Aaron Maybin, and Denver used the 14th selection on Robert Ayers. All are hybrid defensive end/linebacker types who specialize in rushing the passer, and the three have combined for zero career sacks in the NFL. This year, Jersey/A used the 15th choice of the draft on hybrid defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul, who specializes in rushing the passer. Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player, finishing a distant 69th in Division I sacks. Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.

 

Drafts can be judged three years later. TMQ has a sawbuck that says in three years, the undrafted Coleman will be a more accomplished NFL player than Pierre-Paul, Gholston, Maybin or Ayers. Also undrafted in 2010 was Blue Cooper, who bested Terrell Owens' receiving records at Tennessee-Chattanooga. I would have drafted him for his name alone.

[Hplarrm]

As usual Easterbrook is ornately and literately wrong (he is great at using a 25 cent word when a nickel word will do and often disguises his poor analysis with saying stupid things gracefully).

 

The thing Easterbrook is wrong about here is pretending that one can compare one draft class to another in terms of where a player was picked or his relative position among players who play the same position.

 

There are simply too many variables which determine when a player is chosen in a specific year that one can compare where a player who plays the same position is chosen in the next draft. For example lets say draft A is particular strong at a certain position (lets say draft A has a significant number of quality LBs. Does the relative strength of this pool mean that the LBs get drafted higher in the draft due to their talent?

 

Not necessarily. Given teams make an estimate they can get a high qualitt LN further down in the draft they decide to pass on taking one in the early rounds as they think they can get a good enough player later.

 

Likewise, lets say there are only a couple of good DEs, does this mean that the third DE taken is gonna go late because of his limited skills?

 

Again, not necessarily. lets say the first two picks in the entire draft are DEs, and this third best DE is pretty much agreed to be a 2nd or even 3rd round talent. However, my team has a huge opening at DE due to a late retirement. It not only makes sense for me to reach to take this 3rd best DE in the first round rather than wait to fill this hole with a 3rd or 4th round talent later in the draft.

 

Does this really happen? Sure his name his John McCargo. The Bills had a huge hole at DT (I think this happened due to the surprising loss of Phat Pat but I cannot remember for sure. The Bills were playing the need game in this draft and had targeted Whitner as the best SS available and they spent a top 10 on him. They missed out on a DT and unfortunately they had McCargo pegged as the next best talent out there. He was appeared to be a second round talent at best. However, as there was little left at the position they actually had to trade up into the first to be sure to get McCargo (a definite reach).

 

Still probably the right move in the crapshoot known as the draft since as it happened there was no other DT who even scored a 2nd round pick. The Bills did what they had to do in order to get the position filled with the best player available.

 

Ironically, they had such little faith in McCargo they drafted yet another DT in the fifth and ironically Williams ended up starting.

 

Each draft is an independent dance which gets defined by an order driven by the dance of need/best player available and where a position is picked in one year is not analagous at all to some absolute value of a particular player (no matter what Mel Kiper says.

 

The comparison he makes across draft years does not stand up to the rigors of his on analysis.

 

Easterbrook plays fast and loose with stats to try to prove his pre-existing point. In the statistical world of Easterbrook he adds up the numbers of testicles and working mammary glands in the population and divides by the number of people and comes out with a statistically valid finding that the average person has one ball and one working tit.

 

I know people have been discussing Coleman a lot and Easterbrook typically has a good handle on NFL assessment. Excerpt from Greg Easterbrook's TMQ from last week:

 

Something's Not Right Here: In the 2008 draft, Jersey/B used the sixth selection on Vernon Gholston; in the 2009 draft, Buffalo used the 11th choice on Aaron Maybin, and Denver used the 14th selection on Robert Ayers. All are hybrid defensive end/linebacker types who specialize in rushing the passer, and the three have combined for zero career sacks in the NFL. This year, Jersey/A used the 15th choice of the draft on hybrid defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul, who specializes in rushing the passer. Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player, finishing a distant 69th in Division I sacks. Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.

 

Drafts can be judged three years later. TMQ has a sawbuck that says in three years, the undrafted Coleman will be a more accomplished NFL player than Pierre-Paul, Gholston, Maybin or Ayers. Also undrafted in 2010 was Blue Cooper, who bested Terrell Owens' receiving records at Tennessee-Chattanooga. I would have drafted him for his name alone.

[Arkady Renko]

As usual Easterbrook is ornately and literately wrong (he is great at using a 25 cent word when a nickel word will do and often disguises his poor analysis with saying stupid things gracefully).

 

The thing Easterbrook is wrong about here is pretending that one can compare one draft class to another in terms of where a player was picked or his relative position among players who play the same position.

 

There are simply too many variables which determine when a player is chosen in a specific year that one can compare where a player who plays the same position is chosen in the next draft. For example lets say draft A is particular strong at a certain position (lets say draft A has a significant number of quality LBs. Does the relative strength of this pool mean that the LBs get drafted higher in the draft due to their talent?

 

Not necessarily. Given teams make an estimate they can get a high qualitt LN further down in the draft they decide to pass on taking one in the early rounds as they think they can get a good enough player later.

 

Likewise, lets say there are only a couple of good DEs, does this mean that the third DE taken is gonna go late because of his limited skills?

 

Again, not necessarily. lets say the first two picks in the entire draft are DEs, and this third best DE is pretty much agreed to be a 2nd or even 3rd round talent. However, my team has a huge opening at DE due to a late retirement. It not only makes sense for me to reach to take this 3rd best DE in the first round rather than wait to fill this hole with a 3rd or 4th round talent later in the draft.

 

Does this really happen? Sure his name his John McCargo. The Bills had a huge hole at DT (I think this happened due to the surprising loss of Phat Pat but I cannot remember for sure. The Bills were playing the need game in this draft and had targeted Whitner as the best SS available and they spent a top 10 on him. They missed out on a DT and unfortunately they had McCargo pegged as the next best talent out there. He was appeared to be a second round talent at best. However, as there was little left at the position they actually had to trade up into the first to be sure to get McCargo (a definite reach).

 

Still probably the right move in the crapshoot known as the draft since as it happened there was no other DT who even scored a 2nd round pick. The Bills did what they had to do in order to get the position filled with the best player available.

 

Ironically, they had such little faith in McCargo they drafted yet another DT in the fifth and ironically Williams ended up starting.

 

Each draft is an independent dance which gets defined by an order driven by the dance of need/best player available and where a position is picked in one year is not analagous at all to some absolute value of a particular player (no matter what Mel Kiper says.

 

The comparison he makes across draft years does not stand up to the rigors of his on analysis.

 

Easterbrook plays fast and loose with stats to try to prove his pre-existing point. In the statistical world of Easterbrook he adds up the numbers of testicles and working mammary glands in the population and divides by the number of people and comes out with a statistically valid finding that the average person has one ball and one working tit.

 

For some reaosn, I thought you'd be a big fan...

[Leonidas]

I know people have been discussing Coleman a lot and Easterbrook typically has a good handle on NFL assessment. Excerpt from Greg Easterbrook's TMQ from last week:

 

Something's Not Right Here: In the 2008 draft, Jersey/B used the sixth selection on Vernon Gholston; in the 2009 draft, Buffalo used the 11th choice on Aaron Maybin, and Denver used the 14th selection on Robert Ayers. All are hybrid defensive end/linebacker types who specialize in rushing the passer, and the three have combined for zero career sacks in the NFL. This year, Jersey/A used the 15th choice of the draft on hybrid defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul, who specializes in rushing the passer. Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player, finishing a distant 69th in Division I sacks. Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.

 

Drafts can be judged three years later. TMQ has a sawbuck that says in three years, the undrafted Coleman will be a more accomplished NFL player than Pierre-Paul, Gholston, Maybin or Ayers. Also undrafted in 2010 was Blue Cooper, who bested Terrell Owens' receiving records at Tennessee-Chattanooga. I would have drafted him for his name alone.

 

Except Robert Ayers wasn't hybrid 3-4 OLB/DE, he was a prototypical 4-3 DE, and my understanding is that he's failing to transition to 3-4 OLB as is being expected of him in Denver.

[ieatcrayonz]

As usual Easterbrook is ornately and literately wrong (he is great at using a 25 cent word when a nickel word will do and often disguises his poor analysis with saying stupid things gracefully).

 

The thing Easterbrook is wrong about here is pretending that one can compare one draft class to another in terms of where a player was picked or his relative position among players who play the same position.

 

There are simply too many variables which determine when a player is chosen in a specific year that one can compare where a player who plays the same position is chosen in the next draft. For example lets say draft A is particular strong at a certain position (lets say draft A has a significant number of quality LBs. Does the relative strength of this pool mean that the LBs get drafted higher in the draft due to their talent?

 

Not necessarily. Given teams make an estimate they can get a high qualitt LN further down in the draft they decide to pass on taking one in the early rounds as they think they can get a good enough player later.

 

Likewise, lets say there are only a couple of good DEs, does this mean that the third DE taken is gonna go late because of his limited skills?

 

Again, not necessarily. lets say the first two picks in the entire draft are DEs, and this third best DE is pretty much agreed to be a 2nd or even 3rd round talent. However, my team has a huge opening at DE due to a late retirement. It not only makes sense for me to reach to take this 3rd best DE in the first round rather than wait to fill this hole with a 3rd or 4th round talent later in the draft.

 

Does this really happen? Sure his name his John McCargo. The Bills had a huge hole at DT (I think this happened due to the surprising loss of Phat Pat but I cannot remember for sure. The Bills were playing the need game in this draft and had targeted Whitner as the best SS available and they spent a top 10 on him. They missed out on a DT and unfortunately they had McCargo pegged as the next best talent out there. He was appeared to be a second round talent at best. However, as there was little left at the position they actually had to trade up into the first to be sure to get McCargo (a definite reach).

 

Still probably the right move in the crapshoot known as the draft since as it happened there was no other DT who even scored a 2nd round pick. The Bills did what they had to do in order to get the position filled with the best player available.

 

Ironically, they had such little faith in McCargo they drafted yet another DT in the fifth and ironically Williams ended up starting.

 

Each draft is an independent dance which gets defined by an order driven by the dance of need/best player available and where a position is picked in one year is not analagous at all to some absolute value of a particular player (no matter what Mel Kiper says.

 

The comparison he makes across draft years does not stand up to the rigors of his on analysis.

 

Easterbrook plays fast and loose with stats to try to prove his pre-existing point. In the statistical world of Easterbrook he adds up the numbers of testicles and working mammary glands in the population and divides by the number of people and comes out with a statistically valid finding that the average person has one ball and one working tit.

That's an awful long winded way of saying that it isn't too bad when a UDFA ends up outplaying Maybinot.

 

It might be hard to compare pick #10 or 11 with the next year's number 14 , but it is safe to say a UDFA in 2010 would not have been a #11 overall in 2009.

 

Then again, Maybinot.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

This was gone over last week.

 

http://forums.twobil..._1#entry1935771

[Hplarrm]

For some reaosn, I thought you'd be a big fan...

I have actually met Easterbrook through some of my environmental work. He released a book a few years back that attempted to debunk environmental activism with a cute argument that one should ignore environmental activist simply because they had been successful in winning the environmental battle in the 70s with the creation of the EPA, passage of Superfund, etc.

 

Therefore one should easily ignore calls for addressing issues like climate change, etc.

 

Easterbrook's arguments had a cute rhetorical feel as he damned environmentalim by praising it.

 

However the one thing he did not count upon when he unleashed his attack in the early 90s was that his point of view was made irrelevant by the Newt Gingrich led resurgence which effectively hamstrung environmental regulation and the advent of new threats which the traditional environmental regulatory regime was in no way set-up to deal with even if it was not hamstrung.

 

Easterbrook routinely makes arguments which are rhetorically elegant but in reality really miss the point in terms of dealing with reality. One sees the sane thing with his over-analysis of the NFL. Perhaps it takes one to know one as I am prone to over-analysis myself but Easterbrook strikes me as too bright to really believe the crap he lays out.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I have actually met Easterbrook through some of my environmental work. He released a book a few years back that attempted to debunk environmental activism with a cute argument that one should ignore environmental activist simply because they had been successful in winning the environmental battle in the 70s with the creation of the EPA, passage of Superfund, etc.

 

Therefore one should easily ignore calls for addressing issues like climate change, etc.

 

Easterbrook's arguments had a cute rhetorical feel as he damned environmentalim by praising it.

 

However the one thing he did not count upon when he unleashed his attack in the early 90s was that his point of view was made irrelevant by the Newt Gingrich led resurgence which effectively hamstrung environmental regulation and the advent of new threats which the traditional environmental regulatory regime was in no way set-up to deal with even if it was not hamstrung.

 

Easterbrook routinely makes arguments which are rhetorically elegant but in reality really miss the point in terms of dealing with reality. One sees the sane thing with his over-analysis of the NFL. Perhaps it takes one to know one as I am prone to over-analysis myself but Easterbrook strikes me as too bright to really believe the crap he lays out.

Very well stated. You're getting all renaissance on us but that's just fine.

[Thurman#1]

As usual Easterbrook is ornately and literately wrong (he is great at using a 25 cent word when a nickel word will do and often disguises his poor analysis with saying stupid things gracefully).

 

The thing Easterbrook is wrong about here is pretending that one can compare one draft class to another in terms of where a player was picked or his relative position among players who play the same position.

 

There are simply too many variables which determine when a player is chosen in a specific year that one can compare where a player who plays the same position is chosen in the next draft. For example lets say draft A is particular strong at a certain position (lets say draft A has a significant number of quality LBs. Does the relative strength of this pool mean that the LBs get drafted higher in the draft due to their talent?

 

 

 

After all that criticism, could you just take a moment and point out where he, you know, says that "one can compare one draft class to another in terms of where a player was picked or his relative position among players who play the same position." He certainly isn't quoted as sayinga anything like that in the OP.

 

You are so far offbase here.

 

Easterbrook said A, B, C and D, and you went off on him criticizing him for saying W.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Thurman#1

[Sisyphean Bills]

Just seems like one of the extremes. In the draft, you can take a one-year wonder, a guy who some think is a freak athlete who has (near) zero football experience and instincts and hope to coach him up into an excellent player. At the other extreme, you can draft a high motor guy who is limited athletically but has worked extremely hard to wring every last ounce out of his God given talent. You don't need to coach him up, but he's not going to get much better than he is when he walks into the complex that first day.

[zonabb]

Does he make the team, that's the only question I have. Who cares about someone's draft analysis about how good an undrafted player is. If he doesn't make the team, the point it moot.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Does he make the team, that's the only question I have. Who cares about someone's draft analysis about how good an undrafted player is. If he doesn't make the team, the point it moot.

I think Antonio Coleman makes the team.

 

Have you seen him play?

[Mr. WEO]

This was gone over last week.

 

http://forums.twobil..._1#entry1935771

Thought this looked familiar!

 

WTF??

 

What's next---a thread about ESPN's anti-Bills bias?

[zonabb]

I think Antonio Coleman makes the team.

 

Have you seen him play?

 

No, which is why I asked! I was curious.

 

Post-draft analysis before a guy makes a team is ridiculous. Any argument for the guy should be withheld until he makes the team, then people like Easterbrook can revisit the draft and ask why a guy doesn't get drafted.

[BuffOrange]

Easterbrook plays fast and loose with stats to try to prove his pre-existing point.

 

This is completely true (just as people on message boards everywhere do).

 

He is correct that NFL coaches are laughably pathetic at 4th down decision making though.

[Hplarrm]

After all that criticism, could you just take a moment and point out where he, you know, says that "one can compare one draft class to another in terms of where a player was picked or his relative position among players who play the same position." He certainly isn't quoted as sayinga anything like that in the OP.

 

You are so far offbase here.

 

Easterbrook said A, B, C and D, and you went off on him criticizing him for saying W.

I actually did not read the TMQ column in question as I long ago stopped seeking out Easterbrook ramblings. So if he has in fact changed his facile way of thinking about things I apologize.

 

My own ramblings were based on the quote in the lead post in this thread which quotes Easterbrook as saying :

 

 

Something's Not Right Here: In the 2008 draft, Jersey/B used the sixth selection on Vernon Gholston; in the 2009 draft, Buffalo used the 11th choice on Aaron Maybin, and Denver used the 14th selection on Robert Ayers. All are hybrid defensive end/linebacker types who specialize in rushing the passer, and the three have combined for zero career sacks in the NFL. This year, Jersey/A used the 15th choice of the draft on hybrid defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul, who specializes in rushing the passer. Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player, finishing a distant 69th in Division I sacks. Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.

 

In this quote he compares the 2008, 09, and 10 drafts in regard to the comparative quality of the players taken who play that position and where they were taken in the draft.

 

What's wrong here is that it can easily lead to false results based on a false comparison when you compare when a player is taken in one draft to when a player is taken in a different market by a different team.

 

Perhaps the lead thread made a tea party like taking out of context the quote or simply flat out lied about what he said, but as it sounds like the usual Easterbrook almost thinking I suspect his quote is what he said.

[Offside Number 76]

This is completely true (just as people on message boards everywhere do).

 

He is correct that NFL coaches are laughably pathetic at 4th down decision making though.

 

Don't tell people that in the game day chat; you'll spend the rest of the afternoon arguing. Trust me. (But I agree w/ you and G.E. on the fourth down decisions.)