How to win a Super Bowl

[bisonbrigade]

You score more points than the other team.

[Dibs]

.....Easier said than done, this year anyway.

 

In the '13 draft, the Defensive "cornerstone" players are there for the taking. -Franchise Quarterbacks not so much.

 

Why not take what's given rather than trying to reach for something that clearly is not there?

 

As it happens, I did a study recently on the drafting success of QBs (Here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155235-drafting-success-qb/?do=findComment&comment=2712778).

 

Though this study didn't cover QBs drafted after 2005....so I acknowledge that it is possible there could have been a significant change in that time.....it clearly suggests certain aspects which I think are relevant to your statement above.

 

What the numbers in the 20 year analysis show is that QB talent seems to be extremely well graded in ralation to drafting them.

 

Any QB who seems to have that something special, that "it factor", is generally recognized as such and is uniformly predicted to go in the Top 4 of the draft....and is invariably selected in the Top 4 of the draft. These QBs have a very high success rate for their drafting teams. 26% become good to very good starters.....with another 21% becoming Star QBs.

 

Any other QB who is considered to have a good chance of becoming something special are typically rated and drafted between picks 5-34. The success rate for these QBs was....8.3% became good to very good starters....with another 8.3% becoming Star QBs. The relative draft position within picks 5-34 did not seem to effect the chance of success. This implies that the ability to differentiate between the relative success chances of these QBs is not possible for scouts/analysts....or at least not possible within a reasonable percentage difference.

 

For all other QBs scouted and assessed, none succeeded from the 2nd & 3rd rounds....

 

 

In relation to your comments.....

It appears there will be 3-4(?) QBs in this draft class that will fall into the second catagory and are likely to be selected in the 5-34 range. (none in the Top 4 range).

Next years draft class might see 2 QBs in the Top 4 catagory(making it a good QB draft class).....but how many others will fall into the 5-34 range? 1-2?

 

Assuming we will not have a Top 4 pick in next years draft....and that it might prove difficult to trade up into the Top 4 to get one of those "special" QB draft prospects....there is actually a better chance that we will be able to select a QB of relative decent potential in this draft(3-4 QBs) than in next years draft(1-2 QBs).

 

 

Btw....those "defensive cornerstone" players more often than not do not end up becoming "solid starters" let alone "cornerstone" players for the drafting team.

(LB study here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155307-drafting-success-lb/?do=findComment&comment=2714704)

[Dibs]

theisman and plunkett were stars. simms was very close to being one. so disagree there--but it only proves your point more.

 

Thanks for that Tcali. It's often hard to determine the relative ability of players who played before ones own era.

I remember the end of Simms carreer and recall him being widely considered as a very good QB.....but not in the same level as Montana, Elway, Marino, Kelly etc.

 

Just looking at stats it appears that Theismann was only good in the last third of his carreer....which is perhaps reflective of how misleading stats can be.

The stats on Plunkett however in no way show his potential elite status. No pro-bowls....and many many years of horrible numbers.

 

These sort of historical recolections are IMO one of the reasons why Andre Reed gets overlooked for HOF considerations. His stats don't fully reflect what his abilities were.

It's scary to think that in perhaps 20 years time, Ruben Brown....with his 9 pro-bowls....might get historical HOF considerations. The "eye test" is still the best way IMO to determine a player's abilities.....the difficult part is determining who's "eye" should be used.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Dibs

[#34fan]

The "eye test" is still the best way IMO to determine a player's abilities.....the difficult part is determining who's "eye" should be used.

 

After all that stat-dredging, it's good to hear you admit that the eye test is still the best way.

 

the idea that you can make crucial decisions by staring tirelessly at a bunch of numbers may work in the stock market, but not so much in dealings with actual people.

 

Russell Wilson passed my eye test in his last year at NC state. -Still, on the chance I could be decieved, I gave him the year at Wisconsin to live up, or down to the hype. -Well, we all know how that stint ended. I WAS SOLD. However, in pursuit of a prototype, pro scouts missed out on an absolute super-hero in disguise.

 

This year I watched more college football than in previous years, and came to the conclusion that there were MAYBE two QB's worth taking in the first round. Neither of which is ready to run a practice-squad scrimmage, IMO... They are ALL PROJECTS. -Some better than others, but projects nonetheless.

 

In looking at defense however, It became clear that quite a few kids were ready for TC competition. The Gamecock's DJ Swearinger, and Devonte Holloman, are two kids that stood out in my game watching AKA "eye testing" this past season.

 

Some folks look for raw speed, others for size... My big thing is awareness and instinct. Still, you can't help but notice when some kids play faster, hit harder, and finish more beautifully than other players on the field. In fact they don't look like kids out there at all, but pro's-in-waiting.

 

Zeke Ansah, and Matt Elam, also passed my eye test, whereas, Jarvis Jones, -A prospect I was actually excited about, lost luster for me down the stretch. By contrast, Mant'i Teo was a kid I yawned at throughout the majority of his ND carreer. It wasn't until recently that I noticed some significant things about him. Namely, that his anticipation, and awareness gave him superior lateral coverage skills.

 

I also noticed that Mant'i has the ability to "use" other defensive players in order to set up big plays for himself. -A detraction some might say, but I beg to differ... If Mant'i has the presence of mind to consistently bring down tipped balls, and cover fumbles created by other players, then thats a guy I want in my defensive backfield. Surround a kid like that with other talented defensive players, and you have a 1-2 punch that will be hard to pass or run against. I've made fun of Te'o, and mocked him extesively, but I just can't see a better pick for us at #8, other than maybe Ansah if he's still there.

 

Either way, If we score just three out of the five "eye-test" passers mentioned here, I believe things will start getting better for Bills Nation IN A HURRY.

 

Drafting a project QB at #8 to be groomed by an inexperienced OC and Fitzpatrick, sounds like another wasted pick to me.

[Dibs]

After all that stat-dredging, it's good to hear you admit that the eye test is still the best way.

 

the idea that you can make crucial decisions by staring tirelessly at a bunch of numbers may work in the stock market, but not so much in dealings with actual people.....

 

I think some people jump to the wrong conclusion with many analytical studies. The studies I am doing on past drafts aren't so much about using historical stats to pick players.....they're about using statistics to determine how effective the consensus "eye test" actually is.....and attempts to determine the actual likelihood of prospects developing into NFL starters/stars for their drafting team.

 

 

So far, form my studies of QB, LB & WR drafts I have discovered several things which show where the effectiveness of the "eye test" is either very good, or not.

 

QBs rarely succeed if picked outside the #34 pick.

Therefore if you are after one, make sure you grab one that the "eye test" factors as a 1st rounder.

 

LBs & WRs are just as likely to succeed from the 3rd round as from the 2nd.

Therefore if you are after one, try to get an "eye tested" 3rd round potential one as it is better value.

 

LBs show a surprising success rate when selected from rounds 4 & 5.

Therefore if you are after one(or more), try to trade down in the 2nd/3rd to be able to select more LBs that the "eye test" has rated as 4th & 5th rounders.

 

 

Being able to determine how effective the consensus "eye test" is, is potentially an extremely valuable tool.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Dibs

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I think some people jump to the wrong conclusion with many analytical studies. The studies I am doing on past drafts aren't so much about using historical stats to pick players.....they're about using statistics to determine how effective the consensus "eye test" actually is.....and attempts to determine the actual likelihood of prospects developing into NFL starters/stars for their drafting team.

 

Thanks for your strong efforts.

 

This would be a good time to remind everyone that Brandon said that analytics would be another tool that they would "layer" over their player evaluation process.