Schoop is right

[Niagara Bill]

I am not a fan of Schoop but today I think for the first time he has a valid point.

Draftin g players is about numbers in general and is about getting the most number of contributing players on your rooster from each draft.\

\No one knows for sure that any player is going to make it so you must try by shear numbers to get the most opportunities to draft the most players to have an impact

If you draft 5 players because you traded up...ie Ragland and the Bills...then your chances based on numbers and injuries is less likely to get a number of impact and rooster players than the team that traded down for more picks and ended up with 12 picks. New England is the example,

If your draft is shortened ie the Bills and injuries occur..ie the Bills to number 1 and 2...then your opportunity to have impact players drops...

and the ability to compete for a playoff spot drops.

The team that drafts 12 players and 7 make the rooster each year then your strength grows over time and the chances of success grow...see Patriots. I hate the patsies but they do it each year...and we are 0 and 16

[YoloinOhio]

But he was talking about the meat draft. Drafting meat in numbers. So not sure if he's still right. Quality over quality when it comes to beef IMO .

[Augie]

In general, I'd rather trade down than trade up, but every situation is different. We all know even a high first rounder is a crap shoot. More guys means more chances to find keepers. It's crazy that it's so hard to tell who will step up to the NFL level.

 

 

Oh, and I like meat.

[BringBackFergy]

In addition, the Pats got Chris Hogan and we retained a Track and Field hopeful. #IndictWhaley

[John from Riverside]

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady he didnt have an answer

[Augie]

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady he didnt have an answer

Well, there is that......

[DC Tom]

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady cheating he didnt have an answer

[White Linen]

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady he didnt have an answer

 

Because there isn't one. The draft is important - but it's a crapshoot.

[26CornerBlitz]

I am not a fan of Schoop but today I think for the first time he has a valid point.

Draftin g players is about numbers in general and is about getting the most number of contributing players on your rooster from each draft.\

\No one knows for sure that any player is going to make it so you must try by shear numbers to get the most opportunities to draft the most players to have an impact

If you draft 5 players because you traded up...ie Ragland and the Bills...then your chances based on numbers and injuries is less likely to get a number of impact and rooster players than the team that traded down for more picks and ended up with 12 picks. New England is the example,

If your draft is shortened ie the Bills and injuries occur..ie the Bills to number 1 and 2...then your opportunity to have impact players drops...

and the ability to compete for a playoff spot drops.

The team that drafts 12 players and 7 make the rooster each year then your strength grows over time and the chances of success grow...see Patriots. I hate the patsies but they do it each year...and we are 0 and 16

 

There's no way to justify his blanket theory because every scenario for trading up/down or standing pat is different. Besides that Dope doesn't know **** about football.

Edited August 9, 2016 by 26CornerBlitz

[Prickly Pete]

What I didn't understand was his opinion that Ragland not playing won't make much difference, but at the same time emphasizing how important the draft is.

[GG]

That theory only works if you can somehow stockpile 1st and 2nd round picks. Pats* always load up on 5th rounders. And those guys end up competing for back up spots and are a tad more talented than some of the street free agents.

[QuoteTheRaven83]

I am not a fan of Schoop but today I think for the first time he has a valid point.

Draftin g players is about numbers in general and is about getting the most number of contributing players on your rooster from each draft.\

\No one knows for sure that any player is going to make it so you must try by shear numbers to get the most opportunities to draft the most players to have an impact

If you draft 5 players because you traded up...ie Ragland and the Bills...then your chances based on numbers and injuries is less likely to get a number of impact and rooster players than the team that traded down for more picks and ended up with 12 picks. New England is the example,

If your draft is shortened ie the Bills and injuries occur..ie the Bills to number 1 and 2...then your opportunity to have impact players drops...

and the ability to compete for a playoff spot drops.

The team that drafts 12 players and 7 make the rooster each year then your strength grows over time and the chances of success grow...see Patriots. I hate the patsies but they do it each year...and we are 0 and 16

 

Who has New England drafted with all those draft picks? Sure they've lucked out with Tom Brady and Gronk, but more than half their roster is/was made up of undrafted free agents, trades, veterans, and cast offs from other teams.

 

This is exactly what the Browns are doing and as far as I'm concerned their last draft class wasn't all that impressive. Sure you'll have more bodies but you still need the quality of players. Where the Bills mess up is managing their money and making stupid trades like trading for McCoy. Good teams know how to manage their cap space and this is something we continue to struggle with.

Edited August 9, 2016 by QuoteTheRaven83

[Fan in Chicago]

I am not a fan of Schoop but today I think for the first time he has a valid point.

Draftin g players is about numbers in general and is about getting the most number of contributing players on your rooster from each draft.\

\No one knows for sure that any player is going to make it so you must try by shear numbers to get the most opportunities to draft the most players to have an impact

If you draft 5 players because you traded up...ie Ragland and the Bills...then your chances based on numbers and injuries is less likely to get a number of impact and rooster players than the team that traded down for more picks and ended up with 12 picks. New England is the example,

If your draft is shortened ie the Bills and injuries occur..ie the Bills to number 1 and 2...then your opportunity to have impact players drops...

and the ability to compete for a playoff spot drops.

The team that drafts 12 players and 7 make the rooster each year then your strength grows over time and the chances of success grow...see Patriots. I hate the patsies but they do it each year...and we are 0 and 16

 

I dont know what he said exactly but if you communicated that accurately, its a rather stupid thought to draft quantity over quality. You absolutely need playmakers at key positions and you dont get that by playing the law of averages. You need to get your playmakers in the top half of the draft and get quantity in the lower picks where you get role players/STers

[bigbill]

I think the assigned values to draft picks helps determine what you should do in certain situations.

 

quantity over quality:

 

What would you rather have every year?

 

3 number 1s

6 number 2s

9 number 3s

etc.

 

or whatever value you assign to each round?

 

how many of each round do you think is equivalent to 3 first rounders?

 

 

[John from Riverside]

Rex said he thought Ragland was a 150 tackle guy

 

Those guys do NOT grow on trees

[mrags]

 

There's no way to justify his blanket theory because every scenario for trading up/down or standing pat is different. Besides that Dope doesn't know **** about football.

if you ask him about tennis tho... He'll gladly quote what his wife says. She's the real athlete in the family. He's just a douche that collects cards. Edited August 9, 2016 by mrags

[bacarri and coke]

I am not a fan of Schoop but today I think for the first time he has a valid point.

Draftin g players is about numbers in general and is about getting the most number of contributing players on your rooster from each draft.\

\No one knows for sure that any player is going to make it so you must try by shear numbers to get the most opportunities to draft the most players to have an impact

If you draft 5 players because you traded up...ie Ragland and the Bills...then your chances based on numbers and injuries is less likely to get a number of impact and rooster players than the team that traded down for more picks and ended up with 12 picks. New England is the example,

If your draft is shortened ie the Bills and injuries occur..ie the Bills to number 1 and 2...then your opportunity to have impact players drops...

and the ability to compete for a playoff spot drops.

The team that drafts 12 players and 7 make the rooster each year then your strength grows over time and the chances of success grow...see Patriots. I hate the patsies but they do it each year...and we are 0 and 16

So according to this theory we should trade all of our draft picks from rounds 1-5 to get like 20 picks in rounds 6 and 7 then get every player we can in free agency and field a team like that?....This is a blanket statement and makes no sense IMO

[metzelaars_lives]

Schopp isn't as bad as most on here like to think he is. That being said, he has assumed this persona as a smarmy, black-and-white, analytics is always right guy and he tends to oversimplify things. His contention is basically that trading up is always bad and the more bodies you have the better. He's right to some extent but his problem is that, as an example today, he cited the Pats as the team that gets this concept and always abides by it. What he failed to acknowledge is that the Pats traded up in the second round- just like the Bills did with Ragland- to take one Rob Gronkowski. Look, if Whaley really had Ragland as a top 15-20 guy on their board and he fell that far, then I ansolutely stand by the move to trade up and draft Ragland. Period, end of story.

Rex said he thought Ragland was a 150 tackle guy

 

Those guys do NOT grow on trees

Exactly.

[KDIGGZ]

How does Schoop still have a job? Hes a miserable human being.

[Thurman#1]

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady he didnt have an answer

 

 

 

He should have. It's an easy answer.

 

Of course they win more because of Brady. If you can get a terrific QB on your team you ought to do it by nearly any possible means. But they don't win only because of Brady. They consistently put a whole good team out there.

 

And yeah, the Pats have many misses in draft picks. That's the point. So does everyone. They all miss lots. Not sure you can say that the Pats miss more than most, but let's imagine it's been proved true. That's exACTly the reason why more picks give you better odds. If you miss a lot - and you will - you still have a ton of guys left from your draft class to make up the slack.

 

The Pats* draft trading techniques are flat-out smart. It's not a coincidence that the teams that are consistently the best in the league almost never trade in exchange for first round picks, at least unless they're getting a QB. The consistent best teams, the Pats, the Steelers, the Ravens, the Pack, tend to trade down quite a bit more than they trade up, they collect picks, and most even hoard compensation picks to the extent of avoiding picking up FAs who would hurt their haul of them.

 

 

 

Schopp isn't as bad as most on here like to think he is. That being said, he has assumed this persona as a smarmy, black-and-white, analytics is always right guy and he tends to oversimplify things. His contention is basically that trading up is always bad and the more bodies you have the better. He's right to some extent but his problem is that, as an example today, he cited the Pats as the team that gets this concept and always abides by it. What he failed to acknowledge is that the Pats traded up in the second round- just like the Bills did with Ragland- to take one Rob Gronkowski. Look, if Whaley really had Ragland as a top 15-20 guy on their board and he fell that far, then I ansolutely stand by the move to trade up and draft Ragland. Period, end of story.

Exactly.

 

 

 

I don't think very many people would say you never ever in any circumstances trade up.

 

But probably a serious majority would say you never trade up if you have to give away high draft picks, particularly firsts.

 

To pick up Gronk, the Pats traded up from #44 to #42. They only had to give up a 6th rounder.

 

I wasn't automatically against the Ragland deal. It's not like they gave up a 1st or something. The question is whether two 4ths is too much, and to me the answer is maybe. The deal for Sammy, though, was absolutely against conventional wisdom, and these days that conventional wisdom is also based on what the statistical studies say, studies such as Massey & Thaler and the Harvard Sports Analysis study.

 

 

 

"These results suggest that teams tend to overpay for earlier draft picks – or at least they did during the 1990s. These results corroborate those found by Cade Massey and Richard Thaler in their paper on the draft. Teams that can resist the urge to trade up would likely gain a competitive advantage over teams that overpay for the right to choose, and would benefit even more by taking advantage of their competitor’s overconfidence and trading down instead. Will teams actually do so? We’ll see this weekend." - the Harvard study by Meers

 

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/dont-trade-up-in-the-nfl-draft/

 

 

 

"We find that We find that top draft picks are overvalued in a manner that is inconsistent with rational expectations and efficient markets and consistent with psychological research." - Massey and Thaler

 

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11270

 

 

 

TOP draft picks.EARLIER draft picks.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Thurman#1

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Rex said he thought Ragland was a 150 tackle guy

 

Those guys do NOT grow on trees

Looks like Rex was about 150 tackles off.

[Thurman#1]

 

Who has New England drafted with all those draft picks? Sure they've lucked out with Tom Brady and Gronk, but more than half their roster is/was made up of undrafted free agents, trades, veterans, and cast offs from other teams.

 

 

Their roster, yeah. Their starters not so much.

 

Pro Football Reference lists 11 Pats defensive starters last year: Chandler Jones, Ninkovich, Alan Branch, Malcom Brown, Jamie Collins, Dont'a Hightower, Mayo, Malcolm Butler, Logan Ryan, Chung and McCourty. One UDFA, Butler, and two picked up from other teams: Ninkovich and Alan Branch. All the rest include five Pats 1sts, 3 2nds, a 3rd and a 3rd.

 

On offense, they only list 8 starters, because some positions were platooned or shared or lost the starter early in the season: Brady, Edelman, Keshawn Martin, Gronk, Vollmer, Shaq Mason, David Andrews and Tre' Jackson. They don't list an RB, an RT or a 3rd WR / 2nd TE. Out of the eight, one is a UDFA, David Andrews, and one was drafted by the Texans, Keshawn Martin. The rest are all Pats draft picks.

[Niagara Bill]

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady he didnt have an answer

the point is that with more picks you will miss for sure but the odds are you will hit on more since no one can predict who will make it as a contributor

 

There's no way to justify his blanket theory because every scenario for trading up/down or standing pat is different. Besides that Dope doesn't know **** about football.

Don't expect me to defend Schoop....but we just shortened our draft...went after the best...lost both of them..maybe for ever if the injury reduces their ability, and if we had traded down and picked 12 there would be a statistical better chance that we would have impact players on our rooster this year.

It is very possible that this years team rooster will be worse than last year

[26CornerBlitz]

the point is that with more picks you will miss for sure but the odds are you will hit on more since no one can predict who will make it as a contributor

Don't expect me to defend Schoop....but we just shortened our draft...went after the best...lost both of them..maybe for ever if the injury reduces their ability, and if we had traded down and picked 12 there would be a statistical better chance that we would have impact players on our rooster this year.

It is very possible that this years team rooster will be worse than last year

 

You expect any GM to have an injury crystal ball? Will the rooster still crow loud enough to wake up TSW each morning?

[Nanker]

Looks like Rex was about 150 tackles off.

That's a wrap. Such a promising career cut so short and so soon. It's tragic.

[Heitz]

I was listening to this show yesterday and couldn't disagree with Schopp less. Yes, I'd rather trade down, but it doesn't mean there's never a time to trade up and I'm not buying the "quantity" argument. At one point he said that if the Bills had kept this year's 4th that they used in the trade up to get Ragland we'd have another player on the roster that could potentially place Ragland now that he's injured - not that there's any guarantee that we would have picked a LB, but ok...

 

Yes and as soon as a caller pointed out that the patriots have many misses in draft picks and win because of Brady he didnt have an answer

 

And at the beginning of his rant Schopp insisted this made no difference. Pretty sure having at franchise QB (one of the best ever), makes it a little easier to look to other spots in the draft and masks misses.

[Captain Hindsight]

 

Because there isn't one. The draft is important - but it's a crapshoot.

No its not. Sure there is some guess work involved, but also years of research.

 

One way to show Schoop is wrong about quantity of quality, look no further than the Browns.

 

Julio Jones Trade

 

Browns got - Phil Taylor, Greg Little, Owen Marecic, Brandon Weeden. The 4th was used to get Trent Richardson, which then became Johnny Manziel

 

Atlanta Got - Julio Jones

 

Sammy Watkins Trade

 

Browns got 1st, 1st and 4th

 

Drafted - Justin Gilbert, Cam Erving and Ibraheim Cambell

 

Bills got Watkins

 

You need blue chip talent. The pats* have Brady. They can afford to miss alot and throw darts at a a wall. The haven't drafted a good WR in ten years and got luckily with Edelman

[H2o]

In addition, the Pats got Chris Hogan and we retained a Track and Field hopeful. #IndictWhaley

Isn't Hogan already hurt?

[DrDawkinstein]

 

And at the beginning of his rant Schopp insisted this made no difference. Pretty sure having at franchise QB (one of the best ever), makes it a little easier to look to other spots in the draft and masks misses.

 

And if that is true, then the Pats should still start 4-0 in their usual dominating fashion WITHOUT Brady this year. Time for the team to rely on its other 5th Round stars!

[Fadingpain]

the point is that with more picks you will miss for sure but the odds are you will hit on more since no one can predict who will make it as a contributor

Don't expect me to defend Schoop....but we just shortened our draft...went after the best...lost both of them..maybe for ever if the injury reduces their ability, and if we had traded down and picked 12 there would be a statistical better chance that we would have impact players on our rooster this year.

It is very possible that this years team rooster will be worse than last year

I think it would be cool to have a team rooster as a mascot, and then we could ditch the stupid charging bison logo on the helmet in favor of a black rooster like this. Looks cool.

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Fadingpain

[The Wiz]

I think it would be cool to have a team rooster as a mascot, and then we could ditch the stupid charging bison logo on the helmet in favor of a black rooster like this. Looks cool.

 

Reminds me of rube from major league 2. "Hey Pedro, I made the rooster"

[kota]

He have any real evidence to support this? Like actual facts? The Pats win because of their QB and coaching.

[Gene Frenkle]

He have any real evidence to support this? Like actual facts? The Pats win because of their QB and coaching.

You have any real evidence to support this?

[Wayne Arnold]

I am not a fan of Schoop but today I think for the first time he has a valid point.

Draftin g players is about numbers in general and is about getting the most number of contributing players on your rooster from each draft.\

\No one knows for sure that any player is going to make it so you must try by shear numbers to get the most opportunities to draft the most players to have an impact

If you draft 5 players because you traded up...ie Ragland and the Bills...then your chances based on numbers and injuries is less likely to get a number of impact and rooster players than the team that traded down for more picks and ended up with 12 picks. New England is the example,

If your draft is shortened ie the Bills and injuries occur..ie the Bills to number 1 and 2...then your opportunity to have impact players drops...

and the ability to compete for a playoff spot drops.

The team that drafts 12 players and 7 make the rooster each year then your strength grows over time and the chances of success grow...see Patriots. I hate the patsies but they do it each year...and we are 0 and 16

 

It's a good point until using the Patriots as an example. They suck at drafting. They're great because of their quarterback and head coach. That's it.

[Rockinon]

I have to disagree. More isn't always better. NE is a poor poor example because their success is so closely tied to Brady. Personally, I think that roster would be a bottom feeder without Brady. It's easy to think that their defense is great, but it isn't. They do not spend as much time on the field because Brady will literally dink and dunk for long drives that allow the defense to rest longer.

 

Don't be fooled by their draft philosophy. They do what they do out of necessity, not because it is the best philosophy. They are consistently in the playoffs and do not get to draft high, therefore for them, increasing numbers by trading down is the only play they have.

 

The Bills on the other hand have traded up to get better quality. Perhaps this isn't the best philosophy either, but over time, their will be more pro bowl caliper players added to the roster. I think this philosophy creates better long term results.

 

NE's method works for them but I do not think it is a good fit for us. At least not until we have QB that can depended on the way NE does.

[Wayne Arnold]

 

 

Their roster, yeah. Their starters not so much.

 

Pro Football Reference lists 11 Pats defensive starters last year: Chandler Jones, Ninkovich, Alan Branch, Malcom Brown, Jamie Collins, Dont'a Hightower, Mayo, Malcolm Butler, Logan Ryan, Chung and McCourty. One UDFA, Butler, and two picked up from other teams: Ninkovich and Alan Branch. All the rest include five Pats 1sts, 3 2nds, a 3rd and a 3rd.

 

On offense, they only list 8 starters, because some positions were platooned or shared or lost the starter early in the season: Brady, Edelman, Keshawn Martin, Gronk, Vollmer, Shaq Mason, David Andrews and Tre' Jackson. They don't list an RB, an RT or a 3rd WR / 2nd TE. Out of the eight, one is a UDFA, David Andrews, and one was drafted by the Texans, Keshawn Martin. The rest are all Pats draft picks.

 

You've listed a bunch of dime-a-dozen players that can be found on each roster in the National Football League.

[Maddog69]

I think the assigned values to draft picks helps determine what you should do in certain situations.

 

quantity over quality:

 

What would you rather have every year?

 

3 number 1s

6 number 2s

9 number 3s

etc.

 

or whatever value you assign to each round?

 

how many of each round do you think is equivalent to 3 first rounders?

This is interesting. You would also have the consider the position of the pick in the round. For example: Picks 1,2 and 3 of Round 1 are worth much more than picks 30, 31 and 32.

[Webster Guy]

Yeah comparing our drafting to the Patriots makes no sense. They're among the worst in the league at it, and even worse at retaining guys they should have kept like Seymour and Chandler Jones.

 

There was no reason to believe Ragland would have any injury issues. In fact, his build reminds me of London Fletcher in that he looks naturally solid all the way around and not made in a gym with chicken legs like Kiko, Shane Conlan, Maybin type dudes.

 

Zach Brown can fill the void, Reggie can watch film with Shaq until they're ready to play in a few months.

[wakingfane]

the point is that with more picks you will miss for sure but the odds are you will hit on more since no one can predict who will make it as a contributor

Don't expect me to defend Schoop....but we just shortened our draft...went after the best...lost both of them..maybe for ever if the injury reduces their ability, and if we had traded down and picked 12 there would be a statistical better chance that we would have impact players on our rooster this year.

It is very possible that this years team rooster will be worse than last year

Interesting points... putting more draft stock in fewer players is like putting more eggs in one basket... it also stands to reason that a GM that put more eggs in one basket would be the type of GM that is trying to exert greater control over the precise makeup of the roster, pre-selecting the top of the roster, rather than allowing competition to do the job of selecting from within a larger pool of legitimate competitors. I wonder if such a GM is more likely to cling to that basket even when it is clearly unraveling... I actually think Whaley strikes a good balance between the two extremes.

[PromoTheRobot]

How does Schoop still have a job? Hes a miserable human being.

Inertia.