See I knew that the Jets couldn't find starters in late rounds but thought that every other team could. With the nonsense that was tossed around in this thread, I was forced to go do the research to give an actual reply and the research let me know that everyone stinks at it and trading "maybe" for "definite" is a smart move. The Jets just stink at it way more.
This video highlights every pass Wilson throws vs. TB Bucs, 2nd time I watched it, I just focused on AVT, to me he does a fantastic job during most of this game......
Yea but we could have had two other guys that might not be in the league in a few years. Don't you get it?! TRADE UP BAD. MANY PICK GOOD.
That's the goal, yes. However, that was not getting accomplished primarily due to GVR being so bad. It doesn't matter how good the guy at LG is when the guy at RG is getting roasted every single play. I think it's fair to say our OL would've been better overall had we used two 3rd round picks looking for a GVR upgrade before the season. GVR alone was responsible for 50% of our total pressures allowed at one point this year. This is what I've been saying - having a good OL is more about eliminating the biggest weakness on the line rather than having studs at some spots and dumpster fires at others.
Statistically, if you select two players in the third round, it's likely that at least one will become a long term starter. Third round picks have an approximately 30% chance of becoming long term starters. Sure would be great if we had a young guy to replace GVR rather than the patchwork solution of an aging LDT.
We literally gave up two third round picks. Yes, we got a 4th in return, but there is a big drop off in value from the 3rd to 4th rounds.
For reference... if you go back to the 2015 draft, there is a grand total of 6 third round picks starting and only 1 of them is still with the team that drafted them. WR Tyler Lockett (stud, still with Seahawks) TE Tyler Kroft (starter by default, on his third team) RB Tevin Coleman (starter when RB1 is hurt, I'll count it, on his third team) OL John Miller (drafted by the Bills, now starts for Panthers) LB Jordan Hicks (drafted by the Eagles, starts for Arizona) DE Danielle Hunter (stud, still with Vikings) So I dunno man, your math seems foolproof but the actual facts don't support your theory at all. For a draft that was only 6 years ago, Im not seeing too many longterm starters.
Just for shits and gigs... go back to the 2015 draft again and there are more starters remaining from the 4th round than the 3rd round.
You're using a single draft as some sort of evidence of my overarching point being wrong. My sample is from all the drafts going back decades. Are larger or smaller sample sizes generally more indicative of reality? Awful snarky for making a horrendous point. The actual math doesn't support my point at all? You mean your math from a single cherry picked sample size? How about this math? https://www.ideo.com/datascope/the-...rst, picking at the end,starter falls to ~30%. Going towards the end of the round 3, your chance of finding a starter falls to ~30%. Or this math? https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015...e-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round Let's look at one of our biggest areas to fix. Offensive line is typically one of the safest positions to draft because the success rate is greater than almost all the other positions. Of the 421 players drafted, 147 wound up as starters for at least half their career. The first round has an 83% success rate. The second round is almost as good with 70%. Even the third and fourth aren't too shabby in comparison to success rates of other positions in the same rounds. (3rd - 40%, 4th - 29%). But yeah, certainly your cherry-picked single draft is closer to reality.
Yeah…I just can’t help thinking that these trade back discussions always assume that the players you take LATER are gonna hit, while the player you took NOW is not good enough to make up for that. I’m of the opinion that one VERY GOOD to GREAT player (I’ll say AVT has been very good, and has pro bowl type potential, as a Day 1 plug and play starter) is better than 3 or 4 scrubs or back up type players. yes, I’d rather have AVT who was the consensus top guard and who has actually proven to be plug and play over the next few guards who were riskier and not as good. could a rebuild happen faster by trading down for more picks? Debatable. More swings at the bat are always going to be good, but the farther down you go, the lower potential for very good to great players. The Mims trade was a great example of that…sure we got more picks but guess what, the receiver sucks so the pick should have been Claypool….I also liked Jefferson a lot. I think the real thing is if Wilson develops into that guy or not. We NEED him to be a true FQB. Frankly I’m not sold yet…I have a bit more hope after last week than before, but by no stretch is he a lock yet…there’s been too much bad play to say he’s a sure fire guy. But we’ve seen some improvement so res hope.
You've drifted into DWC territory. Misconstruing one point and then making a multi post, multi day, crusade over it, all while changing the original debate.
So sometimes you find starters 30% of the time. What a bargain! If you want me to go through more drafts I will. This thread has forced me to go look for the facts and they’ve been eye opening. And that’s coming from someone who was already in favor of trading maybes for sure things.
I've already gone through them, I don't have my opinions for no reason like you. Look at the edits in my post above.
If this is what you need to do to feel better about your opinion getting picked apart with facts, have at it.
You went through them or you found websites that have numbers? Do those websites also include how many of those players still play for the team that drafted them?
That is taking every draft into account. Over time you are correct for the whole of the NFL. That does not make any particular 3rd round fall into that percentage. How many drafts do you need to meet that percentage? You cannot take out the human element the particular draft year. (It can be multiple draft years it goes below that number and times above). Using the percentage as you are, makes no sense in any particular draft. Again, there are lies damn lies and stats.
What facts have you presented to back your stance? You simply went into "your stupid" whenever I presented anther POV that challenged your opinions. Then went off into a side topic you invented. Yes that's a great fact that clearly shows 3rd round picks are probably worse than 4th round picks. Well done DWC.
Nice shifting of the goalposts now that two different sites have objectively proven you wrong. If you have an issue with how they went about calculating their numbers let's hear it. It's OK to change your opinion in light of new evidence you know.
