Of course it makes sense. Should we care more about what is usually true or sometimes true? Does finding one short giraffe lead you to believe most giraffes are short? That's what BroadwayZach was trying to say basically.
Let's look at recent averages. And I'll include players that are currently starting or started this year because they were next man up. 2015 draft: 6 starters in the 3rd round 2016 draft: 9 starters in the 3rd round 2017 draft: 10 starters in the 3rd round 2018 draft: 8 starters in the 3rd round 2019 draft: 8 starters in the 3rd round (Quincy Williams!) 2020 draft: 9 starters in the 3rd round 50 starters, 223 players drafted, which means recent history shows 22% of 3rd rounders turn out to be "longterm" starters. If you take two guys in the third that means you have a 44% chance of someone becoming a starter. Recent history shows that the math at the very least is equal when trying to find a started in the 1st round or by trying twice in the 3rd round. Hopefully using a 6-draft sample size from the most recent 6 drafts in history passes your test. Hopefully you can change your opinion in light of the new evidence you know.
There’s still an assumption that the 3rd rounders used would have been better then GVR and we simply don’t know that despite how bad GVR was. Getting the consensus top G in the draft was a good move. Mind you, Clark and Feeney were suppose to be in the guard mix this season as well…Clark got hurt and Feeney was bad early on that he didn’t supplant GVR when he had the chance. GVR also ended last year good enough that he was kept on board for this year. They finally grabbed LDT when it was clear GVR wasn’t the answer and none of the internal guys couldn’t hack it and it has worked wonders. this team lacks talent period, high end talent, depth, good talent. AVT been had the potential to be a special player from all accounts and many teams had him as one of the blue chip prospects in the draft. Jets are lucky that it may pay off that they grabbed him and have a franchise G for years to come.
His opinion is you get decent players in the 3rd round. Some of them starters, some of the good backups adding depth (not on your list), and some will bust. You opinion is the third round sucks and we'd for sure bust if kept our 3rds. The irony is, this year a 3rd round rookie QB is outplaying our #2 pick. Third round picks are valuable. Is this the hill you want to make your stand on? Let it go bro.
Reading still isn't your strong suit huh? He said 3rd rounders have a 30% chance to be a LONGTERM STARTER and your'e more than likely to find one if you draft two people in the third. That's false if you're using the last 6 years worth of data. Im sorry that you don't like the data when it doesn't agree with you. Also not what I said in the slightest. Please read.
Again, you're still using a smaller sample size than I am. There is zero statistical reason to think your conclusion is more valid than mine. All you're doing is digging your heels in on your initial claim despite me presenting a ton of evidence that you're wrong. I even broke down my numbers specifically for OL which is literally what we're discussing here. The bust % for OL in the third round is a hell of a lot lower than most other positions. I honestly can't fathom how you think you're making good points.
Let's play some more! 2014 draft: 6 starters in the third round 2013 draft: 6 starters in the third tound 2012 draft: 3 starters in the third round. And here's why your websites don't mean much when it comes to this conversation @REVISion... you said LONGTERM starters. All I'm doing is quoting you, so don't say I'm moving the goalposts. All of these numbers are from the past ten drafts and they account for who is STILL starting since you said longterm. You can probably add a few here and there because some guys drafted in 2012/2013 gave their teams a solid 6-7 years of starting so I won't even do the percentages, but they are obvious. Of course you cant, because the literal facts directly contradict your opinion. I'd dismiss them too.
Great points. Basically, the most sound argument against AVT trade I heard was best articulated by @REVISion, which basically boils down to statistically historically there isn't a big difference between #14 and #23. Let's say in average 51% hit on 16 and 47% hit on 23. There is also 30% hit on 3d rounder and say 20% on 4th. So, what we did was only slightly increased a hit rate on #1 pick by 5%, but then gave up 3d rounder with 30% hit rate and then reduced another 3d rounder of 30% hit rate to only 20% by giving it for the 4th rounder. So the argument is that overall it's a loss. However, the math changes drastically if JD felt AVT had say 95% hit rate and the next guy he was going to draft only say 40%. So he makes a trade based on HIS evaluation of these odds in this specific draft. Now, he could be wrong - yes, but we can only see that in retrospect. And in retrospect, given how it all worked out (we came away with a definite hit in AVT, plus two more productive players our of that trade) JD's evaluation beat the average odds, and he definitely won. We may say it is luck, or his evaluation was spot on, but at the end of the day it does not matter. The end result was good, which is the bottom line.
It's really not much of an assumption. We know for a fact GVR was one of the worst guards in the league. It's a logical conclusion to think that most long term starters would be better than him, and as indicated by the evidence I presented before - there's a pretty good shot we'd have gotten a long term starter with at least one of our third round picks. So your 6 years of data is gospel but my decades of the same data is false? Listen to yourself man, you're making zero sense. This is the epitome of sticking to initial bias despite mountains of evidence contradicting it.
What's extra hilarious is that the articles you posted not only didn't specify "success rate" or how long someone starts to consider it a success (remember YOU qualified it with "longterm"), but one is from 2012 and the other is from 2015. So really all I'm doing is filling the argument in with data you neglected to provide. I'm sorry that it was damaging to your case.
I would just add the following to my point - Almost no GM's consistently draft better than others. Pretty much every GM thinks he's a better drafter than others and almost all of them are wrong. The only surefire way to outperform in the draft is by having more picks. If we combine that with the first paragraph that is why I think trading up for AVT was dumb. If JD proves to be an elite drafter years down the road then that changes things but we have pretty much no reason to think he's an elite drafter yet.
So I have what you consider questionable data backing up my point (which I disagree with) and you have basically zero data to support your points, is that right?
Dude, what? You've even quoted the posts that have the data in them. I really can't help you if you're going to move forward thinking the literal data from the last 10 drafts is "zero data". That means all you are doing is projecting when you rant about digging in heels and moving goalposts. Thank you for saying this, now I know there's absolutely no need to continue with you. Four posts now and you STILL can't acknowledge that your data does not prove your claim of "longterm" at all. Until you can do that, your data has a big old asterisk next to it when it comes to this conversation.
This post was clearly a lie. And I knew it was when I asked you if you actually went through them and you didn't answer. I did it for you, then presented the findings, then you called it zero data. How am I supposed to take you seriously?
To me it all comes back to the original point. Early in a rebuild its not a great idea to use 3 high picks on a guard. Are we the Packers? We cant afford to spend like that if we are trying to build a contender. We got holes everywhere. The notion that, "well out of these three picks we for sure got one solid player, so its a great move", is silly. Like we were automatically going to bust on picks 23, 66, and 86? Then we end up scrambling to fill positions all season.
You are still ignoring the biggest factor. Your assumptions are not taking into account the actual players available.
Your data is irrelevant because it's just a smaller sample size of the same data I'm using to support my points. Come on man. You're the guy finding one skinny hippo in the wild and taking that to mean most hippos are skinny. You're cherry picking smaller sample sizes to try to prove your point when the larger sample sizes disagree with your point. It makes ZERO sense.
I completely get your point, but you must consider the actual outcome too. AVT, Echols, Pinnock out of 23d and these two 3d rounders. You may say it's luck, but regardless that's pretty darn good outcome. Win.
