That is irrelevant because as I said before, the vast majority of GM's are no better at selecting talent than others. Of course, they all think they are, but almost all of them are wrong. Do we have lots of evidence indicating JD is an elite drafter? I don't think so. He's had one good draft and one bad one which is about average. Granted, that's a small sample size, but it's all the evidence we have so far. This is the guy who took Becton over Wirfs just a year ago, but I'm expected to believe he's some savant at taking OL because he got a single one right a year later?
Your fascination with zoo animals is odd, especially since the analogy doesn't apply here. For a fifth time... where do those articles (from 2012 and 2015) tell you that the chance to find a LONGTERM STARTER (which you said) is 30%? Why can't you just show me? Until you can, then the data you post is somewhat irrelevant to YOUR own point. Meanwhile I just gave you the very specific data with the qualifications YOU set forth from the last 10 years and somehow I'm cherry picking short hippos and skinny giraffes or something.
Yeah but the actual outcome from a year earlier was Becton over Wirfs which is looking like a horrible choice. So again, we have no compelling evidence to think JD can consistently draft OL better than any other GM. With that in mind it'd have been smarter to go strictly by the numbers.
It is not irrelevant, the potential players available in any one draft is the most relevant stat of them all no matter your evaluation. The bigger the pool of potential good players the better your odds.
Why are you focusing on the distinction between long term starter and starter? Whether the guy starts at all is more relevant to this discussion. The data I cited considered someone a starter if they start for over half their career. Is that not good enough when discussing someone who would've replaced GVR?
Actually, the probability of one or both of them becoming a starter is 39%, not even 44%. Given we probably end up with Jenkins if we don't pick AVT, this is not great.
Why am I focusing on it? Because you said it. I mean to me part of reading comprehension is reading the words and applying them to the response you formulate. You know who started half their career? Jordan Jenkins. That's why the data you're showing me from a decade ago probably isn't the best resource when discussing longterm starters.
It’s a bit early to rag on Jenkins for what it’s worth. Terrible start to his career with the injuries though.
I just went back and read your 2012 article that ignores the last 9 drafts and their data paints a way different picture than the one you want it to. Their definition of "bust" is someone that starts for less than one year or plays less than 40 games in their career. That means according to that data, you have a 30% chance of finding someone in the third round that can start more than one year or play more than 40 games. So you know, the Wayne Hunter's, Vlad Ducasse's and Chuma Edoga's of the world. That is such a far cry from finding a good player that contributes to the team, and an even farther cry from finding a "longterm starter" which you said. Come on man. And you have the nerve to shit on ME?
Whether we have evidence JD can draft better or not has no baring on successful actual outcome of this specific trade in retrospect. Your point may have been valid at the time trade was made, but conversation today is in retrospect, and therefore is about actual outcome. Which is that JD did great here.
This is what kills me. When you're talking in absolutes and definites, the probability and this that and the other thing doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what COULD have happened. What DID happen is a positive outcome. "It worked out but it wasn't a good decision" is something I've seen too many times. WHAT?! That's just choosing to be contrarian and/or miserable.
I don’t think Revision is that far off in what he’s saying, but I think he’s being nitpicky since we did appear to end up with a good player. But the Patriots retooled their dynasty by drafting players like Logan Ryan, James White, Trey Flowers, Joe Thuney, Damien Harris, Winovich, etc. in the mid rounds. They’ve always traded down and went with the volume of mid round picks in round 2-4 strategy. Ravens and Steelers as well. Saints too but they just straight up hit on tons of picks rather than going with the volume approach.
I can absolutely acknowledge this. I never said this isn’t a legitimate strategy in terms of building a team. My issue is when someone pretends it’s the one and only way to build a team, and anyone arguing against the AVT trade is doing so with somewhat of an arrogance because they think they are the only ones that understand more picks = the only pathway success.
I've addressed this many times. What happened with AVT is we might've gotten an outcome that is more positive than the outcome that should usually be expected for doing what we did. That's called luck. If your moves as a GM are reliant on luck then you're eventually going to have a bad time because no one runs lucky for years on end. Having a move work out better for us when it usually wouldn't doesn't make that move a smart move. It's also way too early to draw that conclusion considering AVT is currently just an above average guard. No more, no less. That's what you expect to get when taking a guard in the first round. It's not some massive win of a pick. Also - saying I'm dealing in absolutes couldn't be further from the truth. I'm using probability for everything I'm saying. What you're doing is looking back with the benefit of hindsight and saying that's proof that the initial decision was smart. I will once again use the 4th and 2 play as an analogy. Going for it was the right move. It didn't work out, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the right move, because more often than not going for it WILL work out better than not going for it.
The problem is you still believe this. And I can assume it’s based off the data from 2012 that you think says you have a 30% chance of finding a starter in round 3.
if there is anything to be learned is that there is no 1 right answer. look at the top teams now. rams - trades bills - draft and trades pats - draft and FAs packers - draft and FAs bengals - draft titans - draft and FAs cheifs - draft cards - draft and trades bucs - free agents Now obviously draft is the most common one and nothing can replace drafting a bunch of studs in a single draft but it's rare that happens. there are 3 main keys to building a team (draft, trade, FAs) so the best GMs use whatever available to make it work. At the end of the day JDs explanation made sense so not sure how one could argue. he felt AVT was a top 10 talent and a steal there and was the last blue chip player on his board so he made a move. it was also a huge position of need for us. he was gonna take moore at 23 anyway and got him at 34. he was gonna take carter in the 3rd but got him in the 4th anyway. things just kinda worked out into an epic draft. Sure luck played a part but that could be said for any great draft
In the end you have to pick the right player. All the probability in the world is not going to help with that. You call it luck others might call it faith in your scouts and your eval process. You have one draft per year a lot of GM get less than 4 draft. For probability to work in your favor you need more than three drafts. With that said you have to rely on other things.
The answer is you need good players. How you get them is irrelevant. With the NFL you have to take into account salary cap and injuries, but the team with best players usually win.
I think @REVISion made a great point on why this trade had lower probability to succeed at the time it was made. Basically JD had a few questionable choices before (Mims trade/pick, Becton over Wirfs) and he did not feel he proved himself to beat the odds. I see the point here. At the time I still liked this because we really needed to pick a guard high and AVT was considered far and away the best one. Alternatives (Dickerson/Jenkins) were considered level worse and also injury prone (especially Dickerson), while AVT felt like a bird at hand to protect Zach at G. In retrospect though, I think there is no debate the trade was great since not only AVT became a solid durable starter with all pro potential, but JD managed to hit on two lesser picks he got back too getting productive players. Yeah, I actually liked the guy, but back surgery now coupled with back problems in College - I would not want to depend on him to protect Zach. Even Dickerson, though had a healthy year finally, but I would still be worried about him. AVT, knock on wood, is someone I am very happy with.
We can check the historically odds on the 23d pick, how they did as rookies, but having what looks like above average durable starter as a rookie with upwards potential feels like higher than average outcome from that spot. He already had a couple of games where he was rated as the highest G in NFL for the week as a rookie, and improved throughout the year. Maybe it was luck, but JD does not usually trade up, so I want to give him benefit of the doubt.
