Michigan State star Tony Lippett shines in Miami Dolphins' practice with three Ints

Trae Waynes was the one player I did not want in the first. If Lippet turns out to be better at 6'3", then the Denzel Perryman debate is over before it starts (and I don't care if Phillips busts or not).

I'm sorry but this draft could put Hickey in rarified air...

In the chat room in Club during the draft I changed my draft grade from a "C" to a "B+" when we drafted Tony Lippett. MAN, I was so excited! All he does is make plays, EVERYWHERE...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"CashInFist wrote:

In the chat room in Club during the draft I changed my draft grade from a "C" to a "B+" when we drafted Tony Lippett. MAN, I was so excited! All he does is make plays, EVERYWHERE...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

C? It wasn't a great draft but it wasn't that bad.

"Pandarilla wrote:

Trae Waynes was the one player I did not want in the first. If Lippet turns out to be better at 6'3", then the Denzel Perryman debate is over before it starts (and I don't care if Phillips busts or not).

I'm sorry but this draft could put Hickey in rarified air...

I don't understand the connection between Lippett and Perryman

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I don't understand the connection between Lippett and Perryman

We could've stayed at #47 and taken Perryman. By trading back, we got Phillips and Lippett.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

C? It wasn't a great draft but it wasn't that bad.

A "C" was probably an unfair grade, but I wasn't thrilled with our first 2 picks at the time. Now hearing the news of DeVante Parker looking amazing in training camp I am warming up to that pick a lot.

There's nothing wrong with handing out a "C" grade. The fact that a "C" grade is being defended as "not being that bad" is evidence that grade inflation has taken such a strong hold that grades are meaningless. Not that they are particularly meaningful regardless of grade inflation. History will tell the draft's true grade. Otherwise the grade is purely a percentage indicator of how much the team's thinking lined up with your own.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I don't understand the connection between Lippett and Perryman

I *think* he's basing it on the extra 5th we picked up because we traded back a few spots in the second round. What I don't know is if it is the exact pick that we received for the trade.

"ckparrothead wrote:

There's nothing wrong with handing out a "C" grade. The fact that a "C" grade is being defended as "not being that bad" is evidence that grade inflation has taken such a strong hold that grades are meaningless. Not that they are particularly meaningful regardless of grade inflation. History will tell the draft's true grade. Otherwise the grade is purely a percentage indicator of how much the team's thinking lined up with your own.

Grading a draft before they even put on shoulder pads is kind of shot in the dark anyways.

"SICK wrote:

Grading a draft before they even put on shoulder pads is kind of shot in the dark anyways.

Again it's merely a somewhat mathematical indicator of how much the players aligned with your own evaluations. It can be useful if taken as such.

"SICK wrote:

Grading a draft before they even put on shoulder pads is kind of shot in the dark anyways.

It depends what you're grading. If you're looking at decision making under uncertainty you grade the second the pick was handed in. Nothing else matters but the information that was available at the time the decision was made. It's irrelevant how the player turned out because that information wasn't available when the decision was made. Even then, you still have to factor in risk. Are they looking for a robust ("safe") pick or something with more upside? What was their criteria for the decision?

According to the above you can make the "right pick" and have it be the wrong player and that's absolutely true. So if the player busts in 5 years or you chose not to select a guy that turned out to be a Pro-Bowler, you don't criticize the pick however, you criticize the strategy that led to that pick and therefore alter that strategy accordingly. The strategy is certainly dynamic in that manor and as I said, multi-dimensional consider it will vary based on how much risk a team wants to take on.

Now, if you're grading player evaluation, a team doesn't have to draft a player at all. The evaluator just needs access to what the team thought of a guy--the team's evaluation of a prospect. You can then compare that to how well the player is playing in 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, etc. The team might've been dead on when it came to predicting D-line success but they choose to draft LB and were wrong in their evals in that area.

Again...are we talking about player evaluation pre-draft or decision making under uncertainty? Your answer will dictate how you judge the team's actions.

"ckparrothead wrote:

Again it's merely a somewhat mathematical indicator of how much the players aligned with your own evaluations. It can be useful if taken as such.

Eh...."Useful" for what? The draft falls so many different ways, trades, different evaluations lead to different things happening. I don't get how grading a draft, that is imperfectly done for decades, and isn't known it's true value for AT LEAST 3 years, is useful for anything other than proving you can hit a mock draft here or there. Other than that, the "meat and potatoes" so to speak doesn't present itself till you have hard evidence of actual on field performance to back it up.

"byroan wrote:

We could've stayed at #47 and taken Perryman. By trading back, we got Phillips and Lippett.

Man,I sure hope that moving back only 5 picks and getting Phillips and Lippett keeps on paying dividends like they are starting out for many years to come. I mean, look at Lippett WR #'s.....He could be another good RZ Receiver. You put in DeVante,Lippett,Jordan,Sims and we have no one shorter than an 6'2.5" and they all can highpoint the ball and fight for it....I think our TD % will go up exponentially if we do it imho only.

"SICK wrote:

Eh...."Useful" for what? The draft falls so many different ways, trades, different evaluations lead to different things happening. I don't get how grading a draft, that is imperfectly done for decades, and isn't known it's true value for AT LEAST 3 years, is useful for anything other than proving you can hit a mock draft here or there. Other than that, the "meat and potatoes" so to speak doesn't present itself till you have hard evidence of actual on field performance to back it up.

Grading a draft has nothing to do with mock drafts. I'm not sure how that enters into it. Apples and screwdrivers.

It can be useful if you trust the opinions of the person doing the grading. If I'm not a guy that evaluates players (and therefore I don't trust my own uninformed opinion), but I do like and trust Mike Mayock as an evaluator, then I'd like to know how he grades my team's draft because it will tell me how much my team's draft lined up with Mayock's evaluations. And since I like and trust Mayock's evaluation skills, that can be useful.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

It depends what you're grading. If you're looking at decision making under uncertainty you grade the second the pick was handed in. Nothing else matters but the information that was available at the time the decision was made. It's irrelevant how the player turned out because that information wasn't available when the decision was made. Even then, you still have to factor in risk. Are they looking for a robust ("safe") pick or something with more upside? What was their criteria for the decision?

According to the above you can make the "right pick" and have it be the wrong player and that's absolutely true. So if the player busts in 5 years or you chose not to select a guy that turned out to be a Pro-Bowler, you don't criticize the pick however, you criticize the strategy that led to that pick and therefore alter that strategy accordingly. The strategy is certainly dynamic in that manor and as I said, multi-dimensional consider it will vary based on how much risk a team wants to take on.

Now, if you're grading player evaluation, a team doesn't have to draft a player at all. The evaluator just needs access to what the team thought of a guy--the team's evaluation of a prospect. You can then compare that to how well the player is playing in 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, etc. The team might've been dead on when it came to predicting D-line success but they choose to draft LB and were wrong in their evals in that area.

Again...are we talking about player evaluation pre-draft or decision making under uncertainty? Your answer will dictate how you judge the team's actions.

??

Any decision you make with imperfect knowledge should be re-evaluated later on after you have more information to see if you used the information available in a smart way. For example, if you chose to draft QB A over QB B because you thought stat X was more important than stat Y, and you later find out the opposite is true, then you have to re-evaluate. That is, the way you grade "decision making under uncertainty" depends on how close to optimal the information could have been used, and since you don't know that in general, outcomes always matter.

Yeah, if all your picks end up badly, it would seem to indicate that your evaluation of the available information when you draft, was faulty. It would indicate that you need to change how you evaluate.

"cbrad wrote:

??

Any decision you make with imperfect knowledge should be re-evaluated later on after you have more information to see if you used the information available in a smart way. For example, if you chose to draft QB A over QB B because you thought stat X was more important than stat Y, and you later find out the opposite is true, then you have to re-evaluate. That is, the way you grade "decision making under uncertainty" depends on how close to optimal the information could have been used, and since you don't know that in general, outcomes always matter.

Who the hell has "Perfect" knowledge? Even the Scouting Directors don't have that. It's ALL perception vs reality.

"CashInFist wrote:

Who the hell has "Perfect" knowledge? Even the Scouting Directors don't have that. It's ALL perception vs reality.

I'm not sure that's relevant to his point. DolphinGreg seemed like he was saying that how a player performs after you draft him is irrelevant because the future is not knowable at the time you draft the player. To that cbrad is replying that you absolutely should be evaluating how well the players did because decision-making under uncertainty can be done poorly or it can be done well and the only way you'll know if you're doing it poorly or well is by tracking results and examining factors that played a part in the future performance of the player that you could have known even under imperfect information.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I'm not sure that's relevant to his point. DolphinGreg seemed like he was saying that how a player performs after you draft him is irrelevant because the future is not knowable at the time you draft the player. To that cbrad is replying that you absolutely should be evaluating how well the players did because decision-making under uncertainty can be done poorly or it can be done well and the only way you'll know if you're doing it poorly or well is by tracking results and examining factors that played a part in the future performance of the player that you could have known even under imperfect information.

Yup.