In this article by Cleveland.com, they have an interesting statistical set that tries to correlate winning percentage and the amount of all-pros a team has drafted since 2002. Now, that in itself is not good enough to make a causal claim. Interestingly enough, the data gives me a correlation coefficient of approximately .75 indicating a fair positive correlation. In statistical modeling, 0 is no correlation, +1/-1 are the strongest possible correlations (meaning the line of best fit accounts for all of the data points). You want to be closer to 1 or -1 and .75 isn't far from 1. It's not enough to go "Ah ha!" but it's enough to make you say "hmmm". My hypothesis is that if one were to weigh certain positions more heavily, it could be stronger. By that I mean if you make an all-pro QB worth more than an all pro FB, you could potentially find a coefficient of .85+. I think this would explain the Niners having so many all-pros and having a worse record than even us. Certain things would need to be controlled for such as coaching and luck. Coaching and staff turnover should be studied as well. But, I think what this data comes to is that the teams that can evaluate and develop talent the best, usually win. Go figure.
www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/04/new_england_patriots_best_clev.html
-
Guest
HardKoreXXX, Sippi and smahtaz like this. -
Well, last year, Jeff Ireland seemed to have hit on half of his picks. While Thomas and Gates somewhat dissappointed so far (though they both showed flashes) and Frank Kearse ended up signed off of our Practice Squad, Pouncey looks like he's going to be around for a long while, Clay showed why I wanted an H-Back on this team for a while, and Jimmy Wilson looks like he could be quite a nickelback.
Now hopefully he'll land Tannehill. -
Obviously, drafting better players helps you win, but winning also makes players seem better and more likely to receive pro bowl recognition.
Desides and Stringer Bell like this. -
Well that, and "let's go back to 2002" which tells me statistical monkery was afoot.
Reality is, Wanny and Saban drafted so poorly, as did Mueller, that we will have a bowling ball in the statistical snake for a long time, those poor drafts will be a statistical pivot point for years to come.
More telling to me is who starts for the team, and when they were acquired and what was used to acquire them in relationship to successful teams. -
Guest
2002 was chosen for a 10 year threshold I assume. If I could find the teams before 2002, I'd go through it. But, your point isn't really made. What they're comparing are the drafts over the past 10 years, and the success over the past 10 years. I do want to go back to the previous years, but that would muddy up the weighting formula. In 1975, a QB wouldn't be weighted the same as a 2011 QB where 3 of them exceeded 5,000 yards and one was 78 yards from 5,000. -
Guest
Pro-Bowl voting is only 1/3 fans though. 1/3 players and 1/3 coaches.
This is all-pro voting by AP I believe.Da 'Fins likes this. -
That is not what I quibble with, it is more the sense that as long as the Wanny-Saban-Mueller drafts are included, we always will be statistically damaged as their draft performance was so poor.
Not that such a study from the last four yrs would be worth mentioning, as only Jake Long made the pro bowl from our draft classes, Wake, Starks, Marshall were all acquired outside of the draft, YBell came before that period of time.
The real brutal aspect has been our second and third rd picks, even recently, have amounted to shinola, Merling, Smith, White, Misi, Jerry, et al, none have been particularly productive or even consistently good at what they do. -
On the hopeful side...last year showed Ireland picking players that I don't think he would have while Parcells was around. Despite what he says about not straying from his 'mold'....I think he did last year.
When it comes to Ireland though...his career is going to come down to either this year or next in picking a QB. He's got one shot to pull that off or he's out. -
What I hope is that they keep the pick a surprise until it is called. I hate how the teams call the player right before the commish goes up and announces the pick. The surprise is a key part of it, and I want that surprise, and the suspense as Goodell announces the pick slowly.
-
This.
Sorry, folks, but the Patriots as an organization have drafted poorly for years. -
Well thats good. I shall watch on espn this year instead of NFL Network. Thanks for the info
-
I just wanna see the dolphins pick with suspense, and not with them calling whoever they get before and ruining it
-
Absolutely not, the thing most fans who think that NEVER acknowledge is, in the last 5 yrs, there simply has been no Qb worth picking with the exception being Matt Ryan and that really was Parcells choice as he said at the time.
A great example of how "just draft a Qb!" never acknowledge is the 07 draft and Brady Quinn, fans were saying the same crap I'm seeing this year in 2007 about Brady Quinn, nevermind the lesson there about the perception you need a Qb not making a marginal QB prospect better then he actually is.
What is going to make or break Ireland in Miami is whether or not those 2nd and 3rd rd picks he has taken do anything this year, the Smith's and Thomas's and Jerry's.Killer Bees likes this. -
Yeah man I hate how they show the player on the phone before the pick, ruins everything. But yeah I remember last year Rich Eisen was saying how they need to get rid of that, so hopefully they make a change. Agree with DJ though, NFL network is so much better.
-
Da 'Fins Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member
Good to hear. I despise that as well. What makes them think fans want the suspense ruined? We're going to hear it in 5 seconds, why not wait! It's as if they think they are special with a "scoop" or something because they have a camera on a player? Please. Same is true with the "inside info idiots" - Nothing I hate worse than a guy saying right before the Commissioner, "I'm hearing it's xxxx." Leave the inside info gurus off the guessing game part. And, just have some of your NFL analysts saying, "I think they should draft player X" or "I think they will go for player Y." And leave it there. -
Da 'Fins Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member
While you are absolutely right about the flawed philosophy of "just draft a QB"; and about some of the mediocre nature of the other selections, his career is, in fact, going to come down to what he does with the QB position - b/c that's going to determine how good the team becomes the next 2-3 seasons. I just don't think Moore or Garrard are going to lead this team to the SB and I don't think anyone sees them as doing this. So .... it will come down to drafting a quality QB as a major factor. Not the only one, of course, as terrible drafting elsewhere will hinder the team as well. -
And if we had taken Brady Quinn instead of Ginn the net result would have been what? That we lsoe that one game to the Jets instead of winning it.
Obviously hindsight being 20/20 we should have taken Pat Willis, but given the choice between Quinn and Ginn I would still go back and take Quinn and see if he could be developed.