NEW: Rams at 49ers - 1st & 10 From the St. Lous Win

[DaveFan'51]

Rams at 49ers: Sounding Off on the St. Louis Win

First and Ten

1st:

The NFL should be ashamad and appalled by the performance of referee Jerome Boger's officiating crew in the Rams 13-10 win over the 49ers. Throughout the game, it was a stuck-on-repeat disaster comprised of one questionable call after another.

Whatever the league is doing to help its officials operate optimally isn't working. Perhaps the evaluation process itself needs a review. It seems apparent that the performance of those who are paid to accurately assess and manage games is deteriorating.

At San Francisco, St. Louis had 14 points directly wiped off the board by two bogus calls.

First, 49ers running back Frank Gore was said to have his forward progress stopped when he was clearly still moving downfield when he fumbled a football that the Rams were running back for a touchdown. With the forward progress ruling being non-reviewable, the inexcuseable call cost St. Louis seven points.

Second, Rams punt returner Tavon Austin was ruled out of bounds on a runback that was destined to end in a score. Rather than letting the play finish, the play was stopped by a warrantless whistle. Had the officials not stopped the return, the play could have culminated and eventually been reviewed in an effort to get it right.

On Sunday, both teams suffered from a myriad of clumbsy calls by those who are supposed to ensure that contests are governed fairly with rules enforced with consistent accuracy. Is there anyone out there who would dare suggest with a straight face that this is currently occurring in the manner that it should be?

I'm not even sure that Roger Goodell could pull off that sales job.

And 10:

1. After a season-long hiatus, #SackCity returned with a vengence for St. Louis.

After entering the matchup with the 49ers last in the league in sacks at the season's midpoint, the Rams reeled off eight of them in week nine alone.

The aforementioned eight sacks were the most by a Rams road team since a 2000 duel against the Carolina Panthers. The team's six first half sacks were the most in a half in franchise history.

Pro Bowl defensive end Robert Quinn -- who was held sackless in his first five games of the season's slate -- has posted five in the last three weeks, including two on Sunday.

For really the first time in 2014, the Gregg Williams led D looked like a Gregg Williams led D: it was aggressive, nasty, disruptive and productive. St. Louis can only hope this game was a harbinger of things to come.

2. Speaking of Williams' defense, one cannot say enough good things about how they performed in all phases against San Francisco.

Obviously, the pass pressure lived up to the lofty preseason expectations, but the work against the 49ers ground and air attack was pretty darn special, too.

(Hope you all will take a moment to enjoy the nine remaining points (including the future of Davis, the debut of Robinson at LT, the real Williams D, Tre Mason and much more including a question for you at the end of the column. Thanks, ROD):

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15255/Rams-at-49ers-Sounding-Off-on-the-St-Louis-Loss.aspx

As usual a real great report, Thanks Shane!...Love these comments

The aforementioned eight sacks were the most by a Rams road team since a 2000 duel against the Carolina Panthers. The team's six first half sacks were the most in a half in franchise history.

I didn't realize just how Huge the half-time stat was!

For really the first time in 2014, the Gregg Williams led D looked like a Gregg Williams led D: it was aggressive, nasty, disruptive and productive. St. Louis can only hope this game was a harbinger of things to come.

Obviously, the pass pressure lived up to the lofty preseason expectations, but the work against the 49ers ground and air attack was pretty darn special, too

This was just an amazing turn around from last week. No on e saw this effort coming!!

 

[fearsomefour]

As always, thanks Shane....
Point number 8 is a salient one.
The Rams really outplayed SF most of the game. If you take into account the first half of the game in St. Louis the Rams appear to be catching SF. The first half fumble and two missed opportunities for TDs (Britt on the scramble and Kenricks late....I will give up the punt return and not count the safety) and the Rams win in a romp. I wonder how different perceptions of SF current state would be if they just lost to the Rams 27-10 at home?
I see no real downside with Davis. He really struggled on Sunday, but, at worst the Rams have more than likely found a good, young back up QB, something they did not have before.

 

[Rambitious1]

Rams at 49ers: Sounding Off on the St. Louis Win

First and Ten

1st:

The NFL should be ashamad and appalled by the performance of referee Jerome Boger's officiating crew in the Rams 13-10 win over the 49ers. Throughout the game, it was a stuck-on-repeat disaster comprised of one questionable call after another.

Whatever the league is doing to help its officials operate optimally isn't working. Perhaps the evaluation process itself needs a review. It seems apparent that the performance of those who are paid to accurately assess and manage games is deteriorating.

At San Francisco, St. Louis had 14 points directly wiped off the board by two bogus calls.

First, 49ers running back Frank Gore was said to have his forward progress stopped when he was clearly still moving downfield when he fumbled a football that the Rams were running back for a touchdown. With the forward progress ruling being non-reviewable, the inexcuseable call cost St. Louis seven points.

Second, Rams punt returner Tavon Austin was ruled out of bounds on a runback that was destined to end in a score. Rather than letting the play finish, the play was stopped by a warrantless whistle. Had the officials not stopped the return, the play could have culminated and eventually been reviewed in an effort to get it right.

On Sunday, both teams suffered from a myriad of clumbsy calls by those who are supposed to ensure that contests are governed fairly with rules enforced with consistent accuracy. Is there anyone out there who would dare suggest with a straight face that this is currently occurring in the manner that it should be?

I'm not even sure that Roger Goodell could pull off that sales job.

And 10:

1. After a season-long hiatus, #SackCity returned with a vengence for St. Louis.

After entering the matchup with the 49ers last in the league in sacks at the season's midpoint, the Rams reeled off eight of them in week nine alone.

The aforementioned eight sacks were the most by a Rams road team since a 2000 duel against the Carolina Panthers. The team's six first half sacks were the most in a half in franchise history.

Pro Bowl defensive end Robert Quinn -- who was held sackless in his first five games of the season's slate -- has posted five in the last three weeks, including two on Sunday.

For really the first time in 2014, the Gregg Williams led D looked like a Gregg Williams led D: it was aggressive, nasty, disruptive and productive. St. Louis can only hope this game was a harbinger of things to come.

2. Speaking of Williams' defense, one cannot say enough good things about how they performed in all phases against San Francisco.

Obviously, the pass pressure lived up to the lofty preseason expectations, but the work against the 49ers ground and air attack was pretty darn special, too.

(Hope you all will take a moment to enjoy the nine remaining points (including the future of Davis, the debut of Robinson at LT, the real Williams D, Tre Mason and much more including a question for you at the end of the column. Thanks, ROD):

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15255/Rams-at-49ers-Sounding-Off-on-the-St-Louis-Loss.aspx

Hi Shane,

Nice work again my friend.

One question for you... Do you think, based upon your observations, that the Defense is starting to learn Williams' scheme and turn the corner to become a consistently good Defense? Or, do you think this was just the latest up in the up and down performance of our D?

Thank you

 

[Thordaddy]

Thanks Shane. Love that 1st and 10 format.

Remember when I asked you what you thought of the trade up for Tavon? Are you edging over to the dark side now?

"When factoring in his lack of production at wide receiver -- just 13 receptions this fall -- Austin is looking more like a mid round pick than a top ten selection."

Ya know Al ,I don't have a bit of trouble with the trade UP ,but it seems he isn't turning out to be the guy he was expected to be ,at the time it was considered to be a coup, and by a whole lot of knowledgeable people.
I agree Austin needs to be more committal and is still relying upon his college credentials. Somehow I think the end zone run out bone head play he pulled Sunday aught to get him some film room embarrassment,maybe he'll "get it" but as of now he is looking like the old adage potential is the coach killer

 

[Prime Time]

http://www.mhmrcv.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=8877
How Common Is OCD?
"About 2.3 percent of the U.S. population ages 18 to 54—approximately 3.3 million Americans—has OCD in a given year."

I think that the percentage of people here at the ROD who "suffer" from that particular malady is close to 60% or so. I think I add about 5% of that total just by myself.

In the old days they called OCD just being focused.

 

[Alan]

Prime Time with something to make us look more normal:
In the old days they called OCD just being focused.

Hmmmm, if they bought that in the old days I think I'll try using that now. Especially when my daughter rags on me about it.

I'm just very focused that's all. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I like it.

 

[Alan]

Thordaddy listening to the wrong sources:
Ya know Al, I don't have a bit of trouble with the trade UP ,but it seems he isn't turning out to be the guy he was expected to be ,at the time it was considered to be a coup, and by a whole lot of knowledgeable people.

In these types of situations I don't listen to any "expert" who doesn't understand basic math. Or at least math they way I understand it. X is not > or even = to X + X. Trading two starters (X) for one starter is not good math. There was probably a good OG/C/OT available with that 2nd round pick we used to trade up.

Much of the way I live my life is based on math + compassion.

 

[Zaphod]

In these types of situations I don't listen to any "expert" who doesn't understand basic math. Or at least math they way I understand it. X is not > or even = to X + X. Trading two starters (X) for one starter is not good math. There was probably a good OG/C/OT available with that 2nd round pick we used to trade up.

Much of the way I live my life is based on math + compassion.

I guess the thinking is more like X^3 > X+X^2+X^2

Ok, that was obviously just a joke in an attempt to illustrate how sometimes teams sometimes overvalue draft positions in the first round, or even one pick's worth to them.

 

[Alan]

Zaphod seeing how hard it is to write an interesting equation with just a keyboard:
I guess the thinking is more like X^3 > X+X^2+X^2

Ok, that was obviously just a joke in an attempt to illustrate how sometimes teams sometimes overvalue draft positions in the first round, or even one pick's worth to them.

My equation holds true even if Tavon turns out to be a very good player. I look at the Julio Jones trade and what do I see? I see a player who was drafted as the last piece of the puzzle. The guy they needed to get them over the top. The Falcons were 13-3 when they drafted him and while he's a great player here's what happens when you use too many resources for one guy :
2011 10-6
2012 13-3
2013 4-12
2014 2-6 so far

The Falcons gave up their 1st, 2nd and 4th picks that year and then their 1st and 4th round picks in 2012. Was their precipitous fall due to the fact the they had no young players to replace the aging corps of their team? I think it had a lot to do with it. Granted, we didn't give up as much to get Tavon but the principle/equation remains the same. They got a great player though didn't they?

Of course the Washington/Ram trade was an exception in my mind because I thought that was a great trade and I recommend they do it again with us in the future.

 

[Rams and Gators]

My equation holds true even if Tavon turns out to be a very good player. I look at the Julio Jones trade and what do I see? I see a player who was drafted as the last piece of the puzzle. The guy they needed to get them over the top. The Falcons were 13-3 when they drafted him and while he's a great player here's what happens when you use too many resources for one guy :
2011 10-6
2012 13-3
2013 4-12
2014 2-6 so far

The Falcons gave up their 1st, 2nd and 4th picks that year and then their 1st and 4th round picks in 2012. Was their precipitous fall due to the fact the they had no young players to replace the aging corps of their team? I think it had a lot to do with it. Granted, we didn't give up as much to get Tavon but the principle/equation remains the same. They got a great player though didn't they?

Of course the Washington/Ram trade was an exception in my mind because I thought that was a great trade and I recommend they do it again with us in the future.

It depends on the player, if you said to me that I could either have Aaron Donald or the 23rd and 51st picks (the value of the 13th pick we took Donald with) in this coming draft I'm taking Donald every time. It's just that Austin is so far not an elite even a good player and so wasn't worth the trade.

 

[Alan]

Rams and Gators with his strategy:
It depends on the player, if you said to me that I could either have Aaron Donald or the 23rd and 51st picks (the value of the 13th pick we took Donald with) in this coming draft I'm taking Donald every time. It's just that Austin is so far not an elite even a good player and so wasn't worth the trade.

But that's cheating R&G. I'm talking about making decisions before you know how good the players involved will be. Hindsight is always 20/20. I'd trade our top three picks in 2000 (Trung Canidate, Jacoby Shepard and John St. Clair) to draft Kurt Warner but I'm not sure that's a good strategy either.

Austin's performance is not the issue here. I would expect the player we would have drafted sans the trade up to be a very good player too. Then add in another very good player with that second round pick and Tavon can't merely be good to balance the scales, he needs to be HOF good IMO.

 

[Rams and Gators]

But that's cheating R&G. I'm talking about making decisions before you know how good the players involved will be. Hindsight is always 20/20. I'd trade our top three picks in 2000 (Trung Canidate, Jacoby Shepard and John St. Clair) to draft Kurt Warner but I'm not sure that's a good strategy either.

Austin's performance is not the issue here. I would expect the player we would have drafted sans the trade up to be a very good player too. Then add in another very good player with that second round pick and Tavon can't merely be good to balance the scales, he needs to be HOF good IMO.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, as an example every year I do a mock draft (similar to the one you guys did on here this year) in that the Cowboys traded up to 11th with their #16, #78, #206 picks, pretty much spot on value wise. His explanation at the time was that if he had the number 1 pick he would have still have taken Donald, and had he stayed put he was sure he'd miss out, something that was later confirmed.

You're saying that he shouldn't have made that move at the time because you always take quantity, but now half way through Donald's rookie season, now that he looks every bit as good as the Cowboys picker thought he'd be he should have done?

 

[Alan]

Rams and Gators talking about mocks:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, as an example every year I do a mock draft (similar to the one you guys did on here this year) in that the Cowboys traded up to 11th with their #16, #78, #206 picks, pretty much spot on value wise. His explanation at the time was that if he had the number 1 pick he would have still have taken Donald, and had he stayed put he was sure he'd miss out, something that was later confirmed.

You're saying that he shouldn't have made that move at the time because you always take quantity, but now half way through Donald's rookie season, now that he looks every bit as good as the Cowboys picker thought he'd be he should have done?

So in the 2o10 draft the Eagles drafted Brandon Graham who was the first DE taken off the board at #13 which is the same spot as Donald who was the first DT taken off the board.
The Colts also drafted a DE named Jerry Hughes at #31. Should they have traded the rest of their draft, plus picks from the next year to trade up for him? If not, why not? Why not go up and get the best DE in the draft?

Should this Cowboy mocker have traded up to get Aaron Curry in 2009? Why not? Because you know he' a bust now?

You keep naming names and as soon as you do that you're no longer talking about a draft strategy, you've started talking about guys you like in a particular draft. Falling in love with players is the ruin of most drafts and isn't even a strategy per se.

That is not at all what I'm saying and in fact I am saying the opposite except for the quantity part. You are the only one mentioning a particular player (Donald). I would not have made that trade up because that would be contrary to my drafting strategy. Looking back in hindsight I might have made that trade but even then, I don't see Donald in a 3-4 and I would rather have Zack Martin (who they did pick). Also, I can't answer this question even in hindsight because I am not familiar with who they picked with those picks he would have traded away and what the Cowboys positions of need were.

You either have a drafting strategy or you fly by the seat of your pants every draft. Who is widely considered to be one of the best GMs when it comes to drafting? Ozzie Newsome is one of them and when was the last time he traded up? Like never (talking high rounds here)?

Also, my draft strategy is more nuanced than you're making it out to be. Keep in mind that I only consider, in most draft classes, picks in the first three rounds to have any real value so tradings picks below round three is not only fine with me but if it gets you up into the top three rounds or enables you to move up for a player you like/need then I'm all for it.

 

[Rams and Gators]

So in the 2o10 draft the Eagles drafted Brandon Graham who was the first DE taken off the board at #13 which is the same spot as Donald who was the first DT taken off the board.
The Colts also drafted a DE named Jerry Hughes at #31. Should they have traded the rest of their draft, plus picks from the next year to trade up for him? If not, why not? Why not go up and get the best DE in the draft?

Should this Cowboy mocker have traded up to get Aaron Curry in 2009? Why not? Because you know he' a bust now?

You keep naming names and as soon as you do that you're no longer talking about a draft strategy, you've started talking about guys you like in a particular draft. Falling in love with players is the ruin of most drafts and isn't even a strategy per se.

That is not at all what I'm saying and in fact I am saying the opposite except for the quantity part. You are the only one mentioning a particular player (Donald). I would not have made that trade up because that would be contrary to my drafting strategy. Looking back in hindsight I might have made that trade but even then, I don't see Donald in a 3-4 and I would rather have Zack Martin (who they did pick). Also, I can't answer this question even in hindsight because I am not familiar with who they picked with those picks he would have traded away and what the Cowboys positions of need were.

You either have a drafting strategy or you fly by the seat of your pants every draft. Who is widely considered to be one of the best GMs when it comes to drafting? Ozzie Newsome is one of them and when was the last time he traded up? Like never (talking high rounds here)?

Also, my draft strategy is more nuanced than you're making it out to be. Keep in mind that I only consider, in most draft classes, picks in the first three rounds to have any real value so tradings picks below round three is not only fine with me but if it gets you up into the top three rounds or enables you to move up for a player you like/need then I'm all for it.

My personal draft strategy would be based on 2 things, number one is the probability of finding a pro bowl player or starter in a particular spot given that the player taken in that spot is 'average' for that spot, and 2 my belief in my own ability to evaluate talent.

Using the example I laid out the probability of drafting a pro bowl player at 11 is 47%, the probability of finding at least one pro bowl player at the other 3 combined spots is 42%, by staying put you're trading a 5% chance of finding a pro bowl player for the chance that you find 2 (5.5% chance) or the chance that you find 3 (0.2% chance) the expected result of the trade up is a loss of 0.01 pro bowl players, you shouldn't do it for the average player at those slots.

The second stage would be my belief in my ability to find talent (which if I don't have I should resign from my position as an NFL GM), if I truly believe that Aaron Donald is the best player in the draft then I should be using the probability that the number 1 overall pick becomes a pro bowl player, which is 58%, if I don't make the trade I'm sacrificing 0.1 pro bowl players on average.

If Snead and Fisher believed that Austin was a special player, they should have made the trade without a doubt, it just looks like they failed in their scouting ability rather than decision making ability.

 

[Zaphod]

I don't know ... To start, there is the salary cap, and quality draft picks spent on positions more likely to start immediately can have a positive impact on your salary cap. Of course you have to trust your ability to select the right players. In that regard alone, quantity can be better than quality.

It's important to note that pro bowlers aren't cheap, so retaining them means that you will have to be smart with your draft.

Next is the actual percentages. Assuming again that you have a scouting staff that you can actually trust, you have to consider that two picks with only a 25% outweigh the chance of one pick at 47%, especially when you add the human factor, potential for injuries and so on, two rolls of the dice is just better.

Finally, constantly sifting through quality players in constant competition gives you more leverage on multiple fronts. Eventually, the best will want to play for you which can help a lot when it comes to negotiation. In my mind, if your strategy for winning is mostly about talent, then it's going to boil down to money and using what you have as efficiently as possible.

I would argue that my strategy for drafting would mimic what they did this year. Signing inexpensive veterans to fill holes early so that you can simply select the best player available that fits your system.

 

[Alan]

Rams and Gators defining his strategy:
My personal draft strategy would be based on 2 things, number one is the probability of finding a pro bowl player or starter in a particular spot given that the player taken in that spot is 'average' for that spot, and 2 my belief in my own ability to evaluate talent.

Using the example I laid out the probability of drafting a pro bowl player at 11 is 47%, the probability of finding at least one pro bowl player at the other 3 combined spots is 42%, by staying put you're trading a 5% chance of finding a pro bowl player for the chance that you find 2 (5.5% chance) or the chance that you find 3 (0.2% chance) the expected result of the trade up is a loss of 0.01 pro bowl players, you shouldn't do it for the average player at those slots.

The second stage would be my belief in my ability to find talent (which if I don't have I should resign from my position as an NFL GM), if I truly believe that Aaron Donald is the best player in the draft then I should be using the probability that the number 1 overall pick becomes a pro bowl player, which is 58%, if I don't make the trade I'm sacrificing 0.1 pro bowl players on average.

If Snead and Fisher believed that Austin was a special player, they should have made the trade without a doubt, it just looks like they failed in their scouting ability rather than decision making ability.

That would work providing you have god like powers of evaluation. The success rate for finding and drafting pro bowl players is so small even within the small circle of GMs that have proven to be great at drafting that relying upon that would be foolhardy IMO. Even finding merely very good players in the first round has a low success rate. Using your criteria, 99% of the GMs in the NFL would have to resign.

That's not making light of the ability to correctly evaluate players. It's hugely important. Being able to pick good players when it's your turn to pick is vital for your team's success as evidenced by what the Rams drafts looked like prior to the Snisher era and how our team fared during the season. Betting the farm on your abilities to go all in on one player is a different story. I'll try and explain what I'm talking about by using a blackjack analogy which will, surprise surprise, involve math again.

So you're the bane of Vegas, an accomplished card counter playing blackjack. Because you're good at this you will make money (and be banned from the casino) in the long term. Having said that, even though your odds of winning have increased on each hand they are still far from good. So while it would be the a mistake to bet the farm on a hand before it's dealt, it wouldn't be a mistake to mortgage the farm and bring all that money to bet at the blackjack table. Your chances of coming out ahead, as long a you have enough starting capital, over the course of the evening are pretty good and that's why you will soon be banned from playing there. Betting the farm on one particular hand is the equivalent of trading up to get one player. Unless you're so damn good at evaluating talent that the odds of being correct are immaterial, you're going against the odds and making a fools bet. That's math baby and math is never wrong in the long run barring miracles and god like abilities.

So yeah, your drafting strategy can work but for us normal or in my case, less than stellar talent evaluators, going with the odds/math combined with whatever ability you have to judge talent has a greater chance of success IMO.

When you look at the history of trade ups involving high picks what does it show? I think that lack of success pretty much validates my point.

 

[LetsGoRams]

Love the pic. Suitable for framing.

Is that a tear I see on Kaepernick's cheek??

 

[LetsGoRams]

Shane, as usual - great job. I love the new format.

 

[Rams and Gators]

That would work providing you have god like powers of evaluation. The success rate for finding and drafting pro bowl players is so small even within the small circle of GMs that have proven to be great at drafting that relying upon that would be foolhardy IMO. Even finding merely very good players in the first round has a low success rate. Using your criteria, 99% of the GMs in the NFL would have to resign.

That's not making light of the ability to correctly evaluate players. It's hugely important. Being able to pick good players when it's your turn to pick is vital for your team's success as evidenced by what the Rams drafts looked like prior to the Snisher era and how our team fared during the season. Betting the farm on your abilities to go all in on one player is a different story. I'll try and explain what I'm talking about by using a blackjack analogy which will, surprise surprise, involve math again.

So you're the bane of Vegas, an accomplished card counter playing blackjack. Because you're good at this you will make money (and be banned from the casino) in the long term. Having said that, even though your odds of winning have increased on each hand they are still far from good. So while it would be the a mistake to bet the farm on a hand before it's dealt, it wouldn't be a mistake to mortgage the farm and bring all that money to bet at the blackjack table. Your chances of coming out ahead, as long a you have enough starting capital, over the course of the evening are pretty good and that's why you will soon be banned from playing there. Betting the farm on one particular hand is the equivalent of trading up to get one player. Unless you're so damn good at evaluating talent that the odds of being correct are immaterial, you're going against the odds and making a fools bet. That's math baby and math is never wrong in the long run barring miracles and god like abilities.

So yeah, your drafting strategy can work but for us normal or in my case, less than stellar talent evaluators, going with the odds/math combined with whatever ability you have to judge talent has a greater chance of success IMO.

When you look at the history of trade ups involving high picks what does it show? I think that lack of success pretty much validates my point.

Again, not sure I'm following your argument, but the problem is you aren't playing over the long term, you're playing maybe 2 or 3 hands vs 1.

Put it this way, you walk into a casino, there's 2 tables, table one you can play 1 hand, for $1,000,000 you have a 50% chance of winning at that hand and if you do you win an additional $1,000,000 there's 2 possible outcomes:
Win $1,000,000 50% of the time.
Win $0 50% of the time.

The second table, you play 3 hands, hand 1 you have a 40% chance of winning $1,000,000, hand 2 you have a 9% chance of winning $1,000,000 and hand 3 a 1% chance of winning $1,000,000, you have 4 possible outcomes:
Win $3,000,000 0.04% of the time.
Win $2,000,000 4% of the time.
Win $1,000,000 41.9% of the time.
Win $0 54% of the time.

You're expected outcome is identical on each table, you'd expect to come out even if you could play each table an infinite number of times. On table 2 you're basically sacrificing a 4% chance that you come away with nothing, for an increased chance of extra money.

Assuming fair trade value, trading up is table one, staying put is table 2, you expect to come away with the same regardless of your trading decisions, but by trading up you are sacrificing the chance of coming away with 3 elite players for an increased chance to come away with at least 1 elite player.

Now the casino for whatever reason gives out a prize of $10,000,000 every so often, and a prize of $500,000 rather than the $1,000,000 on table 1. You've been watching the table all day, and you haven't seen the $10m prize yet, but you've just seen the $500k prize, you're decision to go for table 1 is going to have increased. That's the scouting, most of the time you're decision on what table to go for is going to depend on if you're risk adverse or a risk taker, but occasionally you're going to have an Aaron Donald be available if you trade up. Of course there's also the chance that there's 2 $500k prizes and you end up with a Tavon Austin.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not.

 

[Alan]

Rams and Gators with this:
Again, not sure I'm following your argument, but the problem is you aren't playing over the long term, you're playing maybe 2 or 3 hands vs 1.

Put it this way, you walk into a casino, there's 2 tables, table one you can play 1 hand, for $1,000,000 you have a 50% chance of winning at that hand and if you do you win an additional $1,000,000 there's 2 possible outcomes:
Win $1,000,000 50% of the time.
Win $0 50% of the time.

There is no table where that is a possibility. First of all, just like in the draft, the odds are stacked against you and there is no 50% chance of winning and you are completely forgetting about losing. With the standard dealer rules here are the odds:
About 43% win, 48% lose, 9% push. These remain virtually the same for any number of decks, and even most deck compositions.

Here's how that first table should look:
Win $1,000,000 43% of the time.
Lose $1,000,000 48% of the time.
That 5% differential is where they make their money.


So over time you are guaranteed to lose without an edge such as card counting. That 43% chance of winning is much greater than picking a Pro Bowl player in the first round.

http://www.sportsdatallc.com/2012/04/24/picking-a-winner/
"Picking a Winner
by Bo Mitchell
SportsData

The mathematicians among you might be thinking to yourself: “Hey, 10 years of 32 picks equals 320 players, not 319.” Well that’s correct, but remember the New England Patriots forfeited their top pick in the 2008 draft when they were busted for “SpyGate.”

As you can see, of those 319 players…

• 69 percent didn’t even make one Pro Bowl
• 83 percent didn’t make multiple Pro Bowls

That’s a lot of missing from “can’t-miss” players.

If those trends hold up, only five or six teams will draft a player on Thursday night who ultimately lives up to his billing as a multiple-time Pro Bowler, while 25 or more teams will ultimately feel like they got short-changed.

Sifting further through the data from the last 10 drafts, we also included in the graphic above exactly how many first-rounders turned into Pro Bowlers at each position. While the sample sizes aren’t huge for interior offensive linemen, those who have been good enough to warrant selection in the first round over the last 10 years have generally not disappointed. That’s a strong indicator for teams eyeing guards and centers with first round grades this year such as Stanford guard David DeCastro, Georgia guard Cordy Glenn, and Wisconsin center Peter Konz.

Most of the positions other than center and guard have been well-represented in the first round over the last decade of drafts. As the data reveals, your best bet of drafting a player who becomes a Pro Bowler is at safety and linebacker. In particular, safeties are a very (ahem) safe pick, with more than half of them developing into Pro Bowlers and more than a third of them making the trip to Honolulu on more than one occasion. Given this track record, the teams taking a look at Alabama safety Mark Barron LOL! ) ought to feel pretty good about his chances of becoming a perennial Pro Bowl-caliber player.

The four positions that have had the most players selected in the first round over the last decade are defensive end, cornerback, offensive tackle and wide receiver – none of which have fared well at all in terms of producing Pro Bowl players on a regular basis. Buyer beware.

As for Luck and RGIII, or even Ryan Tannehill, compared to most positions first round quarterbacks have done well in terms of developing into Pro Bowlers, as nearly one out of three have made it at least once. But when a team takes a quarterback in the first round, they are thinking “This is the guy that can lead us to a Super Bowl.” It’s a quarterback-driven league, which is why they go first so often. But the fact that 80 percent of those selected in the first round over the last 10 years have not been to multiple Pro Bowls has to be a bit deflating.

Of those eight quarterbacks who have gone first overall in the last 10 years, three have been to the Pro Bowl (Cam Newton, Eli Manning, and Carson Palmer) and Manning is the only one to win a Super Bowl.

Suffice it to say, regardless of where you are picking or what position your team targets, there are no sure things in the first round of the draft. Not even close. More often than not, your first-rounder will fail to reach his projected Pro Bowl potential. As the Indianapolis Colts will find out when they go on the clock April 26, it takes more than a little “Luck” for your first-rounder to become a Pro Bowl player.
"

So that's just over a 31% chance of picking a PB player in the first round. Plus that's only making the PB once. The chance of drafting a player who will be selected more than once is only 17%.

As for your comment that we're not playing over the long term let me explain why that would be wrong. In the case of the trade up for Tavon, short term would be the 1st round and long term would equate to the 1st & 2nd rounds. That would be the same as playing more than one hand in blackjack yes? Thus that is the "long term" I was talking about. Not only that, when I talk about long term it's being used in multiple contexts. Not only does it have meaning in each draft when trade ups are involved, it also is pertinent when looking at the efficacy of a draft strategy. After all, you need to look at more than one year to determine its worth because any single year could be just a matter of luck correct?

According to the study below there is a also only a 69% chance of even drafting a starter in the 1st round.
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology408_1.php

According to the study below study there is a also a 50% of drafting a starter in the 2nd round. Plus we have this from that 2nd round study:
"This said, historically the second-round hit rate is less than 10 percent different from the first round over the past 10 years."
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology408_2.php

So what do we have here? As I see it we have a 31% chance to draft a one time PB player plus a 31% chance that the pick will be a total bust versus a 69% chance of drafting a starter in the 1st round and a 50% chance of drafting another starter in the second round. The math is heavily tilted in my favor. That doesn't mean that due to luck or your incredible ability to correctly judge talent you won't find yourself in that 31% or even better that 17% group but like I said, I wouldn't bet your house on it. Nor would I base my drafting strategy on that method. But that's not to say it won't ever work. Over the long term the safer the strategy the more likely it will succeed.

BTW, you should read those two pages I gave a link to because I only posted a small part of the articles and they are very interesting or they were to me anyway.