IE Rams
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,462
Yeah, Wright nailed it with NE’s very average drafting of late, and Broussard backed it up. That Kevin dude’s contorting expressions while he was getting spanked made this watch worth it.
McVay, Snead Mock NE draft pick
- Thread starter bubbaramfan
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
BuffaloRam
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- May 30, 2014
- Messages
- 2,064
Kevin Wilde is living in the past - like the rest of a the Patriot fans. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Mac Jones looks alright. But there is a larger chance that he is Jared Goff than Matt Stafford. Good luck to them - I'd be surprised if the Patriots reached because Von Miller is now a Bill. Fuck the Pats!
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 39,706
Allen2McVay
Legend
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2020
- Messages
- 8,810
- Name
- Jim
Agree. The whole analysis and criticism has been much ado about nothing.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 22,780
On the flip side the Rams drafted Bruss 85 spots earlier than the consensus Big Boards. So some teams may have laughed at them.
They also took Durant earlier than projected by 100 spots.
According to an article in ‘The Athletic’ :
I’m not subscribed to PFF so I could not read the study.
They also took Durant earlier than projected by 100 spots.
According to an article in ‘The Athletic’ :
I’m not subscribed to PFF so I could not read the study.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 40,616
Yeah I think the PFF dude gave us an F which I'm more than fine with considering the source
They're an interesting place to go for some info but care little for their player evaluations.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 22,780
The study was based on the consensus. But I know what you mean about PFFYeah I think the PFF dude gave us an F which I'm more than fine with considering the source
Mackeyser
Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 14,452
- Name
- Mack
The problem is that there's so much bias in the process.
Typically, bad teams draft higher and have more picks. Because they are bad, they tend to play those players earlier and thus end up with more production in the aggregate.
Players drafted to better teams are typically drafted lower, those teams tend to have fewer draft picks (the Pats shotgun approach to the draft notwithstanding) and thus less aggregate output.
So, when a team like the Rams is specifically using data and metrics that cannot be possibly measured using acontextual data like "overall player ranking" which in and of itself is a hodge lodge of weighted pieces of data some of which are completely divorced from actual game play, then you get people who will say we're going it "wrong".
Well, if you subscribe to the notion that there's only one way to build a team, then yeah, they'd be right.
Cooper Kupp wasn't highly rated and thus was given grades of 3-6 iirc and mostly on the lower end. The Rams used things not part of the typical data matrix that establish rankings... like top end speed and short area quickness in games as opposed to during drills... his ability to block as a WR and his work ethic.
The player rankings are fine for what they are, but they are NOT the be all and end well or the 1st round wouldn't have a failure rate of 50%. If there's true correlation, then what explains the LACK of correlation with the 50% who fail from the 1st round? They met all the requirements to be that high...
And if the comeback is that, "well, it only correlates 50% of the time", then it's worthless as an actual draft tool if one cannot separate out the successes from the failures and that's never happened, even in this day of analytics.
This is just more of the "those Rams may have bought the Super Bowl, but they can't possibly sustain this, so our livelihoods that are 100% based on 'develop solely through the draft' are safe and this isn't a paradigm shift that will require me to learn new things".
Whatever. I get what the Rams FO is doing and if anything, the recalcitrance and belligerence of the rest of the league will only allow us to do this longer before we have to adjust our strategies moving forward.
Typically, bad teams draft higher and have more picks. Because they are bad, they tend to play those players earlier and thus end up with more production in the aggregate.
Players drafted to better teams are typically drafted lower, those teams tend to have fewer draft picks (the Pats shotgun approach to the draft notwithstanding) and thus less aggregate output.
So, when a team like the Rams is specifically using data and metrics that cannot be possibly measured using acontextual data like "overall player ranking" which in and of itself is a hodge lodge of weighted pieces of data some of which are completely divorced from actual game play, then you get people who will say we're going it "wrong".
Well, if you subscribe to the notion that there's only one way to build a team, then yeah, they'd be right.
Cooper Kupp wasn't highly rated and thus was given grades of 3-6 iirc and mostly on the lower end. The Rams used things not part of the typical data matrix that establish rankings... like top end speed and short area quickness in games as opposed to during drills... his ability to block as a WR and his work ethic.
The player rankings are fine for what they are, but they are NOT the be all and end well or the 1st round wouldn't have a failure rate of 50%. If there's true correlation, then what explains the LACK of correlation with the 50% who fail from the 1st round? They met all the requirements to be that high...
And if the comeback is that, "well, it only correlates 50% of the time", then it's worthless as an actual draft tool if one cannot separate out the successes from the failures and that's never happened, even in this day of analytics.
This is just more of the "those Rams may have bought the Super Bowl, but they can't possibly sustain this, so our livelihoods that are 100% based on 'develop solely through the draft' are safe and this isn't a paradigm shift that will require me to learn new things".
Whatever. I get what the Rams FO is doing and if anything, the recalcitrance and belligerence of the rest of the league will only allow us to do this longer before we have to adjust our strategies moving forward.
“Turbo set!”
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2017
- Messages
- 1,311
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 39,706
Yep. And what I find really funny in all this is the Rams said Bruss was atop their guard board. So they had him over the Pats pick.