Hurney not.....bad???? Wut

[ecu88]

[tiger7_88]

6 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

There is no such thing as a good drafting team in the NFL
https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1969794

 

Four-year starters from 2000-15 drafts

TEAM	4-YEAR STARTERS	DRAFT PICKS	PERCENTAGE
Panthers	39	121	32.23
Saints	34	107	31.78
Jets	32	110	29.09
Steelers	37	130	28.46
Ravens	37	132	28.03
Chargers	32	115	27.83
Cowboys	34	125	27.20
Dolphins	33	122	27.05
Jaguars	35	130	26.92
Falcons	33	123	26.83
Broncos	34	127	26.77
Giants	31	116	26.72
Titans	38	143	26.57
Bengals	36	137	26.28
Rams	36	142	25.35
Bears	31	123	25.20
Lions	30	121	24.79
49ers	36	146	24.66
Chiefs	31	127	24.41
Cardinals	29	119	24.37
Packers	35	144	24.31
Texans	28	117	23.93
Patriots	34	144	23.61
Seahawks	33	140	23.57
Raiders	30	128	23.44
Eagles	31	136	22.79
Bills	30	132	22.73
Colts	28	125	22.40
Vikings	28	128	21.88
Buccaneers	27	124	21.77
Redskins	25	115	21.74
Browns	24	130	18.46

 

16 seasons.

5 winning seasons.

It doesn't help a lot if the players you draft suck and they end up starting for a long time.

Edit: 2 of those 5 winning seasons were under Dave Gettleman.

[RASTAN66]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Coaches and GMs are a unit the same way an offensive line is. They play off of each other, and the chemistry between them is a big deal.

Exactly.

Rhule and Hurndog appear to have excellent chemistry!

Fun ride ahead...

Rhules Rules rule.

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

But you said it wasn't possible because of the W/L records of the teams and that is wasn't the whole picture for evaluating a GM. That really doesn't have a whole lot to do with being good at drafting. That has a lot to do with being successful as a franchise.

I'm not saying it's impossible to determine whether someone is a good drafter. I am, however, saying it's foolish to think you can tell it by looking at a bunch of data on a sheet.

Why? Take David Carr as an example. Was he a bad pick or did the Houston Texans failure to teach him how to read defenses cause him to fail?

What about Tom Brady? Were the Patriots geniuses for taking him in the sixth round or did they just get lucky he happened to be on their draft board and connect with the right coaching?

Was Jeff Otah a good pick based on what he was able to do for a short time or did the fact that he wasn't able to sustain it make him a poor choice?

Those are the kinds of questions raw data can't answer. And unless you're going to actually take a true look at every single prospect and determine why they succeeded or failed, you're not going to succeed.

Everybody's looking for a shortcut. I'm saying there isn't one.

[run-run-pass-punt]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the draft is a literal lottery. Evaluate all the tape, have all the workouts, conduct all the interviews, and still in the end, you're going to get it wrong most of the time.

Why? it's a numbers game. Not many will cut it at the highest level - plain and simple. All the pomp and circumstance for drawing names out of a hat, more or less.

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not saying it's impossible to determine whether someone is a good drafter. I am, however, saying it's foolish to think you can tell it by looking at a bunch of data on a sheet.

Why? Take David Carr as an example. Was he a bad pick or did the Houston Texans failure to teach him how to read defenses cause him to fail?

What about Tom Brady? Were the Patriots geniuses for taking him in the sixth round or did they just get lucky he happened to be on their draft board and connect with the right coaching?

Was Jeff Otah a good pick based on what he was able to do for a short time or did the fact that he wasn't able to sustain it make him a poor choice?

Those are the kinds of questions raw data can't answer. And unless you're going to actually take a true look at every single prospect and determine why they succeeded or failed, you're not going to succeed.

Everybody's looking for a shortcut. I'm saying there isn't one.

Yeah but the problem is that you are looking at individual data points and not overall trends. That is kind of the point. You assume that over time the outliers basically are what they are but the averages tell the story.

[Mr. Scot]

48 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah but the problem is that you are looking at individual data points and not overall trends. That is kind of the point. You assume that over time the outliers basically are what they are but the averages tell the story.

I get what you're saying. I just can't agree. Football is far too nuanced a thing to be simplified down to pure math.

Probably the best way I can illustrate that is to ask you this question: Is Matt Stafford a better quarterback than Cam Newton? 

If you want to look for a statistical answer, the majority of data you find is going to say yes. But if you ask a flesh and blood source like me, you're going to get a different answer.

For another example, look at the Hall of Fame. You don't gain entrance to the Pro Football Hall of Fame strictly by being highly ranked in a statistical category. If that were the case, entry would be automatic once you hit a certain threshold. But no, your place has to be argued...by voters.

And that's the right call.

Worth noting that GMs and personnel guys make the Hall of Fame too. And I can tell you that when their names come up for voting, nobody goes back and analyzes their draft picks.

They make it in because they were winners.

And if they weren't, then they don't.

[Peon Awesome]

Hurney is certainly not a great gm but the vitriol that gets spewed in his direction is overblown. His biggest flaws from tenure 1 were making stupid draft trades that mortgaged future picks to take players he overvalued and overpaying the team's free agents. He's mostly corrected those tendencies. His drafting ability also gets criticized primarily because he doesn't hit on his day 2 picks as well as he should but he knocks his first rounders at an elite rate and is probably above average on his late round picks. 

Could we improve from Hurney? Of course. Should we move on? Yes if we have a good candidate to target and not just for the sake of change. Is it worth losing your mind that he's still on the team and bemoan our ability to ever compete again? Nah.

[KillerBill]

Marty Hurney has not put together a winning team since 2008.  It is 2020.

[kungfoodude]

6 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

I get what you're saying. I just can't agree. Football is far too nuanced a thing to be simplified down to pure math.

Probably the best way I can illustrate that is to ask you this question: Is Matt Stafford a better quarterback than Cam Newton? 

If you want to look for a statistical answer, the majority of data you find is going to say yes. But if you ask a flesh and blood source like me, you're going to get a different answer.

For another example, look at the Hall of Fame. You don't gain entrance to the Pro Football Hall of Fame strictly by being highly ranked in a statistical category. If that were the case, entry would be automatic once you hit a certain threshold. But no, your place has to be argued...by voters.

And that's the right call.

Worth noting that GMs and personnel guys make the Hall of Fame too. And I can tell you that when their names come up for voting, nobody goes back and analyzes their draft picks.

They make it in because they were winners.

And if they weren't, then they don't.

According to the metrics I would be using, Cam would be a much better QB than Matt Stafford. I think this is the key thing you are missing. I am just talking about doing something and you are filling in the blanks with what you think I am doing.

Even the concept of attacking the idea of attempting to develop or make a metric to analyze something sort of smacks of the "analytics are dumb" crowd. 

I honestly have no idea why you are so negative about the idea of even doing it.

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

According to the metrics I would be using, Cam would be a much better QB than Matt Stafford. I think this is the key thing you are missing. I am just talking about doing something and you are filling in the blanks with what you think I am doing.

Even the concept of attacking the idea of attempting to develop or make a metric to analyze something sort of smacks of the "analytics are dumb" crowd. 

I honestly have no idea why you are so negative about the idea of even doing it.

My opinion of football analytics is similar to that of The Combine. While it's a handy tool and can certainly give you some "hmmm, that's interesting" moments, it's best used to supplement what you know from using your eyes, not as a primary determinant.

Heck, even Tepper, who loves analytics, admits there are limitations.

[Madwolf]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

My opinion of football analytics is similar to that of The Combine. While it's a handy tool and can certainly give you some "hmmm, that's interesting" moments, it's best used to supplement what you know from using your eyes, not as a primary determinant.

Heck, even Tepper, who loves analytics, admits there are limitations.

Totally with you here. There are people who obsess over certain analytics in hockey and they use it to prove bad players are good and decent players are worse. I mean, there are some very useful things items to glean from advanced analytics in sports, but so many people use them wrongly.

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, Madwolf said:

Totally with you here. There are people who obsess over certain analytics in hockey and they use it to prove bad players are good and decent players are worse. I mean, there are some very useful things items to glean from advanced analytics in sports, but so many people use them wrongly.

That isn't the fault of the numbers, it is usually the fault of the people using them. No perfect grading systems exist for something that has a definite subjective element 

[TheMaulClaw]

Hurney isnt the worst GM.  He is astonishingly average. I think he would have a superbowl ring if the Patriots didnt cheat though.