Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Probability Analysis of the Burns and DJ decision


Evil Hurney
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

there is no true way to accurately grade these types of things, its almost completely arbitrary with a lot of moving parts and factors. 

That's the problem with reducing everything to numbers.  With some exceptions, there are almost always factors in the situation being examined that are nearly completely random or arbitrary.  Even the formulas that try to inject randomness or account for arbitrary decisions somewhere in the chain generally fail to reflect the reality.

As the normal disclaimer goes, "all other things being equal."  Yet, those addicted to data and numbers seem to forget that disclaimer, along with the fact that all other things are rarely equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

That's the problem with reducing everything to numbers.  With some exceptions, there are almost always factors in the situation being examined that are nearly completely random or arbitrary.  Even the formulas that try to inject randomness or account for arbitrary decisions somewhere in the chain generally fail to reflect the reality.

As the normal disclaimer goes, "all other things being equal."  Yet, those addicted to data and numbers seem to forget that disclaimer, along with the fact that all other things are rarely equal.

The OP still hasnt come back to acknowledge that moore has never made the pro bowl so it completely implodes his argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sir Purr said:

This was 2019-2021 

 

I dont give a poo its not correct now. 

 

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/most-sacks-in-nfl-since-2019

 

Looking at these stats and damn it doesnt look like it would be tough to replace burns at all

 

Actually scrolling through these stats along with the tfl and assuming they are correct Burns looks rather pedestrian.  He is not top 10 in any category that I am seeing

Edited by mrcompletely11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, stbugs said:

Yep. It’s incomplete because Burns’ contract is the equivalent of signing Reddick and Corbett. Also, why include DJ? Oh, I know because it makes not trading Burns look better. Burns = 3 picks plus huge cap savings. DJ = 1 pick plus tons of dead cap.

According to the numbers, 2 1sts and 1 2nd means you basically get a pro bowler for 5 years plus two really good FAs with some upside that maybe we get 2 pro bowlers and 2 good FAs.

Burns should have been traded. DJ should not.

No malice was intended by combining the two deals. The deals often get talked about in concert and it's a more compact discussion. I probably should have looked at them separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

So is evil hurney not even going to address Moore isn’t a pro bowler?

I said he was Pro Bowl caliber. If you are intending to replace his production the WR would need to be Pro Bowl caliber. 

If you can find a better way to quantify his value and the probability of finding someone with similar value in the draft (or FA) I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Sir Purr said:

You guys want to trade players for picks, not trade picks for players. Which do you want?

People want to make smart decisions to maximize the value of our assets. “You guys just want to blow it up” is reductive. Nobody wants to trade Moore. The Burns proposal would’ve been a win for us, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Evil Hurney said:

I said he was Pro Bowl caliber. If you are intending to replace his production the WR would need to be Pro Bowl caliber. 

If you can find a better way to quantify his value and the probability of finding someone with similar value in the draft (or FA) I'm all ears.

by saying he is "pro bowl caliber" and then applying the "Pro bowl" data later in your op is totaling contradicting.   DJ moore is not a pro bowler so in your analysis/model is totally broken at that point.  You are trying to assign a made up value and then apply it later to the picks.  How do you know those picks will not turn into "pro bowl caliber" players?  Also the pro bowl is a pretty garbage way to look at productivity.  Its basically a popularity contest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tr3ach said:

His math is right but incomplete.  Scoring anyone below probowl as a 0 for example, that would score DJ Moore as a 0 as well btw.  Also you have to include a weight for salary.

This first part of this was addressed. Look at page 2.

Salary or more accurately cap space is an interesting dimension brought up by many. I just don't know how to value it. In a money ball sense you are paying for production (over replacement) not just warm bodies, but what are the chances that level of production even exists in FA. If they did why would anyone trade for a DJ or Burns?

Players that have that much projected productivity don't tend to hit FA. Instead you are paying for band-aids and projects which will likely cost more in the long run (see our recent QB history).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

by saying he is "pro bowl caliber" and then applying the "Pro bowl" data later in your op is totaling contradicting.   DJ moore is not a pro bowler so in your analysis/model is totally broken at that point.  You are trying to assign a made up value and then apply it later to the picks.  How do you know those picks will not turn into "pro bowl caliber" players?  Also the pro bowl is a pretty garbage way to look at productivity.  Its basically a popularity contest. 

I understand what you are saying. I do.

The OP is trying to figure out the probability of drafting players with comparable production and profit.

Without doing A LOT of leg work the Pro Bowl data is the best surrogate I found for binning drafted players into groups. If you want to tick things up or down a few percentage points to account for "not actually making a Pro Bowl", go for it. But as I already mentioned WRs make the Pro Bowl far less often than the 44% I already used.

Edited by Evil Hurney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would Morgan or Beason have been HOFers' if injuries hadn't derailed their careers?  I was not a close watcher of the game when Morgan was in his prime but I thought Beason had a few seasons at close to Lukes' level of play.
    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
×
×
  • Create New...