Not Necessarily Panthers Related but....

[Jon Snow]

Also you are trying to predict the future but you need to start with a baseline for each draftee with their college career production. Maybe you've already done that or are pulling it from somewhere else. Just throwing thing's out there to consider. 

[strato]

23 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I guess I would ask, for a QB career, why would that matter based on the variables in the OP?

I would ask that you consider the OP and how you think it relates to your personal opinion of "success." Do these criteria seem reasonable? Is this a fair measure of "QB draft pick based on round drafted" success? If no, what is not fair? What can be added/improved on?

You could tell I didn’t really do my homework just jumped in with a couple of ideas, good job. 
Drinking tonight so, maybe in the morning. 

 

 

[Jon Snow]

1 minute ago, strato said:

You could tell I didn’t really do my homework just jumped in with a couple of ideas, good job. 
Drinking tonight so, maybe in the morning. 

 

 

Im sitting in the corner shouting out my unwanted opinions myself. Kung is going to get irritated with me soon. I'm going to go watch the game and reread his original post when I'm sober.

[kungfoodude]

9 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Im not sure expectations should be a factor. Because how do you define something undefinable? Is it based on cost invested? Is it based on draft position? Because we know players are overdrated all the time. This could take NASA to figure out.

Well, it is based on cost invested. It's draft pick. Would it not be reasonable to assume a 1st round QB should have a higher threshold for "success" than QB's drafted in rounds after him?

It is a measure of amount invested versus amount gained

9 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

That's what is so confusing to me.  Why do the categories have to be mutually exclusive based on draft round? It would seem to me a 7th rounder that starts 30 games with a 62% career completion percentage is a success, but I would say the same for a 3rd rounder too.

Alright, career numbers:

1st round:  Completion%: 64 or greater, 3:1 TD/INT or greater

2nd round: Completion%: 62 or greater, 2.5:1 TD/INT or greater

3rd round: Completion%: 60 or greater 2:1 TD/INT or greater

4th-7th round Completion %: 58 or greater; 1.5 TD/INT or greater

That is fine but I need those levels for the categories you are suggesting adding so I can test them. That is why I asked. Give me:

1st Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum

2nd Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum

 

So on and so forth. I have to at least test them and see if they even move the current model at all.

Also, as I asked before, are you suggesting these(Comp% and TD:INT) and hard minumums or, like the OP, additional things to elevate a QB to being a "success?"

[SmokinwithWilly]

I actually think going to schools like Bama that have top recruiting classes hurts QBs. They're so heavily loaded that it's hard to really evaluate them because the competition level is rarely even. Of the 63 SEC draftees out of 16 schools in Bryce's class, Bama and Georgia each had 10. That's 30% between 2 schools, so unless those 2 schools are facing off, the caliber of competition isn't near even. I actually prefer taking a lesser overall ranked QB who may have faced more competition because you have a better idea of what he's really like on an even playing field. This isn't a slight at Bryce. Mac Jones and many other Bama QBs don't live up to the hype either

[strato]

5 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I actually think going to schools like Bama that have top recruiting classes hurts QBs. They're so heavily loaded that it's hard to really evaluate them because the competition level is rarely even. Of the 63 SEC draftees out of 16 schools in Bryce's class, Bama and Georgia each had 10. That's 30% between 2 schools, so unless those 2 schools are facing off, the caliber of competition isn't near even. I actually prefer taking a lesser overall ranked QB who may have faced more competition because you have a better idea of what he's really like on an even playing field. This isn't a slight at Bryce. Mac Jones and many other Bama QBs don't live up to the hype either

Yep. We I mean different posters maybe even you too touched on this when I was on a rant about ‘SEC success equals NFL success’ as pertained to pre draft Bryce evaluation. 
I was ball parking most SEC defenses as having one or two future NFL draftees. 
You are reinforcing the actual reality here. 

Edited 11 hours ago by strato

[Jon Snow]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well, it is based on cost invested. It's draft pick. Would it not be reasonable to assume a 1st round QB should have a higher threshold for "success" than QB's drafted in rounds after him?

It is a measure of amount invested versus amount gained

That is fine but I need those levels for the categories you are suggesting adding so I can test them. That is why I asked. Give me:

1st Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum

2nd Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum

 

So on and so forth. I have to at least test them and see if they even move the current model at all.

Also, as I asked before, are you suggesting these(Comp% and TD:INT) and hard minumums or, like the OP, additional things to elevate a QB to being a "success?"

I guess I look at the draft a little differently than most. To draft position only means how many players were taken before your pick. It doesn't mean the player I selected was automatically worth being selected at that time to me or anyone else. It will not make him better than he is or will be just because I picked a day 2 player on day 1. Does that make any sense at all or do I need another toke and try again?

[45catfan]

17 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well, it is based on cost invested. It's draft pick. Would it not be reasonable to assume a 1st round QB should have a higher threshold for "success" than QB's drafted in rounds after him?

It is a measure of amount invested versus amount gained

That is fine but I need those levels for the categories you are suggesting adding so I can test them. That is why I asked. Give me:

1st Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum

2nd Round: Completion Percentage Minimum, TD:INT minimum

 

So on and so forth. I have to at least test them and see if they even move the current model at all.

Also, as I asked before, are you suggesting these(Comp% and TD:INT) and hard minumums or, like the OP, additional things to elevate a QB to being a "success?"

Okay then, minimums:

1st Round: Completion Percentage 62%, TD:INT 1.5:1

2nd Round: Completion Percentage 60%, TD:INT  1.25:1

3rd Round: Completion Percentage 56% TD:INT minimum 1:1

4th-7th Round: Completion Percentage 54%, TD:INT minimum .75:1

Edits in bold

Edited 11 hours ago by 45catfan

[Jon Snow]

2 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Okay then, minimums:

1st Round: Completion Percentage 62%, TD:INT 2:1

2nd Round: Completion Percentage 60%, TD:INT  1.5:1

3rd Round: Completion Percentage 56% TD:INT minimum 1.25:1

4th-7th Round: Completion Percentage 54%, TD:INT minimum 1:1

I kinda think you need to keep the criteria the same regardless of round. I wouldn't settle for a worse TD:INT ratio just because I pick him on day 3. It the same with completion percentage. You need someone that at least has that going for them because it certainly isn't getting better against the big boys. 

[45catfan]

Just now, Jon Snow said:

I kinda think you need to keep the criteria the same regardless of round. I wouldn't settle for a worse TD:INT ratio just because I pick him on day 3. It the same with completion percentage. You need someone that at least has that going for them because it certainly isn't getting better against the big boys. 

Me too, but It's his criteria, so I'm playing by his rules.  I'm just really curious how this pans out.

[kungfoodude]

24 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I actually think going to schools like Bama that have top recruiting classes hurts QBs. They're so heavily loaded that it's hard to really evaluate them because the competition level is rarely even. Of the 63 SEC draftees out of 16 schools in Bryce's class, Bama and Georgia each had 10. That's 30% between 2 schools, so unless those 2 schools are facing off, the caliber of competition isn't near even. I actually prefer taking a lesser overall ranked QB who may have faced more competition because you have a better idea of what he's really like on an even playing field. This isn't a slight at Bryce. Mac Jones and many other Bama QBs don't live up to the hype either

Yeah but I am not after school vs. draft pick. That's a whole different thing. I can do that but that isn't what I am after with this specifically.

[kungfoodude]

19 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I guess I look at the draft a little differently than most. To draft position only means how many players were taken before your pick. It doesn't mean the player I selected was automatically worth being selected at that time to me or anyone else. It will not make him better than he is or will be just because I picked a day 2 player on day 1. Does that make any sense at all or do I need another toke and try again?

Well, one generally assumes based on round that a player is "worth" more based soley on investment. So, this controls for the rank in each position group or whatever other things that don't relate to where they are selected.

[kungfoodude]

16 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Okay then, minimums:

1st Round: Completion Percentage 62%, TD:INT 1.5:1

2nd Round: Completion Percentage 60%, TD:INT  1.25:1

3rd Round: Completion Percentage 56% TD:INT minimum 1:1

4th-7th Round: Completion Percentage 54%, TD:INT minimum .75:1

Edits in bold

Okay. I will apply those to the metric tomorrow and see what the result is(who is exluded and who isn't). 

[kungfoodude]

10 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

I kinda think you need to keep the criteria the same regardless of round. I wouldn't settle for a worse TD:INT ratio just because I pick him on day 3. It the same with completion percentage. You need someone that at least has that going for them because it certainly isn't getting better against the big boys. 

I think you do change criteria based on round, TBH. The expectations should differ.