Scholarly research: Risk at Positions of Need (heavy reading)

[MHS831]

Harvard research for a rainy day in the off season.  This suggests that OL is the safest way to go--- (not new--2 year old study)

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/analyzing-the-nfl-draft-the-safest-positions-to-target-in-the-first-round/

 

Why this source says that WRs are notoriously bad first round choices (2006):

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/explosive-draft-day-findings/5177/

 

Just some interesting reading.  If you are a research scholar, you may find interest in this study, but if you are not a consumer of quantitative data analysis, this one might not interest you.  It basically explains that there are too many variables at play for the experts to succeed in drafting WRs, but it has a few interesting points, such as which measures are the best at predicting a WRs success (college performance over combine and pro day measures).

 

http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Old_Projects/Amrit_Dhar.pdf

 

Finally, I ran across this--

The "new and improved" draft value for each pick (2011):

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

[L-TownCat]

That's some intense stuff. Really liked the draft value chart though. That got my interest.

[The Huddler]

Go Bobcats

[Kuech the Sneak]

Go oline

[El Chingon]

Excellent information, thanks for sharing. 

[nagai]

Good stuff, MHS! I think the best study there, for our purposes, is the first one. It's the most recent and has less, obvious methodological oversights that come with more complicated studies. That second study is old, so I took it with a grain of salt, but the findings are too shocking to overlook. Even if we tried update some of their information by propping up some of the better players to the 'big time performers' group, your hit rate for WR's is still only about 1/3. If only there were a better study that showed why certain WR's failed (lack of separation, bad hands, not athletic enough... etc.).

[micnificent28]

Thst may be all well and dandy but reaching for need when the talent Just isnt there is bad.

[MHS831]

Thst may be all well and dandy but reaching for need when the talent Just isnt there is bad.

 

I agree, and I see where you might make that inference, but it is not stated here.  This is just an interesting look at the risk associated with each, but you bring up an interesting point.

 

I was reading a mock recently (I think it was Walter's) that had us taking Morgan Moses over Brandin Cooks. That upset me, but then I thought, "After Moses, who is left?"  (There are a few, but not reaching and getting one could be a challenge).  Then I thought, "How many good WRs will be there in the second round?"  So the issue in Carolina in 2014 begs the question, "Do you pass on the last, high-level LT available and take the best WR available even when you know there will be value there in the second round at WR?  Especially considering the fact that WRs are so tough to gauge and OL are considered the safer pick?"

 

I think that we might have to go with LT in this situation, even if he is not the BPA.  Does not taking the BPA available constitute a reach?  Not necessarily. Metaphor:   If I needed a blue topaz and the supply was limited and a red ruby with a plentiful supply, do I pass on the topaz because I see a nicer ruby, not knowing if I will find a decent topaz afterwards when I know there will be more, slightly lesser rubies?  Metaphor over.

 

So, do you consider the rarity of the position (LTs are harder to find than WRs and WRs bust at a higher rate) a reach when he is not the BPA? 

[Mr. Scot]

Thst may be all well and dandy but reaching for need when the talent Just isnt there is bad.

 

In the Marcus Martin thread you were arguing with JOAT that reaching for need was better than going BPA.

 

So if we went with Say bpa every year and even if we hit on all of them we would still have the same whole at wr because most of the time other positions out weigh them in terms of BPA. Hurney more often that not went bpa himself which is why we have Luke. Hurney didn't go need as much as you think because we've needed a wr since moose left. We have needed a compliment to steve smith since then as well. Cam needs weapons as much as any other qb. But the bpa method is highly over rated. We are stacked on defense because,hey bpa...our offense is in shambles and to neglect a franchise passer who has a chance to be a hall of fame talent is rediculious to me. I've never seen a franchise do less to help there franchise passer. this is really depressing to see IND stock luck with weapons for the next 10 years and so one with other young guns. What have we added on offensive since drafting cam?

 

Smh@bpa

 

So which is it?

[L-TownCat]

In the Marcus Martin thread you were arguing with JOAT that reaching for need was better than going BPA.

So which is it?

Dang

[CarolinaNCSU]

Going OL early IMO will at least net you a quality starter unless injuries get in the way. It's why I've been on the Moses/OT in the 1st bandwagon. Outside of of the top 3 or 4 WR, with maybe only Cooks being there for us, I don't like any other WR in the 1st when there's going to be plenty of talent there later. 

[Mr. Scot]

I'm on the Morgan Moses bandwagon right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(me wanting an O-Line guy is a big shock, right?) :unsure:

 

[panther4life]

I'm on the Morgan Moses bandwagon right now

(me wanting an O-Line guy is a big shock, right?) :unsure:

Where do you rank him among the offensive tackes?

Also do you watch the cut ups of players available on draftbreakdown.com

[Mr. Scot]

Where do you rank him among the offensive tackes?

Also do you watch the cut ups of players available on draftbreakdown.com

 

Definitely high. I'm not sure he has as much immediate impact potential as the top tackles, but he strikes me as a great 'long term' choice.

 

Not familiar with that particular site, but I prefer the 'full game' type videos where you can watch an entire performance.