Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Post Jared Allen Mock Draft
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5510
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
MonserinNC wrote:
DaMike wrote:
Calvin Pryor is the only safety worth a 2nd round pick in this draft. He probably won't be there though. Emery might like Brooks but we need to wait until round 3 so we can get some value out of the pick.


The older I get the less I understand reaches/steals in the draft.......

Like, we got Lance Briggs in the 3rd....not sure what difference it made what round we got him in, haha, in most cases it seems like we just use it as an excuse to complain about the Haynes Grossman picks.

If in that draft we did Tillman in the first and Briggs in the second, not sure what difference it would of made if we "reached" on both of those rounds


Because a player's perceived value is a factor in how long you can wait to take him.
If you (and only you) had perfect knowledge of the draft, and the best player in the draft had a 6th round grade, it would still be a mistake to take him in the first round, when you could get him in the 5th and use that first round pick on a more obvious (better perceived) talent, even if that 1st round pick is not as good of a player.

How much do you let perceived value influence your moves? Well, that is more art than science, and will depend on the individual, but it is very much a part of the equation.

I do agree to an extent, though. My thought process is this: if that guy was not going to be there by the next time you pick, it's not a reach. You can't count on trade up/back opportunities being available, so splitting hairs about who should go at #28 instead of at #35 is irrelevant. Will that player be there 32 picks later is the better question.
Then you let a team who can use him probably take him. If a player is a 3rd round DE and a 1st round LB then let a team draft him to play him at LB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 700
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaMike wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
MonserinNC wrote:
DaMike wrote:
Calvin Pryor is the only safety worth a 2nd round pick in this draft. He probably won't be there though. Emery might like Brooks but we need to wait until round 3 so we can get some value out of the pick.


The older I get the less I understand reaches/steals in the draft.......

Like, we got Lance Briggs in the 3rd....not sure what difference it made what round we got him in, haha, in most cases it seems like we just use it as an excuse to complain about the Haynes Grossman picks.

If in that draft we did Tillman in the first and Briggs in the second, not sure what difference it would of made if we "reached" on both of those rounds


Because a player's perceived value is a factor in how long you can wait to take him.
If you (and only you) had perfect knowledge of the draft, and the best player in the draft had a 6th round grade, it would still be a mistake to take him in the first round, when you could get him in the 5th and use that first round pick on a more obvious (better perceived) talent, even if that 1st round pick is not as good of a player.

How much do you let perceived value influence your moves? Well, that is more art than science, and will depend on the individual, but it is very much a part of the equation.

I do agree to an extent, though. My thought process is this: if that guy was not going to be there by the next time you pick, it's not a reach. You can't count on trade up/back opportunities being available, so splitting hairs about who should go at #28 instead of at #35 is irrelevant. Will that player be there 32 picks later is the better question.
Then you let a team who can use him probably take him. If a player is a 3rd round DE and a 1st round LB then let a team draft him to play him at LB.


I'm not defending the McClellin pick, just explaining that there is an opportunity cost to drafting people significantly above their perceived value (and on the flipside, there is a risk to hoping to draft them significantly below their perceived value).
Obviously if the player's value is higher in other team's systems than he would be in yours, then you don't pick him just because someone else would have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 949
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil Emery goes off his own perceptions. He pretty much took Kyle Long because he didn't think he would be there in the second round. That tells me he puts due diligence into is board, probably works though all scenarios and trade options, and at the end of the makestthe pick he knew he was going to make a couple of picks before he is on the clock.
_________________

WindyCity wrote:
McClellin is simply not very good. He is not big enough or strong enough to play at the NFL level. The Bears should move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5510
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
DaMike wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
MonserinNC wrote:
DaMike wrote:
Calvin Pryor is the only safety worth a 2nd round pick in this draft. He probably won't be there though. Emery might like Brooks but we need to wait until round 3 so we can get some value out of the pick.


The older I get the less I understand reaches/steals in the draft.......

Like, we got Lance Briggs in the 3rd....not sure what difference it made what round we got him in, haha, in most cases it seems like we just use it as an excuse to complain about the Haynes Grossman picks.

If in that draft we did Tillman in the first and Briggs in the second, not sure what difference it would of made if we "reached" on both of those rounds


Because a player's perceived value is a factor in how long you can wait to take him.
If you (and only you) had perfect knowledge of the draft, and the best player in the draft had a 6th round grade, it would still be a mistake to take him in the first round, when you could get him in the 5th and use that first round pick on a more obvious (better perceived) talent, even if that 1st round pick is not as good of a player.

How much do you let perceived value influence your moves? Well, that is more art than science, and will depend on the individual, but it is very much a part of the equation.

I do agree to an extent, though. My thought process is this: if that guy was not going to be there by the next time you pick, it's not a reach. You can't count on trade up/back opportunities being available, so splitting hairs about who should go at #28 instead of at #35 is irrelevant. Will that player be there 32 picks later is the better question.
Then you let a team who can use him probably take him. If a player is a 3rd round DE and a 1st round LB then let a team draft him to play him at LB.


I'm not defending the McClellin pick, just explaining that there is an opportunity cost to drafting people significantly above their perceived value (and on the flipside, there is a risk to hoping to draft them significantly below their perceived value).
Obviously if the player's value is higher in other team's systems than he would be in yours, then you don't pick him just because someone else would have.
and that's the dumbest way to approach a draft pick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 700
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaMike wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
DaMike wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
MonserinNC wrote:
DaMike wrote:
Calvin Pryor is the only safety worth a 2nd round pick in this draft. He probably won't be there though. Emery might like Brooks but we need to wait until round 3 so we can get some value out of the pick.


The older I get the less I understand reaches/steals in the draft.......

Like, we got Lance Briggs in the 3rd....not sure what difference it made what round we got him in, haha, in most cases it seems like we just use it as an excuse to complain about the Haynes Grossman picks.

If in that draft we did Tillman in the first and Briggs in the second, not sure what difference it would of made if we "reached" on both of those rounds


Because a player's perceived value is a factor in how long you can wait to take him.
If you (and only you) had perfect knowledge of the draft, and the best player in the draft had a 6th round grade, it would still be a mistake to take him in the first round, when you could get him in the 5th and use that first round pick on a more obvious (better perceived) talent, even if that 1st round pick is not as good of a player.

How much do you let perceived value influence your moves? Well, that is more art than science, and will depend on the individual, but it is very much a part of the equation.

I do agree to an extent, though. My thought process is this: if that guy was not going to be there by the next time you pick, it's not a reach. You can't count on trade up/back opportunities being available, so splitting hairs about who should go at #28 instead of at #35 is irrelevant. Will that player be there 32 picks later is the better question.
Then you let a team who can use him probably take him. If a player is a 3rd round DE and a 1st round LB then let a team draft him to play him at LB.


I'm not defending the McClellin pick, just explaining that there is an opportunity cost to drafting people significantly above their perceived value (and on the flipside, there is a risk to hoping to draft them significantly below their perceived value).
Obviously if the player's value is higher in other team's systems than he would be in yours, then you don't pick him just because someone else would have.
and that's the dumbest way to approach a draft pick.


Ok man.
Good discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 700
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

G08 wrote:
Phil Emery goes off his own perceptions. He pretty much took Kyle Long because he didn't think he would be there in the second round. That tells me he puts due diligence into is board, probably works though all scenarios and trade options, and at the end of the makestthe pick he knew he was going to make a couple of picks before he is on the clock.


That is the point I'm trying to make, though. He knew (or believed anyway) Long wouldn't be there in the second, maybe not even later in the first had a trade down scenario been available, because he wasn't the only person that saw his potential. That is taking other people's perceptions into the decision.

That is not to say he will take whoever the general consensus is as the best pick. More that there is a level of gamesmanship to the decision making process.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 949
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
G08 wrote:
Phil Emery goes off his own perceptions. He pretty much took Kyle Long because he didn't think he would be there in the second round. That tells me he puts due diligence into is board, probably works though all scenarios and trade options, and at the end of the makestthe pick he knew he was going to make a couple of picks before he is on the clock.


That is the point I'm trying to make, though. He knew (or believed anyway) Long wouldn't be there in the second, maybe not even later in the first had a trade down scenario been available, because he wasn't the only person that saw his potential. That is taking other people's perceptions into the decision.

That is not to say he will take whoever the general consensus is as the best pick. More that there is a level of gamesmanship to the decision making process.


Rationally what you are saying makes sense, but it's not necessarily accurate.

Phil wanted Kyle Long. If he thought he'd be there in the second he would have waited but he'd rather not risk it because he wanted him that badly.

I'm of the opinion you make a graph of talent vs. need. Where that line intersects the highest should be your pick. Johnny Manziel may be at the top of our board but no way in hell we draft him at #14 because QB is far, far from a need.
_________________

WindyCity wrote:
McClellin is simply not very good. He is not big enough or strong enough to play at the NFL level. The Bears should move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AZBearsFan


Moderator
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 10888
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
G08 wrote:
Phil Emery goes off his own perceptions. He pretty much took Kyle Long because he didn't think he would be there in the second round. That tells me he puts due diligence into is board, probably works though all scenarios and trade options, and at the end of the makestthe pick he knew he was going to make a couple of picks before he is on the clock.


That is the point I'm trying to make, though. He knew (or believed anyway) Long wouldn't be there in the second, maybe not even later in the first had a trade down scenario been available, because he wasn't the only person that saw his potential. That is taking other people's perceptions into the decision.

That is not to say he will take whoever the general consensus is as the best pick. More that there is a level of gamesmanship to the decision making process.

Not only that but I think the real art of the draft isn't necessarily about just getting the single best player available but more so about getting the best collection of players out of the whole draft lot. Say this is a team's simplified draft board.

FS 1
DT 1
FS 2
DT 2

In the simplified scenario above, under the assumption the team thinks they can get DT 2 or FS 2 at their next pick but not DT/FS 1, then a team drafting using the theory of the sum being greater than it's parts might take DT 1 over FS 1 with the initial pick, being happier with 2 of their top 3 rather than 2 of their top 4 where #1 is the best individual player. Now imagine that with hundreds of variables rather than the few controlled scenario here and you've got constant value wagers going on all over the place.

Look at our 2012 draft for example - we got a star WR in Alshon but hot garbage for the rest. Would we have been better off netting 3 solid starters from that draft over one star and nothing else? You could certainly make an argument for either side.
_________________

GRRLacher wrote:
I told you guys AZ was awesome...he in fact makes triple the pay I get for moderating here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MonserinNC


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 5231
Location: Back in the CHIIII
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AZBearsFan wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
G08 wrote:
Phil Emery goes off his own perceptions. He pretty much took Kyle Long because he didn't think he would be there in the second round. That tells me he puts due diligence into is board, probably works though all scenarios and trade options, and at the end of the makestthe pick he knew he was going to make a couple of picks before he is on the clock.


That is the point I'm trying to make, though. He knew (or believed anyway) Long wouldn't be there in the second, maybe not even later in the first had a trade down scenario been available, because he wasn't the only person that saw his potential. That is taking other people's perceptions into the decision.

That is not to say he will take whoever the general consensus is as the best pick. More that there is a level of gamesmanship to the decision making process.

Not only that but I think the real art of the draft isn't necessarily about just getting the single best player available but more so about getting the best collection of players out of the whole draft lot. Say this is a team's simplified draft board.

FS 1
DT 1
FS 2
DT 2

In the simplified scenario above, under the assumption the team thinks they can get DT 2 or FS 2 at their next pick but not DT/FS 1, then a team drafting using the theory of the sum being greater than it's parts might take DT 1 over FS 1 with the initial pick, being happier with 2 of their top 3 rather than 2 of their top 4 where #1 is the best individual player. Now imagine that with hundreds of variables rather than the few controlled scenario here and you've got constant value wagers going on all over the place.

Look at our 2012 draft for example - we got a star WR in Alshon but hot garbage for the rest. Would we have been better off netting 3 solid starters from that draft over one star and nothing else? You could certainly make an argument for either side.


What I was arguing though, is what if we took Alshon in the 1st round? Who cares if it was a reach.....basically it would just be used in a chart for us football nerds about how many of our first round picks versus late round picks have worked out

Even in Seattle(who everyone worships now), the Super Bowl MVP was a 7th rounder, I dont even remember Bruce Irvin(a 1st rounder)......so why are we so hung up on value?

Basically drafts are like baseball batting averages, even the best hit .300 maybe??? Who cares what inning the hits came in??
_________________


BrotherlyLove wrote:
Cutler isn't sexy enough to be compared to sexy rexy, let's get real


Darrelle Revis wrote:
TEBOWSANITYMANIA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
KG1187


Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A couple of days before the draft, I heard the Cowboys were a threat to take Long in the first round, perhaps if they moved down from the 18th pick. I later heard from league sources outside of Halas Hall that the Colts (24th pick) and Rams (22nd pick) were very interested in drafting him. Some suspected the Packers (26th pick) also were in the Long market.


According to Dan Pompei there's no way Long would have made to the 2nd and the Bears couldn't afford to trade down in the first.

http://www.chatsports.com/green-bay-packers/a/Did-the-Packers-Want-to-Draft-Kyle-Long-2-7845041[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AZBearsFan


Moderator
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 10888
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MonserinNC wrote:
AZBearsFan wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
G08 wrote:
Phil Emery goes off his own perceptions. He pretty much took Kyle Long because he didn't think he would be there in the second round. That tells me he puts due diligence into is board, probably works though all scenarios and trade options, and at the end of the makestthe pick he knew he was going to make a couple of picks before he is on the clock.


That is the point I'm trying to make, though. He knew (or believed anyway) Long wouldn't be there in the second, maybe not even later in the first had a trade down scenario been available, because he wasn't the only person that saw his potential. That is taking other people's perceptions into the decision.

That is not to say he will take whoever the general consensus is as the best pick. More that there is a level of gamesmanship to the decision making process.

Not only that but I think the real art of the draft isn't necessarily about just getting the single best player available but more so about getting the best collection of players out of the whole draft lot. Say this is a team's simplified draft board.

FS 1
DT 1
FS 2
DT 2

In the simplified scenario above, under the assumption the team thinks they can get DT 2 or FS 2 at their next pick but not DT/FS 1, then a team drafting using the theory of the sum being greater than it's parts might take DT 1 over FS 1 with the initial pick, being happier with 2 of their top 3 rather than 2 of their top 4 where #1 is the best individual player. Now imagine that with hundreds of variables rather than the few controlled scenario here and you've got constant value wagers going on all over the place.

Look at our 2012 draft for example - we got a star WR in Alshon but hot garbage for the rest. Would we have been better off netting 3 solid starters from that draft over one star and nothing else? You could certainly make an argument for either side.


What I was arguing though, is what if we took Alshon in the 1st round? Who cares if it was a reach.....basically it would just be used in a chart for us football nerds about how many of our first round picks versus late round picks have worked out

Even in Seattle(who everyone worships now), the Super Bowl MVP was a 7th rounder, I dont even remember Bruce Irvin(a 1st rounder)......so why are we so hung up on value?

Basically drafts are like baseball batting averages, even the best hit .300 maybe??? Who cares what inning the hits came in??

Oh, I agree that the batting average is far more important than the amount of home runs. Our team is a sterling example of that.
_________________

GRRLacher wrote:
I told you guys AZ was awesome...he in fact makes triple the pay I get for moderating here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group