Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Don't think Grigson's track record in Indy is anything to brag about, but KAM is definitely going to need someone who at least has SOME experience with trades and maneuvering around the draft.
its too soon to mention "maneuvering around the draft" can we please not use phrases that conjure up mental images of no mid round picks and 5- 7th rounders?
Not sure what that could possibly mean considering we had FOUR 3rd rounders and THREE 4th rounders last year.
In years past we did trade down several times to collect late rounders. But I'm a big believer in that, as are those who use analytics to inform their draft strategies. It's not as, um, Kwesi as it sounds.
it was more in jest than anything, however, you can make those moves when you have a good roster, but a team as low on talent as the Vikings, with cap issues, you need players now, not late round flyers, no matter how many you have they arent likely to do much in the first year or two. even later, how many of those 6th and 7th rounders stuck with the team and are actually making meaningful contributions after a couple years?
This is a good move purely to bring a new scouting/personnel voice into the building. As much as the current staff has succeeded this likely will decrease some of the group-think. They had looked at a few other names before settling on Grigson.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Don't think Grigson's track record in Indy is anything to brag about, but KAM is definitely going to need someone who at least has SOME experience with trades and maneuvering around the draft.
its too soon to mention "maneuvering around the draft" can we please not use phrases that conjure up mental images of no mid round picks and 5- 7th rounders?
Not sure what that could possibly mean considering we had FOUR 3rd rounders and THREE 4th rounders last year.
In years past we did trade down several times to collect late rounders. But I'm a big believer in that, as are those who use analytics to inform their draft strategies. It's not as, um, Kwesi as it sounds.
it was more in jest than anything, however, you can make those moves when you have a good roster, but a team as low on talent as the Vikings, with cap issues, you need players now, not late round flyers, no matter how many you have they arent likely to do much in the first year or two. even later, how many of those 6th and 7th rounders stuck with the team and are actually making meaningful contributions after a couple years?
It all depends on where the value is clustered. But article after article by those with bigger brains than me have shown that trading down and collecting more picks is, statistically, more likely to net you a quality contributor. Basically, the curve flattens. While there might be a huge difference in the hit rate between, say, picks 20 and 40, there isn't an appreciable difference between picks 120 and 140, so the more you have, the more likely you are to hit on a player.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Don't think Grigson's track record in Indy is anything to brag about, but KAM is definitely going to need someone who at least has SOME experience with trades and maneuvering around the draft.
its too soon to mention "maneuvering around the draft" can we please not use phrases that conjure up mental images of no mid round picks and 5- 7th rounders?
Not sure what that could possibly mean considering we had FOUR 3rd rounders and THREE 4th rounders last year.
In years past we did trade down several times to collect late rounders. But I'm a big believer in that, as are those who use analytics to inform their draft strategies. It's not as, um, Kwesi as it sounds.
it was more in jest than anything, however, you can make those moves when you have a good roster, but a team as low on talent as the Vikings, with cap issues, you need players now, not late round flyers, no matter how many you have they arent likely to do much in the first year or two. even later, how many of those 6th and 7th rounders stuck with the team and are actually making meaningful contributions after a couple years?
It all depends on where the value is clustered. But article after article by those with bigger brains than me have shown that trading down and collecting more picks is, statistically, more likely to net you a quality contributor. Basically, the curve flattens. While there might be a huge difference in the hit rate between, say, picks 20 and 40, there isn't an appreciable difference between picks 120 and 140, so the more you have, the more likely you are to hit on a player.
I don't disagree with the concept whatsoever, the more picks/dart throws you have, the better. But personally I think its flawed in some ways. Lets just use the 2019 draft as an example since you have some track record to suggest which players are hits vs. misses.
In rounds 2-3 you have 69 picks (including comp picks). In those selections you have what I would qualify as:
- 9 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players (13%)
- 25 impact starters (36%)
- 31 Depth or Fringe Players (51%)
In all that is about what everyone tells you, its a 50/50 shot in rounds 1-3.
Take the next 69 picks in rounds 4-5
- 5 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players plus 2 high-end special teamers (10%)
- 9 impact starters (13%)
- 53 Depth or Fringe Players (77%)
The trade value of each range is about 2.5 to 1 so you can get 2.5 dart throws in the second pool for each 1 throw you get in the first pool.
So with those odds you can say without regards to draft order that you have a 1 in 10 shot of a pro-bowler, 4 in 10 shot of getting at least an impact starter, and 5 in 10 chance of getting a fringe guy to fill out the 53. Another way said, back to the basics, you have a 50/50 shot of getting a meaningful player.
Now with the logic that more throws is better are my odds actually better? If you play out the probabilities once again giving no regards to draft order you have a 15% chance at drafting a pro-bowler (assuming you don't draft many special teamers), a 26% chance at getting an impact starter, and a 59% chance at getting a back end of the roster player. Once again you're back into the 50/50 business.
So what does this all end up meaning? Unless you're a better than average decision maker/scout your odds of drafting high-end players is really no better whether you draft a single player in round 2/3 or 2-3 players in rounds 4/5. So the idea that more dart throws is better is a bit of a myth but doesn't necessarily lower your chances of success either. There are more variables than this but its good baseline knowledge.
The #Vikings will determine the full structure of their personnel department under new GM Kwesi Adofo-Mensah after the draft. Ryan Grigson, along with co-directors of player personnel Ryan Monnens and Jamaal Stephenson, all expected to have big roles.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Don't think Grigson's track record in Indy is anything to brag about, but KAM is definitely going to need someone who at least has SOME experience with trades and maneuvering around the draft.
its too soon to mention "maneuvering around the draft" can we please not use phrases that conjure up mental images of no mid round picks and 5- 7th rounders?
Not sure what that could possibly mean considering we had FOUR 3rd rounders and THREE 4th rounders last year.
In years past we did trade down several times to collect late rounders. But I'm a big believer in that, as are those who use analytics to inform their draft strategies. It's not as, um, Kwesi as it sounds.
it was more in jest than anything, however, you can make those moves when you have a good roster, but a team as low on talent as the Vikings, with cap issues, you need players now, not late round flyers, no matter how many you have they arent likely to do much in the first year or two. even later, how many of those 6th and 7th rounders stuck with the team and are actually making meaningful contributions after a couple years?
It all depends on where the value is clustered. But article after article by those with bigger brains than me have shown that trading down and collecting more picks is, statistically, more likely to net you a quality contributor. Basically, the curve flattens. While there might be a huge difference in the hit rate between, say, picks 20 and 40, there isn't an appreciable difference between picks 120 and 140, so the more you have, the more likely you are to hit on a player.
I don't disagree with the concept whatsoever, the more picks/dart throws you have, the better. But personally I think its flawed in some ways. Lets just use the 2019 draft as an example since you have some track record to suggest which players are hits vs. misses.
In rounds 2-3 you have 69 picks (including comp picks). In those selections you have what I would qualify as:
- 9 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players (13%)
- 25 impact starters (36%)
- 31 Depth or Fringe Players (51%)
In all that is about what everyone tells you, its a 50/50 shot in rounds 1-3.
Take the next 69 picks in rounds 4-5
- 5 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players plus 2 high-end special teamers (10%)
- 9 impact starters (13%)
- 53 Depth or Fringe Players (77%)
The trade value of each range is about 2.5 to 1 so you can get 2.5 dart throws in the second pool for each 1 throw you get in the first pool.
So with those odds you can say without regards to draft order that you have a 1 in 10 shot of a pro-bowler, 4 in 10 shot of getting at least an impact starter, and 5 in 10 chance of getting a fringe guy to fill out the 53. Another way said, back to the basics, you have a 50/50 shot of getting a meaningful player.
Now with the logic that more throws is better are my odds actually better? If you play out the probabilities once again giving no regards to draft order you have a 15% chance at drafting a pro-bowler (assuming you don't draft many special teamers), a 26% chance at getting an impact starter, and a 59% chance at getting a back end of the roster player. Once again you're back into the 50/50 business.
So what does this all end up meaning? Unless you're a better than average decision maker/scout your odds of drafting high-end players is really no better whether you draft a single player in round 2/3 or 2-3 players in rounds 4/5. So the idea that more dart throws is better is a bit of a myth but doesn't necessarily lower your chances of success either. There are more variables than this but its good baseline knowledge.
The analytics would disagree with you. And using one example to support an argument is the reason so many started using analytics in the first place. There are always going to be exceptions, along with perceptions and biases. The idea is to use cumulative data over long periods of time. As they say, data doesn't lie. People do. :-)
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Don't think Grigson's track record in Indy is anything to brag about, but KAM is definitely going to need someone who at least has SOME experience with trades and maneuvering around the draft.
its too soon to mention "maneuvering around the draft" can we please not use phrases that conjure up mental images of no mid round picks and 5- 7th rounders?
Not sure what that could possibly mean considering we had FOUR 3rd rounders and THREE 4th rounders last year.
In years past we did trade down several times to collect late rounders. But I'm a big believer in that, as are those who use analytics to inform their draft strategies. It's not as, um, Kwesi as it sounds.
it was more in jest than anything, however, you can make those moves when you have a good roster, but a team as low on talent as the Vikings, with cap issues, you need players now, not late round flyers, no matter how many you have they arent likely to do much in the first year or two. even later, how many of those 6th and 7th rounders stuck with the team and are actually making meaningful contributions after a couple years?
It all depends on where the value is clustered. But article after article by those with bigger brains than me have shown that trading down and collecting more picks is, statistically, more likely to net you a quality contributor. Basically, the curve flattens. While there might be a huge difference in the hit rate between, say, picks 20 and 40, there isn't an appreciable difference between picks 120 and 140, so the more you have, the more likely you are to hit on a player.
I don't disagree with the concept whatsoever, the more picks/dart throws you have, the better. But personally I think its flawed in some ways. Lets just use the 2019 draft as an example since you have some track record to suggest which players are hits vs. misses.
In rounds 2-3 you have 69 picks (including comp picks). In those selections you have what I would qualify as:
- 9 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players (13%)
- 25 impact starters (36%)
- 31 Depth or Fringe Players (51%)
In all that is about what everyone tells you, its a 50/50 shot in rounds 1-3.
Take the next 69 picks in rounds 4-5
- 5 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players plus 2 high-end special teamers (10%)
- 9 impact starters (13%)
- 53 Depth or Fringe Players (77%)
The trade value of each range is about 2.5 to 1 so you can get 2.5 dart throws in the second pool for each 1 throw you get in the first pool.
So with those odds you can say without regards to draft order that you have a 1 in 10 shot of a pro-bowler, 4 in 10 shot of getting at least an impact starter, and 5 in 10 chance of getting a fringe guy to fill out the 53. Another way said, back to the basics, you have a 50/50 shot of getting a meaningful player.
Now with the logic that more throws is better are my odds actually better? If you play out the probabilities once again giving no regards to draft order you have a 15% chance at drafting a pro-bowler (assuming you don't draft many special teamers), a 26% chance at getting an impact starter, and a 59% chance at getting a back end of the roster player. Once again you're back into the 50/50 business.
So what does this all end up meaning? Unless you're a better than average decision maker/scout your odds of drafting high-end players is really no better whether you draft a single player in round 2/3 or 2-3 players in rounds 4/5. So the idea that more dart throws is better is a bit of a myth but doesn't necessarily lower your chances of success either. There are more variables than this but its good baseline knowledge.
The analytics would disagree with you. And using one example to support an argument is the reason so many started using analytics in the first place. There are always going to be exceptions, along with perceptions and biases. The idea is to use cumulative data over long periods of time. As they say, data doesn't lie. People do. :-)
I would assimilate it with trying to beat the stock market. There is also some level of regression to the mean regardless of how good or bad you are at drafting or trading stocks for that matter. Analytics are good directionally but don't tell you who to draft either. So take the 2019 draft, extrapolate it to the past 10 drafts, etc. I think the point is that if there were some hidden inefficiency a team or teams would be using it to their advantage. Trading back to throw more darts is a noble concept I used to believe in, but it futile unless you are better at drafting than the rest of the league. In other words, its for the trader who knows how to beat the market consistency. But then close that circle and ask, if you're so good at drafting why don't you take a great player in round 2?
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Don't think Grigson's track record in Indy is anything to brag about, but KAM is definitely going to need someone who at least has SOME experience with trades and maneuvering around the draft.
its too soon to mention "maneuvering around the draft" can we please not use phrases that conjure up mental images of no mid round picks and 5- 7th rounders?
Not sure what that could possibly mean considering we had FOUR 3rd rounders and THREE 4th rounders last year.
In years past we did trade down several times to collect late rounders. But I'm a big believer in that, as are those who use analytics to inform their draft strategies. It's not as, um, Kwesi as it sounds.
it was more in jest than anything, however, you can make those moves when you have a good roster, but a team as low on talent as the Vikings, with cap issues, you need players now, not late round flyers, no matter how many you have they arent likely to do much in the first year or two. even later, how many of those 6th and 7th rounders stuck with the team and are actually making meaningful contributions after a couple years?
It all depends on where the value is clustered. But article after article by those with bigger brains than me have shown that trading down and collecting more picks is, statistically, more likely to net you a quality contributor. Basically, the curve flattens. While there might be a huge difference in the hit rate between, say, picks 20 and 40, there isn't an appreciable difference between picks 120 and 140, so the more you have, the more likely you are to hit on a player.
I don't disagree with the concept whatsoever, the more picks/dart throws you have, the better. But personally I think its flawed in some ways. Lets just use the 2019 draft as an example since you have some track record to suggest which players are hits vs. misses.
In rounds 2-3 you have 69 picks (including comp picks). In those selections you have what I would qualify as:
- 9 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players (13%)
- 25 impact starters (36%)
- 31 Depth or Fringe Players (51%)
In all that is about what everyone tells you, its a 50/50 shot in rounds 1-3.
Take the next 69 picks in rounds 4-5
- 5 Pro-Bowlers/Impact Players plus 2 high-end special teamers (10%)
- 9 impact starters (13%)
- 53 Depth or Fringe Players (77%)
The trade value of each range is about 2.5 to 1 so you can get 2.5 dart throws in the second pool for each 1 throw you get in the first pool.
So with those odds you can say without regards to draft order that you have a 1 in 10 shot of a pro-bowler, 4 in 10 shot of getting at least an impact starter, and 5 in 10 chance of getting a fringe guy to fill out the 53. Another way said, back to the basics, you have a 50/50 shot of getting a meaningful player.
Now with the logic that more throws is better are my odds actually better? If you play out the probabilities once again giving no regards to draft order you have a 15% chance at drafting a pro-bowler (assuming you don't draft many special teamers), a 26% chance at getting an impact starter, and a 59% chance at getting a back end of the roster player. Once again you're back into the 50/50 business.
So what does this all end up meaning? Unless you're a better than average decision maker/scout your odds of drafting high-end players is really no better whether you draft a single player in round 2/3 or 2-3 players in rounds 4/5. So the idea that more dart throws is better is a bit of a myth but doesn't necessarily lower your chances of success either. There are more variables than this but its good baseline knowledge.
The analytics would disagree with you. And using one example to support an argument is the reason so many started using analytics in the first place. There are always going to be exceptions, along with perceptions and biases. The idea is to use cumulative data over long periods of time. As they say, data doesn't lie. People do. :-)
I would assimilate it with trying to beat the stock market. There is also some level of regression to the mean regardless of how good or bad you are at drafting or trading stocks for that matter. Analytics are good directionally but don't tell you who to draft either. So take the 2019 draft, extrapolate it to the past 10 drafts, etc. I think the point is that if there were some hidden inefficiency a team or teams would be using it to their advantage. Trading back to throw more darts is a noble concept I used to believe in, but it futile unless you are better at drafting than the rest of the league. In other words, its for the trader who knows how to beat the market consistency. But then close that circle and ask, if you're so good at drafting why don't you take a great player in round 2?
Because you traded your 2nd round pick for about a month of Yannick Ngakoue 
|
![[Image: gvqhc13ip6xb.jpeg]](https://vikefans.com/vfforums/uploads/editor/ti/gvqhc13ip6xb.jpeg)