[BobCarl]

the good he did in the past doesn't erase any of the shit he pulled in the past .... only time makes the past fade away ... hopefully his past locker room BS stopped in KC.. and now we are confident that he is a new man and a team player and plays up to the ability that we have seen him perform on the field for the last 3 years.

[Elmgrovegnome]

Rams had 6 #2 picks from 2012-2017.

Busts: Quick, Pead.

Hits: Jenkins, Joyner, Hav

Too soon to say: Everett

Since it's too soon to say for Everett, that leaves 5, with 3 hits and 2 busts.

Which is 60%. If I recall that's better than the average hit rate for 2nd round picks.

...

Overall Snead has hit on second round picks. He did also trade back and passed on Bobby Wagner, and used that trade to take Rok Watkins. So factor those two blunders in too and it is about 50/50, league average for round two.

[/zn/]

Overall Snead has hit on second round picks. He did also trade back and passed on Bobby Wagner, and used that trade to take Rok Watkins. So factor those two blunders in too and it is about 50/50, league average for round two.

I just do hits. If you are going to factor in misses (like Wagoner) then you have to do all the other GMs too, or it's not a real comparison. You're comparing "Snead+analysis of misses" to everyone else's "just hits." So how often do GMs miss that way? The only way to tell is to "compare hits+analysis of misses" x 32. When you do it THAT way, is your version of 50% average, above average? You can only answer that comparatively. Unless you think no other GM has a significant miss and/or a blunder.

It's as if I sent kids on an easter egg hunt, and billy got 4, but tore his shirt in the underbrush, so I count it as 3. If I am going to do it like that then every kid has to be inspected for eggs found + rips, scratches, bruises, and other damage. Or it's not a fair comparison.

...

[Hacksaw]

Your quote reads to me like he was only posting about Snead in particular.


,,, save the 'league avg' thing...

[/zn/]

Your quote reads to me like he was only posting about Snead in particular.


,,, save the 'league avg' thing...

Of course he was and that's the mistake.

If you're going to claim a percentage means something, you have to do it comparatively.

So if you go "accounting for blunders and misses, it's 50%" I just go IS THAT GOOD OR BAD? If you factor the same thing in for other GMs, is 50% bad, average, good?

The only way to know that is comparatively. There's no way around that. By itself as a stand-alone number it's meaningless.

So if you do the same adjustment for every single GM then we could say.

Cause what are the odds other GMs DON'T have things like that.

At least when I say "60% is better than the league average" it's a comparison. That way it's real information.

What that does is clarify talking about hits and misses. If the league average hitting on 2nd round picks is at best 50%, then hitting on 60% is not drafting poorly.

...

[Hacksaw]

I understand your point.

100% hits would be great regardless of what other do. 0% would be bad. I'd like to see that 50% improved upon. The higher the % the better for the Rams,, regardless of what others do.

[Elmgrovegnome]

I just do hits. If you are going to factor in misses (like Wagoner) then you have to do all the other GMs too, or it's not a real comparison. You're comparing "Snead+analysis of misses" to everyone else's "just hits." So how often do GMs miss that way? The only way to tell is to "compare hits+analysis of misses" x 32. When you do it THAT way, is your version of 50% average, above average? You can only answer that comparatively. Unless you think no other GM has a significant miss and/or a blunder.

It's as if I sent kids on an easter egg hunt, and billy got 4, but tore his shirt in the underbrush, so I count it as 3. If I am going to do it like that then every kid has to be inspected for eggs found + rips, scratches, bruises, and other damage. Or it's not a fair comparison.

...

Success rate on first round picks is 75%. Success rates on 2nd round picks is 50%. There is a chart I saw a few years ago. I think overall success is year to year. Some years the draft is low on talent, others deep. I don't know how those percentages were derived but it was presented as a general analysis.

[RamsFanSince82]

AND.....this trade shows we are working to retain The Mighty Quinn. KC wanted to trade for him but we didn't do it. I hope we've already worked out a bit of a salary cut for him though

Nope.

[Hacksaw]

We cut his salary alright.

[/zn/]

Success rate on first round picks is 75%. Success rates on 2nd round picks is 50%. There is a chart I saw a few years ago. I think overall success is year to year. Some years the draft is low on talent, others deep. I don't know how those percentages were derived but it was presented as a general analysis.

So to do it straight up and keep it simple...cause all GMs have screw ups and players they had a chance to pick and didn't...60% on the 2nd round picks we know about is just above average.

50% is an average across time. Yes drafts are different and they fluctuate which is obviously why you look at averages across time, so it evens out.

It would have been much better if they had taken a real player instead of either Quick or Pead. That's pretty clear. But it's not unusual for 2nd rounders to bust, even with good drafting teams. Few teams draft as well as the Steelers for example but looking at a swatch of years far enough back so we can definitively judge the results, from 2008-2013 they had 6 2nd round picks, with 3 definite hits (Bell, Woodley, and their ROT Gilbert) and then 3 busts (Worilds, Adams, Sweed). So...50%. Just an example.

...