Where's Forty-Four?
by Anthony Carter on Apr 28, 2009 9:55 AM CDT
21 comments
A bit of a friendly nudge here. In a somewhat lengthy post at the end of March Forty-Four predicted that the Vikings would not pick a WR in the first round based on the philosophy that Chilly inherited from Andy Reid in Philly: WRs are always better to acquire in the second round and later. Just wondering what Forty-Four makes of the assertive moves both the Vikes and Eagles made this year to acquire flashy talent at the receiver position.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
0 recs |
21 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Well,
I may not be Fourty-four, and can’t speak for him, but Chillie doesn’t make the personell desicions any more. Those decisions fall to Speilman, who may not share that filosophy. Also, chilies mentor took a WR in the first round thise year also.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Apr 28, 2009 10:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreeing with the Real Thor
More than one of these draft videos I’ve seen suggests that Childress was the last one to come around on Harvin, and fairly reluctantly.
I do think that Reid’s selecting a WR this year could have helped Childress go along with Harvin. Before this year, it had been said in numerous places that certain coaches preferred not to draft 1st round receivers, and there had been none in the 1st last year.
Boom or bust, I’ll still be singing “Don’t Fear the Receiver” in the 1st round.
by KC Viking on Apr 28, 2009 12:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that 1st round WR
bust at a high rate, for the same reasons that 1st round QB’s bust. they are usually drafted by teams that suck. I bet, that if we looked at the list of 1st round WR that busted, and those that didn’t, I would bet that the preponderence of those that succeeded were drafted late in the first round, while the preponderence of those that busted were drafted high in the first round.
I don’t have the data to back up that hypothosis, but if some one would do an indepth analasys of recievers (and QB’s) drafted in the first round, and compared, not just the number of busts vs success, but also to where they were drafted with in the first round, I would bet we would start to see a pattern.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Apr 28, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes (mostly)
I was going to write up something about 1st round receivers (and QBs and OTs for comparison), but when Harvin tested positive, I had wrongly assumed that there would be no 1st round WR for the Vikes anyway.
by KC Viking on Apr 28, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure Chilly was so reluctant
Check this article out. Granted, I cant stand the writer (MJD), and he has exagerrated the account. But reading what Chilly did say, I find it quite entertaining…..although not sure it was productive in convincing Harvin that we put faith in him.
by Lofoten on Apr 28, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha
I agree with MJD this time. How silly to try to one-up the Pats. Not that that would make much sense anyway, but since Childress ranks below Spielman (and maybe someone else) in draft matters, it’s not like he could rightfully claim it as his great idea anyway. Nor would stealing from a real genius be a move fitting of a genius. It would be more akin to Carl Peterson signing and trading for the 49ers leftovers (Montana after SF didn’t want him anymore, Elvis Grbac, AND Steve Bono) while ignoring Gannon and letting him go to the rival Raiders.
How many other teams sent their head coaches to hang out and ask a bunch of tough questions? Why would any team do so unless someone (probably said head coach) was fishing for a reason to pass along to ownership to veto the pick?
Besides, it’s a little silly since NE has at least 2 great WRs already. They are one of the last teams that needed or could even find much playing time for Harvin.
This is a rumor article. Childress talked about this in an actual interview, and while he didn’t want to admit to being the last one on board, he made it clear that he wanted answers to a bunch of tough questions before feeling ok about it…same thing.
by KC Viking on Apr 29, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree about the Pats not needing or finding much time for Harvin. This is Bill Bellichick, we’re talking about. He loves, absolutely loves, versatile players. Which is what Harvin is. Yes, they already have great WRs in NE. No doubt. But I’m sure Bellichick was envisioning some plays where Harvin would succeed better than Welker or Moss. And, like I said, the guy’s versatile, so Bill could put him in some schemes and the defense wouldn’t know what he was going to do. I think their interest in Harvin was genuine.
by Frost on Apr 29, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but I doubt it.
Those sorts of gimmicks can backfire, too, like when Chester in the backfield tells the defense to defend a pass (often to Taylor).
And it still wouldn’t be a good idea to draft a player just because the Pats liked him and would have used him since the Vikings aren’t going to get him.
For all we know, NE was able to trade down (what they really wanted to do anyway) because the Vikings passed on the best player in the draft (Oher, perhaps).
by KC Viking on Apr 29, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How often have gimmicky plays backfired on the Pats? I’d guess not very often. Bellichick is all about getting the most out of his players, and Harvin has a TON of potential.
But really, who knows what they actually wanted. They’re not going to come out and say one way or the other.
by Frost on Apr 29, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For BCS quarterbacks
(Career Starts x 0.5) + [(Career completion pct. – 60)x 5] + [(Career touchdown-INT ratio – 2.25)x10]
For non-BCS quarterbacks
(Career Starts x 0.5) + [(Career completion pct. – 60) x2.5] + [(Career touchdown – INT Ratio – 2.25)x5]
The formula allows us to measure quarterbacks relative to a baseline completion percentage of 60 and a touchdown-interception ratio of 2.25. The multipliers allow each figure to have equal weight with career starts, which provides an important measure of experience.
The total score is the sum of the three adjusted figures.
The separate parameters for BCS and non-BCS quarterbacks help level the statistical playing field. They are based on the assumption that NFL-caliber quarterbacks playing against non-BCS opponents are going to have inflated numbers.
According to ESPN.com writer Kevin Seifert, ESPN Research plugged in the 31 quarterbacks taken in the first round over the past 12 drafts, dating back to 1997. Quarterbacks were broken into three categories. If their college statistics translated to a value of 20 or more, there was a strong likelihood for success. A value between 1 and 19 essentially meant "iffy."
"The most revealing category were those quarterbacks who finished with a value of 0 or less," writes Seifert, "Every one of them failed as NFL quarterbacks."
Group I: Strong likelihood of success
Matt Leinart (USC) – 64.04
Philip Rivers (NC State) – 48.44
Tim Couch (Kentucky) – 47.64
Alex Smith (Utah) – 44.88
Aaron Rodgers (California) – 40.58
Peyton Manning (Tennessee) – 39.47
Jason Campbell (Auburn) – 38.75
Byron Leftwich (Marshall) – 36.39
Ben Roethlisberger (Miami, OH) – 33.85
Chad Pennington (Marshall) – 33.53
Daunte Culpepper (Central Florida) – 30.00
David Carr (Fresno State) – 23.97
Joe Flacco (Delaware) – 23.92
Eli Manning (Ole Miss) – 23.14
Donovan McNabb (Syracuse) – 21.62
Group II: Hit-or-Miss
Brady Quinn (Notre Dame) – 18.93
JaMarcus Russell (LSU) -18.64
Rex Grossman (Florida) – 18.39
Vince Young (Texas) – 18.21
Carson Palmer (USC) – 16.35
Matt Ryan (Boston College) – 9.14
Patrick Ramsey (Tulane) – 9.06
J.P. Losman (Tulane) – 7.86
Jay Cutler (Vanderbilt) – 2.39
Group III: Busts
Akili Smith (Oregon) – 0.00
Cade McNowan (UCLA) – -6.41
Joey Harrington (Oregon) – -6.85
Michael Vick (Virginia Tech) – -11.32
Ryan Leaf (Washington St.) – -16.92
Jim Druckenmiller (Virginia Tech) – -20.25
Kyle Boller (California) – -50.67
by Huskarl Skeggox on Apr 28, 2009 1:07 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Very accurate with those who score 0 or less. There are a very QBs in the other two groups who have done better than projected however this formula is quite accurate.
V.I.K.I.N.G.S Skol Vikings, Let's GO!!!!!!!
by Huskarl Skeggox on Apr 28, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soooooo....
Where is Tjack on this list?
According to my calculations, correct me if I have the numbers wrong.
Tjack started roughly 30 games at AL state. That is not including his few games at Arkansas.
He had a completion percentage of roughly 55%
His TD to INT ratio was 64-26 or 2.46.
So 30 × .5 =15
55% – 60 = -5 × 2.5 = 12.5
2.46 – 2.25 = .21 × 5 = 1.05
15 + (-12.5) + 1.05 = 3.55
So he is better than Cutler. :)
I would think that there has to be a difference in numbers between a normal Non-BCS college and a Division I-AA school.
by Bjorno on Apr 28, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2009 1st rounders plus a few
(I didn’t find games started very easily, but I think these are correct. The rest of the #s are.)
Stafford: 39, 56.6%, 51/33 = 19.5+(-17)(-7.05) = 29.45
Sanchez: 19, 61.2%, 41/16 = 9.56+3.125 = 18.625
Freeman: 35, 58.1%, 44/34 = 17.5+(-4.75)(-4.779) = 7.97
Nate Davis: 39, 60.7%, 74/22 = 19.53.5+11.14 = 34.14
Chase Daniel: 51, 66.2%, 101/41 = 25.5+31+2.13 = 58.63
Graham Harrell: 45, 69.4%, 134/34 = 22.5+47+16.91 = 86.41
Wow. After all the hype and drama around Mark Sanchez, this formula puts him in the Brady Quinn and Rex Grossman category! All of the scouting reports were iffy on the toolsy and athletic Freeman, and he could be the next J.P. Losman or Matt Ryan. Oddly enough, Stafford had the 2nd worst TD:INT ratio, but benefitted a ton from his completion %. Someone got a steal in Nate Davis.
Admittedly, the last 2 could be considered “system QBs”, but many of their skills (quick release, making good reads, leading receivers, placing the ball away from defenders, not throwing into coverage unnecessarily, looking off defenders, hopefully not fumbling much, maybe mobility, etc.) would still be potentially applicable in a pro offense, especially the Chilly/Bevell dink-and-dunk version. For a cost of an undrafted free agent or very late round pick, there is at least 1 chance per year of finding a system QB who is adaptable and helpful to the depth of the most important position on the team.
by KC Viking on Apr 29, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure how accurate
that formula really is. couch and Smith, numbers 3 and 4 on the list are busts. Leinart looks to be busting at this moment. and he is tops by a huge margin. Cambel and Pennington are avg QB’s leftwich looks to be a better then avg back up. David Carr Busted big time. group two seems to be doing better as an avg of producing then group 1, so there really shouldn’t be a destinction. only group 3 seems to be at all really predictive. I would like to compare that list to draft position, i.e. 1st third, 2nd third, last third. then compare the busts to success. That formula is nothing more then a modified QB rating.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Apr 28, 2009 3:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Right
…but Couch (bust) and Leinart (1/2 bust) means that it’s 90% in that tier (1.5/15), which is still pretty good.
And as you’d said earlier, Couch’s lack of success could have just as much to do with being drafted to a team which wasn’t really ready for a franchise QB.
by KC Viking on Apr 28, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said for all of the QBs who were straight busts it is 100% accurate, there are a few errors and exeptions with the other two groups, but overall the list is quite close.
V.I.K.I.N.G.S Skol Vikings, Let's GO!!!!!!!
by Huskarl Skeggox on Apr 28, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Likelihood of success"
The list isn’t saying that yes for sure they will succede or not.. It is just the likelihood.. Its just a guideline to follow for predictions..
V.I.K.I.N.G.S Skol Vikings, Let's GO!!!!!!!
by Huskarl Skeggox on Apr 28, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More Like
it can predict certenty of failure, but not any thing about success. lets look at the groupings again.
tier I
7 quality/possibly franchise starters, 2 backups, 2 as of yet unknown comodities (leinart, and Flacco) and 4 busts (2 more could be added to the bust list in the next couple of years.)
tier II
3 quality/possible franchise QB’s, 2 unknowns, and 4 busts.
tier III
all busts.
so in review, tier I produced or will produce between 7-9 starters out of 15 picks, tier II produced or will produce between 3-5 starters out of 9. I don’t see any reason to seperate this into three groups. two groups yes, but three? even then, it has only a 50-50 predictive power of success.
So your two groups should be “Certain Bust” and “50-50”
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Apr 28, 2009 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know.
Can you think of ONE truly great or even indisputably good QB who played on a really bad team? I can’t. As far back as I can remember, every great QB had at least above average talent around him. I’m not sure it’s possible for a QB to succeed without a line and at least 2 quality skill position talents (usually RB and a WR), and a good defense helps a ton, too.
If that is true, then guys like Couch, Alex Smith, David Carr, and Byron Leftwich probably could have been much better on a different team. Of those, I wouldn’t really count Leftwich (consistently above average rating with TERRIBLE receivers) or Carr (showed some promise when he wasn’t being sacked all the time) as busts. So I only see 2 busts, 2 backups, 1 unknown in Leinart (who will have to wait for at least another year, but he should be effective whenever he takes over or be labeled a bust). I think Flacco should be considered a success until something changes. I can’t imagine who else is anything less than a success in that top tier. Pennington and Campbell aren’t HoFer types, but they are 2 of the most accurate, reliable, and least intercepted NFL QBs who are often taken for granted but not easily replaced. Culpepper’s game required some mobility to draw coverage off his receivers. He was the real deal then (and could be again this year if he’s really lost 25 pounds and gets some help from his RB and OL). No way can a pro bowl QB be considered a bust.
Russell began to impress last year with a bit more talent around him, and that could easily continue.
By my count, that’s 10/15 at worst or 12/14 at best in tier I = 66+% chance of success; 3-5 of 9 in tier II = 33-55% chance of success (a coin flip at best); tier III = slim to none (Vick was good enough to get the team to an NFC championship game before he was arrested. The Falcons made a killing on his merchandise sales, so he probably shouldn’t be considered a total bust).
Even by your math, 8/15 = more than 50%; 4/9 = less than 50% chance, and tier III = 0%.
by KC Viking on Apr 29, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sample Size
the sample size is too small to say make the assessment of greater then 50, less then 50. 4/9 and 8/15 is too close to being 50/50 to make any assertion that there is any difference from the too groups.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Apr 30, 2009 8:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
