The Official 2024 NFL Draft Day Thread

[Conn]

6 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't know that I actually care one way or another about following the consensus.  There are a lot of 2-bit moronic fools who are part of the consensus building.

 

Special Conn request: read this whole thing carefully before becoming enraged and beginning to formulate your response. I know this is a difficult topic for you  this goes against everything you believe:

Research shows that out of the 30 biggest “reaches” vs. the Consensus Big Board in the last decade, only 2 players have made a pro bowl. Mitch Morse was one, can’t remember the other. Saw this earlier:

 

 

Exact rankings are not ever right, but averaged out over dozens and dozens of big boards, the draftnik community at large does a pretty good job tiering players and predicting how the NFL values these guys in the draft, and how they will do:

 

 

Now some of this info obviously is leaked from the NFL, so there’s some crossover. Anyways, it’s very difficult to predict hits and “steals” based on the Consensus Big Board—just like it is for NFL teams—but it’s actually very easy to measure and predict large “reaches” based on the Consensus Big Board…and those players almost never succeed. So there’s obviously something to it. Again, when an NFL team overdrafts a guy massively compared to the Consensus Big Board in the last decade, only twice has that player even become a pro bowler (starter, alternate, etc). 
 

I know this goes against everything you believe about amateur and media draftniks, consensus rankings, and what a “reach” or a “steal” even is—you think those are fake concepts because you don’t accept the value of an agreed-upon community big board…but the reality is that numbers show the Consensus Big Board does a pretty remarkable job at predicting what players are actually reaches, and those players almost never go on to be good or elite. 
 

This is related but not the same…the research isn’t perfect but shows that “reaches” are real but “steals” really aren’t, over a large sample size. Which makes sense because a reach only requires one team (the one who drafted them “early”) being wrong to bust.  Very likely. A falling player actually being a steal requires many teams to be wrong for the player to “live up” to the previous rankings—much less likely. Kind of simple when you think of it that way. 

 

 

Basically, you’re wrong about the value and accuracy of a consensus big board, you’re wrong about the concept of reaches against perceived value, etc. I can’t keep listing things you’re wrong about obviously because this post would never end, but you understand.
 

I would like to know what you think about all this after you’ve digested it (and after you’ve finished patching the hole you head-butted in the drywall upon reading it, of course). 

Edited April 29 by Conn

[CapsSkins]

2 minutes ago, Conn said:

 

Special Conn request: read this whole thing carefully before becoming enraged and beginning to formulate your response. I know this is a difficult topic for you  this goes against everything you believe:

Research shows that out of the 30 biggest “reaches” vs. the Consensus Big Board in the last decade, only 2 players have made a pro bowl. Mitch Morse was one, can’t remember the other. Saw this earlier:

 

 

Exact rankings are not ever right, but averaged out over dozens and dozens of big boards, the draftnik community at large does a pretty good job tiering players and predicting how the NFL values these guys in the draft, and how they will do:

 

 

Now some of this info obviously is leaked from the NFL, so there’s some crossover. Anyways, it’s very difficult to predict hits and “steals” based on the Consensus Big Board—just like it is for NFL teams—but it’s actually very easy to measure and predict large “reaches” based on the Consensus Big Board…and those players almost never succeed. So there’s obviously something to it. Again, when an NFL team overdrafts a guy massively compared to the Consensus Big Board in the last decade, only twice has that player even become a pro bowler (starter, alternate, etc). 
 

I know this goes against everything you believe about amateur and media draftniks, consensus rankings, and what a “reach” or a “steal” even is—you think those are fake concepts because you don’t accept the value of an agreed-upon community big board…but the reality is that numbers show the Consensus Big Board does a pretty remarkable job at predicting what players are actually reaches, and those players almost never go on to be good or elite. 
 

This is related but not the same…the research isn’t perfect but shows that “reaches” are real but “steals” really aren’t, over a large sample size. Which makes sense because a reach only requires one team (the one who drafted them “early”) being wrong to bust.  Very likely. A falling player actually being a steal requires many teams to be wrong for the player to “live up” to the previous rankings—much less likely. Kind of simple when you think of it that way. 

 

 

Basically, you’re wrong about the value and accuracy of a consensus big board, you’re wrong about the concept of reaches against perceived value, etc. I can’t keep listing things you’re wrong about obviously because this post would never end, but you understand.
 

I would like to know what you think about all this after you’ve digested it (and after you’ve finished patching the hole you head-butted in the drywall upon reading it, of course). 

 

Pro Bowl & Top 30 Biggest Reaches are both arbitrary measures.

 

I'd prefer to see Games Played totals over a long-enough time period (5 years?) compared to non-reaches. Not asking you to pull the data, just criticizing what I feel is a flimsy measure to make a point. 

[Conn]

5 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Pro Bowl & Top 30 Biggest Reaches are both arbitrary measures.

 

I'd prefer to see Games Played totals over a long-enough time period (5 years?) compared to non-reaches. Not asking you to pull the data, just criticizing what I feel is a flimsy measure to make a point. 

The top 30 biggest reaches are decidedly not arbitrary, they are literally just the largest reaches compared to the on the record Consensus Big Board. 
 

The pro bowl thing, maybe, but just look at that list of players. It’s pretty easy to look at it and see there aren’t many starters represented. When NFL teams have made large reaches in the last decade (according to the consensus big board) those picks have largely not been good starters. Definitely some role players and a few JAG long term starters. Some injury casualties. But by and large when the NFL bets against the consensus they aren’t hitting big. 

Edited April 29 by Conn

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 minutes ago, Conn said:

Basically, you’re wrong about the value and accuracy of a consensus big board, you’re wrong about the concept of reaches against perceived value, etc. I can’t keep listing things you’re wrong about obviously because this post would never end, but you understand.

You've been waiting to write this for MONTHS, haven't you?

 

I concede the point that in the aggregate, the consensus big board is accurate.  Galdi had a guy on last week who was talking about the "wisdom of crowds."  Which makes a lot of sense.   The theory being, the collective whole is much "smarter" than any one individual.  

 

I think if you grade the draft against the consensus big board, that's fine.  What irks me is the arrogant individual ****s who think their board is gospel.  

 

Happy?  Surprised?

[CapsSkins]

12 minutes ago, Conn said:

The top 30 biggest reaches are decidedly not arbitrary, they are literally just the largest reaches compared to the on the record Consensus Big Board. 
 

The pro bowl thing, maybe, but just look at that list of players. It’s pretty easy to look at it and see there aren’t many starters represented. When NFL teams have made large reaches in the last decade (according to the consensus big board) those picks have largely not been good starters. Definitely some role players and a few JAG long term starters. Some injury casualties. But by and large when the NFL bets against the consensus they aren’t hitting big. 

 

Why 30 and not 50? That's arbitrary.

 

Also, let's just unpack this a little. Are the distribution of reach picks skewed towards later rounds or uniform? Pro Bowlers (and starters generally) are likely clustered towards the top of the draft. A reach in the top 10 overall is very different than a reach on day 3.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying the stat you posted isn't very persuasive IMO. Not to belabor the point though... I am all for reserving judgment on Peters' draft until Years 2-3. We shouldn't crown his ass just bc of his reputation and the fact that he's not Snyder/Bruce/Rivera.

 

For example, if Jayden is an electrifying talent who misses 6 games a year, Peters absolutely owns that choice (that's just one example). Agreed that we ought to let things play out.

[Conn]

9 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You've been waiting to write this for MONTHS, haven't you?

 

 it’s all love, I find you fun to poke at after our many shared years here but I respect your self-awareness, and you’re generally on a quest for correctness that I ultimately enjoy. 

 

9 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I concede the point that in the aggregate, the consensus big board is accurate.  Galdi had a guy on last week who was talking about the "wisdom of crowds."  Which makes a lot of sense.   The theory being, the collective whole is much "smarter" than any one individual.  

 

I think if you grade the draft against the consensus big board, that's fine.  What irks me is the arrogant individual ****s who think their board is gospel.  

 

Happy?  Surprised?

 

I am a little surprised! And pleased! I think this is a perfectly rational view on the situation. Your name is back to being accurate

[Chump Bailey]

1 hour ago, DWinzit said:

Oh everyone sees and evaluates differently. You could very well have seen things and perhaps others did and dinged him for it as well.

 

Actually, I think it's more of a hand placement thing, which led me to believe it was a strength concern.

[Conn]

3 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Why 30 and not 50? That's arbitrary.

 

Also, let's just unpack this a little. Are the distribution of reach picks skewed towards later rounds or uniform? Pro Bowlers (and starters generally) are likely clustered towards the top of the draft. A reach in the top 10 overall is very different than a reach on day 3.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying the stat you posted isn't very persuasive IMO. Not to belabor the point though... I am all for reserving judgment on Peters' draft until Years 2-3. We shouldn't crown his ass just bc of his reputation and the fact that he's not Snyder/Bruce/Rivera.

 

For example, if Jayden is an electrifying talent who misses 6 games a year, Peters absolutely owns that choice (that's just one example). Agreed that we ought to let things play out.

Ah I see what you mean. I guess it becomes less interesting and compelling the further down the list of reaches you get from the top, right? The further down the list you get the less extreme the “reach”, and the more room for error and noise you introduce into the data. Since the entire point of the list is to look at whether the NFL is correct or not when they majorly “reach” compared to the Consensus Big Board. Now that you mention it, I’d also be interested in doubling the list and seeing the results (and also having the size of the reach next to each name, like if a guy was -85 vs the consensus board, or towards the bottom of the list if it was only -20 or something).

[CapsSkins]

2 minutes ago, Conn said:

Ah I see what you mean. I guess it becomes less interesting and compelling the further down the list of reaches you get from the top, right? The further down the list you get the less extreme the “reach”, and the more room for error and noise you introduce into the data. Since the entire point of the list is to look at whether the NFL is correct or not when they majorly “reach” compared to the Consensus Big Board. Now that you mention it, I’d also be interested in doubling the list and seeing the results (and also having the size of the reach next to each name, like if a guy was -85 vs the consensus board, or towards the bottom of the list if it was only -20 or something).

 

Yeah I wonder if "biggest reach" is a nominal number of spots or if it's weighted by the biggest delta in "draft chart points".

 

If I were on Eugene Shen's team, I might pitch it as a side project haha.

 

I'd also be interested in looking at 9+ RAS score prospects who succeed or fail, adjusted by round-grade, and try to figure out an edge in identifying which raw, high-upside prospects are more likely to pan out than others. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, Conn said:

Ah I see what you mean. I guess it becomes less interesting and compelling the further down the list of reaches you get from the top, right? The further down the list you get the less extreme the “reach”, and the more room for error and noise you introduce into the data. Since the entire point of the list is to look at whether the NFL is correct or not when they majorly “reach” compared to the Consensus Big Board. Now that you mention it, I’d also be interested in doubling the list and seeing the results (and also having the size of the reach next to each name, like if a guy was -85 vs the consensus board, or towards the bottom of the list if it was only -20 or something).

One thing I didn't see in the analysis, how big was the "reach" for the top 30 reaches. Like, is the average top 30 reach a reach of 50 spots?  70 spots?  I didn't see that. Also, from where to where?  Like a first rounder who was projected in the 2nd/3rd is more impactful than a 5th rounder projected in the 7th.  

 

I also think most likely the later the draft gets, the less it really matters about what the consensus is, because when you're in rounds 5-7, most likely you're getting a role player who, law of averages says, won't be in the league in 2 years. 

 

Numbers are funny.  They can mean a lot of different things.

 

Edited April 29 by Voice_of_Reason

[Bifflog]

 

[seantaylor=god]

6 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

Med red flags, or off the field red flags? 

My impression was something like football isn’t the most important thing to him, maturity, etc. not that he’s a criminal or a bad guy but maybe he’s not “a dude” if that makes sense. Which would make sense that we weren’t interested.

 

Standig on a different podcast said he thinks they liked Mimms, Morgan and Guyton and tried to trade up but couldn’t find a partner. For the next group of guys, they liked Coleman at OT. 

Edited April 29 by seantaylor=god
Added Morgan

[DWinzit]

3 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

My impression was something like football isn’t the most important thing to him, maturity, etc. not that he’s a criminal or a bad guy but maybe he’s not “a dude” if that makes sense. Which would make sense that we weren’t interested.

 

Standig on a different podcast said he thinks they liked Mimms and Guyton and tried to trade up but couldn’t find a partner. For the next group of guys, they liked Coleman at OT. 

Yes there were some reports they liked Morgan too. After them they evidently liked Newton, Sainristil and Sinnott better than all the OL that went in the 2nd round,

[Bifflog]

On 4/28/2024 at 5:08 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Haven't watched him yet.  Sucks that PFF took off their 2024 big board and already switched to 2025 because when there is a limited games to watch their write ups are helpful because they rate the play in every game and sometimes based on that I see if that one game might inflate or deflate the player if its one of their best or worst. 

 

I think you can still get to the 2024 Big Board if you monkey with the URL and replace 2025...

[method man]

1 hour ago, seantaylor=god said:

My impression was something like football isn’t the most important thing to him, maturity, etc. not that he’s a criminal or a bad guy but maybe he’s not “a dude” if that makes sense. Which would make sense that we weren’t interested.

 

Standig on a different podcast said he thinks they liked Mimms, Morgan and Guyton and tried to trade up but couldn’t find a partner. For the next group of guys, they liked Coleman at OT. 

I had heard (forget where or on what pod) that they liked Blake Fisher. It must have been a surprise to them that he was snatched up where he was.

Edited April 30 by method man

[TheShredder]

11 hours ago, Est.1974 said:

I think you are probably right, however the passing over of DeJean at #40 because we were clearly focused on Sainristil make me slightly question that logic.

 

You have to assume we didn’t have a first round grade on DeJean, or had other concerns. I know we got good trade value, but imagine if we hadn’t got Sainristil at #50 once that CB run started.

Man I think you will be surprised with how much of a beast Sainristil will be...think Kendall Fuller's rookie year.  They did just fine. Dude has the ability to be an All Pro Nickle. They've had issues with a weak middle of the field and now it's solved. 

[Skinsinparadise]

@KDawg was joking about Starwars refrences to this team.  Ironically watched a Luke McCaffrey interview he's genuinely a Star Wars freak, you'd think Luke would be his favorite character but nope its Anakin.   So I guess McCaffrey has a darkside

 

 

 

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

@KDawg was joking about Starwars refrences to this team.  Ironically watched a Luke McCaffrey interview he's genuinely a Star Wars freak, you'd think Luke would be his favorite character but nope its Anakin.   So I guess McCaffrey has a darkside

 

 

 

Luke is now known as Vaderson.

[Rex Tomb]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

@KDawg was joking about Starwars refrences to this team.  Ironically watched a Luke McCaffrey interview he's genuinely a Star Wars freak, you'd think Luke would be his favorite character but nope its Anakin.   So I guess McCaffrey has a darkside

 

 

 

The dude that plays Anakin is so bad at acting it's hilarious.  He has the same expression on his face the entire series and says his lines like a whiny robot.

[Warhead36]

2 minutes ago, Rex Tomb said:

The dude that plays Anakin is so bad at acting it's hilarious.  He has the same expression on his face the entire series and says his lines like a whiny robot.

I honestly think its more bad writing/bad script than bad acting, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

[Conn]

Pretty cool look behind the scenes. Hope we eventually get some of this regarding our trade back with the Eagles. 
 

Things that seem clear from this:

 

1. Sinnott was our only guy at that pick we had to have 

 

2. Damn the Jets loved Corley, and it was really tough for them to get anyone to move back to 72 from the mid-50’s. Shows how much value teams placed on that area of the draft, where we managed to get up to 53 from 78 due to our 40 —> 50 trade back. Makes that deal look even more slick from Peters, that was an extremely coveted tier of players. 

Edited May 1 by Conn

[TheShredder]

1 hour ago, Conn said:

 

1. Sinnott was our only guy at that pick we had to have 

 

2. Damn the Jets loved Corley, and it was really tough for them to get anyone to move back to 72 from the mid-50’s. Shows how much value teams placed on that area of the draft, where we managed to get up to 53 from 78 due to our 40 —> 50 trade back. Makes that deal look even more slick from Peters, that was an extremely coveted tier of players. 

I felt like Sinnott was an Adam Peters guy from the first time I saw the breakdowns of the TE's.  Seemed like a no-brainer to me. 

How Peters got the trade dialed in is amazing...seems clear that the Eagles and Commanders will be the drivers of the NFC East with these two GM {God Mode} elites.