A look at the new 49ers and how they fit.
by MontanaPass on Apr 27, 2009 12:42 PM PDT
Email
PrintWR Michael Crabtree: he certainly won't hurt a receiving corps whose best player is near-retiree Issac Bruce. Let's hope he's a YAC-man and can get his yards with his feet as well as his hands, because S. Hill isn't going to tossing many downfield bombs any time soon. He can make the passing game respectable, but it won't be great until the team has a great franchise QB.
RB Glen Coffee: I'm hoping the coaches know more about how he will play in the pros than we fans do because they passed on some major talent like Andre Brown, Rashad Jennings, and Shonn Greene when they selected him. Coaches always think they can make great players out of ordinary ones - call me skeptical-but-hopeful on this pick.
ILB Scott McKillop: I actually like this pick a lot, even more than Antonio Appleby, who was ranked just below McKillop by NFLDraftScout. He's obviously T. Spikes' replacement at the TED spot and looks like just what's needed - a tough run stopper who can take on and shed OL to get to the runner or penetrate the backfield when called for. He doesn't have the lateral mobility of a Willis, though, so he's not going to be an asset in pass coverage.
QB Nate Davis: Sorry, but this is a loser pick and demonstrates once and for all who Alex Smith's original and continuing patron is - Scott McCloughan. Davis is just a cheaper version of Alex Smith with the same strengths and weakneses - great arm, poor decision making, etc. McCloughan doesn't understand QB intangibles and should be kept away from all QBs in the draft. But at least it's a cheap mistake this time and not a $25mil disaster. But the team still doesn't have a QBOF, and needs one. Hopefully they can sign a guy like Mike Reilly as an UDFA.
TE Bear Pascoe: What's not to like? My guess is he'll be a fan favorite for quite a few years, but he brings some game, too. A former QB, he has good hands and body control, but is not quick or explosive as a receiver. He's the blocking TE who can either man the other side in 2-TE formations or replace VD as a blocker when he's split out, which I hope will be much more often under Raye's offense.
S/FS Curtis Taylor: Looks like a backup SS to me, but he brings a physicality and aggressiveness that I like to see. He's fine for a 7th rounder, but only time and training camp will see if he's a keeper.
NT Ricky Jean-Francois: At last, a decent NT prospect! Even if he is a project, it appears as if he's got the tools for the job - good short-area quickness, long arms and big hands, and a naturally overpowering strength. With some weight room work and coaching up, he could be a good, but not great, NT. The big questions with Ricky are his motor, desire, and maturity, so it'll be interesting to see how he reacts to NFL coaching. For a 7th round compensatory pick, he's a value. I would have much preferred Vaughn Martin with an earlier pick, though - the Pats got him in the 4th, iirc.
RB Kory Sheets: An UDFA, Sheets was ranked close to Coffee by NFLDraftScout and was predicted to go in the 4-5th round. He's much quicker and more elusive than Coffee, who is a between-the-tackles runner, with the ability to turn a corner and run outside when asked to. He has proven receiving ability, but has a tendency to give up the rock because of some poor mechanics. I give him an even shot to make the team over Coffee. We'll see in the preseason games.
DE Pannel Egboh: Another UDFA, he was a slow-footed DE pass rusher in college but will add 15lbs and become a backup/replacement for Ray McDonald on the weakside. McDonald is coming off foot surgery and his recovery is uncertain, iirc. If he's got the strength to 2-gap, this could turn out to be a classic steal.
RT Alex Boone: A surprise UDFA, he was a 2nd round prospect as a junior in last year's draft but elected to return to school, where he had a down year. He's huge, but is a little clumsy and has slow feet. Looks to me like the guy you put in at RT in short yardage or near the goal as a roadgrader. Don't expect him to pass protect well, though.
CB Jahi Word-Daniels: another UDFA who looks to be camp fodder at the CB position, although I don't know much about him.
THE BIG TRADE: Carolina's 1st next year for our 2nd & 4th this year. McClo traded picks worth 542 points for a pick that will be worth 590 points if the Panthers win the SuperBowl next year. So, at a minimum, there is a net gain of 58 points, which is worth a 4th round #118 pick. But if the Panthers fail to make the playoffs next year, that pick becomes a mid-round pick worth a whopping 850 points minimum, or a 308 point gain worth a 2nd round #59 pick. And if the Panthers completely flop next year and come in with the bottom 3rd of the league, that pick coul;d become worth 1200 points or more, which would be a gain of 650 points, or the equivalent of a 1st round #29 pick. Was the opportunity cost worth it? Only if the Panthers flop, imho. A gain of a 4th round pick, or even a 3rd rounder, does not make up for the opportunity cost at all, especially for a team attempting to get good before it becomes great. A profit of a late 2nd round pick is starting to get there, but not enough. So, imho, this was not a good deal unless the Panthers fall into the bottom third this season. I suspect McCloughan is attempting to make up for trading the 7th pick in the draft last year to NE in order to pick up Joe Staley. Let's hope McCloughan has the same luck Belichick did.
Other Draft Notes: Bill Belichick ate our draft. Again. Last year he took ILB Jerod Mayo using our #7 pick and this year he traded up to get the players McSing wanted in the 2nd round, making McCloughan decide to take a trade offer instead of picking a player. Belichick remains the consummate master of the draft, demonstrating that current Chiefs GM Scott Pioli was basically a functionary in NE and that Scott McCloughan is not in his league, or anywhere near it.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"Belechick ate our draft"
Totally agree.
I also agree with your analysis of the trade.
Trade
I wasn’t able to watch the 2nd rd of the draft, but when I heard they traded the 2nd rd pick and saw the panthers chose a DE, my immediate thought was JULIUS PEPPERS. Please, if I’m wrong, someone correct my understanding of franchised players being acquired by another team. The acquiring team pays the salary + a 1st rd pick, ie- with the 1st rd pick we got from carolina, we have a pick to do away with, while still retaining a 1st rd pick and can make a legit shot for Julius Peppers. Obviously the Panthers are at the least setting themselves up to replace (or try to replace) Peppers should he be on the move.
Anyways, my hunch is Scotty Mc and Coach will make a move for Mr. Peppers… (maybe just wishful thinking).
If you trade...
… with the franchising team, you can give up whatever the team asks for. Otherwise, if you’re just signing a franchised player, I think you give up a first AND a third. I could be wrong, though.
In any case, Peppers is wishful thinking. The guy is looking for a ridiculous deal that will probably pay him somewhere in the area of $40M in guarantees. The 49ers would have to sign him to that kind of a contract to move him to a position he’s never played AND give up at least a first round pick? Peppers is good and all, but he’s not that good, especially for a 3-4 team.
Point taken
…. The thought was in the moment- I figured we had something up our sleeve. Two No. 1 picks next year is good anyway you slice it tho.
+1
Once we see what we are TRULY lacking after Sing’s first year, we can do some damage in next years draft. I’m also thrilled we have two firsts next year since Seattle also has two 1sts next year, so we can stay up to par with them. They have Denver’s (I think next year), so there “other” 1st rounder will probably be better than ours, since i think Carolina will do better than the Broncos this year.
I don't understand your trade analysis
You go through the numbers which suggest that even in the worst-case scenario, this trade would be considered a net winner for us. And then you say that it is only worth it if we get the best-case scenario. This is confusing.
The opportunity cost of the pick is the value the players we picked this year would have had on our team. Would they have helped us win games this year? (The assumption of the points system is that, starting next year, the player we get will add MORE wins than the players we could have received this year).
So the question is, what is that opportunity cost? How many wins will not having Everette Brown (the next pass-rusher taken) or Phil Loadhold (the next OT taken) cost us this year?
In my opinion, the opportunity cost of that 4th-round pick is zero. I would not expect him to be anything other than a replacement-level special teams player as a rookie. I also believe that the opportunity cost of not taking Loadholdt is probably zero: he would only play if Smith got hurt, and probably not even then (I suspect Snyder would beat him out as our primary backup at T this year).
Brown, at best, would have been a situational pass rusher on this team this year. That’s some real value, but do you think it’s a whole extra win? I don’t. Imagine we had a rigorous wins produced in football: There are 22 starters, and a team averages 8 wins. That means, if all players are equal, the average starter is responsible for. 36 wins. If Brown ended up being twice as good as the average player, he’d produce .7 wins, instead. (But I think calling him twice as good as the average player, in his rookie year, is incredibly charitable.) But let’s run with it. We’ll be charitable.
As a pass-rush specialist, Brown would take a lot of Haralson’s minutes. Let’s call Haralson a league-average pass-rusher, which I think is fair. (Our problem as a team is that our best pass rusher is merely league average). That means the opportunity cost of this trade was a third of a win. Let’s round up. Again – being very, very charitable to him here. That means if we’re and 8-win team this with the trade, we would have won 9 without it, etc.
Is it worth it?
Under what conditions would you prefer to win ONE more game this year than have a better player next year?
In my mind, there are only two circumstances where you’d maybe rather have one more win this year than a better player next year. The first is if that win is the super bowl. The goal is to win a championship, so yes, if you can win a championship, you do it. That doesn’t apply to us.
The second is the more marginal case, and that’s if that win gets you into the playoffs. And in this case, it might. (Although remember how charitable our assumptions are here before you say that we just wrote off the playoffs: we’re assuming that Brown is twice as good as the average player as a rookie, and that we round that fraction up to get us a whole nother win). But let’s use that as our example. Let’s hypothesize:
Without the trade, we’re 9-7, make the playoffs, and get bounced in the first round.
With the trade, we’re 8-8, and miss the playoffs, but we get a better player (worth more than .36 wins) next year.
That’s just about the biggest possible opportunity cost one can realistically hypothesize for the trade.
Honestly, it’d be very tempting to say that’s too much, and I won’t argue with anybody who feels that this team really needs the playoffs, even if its a one-and-done. But I’m a bit more patient, because I think the long-term benefits are probably worth it – to be a championship team, you need impact players, and I don’t know if Brown will be that for us.
Anyway, that’s my opportunity cost analysis. What’s yours?
The opportunity cost was two players who could have helped this year.
The two picks I would have made were Loadholt and DE/OLB Lawrence Sidbury, who was still available in the 4th. We’ll have to disagree about the likelihood of Marvel Smith having another season-ending injury this year and the ability of Loadholt to step in and take his place. Many teams supposedly had him as a 1st round OT and his workouts demonstrated he has better feet than many of us thought. So, yes, I think he could help the team this year at RT and perhaps even backup at LT. The Vikes got him, so we’ll see what happens with Adrian Peterson running behind him. As for Sidbury, I think he could have contributed as a situational pass rusher this year and eventually displaced Parys because of his superior athleticism.
There is another way to look at the draft in terms of value – the present value of a pick this year is equal to the same pick one round higher the next year. In other words, a 2nd round #10 pick this year is worth a 1st round #10 pick next year and a 4th round #10 pick this year is worth a 3rd round #10 pick next year. Using that formulation, the 9ers should have received a #10 1st round and a #11 3rd rounder and the trade was clearly a loser with virtually no chance of coming out ahead. But I don’t totally agree with this valuation method and instead translate the point gain/loss into picks using the value chart. So, as I pointed out, a worst-case gain of a 4th round #118 is inadequate compensation for the loss of present value. The gain of a 2nd round #59 is getting closer to proper compensation but is still problematic. The trade only begins to look like a clear winner if Carolina falls into the bottom third of the standings and the 9ers receive a 1st round #29 pick as compensation for the present value of the two picks they gave up.
In any case, a pick in the present year is always worth much more than the equivalent pick in a future year, so looking only at the value chart points and discounting present value vs future value of a pick can give a misleading impression. I think I took a prudent middle approach in valuing the trade.
There is another way to look at the draft in terms of value – the present value of a pick this year is equal to the same pick one round higher the next year.
Personally, I think that this method is absurd, although I know a lot of people use it as a shorthand. You only have to run a couple of examples (comparing players taken in those spots one year apart) to see how absurd it is.
The problem with the point-chart system is that every team has different needs, both short and long term. For example, if your team is one player short of a super bowl, then it is worth an incredibly amount (you would easily trade multiple future #1s for him) to get that player. On the other hand, if your team went 1-15 the previous year, then you have very few short-term concerns, and you would generally be just as happy with next year’s picks as this year’s – you would NEVER pay a whole round’s worth of talent to get a player a year sooner. In fact, it’s probably not worth giving up any talent to get an earlier pick, because you’re several years away from championship contention.
This is the problem I’m trying to solve with the the Wins-Produced model. I’m trying to quantify just how much that player is worth. The primary assumption I’m making is that a player taken in the first round next year will be worth more wins than a player taken in the second round this year. Obviously, with exceptionally good or bad drafting, that might not be the case, but I’m assuming that the same draft evaluating talent will be making both picks.
In any event, if Loadholdt did win the backup tackle job, again, does that make him significantly better than the league-average player we have playing that job? How many extra wins does that produce?
Analyzing this from a wins-produced method makes it seem that the statement that “a pick in the present year is always worth much more than the equivalent pick in a future year” make much less sense. I simply can’t agree to that statement. It entirely depends on how many wins that player gets you, and how you value wins this year compared to wins in future years.
How many wins do you think trading that pick costs us in 2009?
As a rough guess, 3-4 wins.
The best case would be if Smith remained uninjured and played at a high level all year. So let’s say the team improves to 10-6 and wins the NFC West.
Now let’s assume Joe Staley goes down 10 games into the season and Smith moves over to LT and B. Sims steps in instead of Loadholt at RT, with a significant decrease in pass protection. How many of the remaining six games, and possible 3-4 wins, will that cost us? Hard to say, but it could result in an injured QB, false starts, etc. So, as a middle case, I think it would be reasonable to think 1-2 games could be lost because of Loadholt’s absence.
Or Marvel Smith could last only 2-3 games before going down and the team is back in the same situation it was last year with Jennings, and we all know how that turned out. So, worst case, I could reasonably believe not having Loadholt there to step in at RT could cost the team 4-5 close games.
But I don’t really see how it would be possible to attempt to quantify how many games are won or lost because of any one player’s presence or absence. There are too many interactive variables for any kind of simplistic numerical analysis. I think we’re talking about some serious linear algebra here like they use in refineries and feed mills.
As for the present value formula that costs an entire round per year, I think that’s a little extreme, too, and that’s why I use what I think is a reasonable compromise between a zero future value discount and the “full round” value. But I must disagree with your “bad team vs good team” valuation model, too. The reason is that even good teams need draft picks in order to, a) replace players leaving in FA, b) replace aging players with high salaries who are past their prime, and, c) continue improving team depth and Special Teams. So I don’t agree that there is a time when a good team doesn’t need or value their draft picks as much as a losing team does. I would agree with the statement that good teams have the luxury of trading up in order to draft premium players without hurting other aspects of the team, as opposed to losing teams, who are better off having more picks in order to fill more immediate needs. I still think that a #43 pick this year is worth much more than a #43 pick next year, but not an entire round higher. Present vs future value is a valid concept, but perhaps with a more reasonable valuation model. But there are those who would argue vehemently that the “full round” valuation model is the correct one. If you can resolve this one way or another, it could be a significant contribution to the game, so have at it. That kind of work is out of my league.
3-4 wins?
Wow. Okay. At least I understand where you’re coming from now. If I thought it was 3-4 wins, I’d probably agree with you that it was a bad trade.
(And, for the record, I agree that this is really hard to analyze because of independent variables. I agree that it costs us far more wins if Smith is injured for much of the season, and almost none if he doesn’t.)
But let’s look at the 3-4 wins number, because I think it’s absurd. It rests on a few assumptions.
First of all, it means that you expect Smith to miss at least 3 or 4 games. Secondly, it means you expect the difference between Smith and Adam Snyder or Barry Sims (and Synder proved himself better than Simms last year, IMHO, so I think he’s our backup RT) to be the difference between winning and losing those games. The third assumption is that Loadholdt is so close to being as good as Smith (an all-pro), as a rookie, that he completely makes up for the lack of Smith.
The first of those assumptions may be reasonable. However, the second and third are, in my opinion, absurd.
It is extremely unlikely that, even by the end of the season, Loadholdt would be significantly better than Adam Snyder. I think it’s charitable to say that he’d be as good as Snyder by the end of the season, even if you think he’ll be better than Snyder in a year or two (which is also a reasonable assumption for a mid-second-round player).
I don’t think a waiver-wire OT, playing all season, would cost us four wins. (OF course, we’d game-plan around such a player, but even so).
I don’t think you can come up with a more accurate model of the present value of future picks unless you can figure out a wins-produced model for players, which is really, really hard in football. Another than starting with .36 (which relies on the obviously false assumption that all starters contribute equally to wins), I don’t even know where to start.
But if we did have an accurate wins-produced model, then it’d be pretty simple. You compare the wins you expect from the #43 pick to the wins you’d expect from the, say, #25 pick, determine your discount rate (and discount rates are personal things – not everybody uses the same one.)
My point about the draft is not that top teams don’t care about the draft, but that since the goal is to win championships, as you get closer to a championship it makes more and more sense to sell out your future. You see this all the time, in pretty much every sport: good teams trade prospects away for veterans who can help them win now. Essentially, trading next year’s draft pick for this year’s draft pick is doing the same thing: you’re trading “future value” for “wins now.” And whether that makes sense entirely, it seems to me, depends on how important “winning now” is.
And for the 49ers, in my opinion, “future value” is relatively more important than “winning now.” But obviously this is subjective. I think the trade costs us maybe a win this year, and I’m willing to give that up. I suspect if you felt the same, you’d be willing to give it up, too. But you think it costs us four wins, and if I thought it’d cost us that much, I’d probably think it’s a bad trade, too …
You asked me to guess, so I did.
But I thought I made it clear that I think such a quantification is an impossible task. And my assumptions were not “absurd”, as you put it, because if Marvel Smith, an All-Pro OT as you describe him, went down in game two of the season, there would be a significant drop-off in play at RT – as we saw last year. Whether Loadholt would beat out Snyder is one of those unknowns that makes such a valuation impossible, as I pointed out. But since you wanted me to make assumptions, I made one concerning Loadholt that says he can certainly run block and he can pass protect as well as Smith, who is better at run blocking than pass pro.
But this entire discussion is really pointless because you are taking the extreme position that the current valuation models are completely wrong. So guess who the burden of proof is on? It’s certainly not me, because I am using a generally accepted valuation model. So when you can present some empirical proof that your model is superior, come back and we’ll talk about it. Until then, I am not going to accept, based only on your advocacy, that your model is either valid or superior in any way to the existing model. The burden of proof is always on the person making the extreme claim. In other words, if you’re going to claim that space aliens are taking over the planet, you had better have some video to prove it.
not choosing sides, but
it is kind of “out there” to assume that having loadholdt and sidbury would bump us up 3-4 wins.
it’s (3-4 more wins) only possible in the extreme case where both turn out to be players as rookies (especially unlikely for the raw sidbury) AND both Staley AND Marvel both get major injuries (which would force Sims (the MAJOR downgrade at Tackle) to play – Snyder’s a downgrade, but i wouldn’t put him in the major category) – as well as one of Haralson or Lawson gets a major injury (which would force the team to play Sidbury).
but in this scenario, with that many major injuries, there’s no playoffs anyway. 3-4 more wins is relatively easy going from 2-3 to 5-7, but much more difficult going from 5-7 to 8-10.
i wish that we hadn’t given up the 4th rounder either or at least got Carolina’s 4th, but based on nfl draft history the truth is that there is a greater than 90% chance that that pick wouldn’t help us this season.
by the evil monkey on Apr 28, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Not "bumping up 3-4 games", it's "costing us" 3-4 games.
Again, we’re discussing something – quantifying an individual player’s contribution to the team – that is simply silly given the complexities. Given that, I don’t think it’s out of the range of possibility that losing one player, the RT, could cost the team 3-4 games. How many games would it cost if Hill went down for the season in game 1? How about Gore? Or Staley? Or P. Willis? How many games did K. Harris cost us by killing drives with his penalties and poor pass protection at RT? So no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to project an additional 3-4 games lost over a season because of the loss of one player. It wasn’t about how many additional games we could win by taking Loadholt instead of trading.
by MontanaPass on Apr 29, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the entertainment, if not edutainment
That was HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was reading this post and all the flaws that it has and then wondered who would come up with such a formula that has never been used by ANYONE actually in the business. Then a saw it’s my buddy Ronaldinho from AC MILAN and it all made sense. Let’s start picking out the flaws-shall we???
Unless I am mistaking, the point system pretty much applies within the same draft year. Comparing points of one years draft to the next is an apples to oranges comparison. Additionally, the quantified value of each draftt pick assumes the average value of the player picked at that position. However, averages really don’t matter, its the value of each individual pick. To make my point in an extreme case, Jerry Rice was drafted in the middle of the 1st round and that pick was assigned a value, but obviously Jerry Rice had value FAR AND BEYOND the value of the pick.Th only time this logic applies is if the player drafted is actual valued equal to the value of the pick. In this case Sintim, or Brown had values above and beyond the value of the pick, at least according to most mock draft and the Carolina Panthers.
These draft picks are investments in the team and just like anyone who understands finance, understands the time value fo money principle. This states a draft pick in hand is worth more than a draft pick in the future all else equal.
Taking this a step further it is almost impossible to quantify the impact of any of the players that couldv’e been drafted in the 2nd and 4th round. What I do know is both of those picks wouldv’e at the least started moving up the learning curve and been more valuable with one year experience than a draft pick that will be one year behind on that learning curve.
Furthermore the assumption that teams average 8 wins is rediculous. I could care less what is average-as average doesn’y apply to individual teams, based on each team’s strength and weaknesses. I think 8-8 is hardly a given, especially since the other 3 teams in the division on a relative basis, improved more.
I thought the idea of equally weighting each player as being worth .36 wins is based on the faulty assumption this team will win 8 wins, which I already explained why I disagree with this methodology.
The logic and math attached to it just don’t make sensse. There is no way to know for sure what the impact of those players would’ve been, and unless something like a regression analysis was run, which is no way 100% accurate, I’m not buying it. I put no faith in this methodology of rating players, and the correlation of how it yields wins.
I think he should take this methodology and send it to all the GM’s in the league and see if he gets a response. My guess is they wouldn’t waste their time responding, seeing it for what it is, a hack trying to make sense of something in his own mind. I am pretty sure they don’t evaluate players or wins along the lines suggested.
Thanks for the laugh-it was REALLY GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You should learn something about wins-produced models in basketball ...
… because it’s really interesting. And it’s pretty sophisticated and accurate (although a LOT easier than a similar system, for linemen, in the NFL).
Furthermore the assumption that teams average 8 wins is rediculous.
That’s my favorite line of yours in the whole post, because you are calling something “rediculous” (sic) which is, in fact, tautologically true. Teams in the NFL average 8 wins. If you doubt me, go do some basic math: add up the number of wins (counting a tie as half a win) each team has, and divide by the number of teams. Go do it now. I’ll wait.
It was 8, wasn’t it? Okay, well, maybe that’s a fluke. Why not do it for a previous season. Go for it.
8 again? Really? How can that be if it’s “rediculous” (sic).
Hint: the notion that teams will average 8 wins is tautologically true, since each team plays 16 games, if you count a tie as half a win. Therefore, a team made up of entirely average players, averagely coached, would be expected to win 8 games. That means that if each starter was worth the same amount (which I agree is dubious) then an average player is worth .36 wins. There’s only one questionable assumption in that entire calculation.
(That you seem to think that the calculation is only valid for teams that win 8 games implies, well, that you should go take a class on statistics. You obviously don’t understand the basics of real statistical analysis. THere’s nothing wrong with that, most people don’t, and I used to make my living making up interesting-sounding stats to fool people like you, but you know, you might learn something if you tried).
You would be surprised by the statistical measures which get applied to football players. NFL teams actually employ a lot of very highly paid people to do this sort of analysis. Your mockery sounds a lot like the derision shouted at Billy Beane in baseball, but of course his thinking radically changed the game. Most pro basketball teams have DEPARTMENTS that look at this stuff in incredible detail. (Such as player’s average points per shot from different areas of the floor).
Coming up with meaningful statistics for NFL players – especially for linemen – is incredibly hard. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I make no claims that this sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation is particularly accurate, but I think the ultimate question I am attempting to answer (how many wins does this trade cost us, this year?) is very imporant.
You are an idiot if you don’t think that the 49ers have people on staff trying to figure that out. A complete idiot. The famous “trade charts” are not used by every team, but how do you think they were determined? By rigorous statistical analysis based on how teams improved based on the addition of specific picks.
The “time value fo money principle” (sic) (uh, that’s not what it’s actually called) is because of the twin concepts of inflation and interest. You can not determine the present value of a given lump sum at a future date without knowing those two numbers. So tell me, what’s the inflation rate of NFL players? What’s the interest rate you get for not taking one?
You may say that “draft picks are investments” but the truth is that they aren’t, not in the sense that, say, money invested in a new stadium is. Players both appreciate and depreciate in value, after all. That you throw in “all else being equal” is particularly laughable, since, obviously in this case all else ISN’T equal: we’re talking about a first round pick next year in what people think will be a strong draft, compared to a second round pick this year in what people think is a weak draft.
You know what? Maybe you should stick to repeating posts like “YOU DON’T PASS ON FIRST ROUND TALENT IN THE SECOND ROUND.” This statistical stuff is clearly above your pay grade.
Dude
the average wins is obviously 8 games because no matter how many teams a win has the total games won divided by the number of teams will always equal 8. YOU think about it
Good point-well almost
1) There was a typo- “Furthermore the assumption that teams average 8 wins is ridiculous.” This should have been, “Furthermore the assumption the team (Niners) averages 8 wins is ridiculous.” Based on the next sentence you should’ve realized that my comment applied to your assumption the 49’ers will win at 8 games-which I think is assuming a lot. The league average should be 8-but who cares about averages-I care about what the Niners will do-not league averages. I love how you took the typo out of context and ran with it though.
2) I am sure there is some statistical analysis applied to the players chosen, and never refuted such a point. I stated it was very difficult to do. What I did state is the statistical approach you used was simplistic and unrealistic.
3) The time value of money principle as you described it isn’t correct. The fact is you can use real cash flows in the numerator (no inflation needs to be accounted for) and an appropriate discount rate (or interest rate as you say) that reflects the level of risk associated with the real cash flows. Therefore, no inflation assumptions are needed. Nice try on this 1, but now your in my area of expertise.
4) Football players are without a doubt, assets the team acquires and it is the team’s job to get the assets at the lowest possible price, while at the same time getting the highest production out of those same assets. I got news for you; stocks appreciate and depreciate in value, just like players. Are you inferring that assets only appreciate? I hope not because only a damn fool would do such a thing. Reality is most assets fluctuate up and down in value-not just appreciate.
5) Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see, A) passing 1st round talent in the 2nd round as mocked by the vast majority of prognosticators in exchange for next years 1st draft pick-which we don’t know what pick it will be, but probably at the end of the 1st round or B) A pass rusher now that will be able to make an immediate impact this year and fill a huge hole. I like the player, helping the team in an area of great need this year and getting a year of experience as opposed to an end of the round next year’s pick.
What I did is make a typo that you ran with, however the statistics you applied were simplistic and would get laughed at by any NFL team. Furthermore, your assumption of inflation having to be part of the TVM calculation was incorrect, and to assume assets don’t fluctuate in value (both up and down) is ignorance at it’s finest.
Someone is clearly talking out of his ass, as you have proven numerous times in your response. Go back to Barca; your services are no longer needed in Milan, or anywhere else for that matter.
Furthermore the assumption the team (Niners) averages 8 wins is ridiculous." Based on the next sentence you should’ve realized that my comment applied to your assumption the 49’ers will win at 8 games-which I think is assuming a lot.
There is nothing in my post which assumes the Niners will win eight games. The .36 number was a first attempt at trying to figure out how much value a league-average player adds, so you look at a league-average number of wins. A player who is twice as good as league-average player will add twice as many wins – whether he adds those wins to a 49er or anyone else, whether he’s adding wins to a 2-win team of a 14-win team.
So your “typo” (which was really sloppy thinking) is indicative of the fact that you don’t understand the basics of the analysis which you’re trying to make fun of. So not only were you “talking out of your ass” before, you’re doing it again, now.
The time value of money principle as you described it isn’t correct. The fact is you can use real cash flows in the numerator (no inflation needs to be accounted for) and an appropriate discount rate (or interest rate as you say) that reflects the level of risk associated with the real cash flows. Therefore, no inflation assumptions are needed. Nice try on this 1, but now your in my area of expertise.
4) Football players are without a doubt, assets the team acquires and it is the team’s job to get the assets at the lowest possible price, while at the same time getting the highest production out of those same assets.
The problem here is that you’re talking about the “time value of money” but what is value, in this equation?
The value a player provides is in the wins he contributes. And yet, you are making no attempt to actually quantify that. Talking about your discount rate is irrelevant unless you have an idea of what it is you’re discounting.
B) A pass rusher now that will be able to make an immediate impact this year and fill a huge hole.
This is assuming facts not in evidence. On the contrary, I think it is unlikely that Everette Brown would make a major impact on the 49ers this year.
This is too easy
1) Why does it matter what the average league player does to help the average team win?? Better yet, who the hell cares? I’m not interested in what any average players does, what I am interested in is what the specific players will do to get wins for the Niners, like most people here. I fail to see the relevance of your average player analysis.
2) Unless you have developed the ability to read people’s minds your statement of “sloppy thinking” makes no sense, especially since the typo you are referencing was 1 letter. Like I previously stated and you ignored-because your argument would’ve been crushed-is that you took the 1 letter typo out of context. The way you interpreted that typo would make no sense when taken in context with the next sentence.
3) I am glad to see you backed away from your inference that assets don’t fluctuate up and down in price-no matter what the asset. Also I can see you also realized I caught you talking out your ass on your “inflation and interest comment.” This shows me you do realize when you are wrong-at least sometimes.
It isn’t my job to quantify what a player contributes as far as wins. I am smart enough to realize that isn’t my forte and I leave it to the experts that do that for a living instead of making half ass attempts like you. Like I mentioned before, and you chose to ignore for obvious reasons, your simplistic attempt to quantify a player’s value would get laughed at by every NFL organization. I CHALLENGE YOU TO SEND THAT METHODOLOGY TO ANY NFL TEAM AND SEE WHAT TYPE OF FEEDBACK YOU RECEIVE. I am also sure the experts have a discount rate, or degree of risk that is applied to every player they evaluate. Only a fool would think otherwise.
4) First of all my exact words were “immediate impact,” which is different than what you said which is “major impact.” If you want to refute my point-you might want to use my words instead of putting words in my mouth. Was this a typo, or just ignorance? I can’t read your mind-so I’ll let you decide.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I am sure of 1 thing. A player drafted in the 2nd round that was rated as highly as Simtin or Brown would’ve made more “immediate impact” THIS YEAR, as I stated, than any draft pick next year. Any player that could get on the field would make more of an impact this year than no player at all.
Keep hopping weed hopper.
“1) Why does it matter what the average league player does to help the average team win?? "
This is the methodology used to establish Wins Produced and Position-Adjusted Win Score in other sports. It’s a proven methodology which works in other sports.
“Unless you have developed the ability to read people’s minds your statement of "sloppy thinking" makes no sense, especially since the typo you are referencing was 1 letter.”
Your sloppy thinking wasn’t the typo. It was the claim that the average team doesn’t net 8 wins. That wasn’t a typo. It was sloppy thinking. Or stupidity. I’ll let you make that call.
“It isn’t my job to quantify what a player contributes as far as wins. I am smart enough to realize that isn’t my forte and I leave it to the experts that do that for a living instead of making half ass attempts like you”
I wonder if you would have called Dave Berri’s first passes a “half-assed attempt.”
“I CHALLENGE YOU TO SEND THAT METHODOLOGY TO ANY NFL TEAM AND SEE WHAT TYPE OF FEEDBACK YOU RECEIVE. "
They would undoubtably reject it without reading it. NFL teams get all sorts of advice from fans. They don’t bother to read most of it.
But if I was going to try to develop this into a more detailed analytical system (which would take more work than I’m willing to do right now) that wouldn’t be my first stop, anyway. David Berri didn’t start by trying to sell teams on his analysis – he started by developing a rigorous framework, testing it, and then sharing those tests with other statisticians. Then I’d probably try to publish the basics in an academic journal.
I’d then dangle the results to a few popular writers, do a few talks as conventions of stats-minded sports fans, try to get covereage on ESPN.com etc, and then offer to sell my work to an NFL team (probably by getting them to hire me.) But that’s a) a lot of work and b) a job I don’t really want. I like my job better.
But I could do that, if I wanted. I have the statistical chops. And yes, something like what I described in this post would be the very early stating position of such an analysis.
Just because you’re too ignorant about how this stuff works to understand it doesn’t mean that it’s dumb.
“First of all my exact words were "immediate impact," which is different than what you said which is "major impact."”
Fair enough. I don’t think Brown would get onto the field very much, so I don’t think he would make much impact, much less an “immediate” impact, in game 1 of the season. Ditto Loadhardt. Loadhardt would get on to the field very much.
If you want to get all semantic on me, let’s talk about “immediate.” Game one. The first play? I can guarantee you that Brown will not make an impact in his first play in his first game – ergo, no immediate impact.
“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I am sure of 1 thing. A player drafted in the 2nd round that was rated as highly as Simtin or Brown would’ve made more "immediate impact" THIS YEAR, as I stated, than any draft pick next year. Any player that could get on the field would make more of an impact this year than no player at all.”
Well, this is tautologically true (assuming the player go ton the field. Plenty of draft picks have NO impact in their first year). It’s also very meaningless. I mean, if that’s your attitude – “oooh, he can make an impact! shiny!” then a team should trade away future current picks every year, since those picks make an “immediate impact.” Why not trade away our #1 two years from now for a #4 now … after all, the #4 player might make an “immediate impact.”
It’s the SIZE of the impact that matters – which gets back to the whole whole point I’ve been making, which you have proven yourself incapable of understanding:
Any impact the player we didn’t take makes will have to be compared against the impact the BETTER player we get NEXT YEAR will make.
The entire point of the discussion – which you seem to have missed in a foolish attempt to make yourself sound smart – is to come up with a way to evaluate how much you are willing to give up this year for a bigger improvement next year.
It’s obvious from the trade that Scott McLoughan’s thinking is closer to mine than to yours. Read the recently-posted article if you like. He points out that the full-round premium you pay to move up is, in his words, “really makes no sense.”
It’s the easiest thing in the world to piss on someone else’s ideas without offering a meaningful thought of your own – and yet that’s what you’ve done here. You say “leave it to the experts” – well, fine, in that case, leave it to the experts. And the experts (in this case, Scott Mcloughan) don’t agree with you. So are you now going to banish all opinions from your posts? Because, after all, ALL of the experts agree that Brown isn’t first-round talent! Every single team passed on him, several teams twice.
What a joke
Don’t tell me about what you would do-do it. Don’t tell me-show me. You can keep Dave and the half ass attempt-either do it right or don’t bother.
Glad you realize the NFL teams would take your simplistic methodology and shit can it. Glad to see you admit you tried to put words in my mouth.
BTW I love how you didn’t address the the asset value fluctuation-realizing how ignorant that was.
Keep Hackin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much do you want to teach me how to read people’s minds?
no swearing
This isn’t a game thread or draft day thread.
by David Fucillo on Apr 28, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Getting back to the trade
This argument seems to be getting circular, let me see if I can steer it a bit.
To start with, even the 32nd overall pick is more valuable than #43 and #111 in the same draft. Everyone pretty much agrees with this point. The issue is how much do we discount the 1st rounder based on the fact we have to wait a year to make it?
I don’t want to put words into Ronaldinho’s mouth but I think the point he was trying to make was that just applying an arbitrary discount like subtracting a round or using the difference in value to come up with a hypothetical pick doesn’t accurately represent what is lost by waiting a year. A better way to think of the loss, is to try and figure out what effect the players we could have had will have on the Niners record this season.
I am not a great statistician, but what I took away from Ronaldinho’s first post was that it is very hard for any individual player to have a great effect on a team’s record, much less rookies from the 2nd or 4th round. I don’t think it was meant to be an in depth representation of what individual football players are worth.
I think it’s an interesting way to look at what the Niners are giving up to get added value in next year’s draft.
by OkayJay81 on Apr 28, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's pretty much it ...
… I probably shouldn’t have gotten into a shouting match with somebody who thinks that repeatedly posting “YOU DON’T PASS ON FIRST ROUND TALENT IN THE SECOND ROUND” is a profound or meaningful argument.
I’ll try to do better in the future. :)
It's easy to criticize the existing valuation model,
but what are you going to replace it with? Ronaldinho’s vague, unproven, and implausible fantasy model? The existing model has been worked out over decades by smart football people who are actually involved in the business of drafting players? Should we now just throw all that out because one person on a fan website is advocating for a nonsensical valuation system that he can’t even demonstrate has any correlation to the real world? I think not. And that’s not to say the existing model is even correct, but it is widely accepted by GMs around the league, which means that any model hoping to replace it will have to be tested and accepted by the majority of teams. I don’t believe Ronaldinho’s imaginary system comes anywhere near meeting that standard. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’d all laugh him out of the room, especially after he tells them what they are doing now is “ridiculous” and “absurd” – those kinds of characterizations always go over really well.
by MontanaPass on Apr 29, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
I just thought it was a worthwhile exercise
No one’s trying to revolutionize the way GM’s view draft picks, I’m just thinking about how to conceptualize the lost opportunity cost. I was just a bit confused by your system in the original post of measuring the opportunity cost against an imaginary pick.
To say that if the difference in value is equal to a 4th round pick then it does not out-weigh the cost but if it’s equal to a late 1st it does seemed arbitrary to me. It does not really get at the nature of what that lost opportunity cost is.
I may have missed the point in your original post, but using the value difference model didn’t seem to have any explanatory value. I respect your opinion that the trade is only worth it if the pick is in the top ten next year but using the difference from the value chart as an imaginary pick does nothing to explain why you feel that way.
It's funny but ...
I’ve also recently posted a link to an article where Scott McLoughan says that the one-round-per-year price premium “makes no sense.”
Look, we could go around in circles on this, but it seems clear that our different opinions on the trade have, at their root, a disagreement about the value to the team of our #2 (and to a lesser extent our #4) pick. Isn’t it interesting and fun to at least try to start figuring out how to estimate that in a rigorous way? To move the discussion out the realm of pure conjecture?
I don’t claim that I’ve done anything but come up with a starting point for discussion, fwiw.
ABSOLUTLEY
I couldn’t agree more.
I tried to tell him the same thing-maybe now that he is getting the same feedback from someone else he will realize how ignorant he sounds.
BRAVO ZULU MontanaPass
Ronaldinho
your points are well made, if rather less well understood.
One thing you haven’t covered, but partially alluded to, is this – Rookie players generally (GENERALLY) aren’t worth as much as much as those who have played for a little bit. So the cost of not adding one this year isn’t just to this year (and I agree, the cost of one such player, in a non QB position, is a fraction of an actual win), it’s to the year after that, and the year after that, the latterly drafted player being behind in his development. Some sort of geometric progression of win value addition, perhaps? Of course, if you’re a GM, and you think that the overall level of talent in next year’s draft is going to be that much higher, this is offset by the player starting from a more advanced position in terms of talent.
Personally, I like the trade, but my reason for doing so is largely because it looks as if the 49ers have a plan for next year, should everything go tits up this time around, QB wise. Which, lets be fair, it very well might. As for who they may, or may not have taken, I’ve not evaluated a player in my life, and I don’t propose to start doing so now, thanks. As with anything like this, hindsight will be all
It's never too soon to jump to conclusions
by alea iacta est on Apr 28, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
True ...
… however, I think that the learning curve is generally shorter for first round picks than for second round picks. Part of why players get drafted high is because they’re seen as being able to make an immediate impact. eg, Vernon Davis and Patrick Willis were competent as rookies. Adam Snyder was not. Chilo Rachal took half a season to be able to contribute.
Of course, some postiions take longer to adapt to than others. QB, most notably, but also linemen/pass rushers (line play in the NFL is much more sophisticated, but in terms of scheme and technique, than it is in college). Receivers and RBs, on the other hand, generally have shorter learning curves. But even leaving that aside, one would expect that a mid-to-late first round pick would have a shorter learning curve than a player in the same position taken in the early-to-mid second round, so the difference should get smaller.
Thank you for reinterating my comments from 3 of my previous posts
What you just did is reinterate what I already posted previously:
“Taking this a step further it is almost impossible to quantify the impact of any of the players that couldv’e been drafted in the 2nd and 4th round. What I do know is both of those picks wouldv’e at the least started moving up the learning curve and been more valuable with one year experience than a draft pick that will be one year behind on that learning curve.”
“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I am sure of 1 thing. A player drafted in the 2nd round that was rated as highly as Simtin or Brown would’ve made more "immediate impact" THIS YEAR, as I stated, than any draft pick next year. Any player that could get on the field would make more of an impact this year than no player at all.”
“Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see, A) passing 1st round talent in the 2nd round as mocked by the vast majority of prognosticators in exchange for next years 1st draft pick-which we don’t know what pick it will be, but probably at the end of the 1st round or B) A pass rusher now that will be able to make an immediate impact this year and fill a huge hole. I like the player, helping the team in an area of great need this year and getting a year of experience as opposed to an end of the round next year’s pick.”
Agree with you Ronaldinho
Even if we got Brown and who ever else you people wanted and the Niners made the SuperBowl you are asking an average team to beat the….
1) Patriots
2) Ravens
3) Titans
4) Steeelers
None of those players will help us win the Super Bowl this year. So wait be patient and see what Scotty McC does with his 2 1st next year.
Attention Jed:
QB Nate Davis: Sorry, but this is a loser pick and demonstrates once and for all who Alex Smith’s original and continuing patron is – Scott McCloughan. Davis is just a cheaper version of Alex Smith with the same strengths and weakneses – great arm, poor decision making, etc. McCloughan doesn’t understand QB intangibles and should be kept away from all QBs in the draft
poor decision making
Anybody feel free to answer this, but why do you (bignerd or MontanaPass) think Nate Davis makes poor decisions?
Also, just because he has similar attributes automatically makes him the next Alex Smith?
by David Fucillo on Apr 27, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Mr. Nate Davis
Nate Davis made excellent decisions for 11 games in a row last year, then had two horrendous games.
Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman made questionable decisions practically every game, yet nobody questioned their ability. One reason I think his bad rap is undeserved is that the bad “decisions” were 4 fumbles in the MAC Championship (a game where he threw 31 for 46 with 351 Yds and just 1 INT) and the bowl game where Ball State was playing without their head coach who left the program.
The bottom line with Nate Davis is that he makes throws with NFL arm strength, shows good touch on his passes, and would be a day one pick if two things were different (throwing without fingers on laces and the learning disability). Press play on any video of Ball State last year aside from the bowl game and you’ll see an NFL prospect at QB. He hits receivers in stride regularly and doesn’t make many mistakes in the throwing game.
I think this pick is what made me consider the 49ers draft OK. Davis has a chance to be an NFL starter in a couple of years.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Apr 27, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I got to agree
With you man. Im hoping Davis starts over Smith and Hill. Smith needs to go and I love Hill…as a backup to Davis.
I think he is Alex Smith all over again
He has all the same problems and issues coming out of college. He’s slow at making passing decisions. Just look at the highlight video you posted on his draft page. He’s looking, pumping the ball, decides he needs to scramble for a few yards than he finally decides what he is going to do on the play. Again, like Alex Smith has a long passing motion and has to transition from a spread offense. Three important factors that have plagued Alex Smith as pro.
It’s ridiculous that I have to defend myself on this one. Explain to me why he isn’t like Alex Smith? Besides the pick number and personal background.
One of the big differences between A. Smith and S. Hill is
that Hill makes faster, more correct decisions and gets rid of the ball quickly. He’s more decisive, and his decisions are mostly correct. Smith is slow in his progression and is hesitant and has a slow release. That’s a killer combination in the pro game that can go unnoticed in college. Get a guy who makes quick, correct decisions and then gets rid of the ball quickly with good accuracy and can make all the pro throws and I’ll be happy. I just don’t think Nate Davis is that guy, but it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about a QB, either. I thought Jim Druckenmiller would be a fantastic QB. So I hope for the team’s sake that I’m wrong, but if I’m not, at least it’s a cheap mistake.
How can the pick number, the personal background, the investment size, the developmental situation, and the surrounding talent not have anything to do with this?
What you’re saying is “tell me how this is different, except for all that stuff that’s different!” Can’t you see how that’s very plainly the wrong way to look at anything. You know Glen Coffee is exactly like Frank Gore too. Please, tell me how he’s different, except that I defy you to actually bring up any of the legitimate differences.
Discounting a legitimate counterpoint under some false supposition that it doesn’t matter is a common argumentative device and its easy to feel like somebody else can’t argue against it, but really it’s just a fallacious bully tactic. “Tell me why? Yeah, that’s stupid. Give me another reason! That’s stupid too! I’m clearly right!” That’s an extremely base and, admittedly, somewhat jerkish way of showing what you’re doing, but it’s still what you’re doing.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 27, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions
So what's the answer?
We might have only wasted a 5th round pick on this QB?
It’s a not bully argument, it’s begging for someone to actually make a point in Nate Davis’ favor. MontanaPass and I have explained why Nate Davis is a garage pick and the response “could you explain to us why Nate Davis a garage pick because I don’t agree?” Murmur murmur . . . he’s got a strong arm . . . so besides all the points you made why this guy looks like another bust and our GM cannot identify a starting QB attending the Pro Bowl NFL Quarterback Challenge . . .. could you keep making more points as to why he is garbage because I cannot find one reason to tell you he is an NFL QB . . . murmur murmur he’s got a strong arm like Alex Smith.
Dude. What’s going wrong here is that you’re looking at him like he’s necessarily supposed to be the quarterback of the future. The reason it’s important that he’s a fifth round pick is that, regardless of position, fifth round picks are a longshot to develop into anything particularly worthwhile. Nobody who we were going to take in the fifth round was going to be the guy that you’re asking us to defend, no matter what position he played.
The reason not having to be committed to him is important is that we can improve when the opportunity comes up.
I’m not sure what you mean by the personal backgroun, exactly. The learning disability? Since I don’t understand where the idea is coming from, I’ll leave it alone.
The reason the developmental situation is important is that he actually has a chance to develop under normal, beneficial circumstances.
The reason the surrounding talent is important is, well, that should be obvious.
The reason the coaching is important is that, presumably, he won’t have to ferriss wheel through 9 different systems. If Singletary is doing anything right, it’s that he’s setting his coaching assistants up for some modicum of consistency.
These are all differences between Davis and Smith. I don’t know why you don’t seem to think so. If I took every single thing like these away the way that you’re trying to do I could make a very good argument that Jim Druckenmiller and Dan Marino were the same quarterback. You say it’s not a bully tactic, but what you’re doing is stripping away any context that disagrees with you. I can make any argument I want if I carefully strip away the right amount of context.
But what I really don’t understand is what in the world you want out of a fifth round pick? You want him to be anything but a longshot?
Anyway, what you really seem to want is for somebody to say “oh, he’s WAY more accurate than Smith!” or “he’s nowhere near as raw as Smith was.” I’m not putting those out as reasons here. I’m just using them as examples of the kinds of things you want. Very direct comparisons between their persons, at the complete expense of their situations. Okay.
Which is why you’re not getting much. How many people here watched many Ball State games? Did you? From the sound of it, you read the scouting report and watched the video. You’re basing almost every concrete example you make on a single play. “Did you see that one play where he took a long time to make a decision. That MUST be representative of his entire college career.”
Yes, he holds the ball funny. Yes, he played in a spread.
But come on. McLoughan wasn’t trying to draft our savior with this pick. He wasn’t trying to draft any player who had anything but a shot in hell at becoming anything. That’s the nature of that pick. What he was trying to do was fill a position of desperate need with bodies that contain potential. Nate Davis >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon Huard. Not because he’ll necessarily become the better player, but because he at least has that shot in hell. Why do you insist that this needs to be anything more than that?
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 27, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't tell that to Demetric Evans - he was an UDFA.
And he turned into one heckuva player. But a big part of my disappointment with this pick is precisely what you point out – he wasn’t necessarily picked to be our QBOF. While I was expecting just that, a QBOF. I was hoping that the A. Smith pick was mostly McCloughan deferring to Nolan, but that appears to not be the case. I was expecting that McCloughan could find a late-round talent like Brady or Cassel, or Kitna, or many others who were ignored, and bring him along slowly – a guy who has to learn the footwork for a pro set, a guy with a few mechanical flaws or who needs some coaching up on reading defenses, a guy who has superior intangibles already who needs some time to adjust. But all I see is another QB with flaws and strengths similar to Smith’s, and that’s very disappointing to me because I don’t think either Smith or Hill is a QB who can take us to the 12-14 win level and keep us there.
Tell me one person
who looked at Brady or Cassel and said to themselves, “future pro-bowler.” I can then show you at least 31 people who said, “not worth a 5th round pick.”
If you can’t tell me one late round QB that will be a pro-bowler from this draft and who we should have drafted instead, give this kid time to develop and we’ll see what happens.
ring him along slowly – a guy who has to learn the footwork for a pro set, a guy with a few mechanical flaws or who needs some coaching up on reading defenses, a guy who has superior intangibles already who needs some time to adjust.
That actually describes Alex Smith fairly accurately. One of the big problems was that, by and large, he didn’t have these advantages. He was brought along at lightning speed. He never had his mechanics worked on until Martz got here. Etc. Etc.
Hopefully, Davis will have those advantages.
But really, if you were looking for a QB of the future, where was it coming from? Stafford, Sanchez and Freeman were long gone, two of them by the time we even made our first pick.
QBOF come from the first two rounds. If you were expecting that from any pick after round two then the problem wasn’t really in the pick. It was in your expectations.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 27, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Except Alex Smith was the starter or was suppose to be starter the last 4 years. He was getting all the reps in practice, getting game experience and the coaches attention.
Nate Davis will be the 3rd QB. Meaning he will be coached in training camp with limited reps. When the season starts he will receive no reps at all and get the attention of the scout coach.
I find it a stretch that Nate Davis is going to improve where Alex Smith has so far failed.
Also the team could have picked up a 2nd string / special teams player at any position with that 5th round pick instead of a 3rd QB who might be on chopping block next year. Any QB past Sanchez, Stafford was a complete waste. Even better QB prospects who ran the spread offense didn’t get picked in this draft but our GM had to pick up the guy just like Alex.
I think that's some faulty reasoning
I find it a stretch that Nate Davis is going to improve where Alex Smith has so far failed.
Just because they have similar skill sets doesn’t mean they will develop the same. Davis may or may not become a great QB but it will have nothing to do with how Alex Smith developed.
Nate Davis is going to be able to learn from the other QB’s and coaches before getting an NFL rep, just like Aaron Rodgers was able to learn off of one of the best of all time for a few years before he got a start. Alex Smith got put into a game, in which he was no where near ready to be in an NFL game. Not only will Nate Davis have a better receiving core than Alex Smith, he will also have more time to develop and mature. One more thing, he will have a coaching staff that doesn’t change every year
Well, I wouldn’t say just like Aaron Rodgers.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 28, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Did he complete the pass where he thought about his decision?
If so, why are we having this conversation? If a guy takes a week to throw a pass, and completes it for positive yardage down field, HOW is that bad decision making? Guys, we don’t even know how Alex will pan out, so let’s not dog on a guy who hasn’t stepped foot on even a practice field yet.
I disagree
This pick is all about risk/reward.
This pick was a 5th round flyer that will cost the team little.
They met with him, spoke to his coach and thought they could teach him the system despite his learning disabilities.
Worst case scenario?? A 5th round pick didn’t work out-which is the case more times than not.
Bast case?? The kid develops and actually contributes in a few years.
I really don’t see the problem with the pick
The risk-reward is fine for this pick. The disappointing
part was that he’s so much like Smith, so I’m not real optimistic about how he’ll turn out. But in terms of what the team paid for him, a 5th round compensatory, it was good value. No argument there. But what I want is a QBOF at a steal in the mid-late rounds. That’s what I want from the 9er’s GM, not a flip of the coin worth $25-30mil in the 1st round. If Davis turns into a solid NFL starter, McCloughan(and Johnson, the QB coach) will be a genius; if not, it didn’t cost much.
by MontanaPass on Apr 29, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Late-round QBOFs
“But what I want is a QBOF at a steal in the mid-late rounds.”
Sure. That’s what we all want.
My question is, what do those guys look like when they’re drafted? Would any of us look at, say, Tom Brady (HOF QBOF) when he was drafted and say, “Yes, there’s our man!”
There’s a reason why 5th-round QBs don’t go in the first round. You’re simply not going to find a QB in the late rounds who you don’t have some serious reservations about.
The biggest difference between Smith and Davis is that Davis put up his numbers in a pro-style offense. Smith was a spread guy. That alone means it’s hard to compare them, IMHO. But I have no idea if Davis is our QBOF or not – and, honestly, evaluating QBs if so difficult that I wonder if anybody does. Personally, I think that with QBs, 90% of the pros evaluators out there are just guessing. Making educated guesses, sure … but remember that there were a lot of people out there who thought that the difference between Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning was minimal.
(There was a great article about evaluating QBs and teachers, I think by Malcolm Gladwell, in the New Yorker a few months back. I strongly recommend it, because it has some interesting comments from NFL talent-evaluators).
Ah, here’s the article: http://www.gladwell.com/2008/2008_12_15_a_teacher.html
Actually I think Davis ran the spread at Ball State as well
I’m not 100% sure but I know they ran a shot gun offense. I still really like the pick as he seemed to be rated as a 2nd/3rd round prospect before the news of the learning disability came out.
I agree with the comments that Davis is similar in skill set to Smith, but to me that is not a problem. Getting a QB with good raw tools in the 5th round and hoping he can adjust to the pro game is good value in my opinion. Just because Alex Smith failed to turn his skills into production over the last 4 years doesn’t mean that Davis won’t be able to over the next 4.
You're right, my bad ...
I thought I read something to the contrary.
It’s very easy to make comparisons to established players – both good and bad – because most players have some attributes shared by other QBs. You hear more of the good ones, of course – so and so is the next Elway, whatever – but I don’t think the bad ones are any less accurate. :)
Ball State's offense
From what I’ve seen (and it isn’t a lot) it’s not a shotgun-only system. He takes probably 30% of the snaps from under center. It’s a spread, though in that they have 4 wides about 40% of the time. It’s pretty balanced run vs. pass. He will roll out off of play action and he’s in general quite accurate both in the pocket and out of it.
In Singletary we trust.
I agree
I think we all want the same thing-but I am not sure that player existed in this draft.
I think everyone knows that Hill and quite possibly Smith isn’t the long term answer at QB, which mean they need to bring somone in and start grooming him now.
Unfortunately I don’t have a solution-so many of the 1st round qb’s turn out to be busts. I think they should’ve tried harder to get Cutler.
But what I want is a QBOF at a steal in the mid-late rounds.
For all we know, that’s exactly what Davis is. The fact of the matter is that the OVERWHELMING majority of franchise quarterbacks come from the first two rounds. 14 of the leagues starters last season came from the first two rounds. The number could conceivably go up this season. Most of the remaining starters were found by the end of the fourth round.
Mid-late round quarterbacks of the future are pretty rare, predictably volatile, and absolutely unpredictable. There isn’t a single player in any draft who you could get in the mid-late rounds and say right away that you got the kind of steal you’re describing. They are uniformly long-shots, and they will uniformly seem like long-shots on the day that they’re drafted. If that wasn’t the case, they’d have been drafted on Saturday.
What I’m saying is that you’ll never look at a fifth round pick and think “that guy is a real QBOF candidate.” If you’re hoping for a guy like that, then you’ll always be disappointed on draft day because it doesn’t really exist.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 30, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Well said.
It’s not that the players don’t exist, it’s just that they’re so rare, and even when you happen to stumble upon one, you don’t know he’s one until he actually shines.
Does anyone honestly think that Belichick thought Brady was a QBOTF when he was taken? I think Belichick knows darn well that he lucked out there.
What about other positions?
“The fact of the matter is that the OVERWHELMING majority of franchise quarterbacks come from the first two rounds. 14 of the leagues starters last season came from the first two rounds.”
That’s an interesting stat. Assuming one starter per team (I don’t know how you generated that stat) it means that slightly less than half of the QB starters came in the first two rounds.
I’m curious what that number is for other positions. I wouldn’t be surprised if its similar.
I don't think it would be similar.
Another aspect of the the QB 1st/2nd draft NFL starter rate is the self fulfilling prophecy. Teams have to decide who is their QB starting camp in order to get that player the most practice possible. Other positions are allowed to have a competition. If a franchise drafts a QB high it’s their incentive to force him into the lineup over any previous lower drafted QBs. It’s not only that highly drafted QB’s probably posses higher degree of raw talent but receive substantially more opportunities to become the starter.
I hate the Nate Davis pick because it’s not as though he is being groomed to be the future starting QB. Essentially both Shaun and Alex would have to fail and the 49ers would probably draft another 1st round QB who needs to flounder before Nate is even given a chance at the job. Tom Brady never beat out Drew Bledsoe on the depth chart (was never given the chance). Brady got on the field when the Pats had nowhere else to turn.
I hate the Nate Davis pick because it’s not as though he is being groomed to be the future starting QB. Essentially both Shaun and Alex would have to fail and the 49ers would probably draft another 1st round QB who needs to flounder before Nate is even given a chance at the job. Tom Brady never beat out Drew Bledsoe on the depth chart (was never given the chance). Brady got on the field when the Pats had nowhere else to turn.
I think you’re oversimplifying things here. Are they grooming Davis to take on the role? I’m not sure how much difference it would make this next season. He’ll get a few snaps in training camp, run a lot of drills with receivers, etc, and have a chance to learn the playbook. The team probably won’t make any sort of decision about him for a year.
Then, a year from now, I’m willing to bet that Smith – unless he’s shown something new – gets let go, and Nate becomes the backup. That means a lot more reps in training camp, preseason snaps, etc – a chance to start to show what he can do.
Brady is a great example. He entered camp as their #4 QB. By the time Bledsoe got hurt, he was their #2 QB. He just kept impressing people. Had Bledsoe not been injured, I think the Pats might have traded him the next season – he’s really not a Bellichek QB (huge arm, lots of yards, lots of bizzare mistakes). And IIRC there was grumbling about him in Pats land before he was hurt.
But to say that a second-year QB never “got the chance” to unseat the starter until injury hit wasn’t really fair – that was halfway through his second season, and I think ideally you’re looking for a young QB to be competing for a starting job by his third training camp.
Is Davis a Brady? Wow, that’d be nice. I won’t count on it. But right now, his job is to prove he deserves to be the backup. There’s no hurry. “Grooming” is overrated. He’ll get the chance to prove he’s better than Smith, and then, like most backup QBs, he’ll start seeing some action.
I just went to yahoo and I counted. They list the draft round on the players individual pages. I’m pretty sure 14 is right. There is always the chance of human error.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Apr 30, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Correct. But A. Brown and R. Jennings were still there.
And I still think Brown would have been the superior choice. But I’m very happy they brought in Kory Sheets.
by MontanaPass on Apr 29, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with most of the original post
The only disagreement I have is with Nate Davis in the 5th. When you can get a quarterback who has all the physical tools to be a starter in the NFL at the end of the 5th round I think that’s tremendous value. Davis may never develop but he has enough of a chance that I think the pick is a good one.
I’d rather take a guy who has a 20% chance of being a starting QB than a guy who has an 80% chance of being a great special teamer. To me, Davis was the 5th best QB prospect in this draft and I think we got him at a good spot.
This
I don’t know about the whole 5th best QB thing, but I definitely think Davis was good value. Even if he turns out to be the next Shaun Hill (decent starting QB who can still win when the starting QB goes down), he will be worth tons more than a LB who has a higher likelihood of ending up on special teams or even a RT.
More points re: the trade for another 1st Round Pick next year
2nd round and lower draft picks, in this year’s draft, are definitely no guarantee to start even on a mediocre team. What picks at 43 and 117+ were gonna start over an incumbent or a veteran FA brought in to fill?
Filling your roster with marginal talent guarantees mediocrity. Next years’ draft is loaded with elite talent in the first round (see: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/draft-2009/04/28/2010/index.html )( or: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andrew_perloff/04/28/2010/index.html ) I’ve watched Taylor Mays play DB at USC since he was a starter his freshman year. He is a bigger, faster Ronnie Lott. Yeah, I know that is a bold statement, Lott is a consensus ‘Best of All Time" at safety. What’s more is that Kiper says Mays isn’t even the best safety available in the draft next year. He claims
Eric Berry from Tenn. is.
If Carolina ends up doing better than average this year or the 49ers improve to say 9-7 or better (a more than realistic chance), mid-to-late first round picks are said to be where the real value is. Not having to pay the huge top 7 guarantee dollars but getting elite talent is where you build a great team. That’s why getting Crabtree at #10 is way better than getting him at #7 or higher. Belicheck claims that the way the rookie salary structure for top picks is set up, it destroys your team chemistry for unproven players to make that much more than proven vets.
The two 1st round picks next year gives them plenty of options to trade down for more picks (more than likely as they won’t want to pay for two 1st’s) or trade up for the someone they just gotta have. Or they could trade for a veteran who is worth it and could put us over the top.
The best case scenario is if Alex Smith finally earns his $$ and shows to be worth his high pick status, Nate Davis shows the potential to be the QB of the Future, most of the draft picks and udfa pickups REALIZE their potential with the coaching staff’s guidance, and the Niners return to the Standard set by our Father of Bay Area Football who art in heaven, BILL WALSH.
by FortyEffin9erFan on Apr 29, 2009 1:38 PM PDT reply actions
2nd round and lower draft picks, in this year’s draft, are definitely no guarantee to start even on a mediocre team.
That’s pretty bad argument to make if you’re defending the trade. Why? Because for starters, “starting” means jack if the player still sucks. With that in mind, you could then say that most mid-to-late first rounders fail to start, too, which is true.
The big thing about the trade is that, as you pointed out), it gives the 49ers a lot of flexibility during the upcoming season as well as after it (leading up to the next free agency period and draft).
the only reason i like the trade
is that the next draft. Experts are saying will be better “talent” wise then this years so i think we can get 2 rookie starters next year or trade up higher and select S Eric Berry or S Taylor Mays. no guarantees but hey it sounds good :)
by 49ersAllTheWay on Apr 29, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
No guarantees
Indeed, there are no guarantees. If you look back to the 2009 mocks immediately after the 2008 draft, it probably looked nothing like what actually played out this year.
In any case, the 49ers could also be posturing for a move to acquire a franchise QB if they feel Hill and Smith will be let go at the end of their deals.
my analysis of the trade
Why not get Everette Brown/Phil Loadholt/whoever and trade
1.McSing feel comfortable with Manny Lawson pass rushing. He is recovered from his injury, so no excuses for him.
2. McSing feel comfortable with Marvel Smith even if he can’t play the whole season because they have Synder etc
3. Mc thinks the talent as a whole will be better as a whole next year. EX: a 1st rounder this year could be equivalent to a 2nd rounder next year (just an example, not necessarily true)
4. Mc has a plan to ‘accidentally’ have Delhomme hurt. JUST KIDDING THAT IS NOT REAL!
5. 4 is fake
6. 1st rounders usually have a bigger impact than 2nd and 4th
7. McSing might have seen something in Brown/Loadholt that they thought wouldn’t work in the D/O.
8. Panthers have a tough schedule, harder for them to win games, less wins for them, higher 1st round draft pick
9. GO 49ers!
In Shaun Hill will trust
Nate Davis' drop from Round 2 to Round 5
He dropped for 3 reasons:
1) the dyslexia (or whatever)
2) because he lost his last 2 games in fairly spectacular fashion. Ball State lost the MAC championship because he committed 3 fumbles in that game, 2 of which were returned for touchdowns. Only one of them was his fault (2 bad snaps caused the other 2 fumbles). He took off near the goal line on 3rd and goal and did something similar to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_hi7gOjE0
It was bad:
I don’t know the full story on the Bowl Game that they also lost, but he didn’t look good: 9 for 29 and 145 yards passing.
It bears noting that he still had over 350 yards passing in the MAC championship game.
3) He doesn’t use the laces and throws with 2 gloves.
Doesn’t stop him from throwing 70 yards (with the gloves off):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgcGCMt4Rs
In Singletary we trust.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
