(03-28-2024, 08:30 AM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2024, 07:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean it tells you nothing? It clearly states the percentages and how it's based. From 2011 - 2023, any selections considered premium, in this case, any selections made within the top 100, indicate a philosophy and strategy.
It's obvious in Baalke's case. A good portion of his decision making favors the LB and RB positions early, with T mixed in there. While other positions such as WR (0.0%) and DT (0.0%) are considered an afterthought. This is a good base to gauge which way Baalke will more than likely lean in the draft next month.
So, when he does something like, pass up on a WR at 17 or a DT at 17 in favor of an OT, EDGE or CB it shouldn't surprise anybody. Or, when he waits until day 3 to select a WR, it shouldn't surprise anybody. It especially shouldn't surprise anybody if he selects another RB in RD3.
It clearly tells you that...
(03-28-2024, 08:28 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]You're right. That is misleading. Someone should call him out on that.
Agreed, the data on the top teams where their gms made 35+ picks probably gives some merit. Especially if there is a definitive outlier like the Rams and WRs.
I commented on his data just now. Maybe he'll redo it or make an adjustment. There's no way between Baalke's five years as a 49er and his three years here as a Jaguar that he's only had 12 selections within the top 100 to be utilized as a General Manager. The math doesn't math there.
I am already at 14 picks within the top 100 for Baalke in just San Francisco before 2015. So, yeah, that guy's math is [BLEEP] pretty much. Missing a good chunk of Baalke's history.
(03-28-2024, 07:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2024, 10:47 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]We can argue the merits of the picks, but that chart is dumb. It tells you nearly nothing.
What do you mean it tells you nothing? It clearly states the percentages and how it's based. From 2011 - 2023, any selections considered premium, in this case, any selections made within the top 100, indicate a philosophy and strategy.
It's obvious in Baalke's case. A good portion of his decision making favors the LB and RB positions early, with T mixed in there. While other positions such as WR (0.0%) and DT (0.0%) are considered an afterthought. This is a good base to gauge which way Baalke will more than likely lean in the draft next month.
So, when he does something like, pass up on a WR at 17 or a DT at 17 in favor of an OT, EDGE or CB it shouldn't surprise anybody. Or, when he waits until day 3 to select a WR, it shouldn't surprise anybody. It especially shouldn't surprise anybody if he selects another RB in RD3.
It clearly tells you that...
There's something called sample size. This chart does not include his tenure in SF as it shows the number of picks made in each box which total up to 12. This is from the 3 or 4 drafts he's been apart of with the Jaguars. That's a small sample size to be gleaning anything meaningful from as far as predicting who he will select in the early rounds of this draft. Also, drafts are not stacked with the same level of talent or equally distributed amongst positions. It varies year to year. If this chart clearly tells you anything about him, it's that he isn't necessarily locked into specific positions regardless of how he feels a specific draft is comprised which is not shocking as no GM should approach a draft that way. Also, it presumes he's the sole decision maker on each pick, which I suspect may not be the case. Lastly, pickers don't pick in a vacuum. Teams have needs. Needs change year to year and influence personnel decisions. Free agency occurs before the draft and affects those needs year to year as well.
I like and appreciate charts and graphs and have no real problem with the way this is presented, but it doesn't clearly tell you anything about what is likely to happen. There's not enough info for that.
If his argument is team based, that's fine, however, it should be worded that way. There's plenty of general managers in the NFL that have had more than one stint with other teams in it's history. Baalke might actually be one of the very few or new outliers going back to 2011 though, so, it should be notated when people present data like this.
Even if the argument is team based, often times, the general manager shapes his team and shapes his coaching staff primarily around his philosophical views. You should be able to really identify two things from this data, especially if the sum is higher.
1. A clear cut pattern of favoring positions earlier on than others.
2. A clear indication of adapting your philosophy and just selecting good football players where you personally think they fit your team at that point in time.
That's all I would want to figure out of this.
My main issue here is the lack of spending a single top 100 pick on a WR but spending 2 top 100 picks on running backs. With a young QB, a smart GM would also have a young WR or two to grow with the QB.
(03-28-2024, 09:26 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]My main issue here is the lack of spending a single top 100 pick on a WR but spending 2 top 100 picks on running backs. With a young QB, a smart GM would also have a young WR or two to grow with the QB.
Not if in three seasons. He's had 12 picks. He couldn't even select one in each period. When you are doing BAP you can't guarantee in three seasons and 12 picks you'll fit one of those in there.
The whole problem is the small sample size. You can say drafting receiver should be important but not if the third round receivers you didn't like as much as tank. Or Brenton or whatever.
Oline oline oline.
WRs are made by QBs. They are not special.
(03-28-2024, 08:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]If his argument is team based, that's fine, however, it should be worded that way. There's plenty of general managers in the NFL that have had more than one stint with other teams in it's history. Baalke might actually be one of the very few or new outliers going back to 2011 though, so, it should be notated when people present data like this.
Even if the argument is team based, often times, the general manager shapes his team and shapes his coaching staff primarily around his philosophical views. You should be able to really identify two things from this data, especially if the sum is higher.
1. A clear cut pattern of favoring positions earlier on than others.
2. A clear indication of adapting your philosophy and just selecting good football players where you personally think they fit your team at that point in time.
That's all I would want to figure out of this.
Correct the idea is good. The data is very flawed especially for the lower teams on the list, which he does order by data number so that helps. But really below the top 10ish teams in that graph the rest of the data doesn't mean much.
(03-28-2024, 09:32 AM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2024, 09:26 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]My main issue here is the lack of spending a single top 100 pick on a WR but spending 2 top 100 picks on running backs. With a young QB, a smart GM would also have a young WR or two to grow with the QB.
Not if in three seasons. He's had 12 picks. He couldn't even select one in each period. When you are doing BAP you can't guarantee in three seasons and 12 picks you'll fit one of those in there.
The whole problem is the small sample size. You can say drafting receiver should be important but not if the third round receivers you didn't like as much as tank. Or Brenton or whatever.
Agreed. 12 selections is a little too small to judge him. It should also be noted what he did during free agency prior to making some of those decisions. Have to remember, at the initial time of Christian Kirk's signing, MANY pundits, nationally, locally and even on this board questioned the dollar amount thrown at him.
By all accounts, he got it right with Kirk. He also seemed to have got it right with Marvin Jones and Zay Jones earlier on as well. Injuries derailed both of those guys last year, so, you could make an argument that he could justify going WR earlier than he usually would in a deep WR class. (Meeting with Brian Thomas Jr., Rome Odunze & Malik Nabers would allude to this, as well as being interested at Florida's Pro-Day personally until it was made known that Pearsall would not be participating).
There's also the signing of Gabe Davis, the trade that he made for Calvin Ridley, etc. I can understand why WR is all of a sudden lower on his pecking order on draft weekend when he's invested, again, the 4th highest amount of cap space already at this position group. That's a fact.
Also, I don't think he got it wrong with Lawrence, Etienne, Campbell, Little, Cisco, Walker & Lloyd. There's been a few head scratchers here and there. The biggest ones being Muma, Strange & Bigsby though. So, out of his 12 selections within the top 100. 3 of them were highly questionable. You win some. You lose some.
However, again, looking at the totality of the off season in each free agency class leading up to said drafts here? It makes sense on paper to me.
Instead of drafting WRs, he's brought in proven veteran WRs. In his short time here, WR wasn't at the top of his board in the first few rounds when it was our pick. You don't pick a WR lower on your board just to draft a WR.
(03-28-2024, 09:33 AM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote: [ -> ]Oline oline oline.
WRs are made by QBs. They are not special.
Wouldn't surprise me if he goes OT or OG with the 17th pick. I think it can be all but narrowed down to that by now.
Offensive lineman
Cornerback
Maybe receiver if somebody too good slips for whatever reason. Maybe another edge rusher if somebody like Verse or Turner is there for some odd reason. I don't see him going anywhere beyond that at this point. You have to look at this moves across the board. He extended players on the IDL last year. He picked up an EDGE to rotate with already, he added Armstead, he added Darby, he added Savage and he added just one lineman at Center and a return specialist.
He's done a good job, once again via free agency, in, covering his bases. He's now not feeling that much pressure to take a specific player at a specific group, but, just based on questionable depth, contract situations and age? Offensive line and Cornerback seem the most likely and seem to have the most value there once the QB's, WR's and Bowers come off the board.
(03-27-2024, 08:47 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]What a stupid tweet. A list of 1-2 picks at any position. You couldn't post a more meaningless tweet.
you underestimate me, son
Quote:tied a knot in my shoelace.
(03-28-2024, 07:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2024, 10:47 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]We can argue the merits of the picks, but that chart is dumb. It tells you nearly nothing.
What do you mean it tells you nothing? It clearly states the percentages and how it's based. From 2011 - 2023, any selections considered premium, in this case, any selections made within the top 100, indicate a philosophy and strategy.
It's obvious in Baalke's case. A good portion of his decision making favors the LB and RB positions early, with T mixed in there. While other positions such as WR (0.0%) and DT (0.0%) are considered an afterthought. This is a good base to gauge which way Baalke will more than likely lean in the draft next month.
So, when he does something like, pass up on a WR at 17 or a DT at 17 in favor of an OT, EDGE or CB it shouldn't surprise anybody. Or, when he waits until day 3 to select a WR, it shouldn't surprise anybody. It especially shouldn't surprise anybody if he selects another RB in RD3.
It clearly tells you that...
It might also insinuate that he is risk averse, and believes that the opportunity to fail when picking an LB or RB is slim (IE, most of them are easily able to transition from CFB to pro) vs. skill position. Look where he's historically been acquiring vets vs. relying on the darft - WRs, CBs, TE, backup QB, etc. You don't want a GM to be afraid to roll the dice on a boom or bust guy when they've done homework on the guy, but you also don't want a guy swinging for the fences every April and setting the plan back another 3 years.
I am not advocating or praising his thought process, but it is pretty clear that it's been the case that our recent strategy has been more to acquire talent that was darfted and developed than to put in that work ourselves. That may be on the prior regime for either bad darfting or bad training. We'll see if the focus starts to shift.
(03-28-2024, 08:43 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2024, 07:45 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean it tells you nothing? It clearly states the percentages and how it's based. From 2011 - 2023, any selections considered premium, in this case, any selections made within the top 100, indicate a philosophy and strategy.
It's obvious in Baalke's case. A good portion of his decision making favors the LB and RB positions early, with T mixed in there. While other positions such as WR (0.0%) and DT (0.0%) are considered an afterthought. This is a good base to gauge which way Baalke will more than likely lean in the draft next month.
So, when he does something like, pass up on a WR at 17 or a DT at 17 in favor of an OT, EDGE or CB it shouldn't surprise anybody. Or, when he waits until day 3 to select a WR, it shouldn't surprise anybody. It especially shouldn't surprise anybody if he selects another RB in RD3.
It clearly tells you that...
There's something called sample size. This chart does not include his tenure in SF as it shows the number of picks made in each box which total up to 12. This is from the 3 or 4 drafts he's been apart of with the Jaguars. That's a small sample size to be gleaning anything meaningful from as far as predicting who he will select in the early rounds of this draft. Also, drafts are not stacked with the same level of talent or equally distributed amongst positions. It varies year to year. If this chart clearly tells you anything about him, it's that he isn't necessarily locked into specific positions regardless of how he feels a specific draft is comprised which is not shocking as no GM should approach a draft that way. Also, it presumes he's the sole decision maker on each pick, which I suspect may not be the case. Lastly, pickers don't pick in a vacuum. Teams have needs. Needs change year to year and influence personnel decisions. Free agency occurs before the draft and affects those needs year to year as well.
I like and appreciate charts and graphs and have no real problem with the way this is presented, but it doesn't clearly tell you anything about what is likely to happen. There's not enough info for that.
I think you'd also want to factor in positional strength/depth in a darft to compare.
EG, if we did not take any Center in the first 100, how many went in the first 100 over those years? Was it a deep class(es), or slim picking? Was there a run, and we didn't jump into the fold?
Real analysis requires looking at more than one column of data.
(03-28-2024, 10:09 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2024, 09:33 AM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote: [ -> ]Oline oline oline.
WRs are made by QBs. They are not special.
Wouldn't surprise me if he goes OT or OG with the 17th pick. I think it can be all but narrowed down to that by now.
Offensive lineman
Cornerback
Maybe receiver if somebody too good slips for whatever reason. Maybe another edge rusher if somebody like Verse or Turner is there for some odd reason. I don't see him going anywhere beyond that at this point. You have to look at this moves across the board. He extended players on the IDL last year. He picked up an EDGE to rotate with already, he added Armstead, he added Darby, he added Savage and he added just one lineman at Center and a return specialist.
He's done a good job, once again via free agency, in, covering his bases. He's now not feeling that much pressure to take a specific player at a specific group, but, just based on questionable depth, contract situations and age? Offensive line and Cornerback seem the most likely and seem to have the most value there once the QB's, WR's and Bowers come off the board.
If we trade back I think we take Kool-Aid.
(03-28-2024, 09:26 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]My main issue here is the lack of spending a single top 100 pick on a WR but spending 2 top 100 picks on running backs. With a young QB, a smart GM would also have a young WR or two to grow with the QB.
We spent $72M on Kirk, $24M on Zay, $50M+ (2 contracts) on Engram, $10M on Rid, and now $39M on Gabe
That should give a pretty clear statement on how Baalke envisions resource use toward providing weapons for his QB.
What do our top-100 WR picks before Baalke's tenure look like, in comparison? A lot of duds, some middling. Yes, we probably missed on a BUNCH of guys that went after our picks, but there is 0 context to go along with that goose egg of WR picks. I can't let that number worry me, on its own it says very little.
(03-28-2024, 10:01 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2024, 09:32 AM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Not if in three seasons. He's had 12 picks. He couldn't even select one in each period. When you are doing BAP you can't guarantee in three seasons and 12 picks you'll fit one of those in there.
The whole problem is the small sample size. You can say drafting receiver should be important but not if the third round receivers you didn't like as much as tank. Or Brenton or whatever.
Agreed. 12 selections is a little too small to judge him. It should also be noted what he did during free agency prior to making some of those decisions. Have to remember, at the initial time of Christian Kirk's signing, MANY pundits, nationally, locally and even on this board questioned the dollar amount thrown at him.
By all accounts, he got it right with Kirk. He also seemed to have got it right with Marvin Jones and Zay Jones earlier on as well. Injuries derailed both of those guys last year, so, you could make an argument that he could justify going WR earlier than he usually would in a deep WR class. (Meeting with Brian Thomas Jr., Rome Odunze & Malik Nabers would allude to this, as well as being interested at Florida's Pro-Day personally until it was made known that Pearsall would not be participating).
There's also the signing of Gabe Davis, the trade that he made for Calvin Ridley, etc. I can understand why WR is all of a sudden lower on his pecking order on draft weekend when he's invested, again, the 4th highest amount of cap space already at this position group. That's a fact.
Also, I don't think he got it wrong with Lawrence, Etienne, Campbell, Little, Cisco, Walker & Lloyd. There's been a few head scratchers here and there. The biggest ones being Muma, Strange & Bigsby though. So, out of his 12 selections within the top 100. 3 of them were highly questionable. You win some. You lose some.
However, again, looking at the totality of the off season in each free agency class leading up to said drafts here? It makes sense on paper to me.
I also think it's to early to comment on Brenton and Tank. Lots would have out Travon in this category after year one. If they are still fairly meaningless after this season we can start to box them. Muma did start some his rookie year but it is easily argued he hasn't been a great top 100, but we've been luckily pretty injury free at LB. It's possible this year we need him and he produces well.
(03-28-2024, 11:34 AM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2024, 10:01 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. 12 selections is a little too small to judge him. It should also be noted what he did during free agency prior to making some of those decisions. Have to remember, at the initial time of Christian Kirk's signing, MANY pundits, nationally, locally and even on this board questioned the dollar amount thrown at him.
By all accounts, he got it right with Kirk. He also seemed to have got it right with Marvin Jones and Zay Jones earlier on as well. Injuries derailed both of those guys last year, so, you could make an argument that he could justify going WR earlier than he usually would in a deep WR class. (Meeting with Brian Thomas Jr., Rome Odunze & Malik Nabers would allude to this, as well as being interested at Florida's Pro-Day personally until it was made known that Pearsall would not be participating).
There's also the signing of Gabe Davis, the trade that he made for Calvin Ridley, etc. I can understand why WR is all of a sudden lower on his pecking order on draft weekend when he's invested, again, the 4th highest amount of cap space already at this position group. That's a fact.
Also, I don't think he got it wrong with Lawrence, Etienne, Campbell, Little, Cisco, Walker & Lloyd. There's been a few head scratchers here and there. The biggest ones being Muma, Strange & Bigsby though. So, out of his 12 selections within the top 100. 3 of them were highly questionable. You win some. You lose some.
However, again, looking at the totality of the off season in each free agency class leading up to said drafts here? It makes sense on paper to me.
I also think it's to early to comment on Brenton and Tank. Lots would have out Travon in this category after year one. If they are still fairly meaningless after this season we can start to box them. Muma did start some his rookie year but it is easily argued he hasn't been a great top 100, but we've been luckily pretty injury free at LB. It's possible this year we need him and he produces well.
Except a large portion of sports fan bases including this one are just a collection of Veruca Salt's when it comes player development.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wAlQf4WdiE
Yes
I have my gripes about positional value on those picks last year, but Strange and Bigsby could easily be proper contributors in year two.
Always thought the Walker hypercriticism was insanely stupid given his scouting reports - and the childish obsession around here with comparing him to Hutchinson was equally dumb IMO.
Sorry, just my opinion.
Jumping to conclusions on young players often proves to be unwise.
I'm always enamored how it happens all the time but people always act surprised when rookies struggle and then get a lot better the next year or two.
(03-28-2024, 03:21 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm always enamored how it happens all the time but people always act surprised when rookies struggle and then get a lot better the next year or two.
Because of the rare exceptions when a rookie comes out producing at a high level right out of the gate or shortly thereafter. It shouldn't take 5 years on a rookie, but it might take up to 3 before they become what they are. You'd like to see signs in year 1 or 2 though.