(11-09-2023, 12:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(11-09-2023, 12:01 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: It sounds like you don't realize they are all wrong about their scouting assessments very regularly and there are ways to mitigate  the damage that causes.

By eliminating scouting?  Drafting according to a formula?

Obviously, the scouting assessments are correct more often than they are incorrect and I base that on the fact that first round picks have a higher success rate than second round picks, which have a higher success rate than third round picks, and so on.

It's not one or the other, it's always both, and every team uses these formulas to some varying degree

They get some right, they get some wrong, but nobody is suggesting ignoring scouting, and only drafting by a formula, it is both

Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect

 It has already been posted in this thread - the percentage breakdown of players, that work out from every round
You should probably go back and take a peek at that
About 30% of first round picks get a contract with the team that signed them currently.

The percentages do not work in favor of front offices and it is helpful to understand how value changes positionally.

SCPR is "second contract pay ratio" and it tells us about the tendency of positions in various rounds to achieve a second contract and the increase in pay from one to the next.

Here's a graph and info from a study done by 33rd team.

Quote:

• The Offensive Line provides perhaps the greatest market inefficiency. In this sample, 254 picks were used on positions on the offensive line including Guard, Tackle or players that switch between both positions. These picks tend to secure about ten times more guaranteed money on their second contracts. This is most likely due to successful mid to late round picks at these positions, perhaps showing that they can be available without using premium picks.
  
• DB, DT and TE are the next three most successful positions with regards to SCPR. Again, this may be due to the fact that mid to late round picks performance exceeds their draft position, which may be another position to select within the middle rounds.
  
• RB is the second-worst performing position with regards to SCPR. This is because running backs rarely secure large second contracts regardless of their draft position. It is very hard to justify a premium pick on a running back when even the best running backs are most likely only playing on that first contract.
  
• DE is surprisingly a poor performing positional group. With 159 picks in this category, it is possibly a combination of premium assets being used on these positions and picks being used to take flyers on athletes throughout the draft. The premium picks are hard to exceed SCPR because rookie contracts for first rounders being quite large and because taking flyers throughout the draft on a premium position can often lead to players getting ushered up a draft board higher than what their talent and tape warrant.
  

The data collected here was from every draft beginning in 2010 - ending with 2017

Recent trends have shown the RB position has become even further devalued since then.  

I'm not sure what is so offensive about saying 'I'm glad our staff won on their gamble spending a first rounder on a back selection, but I don't see 1st round back selections as the most efficient way to build a roster," but apparently, based on you and others refusing to let this die, I'm somehow being  offensive for taking an analytical approach to acquiring running backs. 

  I just don't get the consternation. 

All the data supports my position. And I've even said "I'd probably still roll the dice if I was really certain the prospect was a generational talent." 
*shrug*

---