2021 Post-Draft Discussion Thread

[Adreme]

Then it makes absolutely no sense and the data is flawed considerably by assumptions. Based on this data, it sounds like you should just bench all rookies in year 1 and throw them into the fire in year 2

They note exceptions, such as Khalil Mack who had no jump between years 1 and 2, but yes in general you do not want rookie starters. That would be an accurate statement or if you are going to have rookie starters be prepared for them to be the weak link. It is not as though throwing them into the fire year 2 though has any negative consequences though. We have multitudes of examples of players who thrive after having their rookie years be spent getting coached up.

Easiest example of this is QBs (the position where you would think live reps would be most important). The best QB of the past 20 years, Rodgers, sat for 3 years and did fine his rookie. The QB most likely to take that title from him, Mahomes, won the MVP in his first year starting after a year learning. History suggests you do not need to force reps upon a player for them to learn in the NFL. They just need time to be coached up and generally that coaching takes about a year and sometimes 2, but it rarely is immediate.

I wish the numbers did not suggest that, but reality does not change just because I wish it were so.

 

[Simba]

They note exceptions, such as Khalil Mack who had no jump between years 1 and 2, but yes in general you do not want rookie starters. That would be an accurate statement or if you are going to have rookie starters be prepared for them to be the weak link. It is not as though throwing them into the fire year 2 though has any negative consequences though. We have multitudes of examples of players who thrive after having their rookie years be spent getting coached up.

Easiest example of this is QBs (the position where you would think live reps would be most important). The best QB of the past 20 years, Rodgers, sat for 3 years and did fine his rookie. The QB most likely to take that title from him, Mahomes, won the MVP in his first year starting after a year learning. History suggests you do not need to force reps upon a player for them to learn in the NFL. They just need time to be coached up and generally that coaching takes about a year and sometimes 2, but it rarely is immediate.

I wish the numbers did not suggest that, but reality does not change just because I wish it were so.

This whole discussion is just ridiculous honestly

 

[rossihunter2]

This whole discussion is just ridiculous honestly

it's so ridiculously divorced from any context or meaning at this point

 

[Adreme]

This whole discussion is just ridiculous honestly

I agree. I am someone who uses facts, trends, and other data to come to a conclusion based on what the data suggests. Now data of course has outliers but understanding trends can help with effective decision making.

You seem to use more feelings/hopes to make decisions which makes such a discussion pointless, as shown by your response to the data showing what you did not like to suggest that the data itself must be wrong.

As we have a philosophical disagreement on the ideal way to come to a conclusion about an issue, the issue in question being "Is it a good thing to have a lot of rookie starters for the specific season in question?", any discussion on that matter would merely go around and around in circles and no consensus could possibly be reached as we use different criteria to come to that conclusion

Final note, I am not saying the rookies in question are worse than the players on the roster they are starting over, but having a bad position be less bad does not make that player average, hence why I would say in an ideal scenario you would not need rookie starters, but obviously the difficulty of managing a salary cap means you have to expect that not every position can be above average and some will be below average and those rookies typically are who you would hope to have occupy that space (as they tend to grow and it would mean that position is not a position of need in the draft).

 

[Simba]

I agree. I am someone who uses facts, trends, and other data to come to a conclusion based on what the data suggests. Now data of course has outliers but understanding trends can help with effective decision making.

You seem to use more feelings/hopes to make decisions which makes such a discussion pointless, as shown by your response to the data showing what you did not like to suggest that the data itself must be wrong.

As we have a philosophical disagreement on the ideal way to come to a conclusion about an issue, the issue in question being "Is it a good thing to have a lot of rookie starters for the specific season in question?", any discussion on that matter would merely go around and around in circles and no consensus could possibly be reached as we use different criteria to come to that conclusion

Final note, I am not saying the rookies in question are worse than the players on the roster they are starting over, but having a bad position be less bad does not make that player average, hence why I would say in an ideal scenario you would not need rookie starters, but obviously the difficulty of managing a salary cap means you have to expect that not every position can be above average and some will be below average and those rookies typically are who you would hope to have occupy that space (as they tend to grow and it would mean that position is not a position of need in the draft).

Data and facts? That’s what you call that? Using QB to cherry-pick stats? Tell me which other players outside of QB that sat in year 1 and played in year 2 made such a big difference. If you can’t infer from “data” that a rookie getting opportunities in year 1 leads to a jump in quality of play in year 2, I can’t help you.

 

[rossihunter2]

I agree. I am someone who uses facts, trends, and other data to come to a conclusion based on what the data suggests. Now data of course has outliers but understanding trends can help with effective decision making.

You seem to use more feelings/hopes to make decisions which makes such a discussion pointless, as shown by your response to the data showing what you did not like to suggest that the data itself must be wrong.

As we have a philosophical disagreement on the ideal way to come to a conclusion about an issue, the issue in question being "Is it a good thing to have a lot of rookie starters for the specific season in question?", any discussion on that matter would merely go around and around in circles and no consensus could possibly be reached as we use different criteria to come to that conclusion

Final note, I am not saying the rookies in question are worse than the players on the roster they are starting over, but having a bad position be less bad does not make that player average, hence why I would say in an ideal scenario you would not need rookie starters, but obviously the difficulty of managing a salary cap means you have to expect that not every position can be above average and some will be below average and those rookies typically are who you would hope to have occupy that space (as they tend to grow and it would mean that position is not a position of need in the draft).

but cherry-picking a stat isn't using facts and data and trends, it's missing the forest for the trees

 

[Edgar]

have to admit, I am kinda digging Pat Ricards clone.

 

[rossihunter2]

have to admit, I am kinda digging Pat Ricards clone.

had some nice blocks at the senior bowl

 

[Edgar]

had some nice blocks at the senior bowl

have you seen vs. Minnesota? A few of the picks are developmental and iffy to me but I have a feeling he's coming for Pats job in a year. He has a little upside as an H/TE as well...gets on blocks in a hurry( of course, he's 50lbs lighter than Pat). Id like to see him in space.

Still can't believe Ar'darius undrafted. watch him make the team

 

[JoeyFlex5]

have you seen vs. Minnesota? A few of the picks are developmental and iffy to me but I have a feeling he's coming for Pats job in a year. He has a little upside as an H/TE as well...gets on blocks in a hurry( of course, he's 50lbs lighter than Pat). Id like to see him in space.

Still can't believe Ar'darius undrafted. watch him make the team

I mean I guess we don’t wanna pay pat, but man I don’t wanna lose him, such a tone setter, such a “team identity” player. Like, who are the ravens on offense? Lamar, run game, speed, project mf pat.

 

[rossihunter2]

have you seen vs. Minnesota? A few of the picks are developmental and iffy to me but I have a feeling he's coming for Pats job in a year. He has a little upside as an H/TE as well...gets on blocks in a hurry( of course, he's 50lbs lighter than Pat). Id like to see him in space.

Still can't believe Ar'darius undrafted. watch him make the team

i certainly hope ardarius makes the team - would at least somewhat confirm that we werent all going crazy thinking he was a good player lol

 

[rossihunter2]

I mean I guess we don’t wanna pay pat, but man I don’t wanna lose him, such a tone setter, such a “team identity” player. Like, who are the ravens on offense? Lamar, run game, speed, project mf pat.

the combination of pat and boyle has become legendary around the league with what they do in the running game - if mason truly is a possible project pat replacement in the future, he's got a lot of work to do because Pat seems to be getting better every year

 

[JoeyFlex5]

the combination of pat and boyle has become legendary around the league with what they do in the running game - if mason truly is a possible project pat replacement in the future, he's got a lot of work to do because Pat seems to be getting better every year

Yeah, these 2 are SPECIAL at what they do, their roles aren’t the sexiest but my god if lead blockers and dumpoff catchers had the slightest chance to make the HOF then both of these guys do it at a hall of fame level lol. And they’re on the same team, on the most exotic power rushing scheme we’ve ever seen, it’s a perfect union, those 2 on this team.

it’s a real long shot to think this guy can replicate either, you could replace Hayden hurt 100 times before you can replace pat ricard.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

I wish like a mf we could’ve landed tommy tremble in 3, as we got closer to the draft I really began to want him here, Roman would cook with that guy.

 

[UPennChem]

I don't think Mason is coming for Pat's job. I think he's coming in to be in that same way a total jack of all trades while formally filling a roster spot as TE3. He seems to think he can do it and I kinda believe him lol. But in addition to that role, he can do anything else asked of him. Imagine some crazy designed Lamar running play where he's got pat and Ben with him ahead blockers lol

 

[Adreme]

Data and facts? That’s what you call that? Using QB to cherry-pick stats? Tell me which other players outside of QB that sat in year 1 and played in year 2 made such a big difference. If you can’t infer from “data” that a rookie getting opportunities in year 1 leads to a jump in quality of play in year 2, I can’t help you.

I picked QB because that is both the most well known position and that the position that, in theory would benefit most from in-game experience.

I believe they went 10 years so 10 years worth of data to show that ALL rookies, regardless of round play worse than a 2nd year+ player (and worse than the average player of course) which means you are worse off, on average, having a rookie start means you are going to get below average performance and this is true regardless of what round you pick them. Furthermore that year 2 production is not tied to year 1 production. If you want to challenge this assertion, using the same tools, it would require data to show that, when pooling these sample sizes together, there is no difference in play (or to find an error in the collection method).

Now it is possible of course that a team can have 3 rookie starters and have them all be good. After all, statistics mean nothing to the individual. Khalil Mack was Khalil Mack from year 1 after all. However, as a collective, that is not the case. As a whole rookie starters are worse than 2nd year players who start. As a whole it is shown that having rookie snaps has no correlation to how you play as a second year (specifically in this case referring to whether you make that second-year jump or not).

I gave specific examples to point out the needlessness of forcing a rookie to start just to hope they end up better later for it. However, the data, when taken as a whole, also supports this (they just do not list all 2500+ draftees plus undrafted free agents by name they just pool the data and treat it as a whole which is not that hard to do honestly if the data is well organized).

 

[airconteka]

All I can say is i realised my decision to drink all that heavy beer and get up to watch day 3 was a poor one as took my daughter to soccer this morning at 8am. Been smoking a lamb leg for about 6 hours and having the odd hazy ipa is taking the edge off.

 

[airconteka]

Plus my shit rugby league team might win!

 

[QuothTheRaven]

That "rookies are a liability" stat sounds like BS. Like, yeah if you had a build-a-team option of any player in the league you'd fill it with quality vets because they're better than rookies. But you don't; you have your rookies vs the pool of vets on your roster. Where the rookies win, the vets would have been worse - so there's a hefty bias in the scoring system right there; bad vets don't play. Every team has weaknesses and they draft accordingly. All that stat says is that rookies don't beat out good players on the roster, which is obvious.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

Overall I think I'm happy with this draft. I don't know who's going to pan out, but we put enough resources into receiver for someone to stick, we added a first round edge, and between Zeitler and Cleveland I hope we added enough to cement the iOL. The late-round DBs are projects, but that's a luxury teams with good rosters like ours can take on.

The only thing missing is a tackle, but you have to figure that the FO never liked the value where they were picking. Hopefully we get good news on that tomorrow. Outside of that, there are no glaring holes on the team, and we (in theory) greatly improved our biggest weakness.