The Curse of the Number 1 Pick

[thedayafter]

This article illustrates how small the margin for error between winners and losers... how small the margin for error on draft picks... especially QB's.. it also illustrates the impact of salaries... especially high drafts have on the cap.....

Importantly it also points to how two teams have have broken away from the historical... not surprizing that one is in our division...

• The probability that the first player drafted at a given position is better than the second player drafted at the same position is only 53%, that is, slightly better than a tie.
• The probability that the first player drafted at a position is better than the third player drafted at the same position is only 55%.
• The probability that the first player drafted at a position is better than the fourth player drafted at the same position is only 56%.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...portscasting.excerpt/index.html#ixzz1ZoiiUZZ6​

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/01/13/sportscasting.excerpt/index.html

Your thoughts....

 

[finsfanjay13]

This article illustrates how small the margin for error between winners and losers... how small the margin for error on draft picks... especially QB's.. it also illustrates the impact of salaries... especially high drafts have on the cap.....

Importantly it also points to how two teams have have broken away from the historical... not surprizing that one is in our division...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/01/13/sportscasting.excerpt/index.html

Your thoughts....

1.) You take the chance. Judging by the article, you have a 5-6% edge when choosing first.
2.) Salaries aren't nearly as high with the rookie scale now. Cam Newton only received $22 million I believe. Andrew Luck (or whomever) will probably get around $30 million over 4 years. Nothing to sneeze at, but absolutely not the sky-high amounts given before the rookie scale ($50 million guaranteed to Sam Bradford for example).

 

[thedayafter]

1.) You take the chance. Judging by the article, you have a 5-6% edge when choosing first.
2.) Salaries aren't nearly as high with the rookie scale now. Cam Newton only received $22 million I believe. Andrew Luck (or whomever) will probably get around $30 million over 4 years. Nothing to sneeze at, but absolutely not the sky-high amounts given before the rookie scale ($50 million guaranteed to Sam Bradford for example).

So throw out the economics... and look at player productivity... bottom line.... there's players that fit your system and concepts to be had at the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players per position... maybe the number one guys does not meet your criteria and the 4th guy does....

Importantly you need to have everyone on the same page on how to construct a team.... and then people in place that understand that structure and have the ability to find those players.... we are antiquated at best... and incompetent at worst....

 

[finsfanjay13]

So throw out the economics... and look at player productivity... bottom line.... there's players that fit your system and concepts to be had at the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players per position... maybe the number one guys does not meet your criteria and the 4th guy does....

Importantly you need to have everyone on the same page on how to construct a team.... and then people in place that understand that structure and have the ability to find those players.... we are antiquated at best... and incompetent at worst....

This is true. If the best player available is a Michael Vick type player but your team is built for a Peyton Manning type pocket passer ... do you adjust, or do you draft the best fit?

Fortunately, there is no question about that regarding Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley, etc. So you take the chance. :)

 

[where's th'fish]

Now, for our friends in the audience, tell us the probability that the team picking #1 is worse than every other team