Quote
dzrams
So basically you made the 'deepest since '83' up. Ok got it. You're free to make up whatever you want.
Personally, I prefer to go with things that have some research or factual basis behind them. Like the 25% rate I cited for the 3rd round was based on various studies I've seen. It wasn't an arbitrary number or personal opinion.
I'm presuming that 28-30% hit rate that you cite for the '83 draft was also based on something more substantial than personal opinion. I trust that you wouldn't just pull a strange number like 28% from thin air.
I didn't realize you were changing the context. You should warn a brother! Or else we're having two separate conversations.
My statement was made to support ferragamo's position in the context in which he was speaking. That context was talking about finding immediate difference making players - and more specifically WRs - to help the offense. In that context I agree with him. It should be done before the 4th round.
As for the discussion that you changed things to, yeah I largely agree with you. I too am excited that this draft is deeper and have hope that they can get eventual starters at several positions into the 4th round.
Huh? Stating a view is making stuff up? (?). Is it true or not, do you think, that this is the deepest or at least one of the deepest drafts since 83? (Though it can't compete with 83 cause 83 was deep at every position.)
On the 28-30%. I looked. I did the math on 83. So there's some math and research, which as you say is your own personal preference in terms of opinion discussion, but we CAN do the math on 83...no one can do the math on 2017, cause, no matter how you gussy it up, it's still just guessing. 25% is a guess. 28-30% for 2017 would be a guess. Both more and less than that would be a guess. Cause of course none of the studies you've seen were about the 2017 draft, and if they were, they too would be guesses. Strictly speaking we don't even know if the general odds apply---this might be a mutant exception draft. (Which is a guess.) (A guess, AND a metaphor.)
Interestingly, Chicago hit on 7 starters in 83, including hitting on 5 of 6 in the first 4 rounds, though they had 2 1st rounders. The Rams hit on 5 of 6 picks in rounds 1-4, that is 5 who started, and that includes Dickerson and Ellard of course, but then assessing the other 3 hits depends on how you feel about the players---Wilcher, Newsome, Reed. I think of them as mediocre, myself.
See again I know what your discussion with F was about, I just jumped in with a "yeah but." I like "yeah buts." They add to the unpredictable fun. So it was like, yeah you guys are looking at XYZ in a very strict sense, but just approaching this another way, it's possible they could get 4 starters out of rounds 2-4 (though most likely not 4 rookie starters.)
I agree with your last remark (bolded.) If they draft well (and get lucky) they could get at least 4 starters out of their 8 picks and a couple of UDFAs too.
