2022 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints

jeanpierre · 04-14-2021, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

Nothing anymore than any other GM or coach. Maybe a timeout being called or not here or there. I'm certainly not going to criticize them for draft picks given the extremely inexact science of its nature. I'm not going to criticize them for contract structures as a whole, nor moving up or down in a draft because I believe they know what they are doing FAR more than any of us.

There's not a single coach or GM in the league that is perfect all the time. I expect imperfection so I usually see no reason to dwell on individual instances. I'd rather sit back and enjoy since none of us have any control whatsoever.

That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...

AsylumGuido · 04-15-2021, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...

Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science.

An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%.

Here's a nice summary:

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low.

gosaints1 · 04-15-2021, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...

It’s an argument I’ve made many times jp. All teams have the ball bounce for them and against them throughout a season. Same for draft and free agent acquisitions. That doesn’t mean “inexact” should be used as an excuse for failure, or as a predicate to a mindset of accepting everything..., bc it’s... “inexact”. Science and Medicine are “inexact” also, but the objective is to constantly improve accuracy and tolerances. Consummate professionals are always improving their craft, never accepting the status quo, never accepting “inexact” as an excuse for not meeting their goals.

AsylumGuido · 04-15-2021, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by gosaints1

It’s an argument I’ve made many times jp. All teams have the ball bounce for them and against them throughout a season. Same for draft and free agent acquisitions. That doesn’t mean “inexact” should be used as an excuse for failure, or as a predicate to a mindset of accepting everything..., bc it’s... “inexact”. Science and Medicine are “inexact” also, but the objective is to constantly improve accuracy and tolerances. Consummate professionals are always improving their craft, never accepting the status quo, never accepting “inexact” as an excuse for not meeting their goals.

Hitting a baseball is an "inexact" science, as well. The best hitters of all times fail to get a hit almost 70% of the time. I've seen the greatest hit into a double play with the bases loaded down one in the bottom of the ninth with one out many times over the past 55 plus years. I'm never going to criticize them for that failure.

The same goes for the draft. The very best talent evaluators are going to swing and miss fairly regularly. The reason being nobody can completely and accurately predict the future. That is the proven nature of the draft. The numbers spell that out. I can see being disappointed a given draft pick doesn't pan out, but I fail to see the need to blame the person, or people, that made the decision to draft them.

I understand wanting to meet one's goals, but when those goals as determined by others are impossible to achieve it is a different story. Some people seem to see anything less than perfection as an open invitation to proclaim failure as the result. The word "inexact" is not an excuse. It is an adjective correctly describing the nature of something. There is no excuse for a draft pick not becoming a success nor is any excuse needed.

Rugby Saint II · 04-15-2021, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science.

An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%.

Here's a nice summary:

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low.

Now I know why we draft O-line in the first round year after year. It's the most productive position in the draft. Like I always say you win in the trenches.

jeanpierre · 04-15-2021, 03:28 PM

jeanpierre · 04-15-2021, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science.

An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%.

Here's a nice summary:

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low.

So they're qualified in an inexact science?

jeanpierre · 04-15-2021, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by gosaints1

It’s an argument I’ve made many times jp. All teams have the ball bounce for them and against them throughout a season. Same for draft and free agent acquisitions. That doesn’t mean “inexact” should be used as an excuse for failure, or as a predicate to a mindset of accepting everything..., bc it’s... “inexact”. Science and Medicine are “inexact” also, but the objective is to constantly improve accuracy and tolerances. Consummate professionals are always improving their craft, never accepting the status quo, never accepting “inexact” as an excuse for not meeting their goals.

Understand, but when you make the repeat the same mistakes and expect different results, what would you call that behaviour?

And I fully agree, inexact should not be used as an excuse for failure...

K Major · 04-15-2021, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

https://twitter.com/nick_underhill/s...76320589971456

Not all that familiar with his complete body of work but he's a burner.

SPEED.

AsylumGuido · 04-15-2021, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

So they're qualified in an inexact science?

More qualified than either of us, that's for sure. Just as Pete Rose was more qualified in the inexact science of hitting than you or I.

04-14-2021, 08:01 PM	#551
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by AsylumGuido Nothing anymore than any other GM or coach. Maybe a timeout being called or not here or there. I'm certainly not going to criticize them for draft picks given the extremely inexact science of its nature. I'm not going to criticize them for contract structures as a whole, nor moving up or down in a draft because I believe they know what they are doing FAR more than any of us. There's not a single coach or GM in the league that is perfect all the time. I expect imperfection so I usually see no reason to dwell on individual instances. I'd rather sit back and enjoy since none of us have any control whatsoever. *That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...* gosaints1 likes this.

04-15-2021, 09:51 AM	#552
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by jeanpierre *That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...* Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science. An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%. Here's a nice summary: Historic Success Chart The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters: 1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%) 2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%) 3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%) 4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%) 5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%) 6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%) 7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%) Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low. Rugby Saint II likes this.
	“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” — Winston Churchill

04-15-2021, 10:53 AM	#553
gosaints1 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 576	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by jeanpierre *That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...* It’s an argument I’ve made many times jp. All teams have the ball bounce for them and against them throughout a season. Same for draft and free agent acquisitions. That doesn’t mean “inexact” should be used as an excuse for failure, or as a predicate to a mindset of accepting everything..., bc it’s... “inexact”. Science and Medicine are “inexact” also, but the objective is to constantly improve accuracy and tolerances. Consummate professionals are always improving their craft, never accepting the status quo, never accepting “inexact” as an excuse for not meeting their goals. jeanpierre likes this.
gosaints1 500th Post Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 576

04-15-2021, 12:04 PM	#554
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by gosaints1 It’s an argument I’ve made many times jp. All teams have the ball bounce for them and against them throughout a season. Same for draft and free agent acquisitions. That doesn’t mean “inexact” should be used as an excuse for failure, or as a predicate to a mindset of accepting everything..., bc it’s... “inexact”. Science and Medicine are “inexact” also, but the objective is to constantly improve accuracy and tolerances. Consummate professionals are always improving their craft, never accepting the status quo, never accepting “inexact” as an excuse for not meeting their goals. Hitting a baseball is an "inexact" science, as well. The best hitters of all times fail to get a hit almost 70% of the time. I've seen the greatest hit into a double play with the bases loaded down one in the bottom of the ninth with one out many times over the past 55 plus years. I'm never going to criticize them for that failure. The same goes for the draft. The very best talent evaluators are going to swing and miss fairly regularly. The reason being nobody can completely and accurately predict the future. That is the proven nature of the draft. The numbers spell that out. I can see being disappointed a given draft pick doesn't pan out, but I fail to see the need to blame the person, or people, that made the decision to draft them. I understand wanting to meet one's goals, but when those goals as determined by others are impossible to achieve it is a different story. Some people seem to see anything less than perfection as an open invitation to proclaim failure as the result. The word "inexact" is not an excuse. It is an adjective correctly describing the nature of something. There is no excuse for a draft pick not becoming a success nor is any excuse needed.
	“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” — Winston Churchill

04-15-2021, 12:26 PM	#555
Rugby Saint II Bounty Money $$$ Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA. Posts: 24,052	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by AsylumGuido Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science. An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%. Here's a nice summary: Historic Success Chart The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters: 1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%) 2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%) 3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%) 4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%) 5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%) 6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%) 7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%) Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low. Now I know why we draft O-line in the first round year after year. It's the most productive position in the draft. Like I always say you win in the trenches.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-15-2021, 03:28 PM	#556
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Twitter Twitter
	Last edited by jeanpierre; 04-15-2021 at 04:29 PM..

04-15-2021, 03:29 PM	#557
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by AsylumGuido Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science. An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%. Here's a nice summary: Historic Success Chart The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters: 1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%) 2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%) 3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%) 4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%) 5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%) 6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%) 7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%) Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low. So they're qualified in an inexact science?

04-15-2021, 03:31 PM	#558
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by gosaints1 It’s an argument I’ve made many times jp. All teams have the ball bounce for them and against them throughout a season. Same for draft and free agent acquisitions. That doesn’t mean “inexact” should be used as an excuse for failure, or as a predicate to a mindset of accepting everything..., bc it’s... “inexact”. Science and Medicine are “inexact” also, but the objective is to constantly improve accuracy and tolerances. Consummate professionals are always improving their craft, never accepting the status quo, never accepting “inexact” as an excuse for not meeting their goals. Understand, but when you make the repeat the same mistakes and expect different results, what would you call that behaviour? And I fully agree, inexact should not be used as an excuse for failure... gosaints1 and K Major like this.

04-15-2021, 03:54 PM	#559
K Major Site Donor 2019 Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Bedford, TX Posts: 24,619 Blog Entries: 3	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by jeanpierre https://twitter.com/nick_underhill/s...76320589971456 Not all that familiar with his complete body of work but he's a burner. SPEED.

04-15-2021, 04:28 PM	#560
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,211	Re: 2021 NFL Free Agency: New Orleans Saints Originally Posted by jeanpierre So they're qualified in an inexact science? More qualified than either of us, that's for sure. Just as Pete Rose was more qualified in the inexact science of hitting than you or I.