Perplexing draft

[VikingsVictorious]

What is your definition of hit?

Someone who makes a meaningful contribution to the team. In 2017 that's Cook and Gedeon. I added an extra spot for Ifeadi in the event he pans out or if Elflein miraculously turns things around.

Being a starter is a hit on a draft pick even if he's a bad starter. A miss is someone who doesn't make the rotation IMO.

[S197]

Someone who makes a meaningful contribution to the team. In 2017 that's Cook and Gedeon. I added an extra spot for Ifeadi in the event he pans out or if Elflein miraculously turns things around.

Being a starter is a hit on a draft pick even if he's a bad starter. A miss is someone who doesn't make the rotation IMO.

You're obviously free to use whatever definition you want but to me production matters. Otherwise it doesn't matter if you're the Bengals or the Chiefs. Every team will have 22 "hits" by your definition, which seems odd when trying to evaluate success.

If TJ Clemmings, David Yankey, and Willie Beavers were starting on our OL, I don't think that's a reason to pat Rick on the back for hitting in the draft.

[VikingsVictorious]

Being a starter is a hit on a draft pick even if he's a bad starter. A miss is someone who doesn't make the rotation IMO.

You're obviously free to use whatever definition you want but to me production matters. Otherwise it doesn't matter if you're the Bengals or the Chiefs. Every team will have 22 "hits" by your definition, which seems odd when trying to evaluate success.

If TJ Clemmings, David Yankey, and Willie Beavers were starting on our OL, I don't think that's a reason to pat Rick on the back for hitting in the draft.

Not all of a teams starters will be drafted by the team they play for. also that might be 15 hits over 15 years. Only 1 per year. Also it's very unlikely that Clemmings, Yankey and Beavers would be starting. Not every player is above average. Not every player is even average or slightly below average. Players that play even if not so well are better than players that don't play at all. It's successful if you get a player that plays for you. So yeah my definition of a hit on a draft pick is if that player is good enough to take the field.

[S197]

You're obviously free to use whatever definition you want but to me production matters. Otherwise it doesn't matter if you're the Bengals or the Chiefs. Every team will have 22 "hits" by your definition, which seems odd when trying to evaluate success.

If TJ Clemmings, David Yankey, and Willie Beavers were starting on our OL, I don't think that's a reason to pat Rick on the back for hitting in the draft.

Not all of a teams starters will be drafted by the team they play for. also that might be 15 hits over 15 years. Only 1 per year. Also it's very unlikely that Clemmings, Yankey and Beavers would be starting. Not every player is above average. Not every player is even average or slightly below average. Players that play even if not so well are better than players that don't play at all. It's successful if you get a player that plays for you. So yeah my definition of a hit on a draft pick is if that player is good enough to take the field.

I just looked at performance, so as an example, I called Bridgewater and McKinnon "hits" even though they aren't playing here anymore. That more or less accounts for the time component.

The rest, agree to disagree I guess. If the Bengals draft 10 starters and end up last in the league I don't really understand how that's the same as a similar team with an equal amount of drafted starters that win the Super Bowl. Your definition doesn't take any of that into account.

[VikingsVictorious]

Not all of a teams starters will be drafted by the team they play for. also that might be 15 hits over 15 years. Only 1 per year. Also it's very unlikely that Clemmings, Yankey and Beavers would be starting. Not every player is above average. Not every player is even average or slightly below average. Players that play even if not so well are better than players that don't play at all. It's successful if you get a player that plays for you. So yeah my definition of a hit on a draft pick is if that player is good enough to take the field.

I just looked at performance, so as an example, I called Bridgewater and McKinnon "hits" even though they aren't playing here anymore. That more or less accounts for the time component.

The rest, agree to disagree I guess. If the Bengals draft 10 starters and end up last in the league I don't really understand how that's the same as a similar team with an equal amount of drafted starters that win the Super Bowl. Your definition doesn't take any of that into account.

My definition of a draft hit is if the player makes your team better. If the player is rotational he's better than the player that would be playing otherwise. Now I know that is a low bar. so I guess we should have three hit levels. hit makes the rotation, Hit starts and is good, HIT a STAR.

[S197]

I just looked at performance, so as an example, I called Bridgewater and McKinnon "hits" even though they aren't playing here anymore. That more or less accounts for the time component.

The rest, agree to disagree I guess. If the Bengals draft 10 starters and end up last in the league I don't really understand how that's the same as a similar team with an equal amount of drafted starters that win the Super Bowl. Your definition doesn't take any of that into account.

My definition of a draft hit is if the player makes your team better. If the player is rotational he's better than the player that would be playing otherwise. Now I know that is a low bar. so I guess we should have three hit levels. hit makes the rotation, Hit starts and is good, HIT a STAR.

I think a player that makes your team better is a fair way of looking at it. Kearse was a rotational guy but I think he was a good pick. He allowed for additional packages like the big nickel and also was a solid backup when needed. Marcus Sherels although undrafted I think is another one of those situational guys that was great for the team.

For me where it gets muddy is guys like Jaleel Johnson. He’s been on the team for several years but I don’t know that he’s really earned that 4th round pick. He’s a guy that I’d consider a miss but I could see where others would disagree. Elflein also fits in this category to me.

[fiestavike]

My definition of a draft hit is if the player makes your team better. If the player is rotational he's better than the player that would be playing otherwise. Now I know that is a low bar. so I guess we should have three hit levels. hit makes the rotation, Hit starts and is good, HIT a STAR.

I think a player that makes your team better is a fair way of looking at it. Kearse was a rotational guy but I think he was a good pick. He allowed for additional packages like the big nickel and also was a solid backup when needed. Marcus Sherels although undrafted I think is another one of those situational guys that was great for the team.

For me where it gets muddy is guys like Jaleel Johnson. He’s been on the team for several years but I don’t know that he’s really earned that 4th round pick. He’s a guy that I’d consider a miss but I could see where others would disagree. Elflein also fits in this category to me.

Its make or break for those guys, and Jaleel flashed a little bit last year, but I agree, so far those guys are misses.

[StumpHunter]

A good pick is more than just does he start or does he make the team better.

As an example, if Ruggs comes in for the Raiders, and contributes as an okay WR, while Lamb takes off and is top 5, that was a bad pick by the Raiders.

You have to look at who was the better option at the time a pick was made. Within reason of course. If a future HOF LT is drafted in the 6th round and Cleveland has 10 years of solid LT, it is unfair to call him a bad pick, since no one, including the team that drafted that HOF LT in the 6th, thought that guy was worthy of a 2nd rounder.

[VikingsVictorious]

A good pick is more than just does he start or does he make the team better.

As an example, if Ruggs comes in for the Raiders, and contributes as an okay WR, while Lamb takes off and is top 5, that was a bad pick by the Raiders.

You have to look at who was the better option at the time a pick was made. Within reason of course. If a future HOF LT is drafted in the 6th round and Cleveland has 10 years of solid LT, it is unfair to call him a bad pick, since no one, including the team that drafted that HOF LT in the 6th, thought that guy was worthy of a 2nd rounder.

Good pick or not was not being discussed. Hit or not was. I'm just saying if a pick makes your team better it was a positive. I'm using the low bar I know. As a first round pick the hope is he will do more than just make your team better. The expectation is that he makes your team quite a bit better.

[fiestavike]

A good pick is more than just does he start or does he make the team better.

As an example, if Ruggs comes in for the Raiders, and contributes as an okay WR, while Lamb takes off and is top 5, that was a bad pick by the Raiders.

You have to look at who was the better option at the time a pick was made. Within reason of course. If a future HOF LT is drafted in the 6th round and Cleveland has 10 years of solid LT, it is unfair to call him a bad pick, since no one, including the team that drafted that HOF LT in the 6th, thought that guy was worthy of a 2nd rounder.

Good pick or not was not being discussed. Hit or not was. I'm just saying if a pick makes your team better it was a positive. I'm using the low bar I know. As a first round pick the hope is he will do more than just make your team better. The expectation is that he makes your team quite a bit better.

The reality is, there is a chance a 1st rounder makes your team significantly better, and a chance he doesn't. In the end, the only bad pick is a pick that doesn't make good use of your draft resources, that causes you to deviate from your ratings due to positional need...or that doesn't take any account of the depth at various positions, etc. Apart from those kind of bad picks, bad evaluation is the main danger.

If Ruggs was rated ahead of Lamb on the Raiders board, they made the correct pick, although they may have had a poor analysis.

[J. Kapp 11]

Good pick or not was not being discussed. Hit or not was. I'm just saying if a pick makes your team better it was a positive. I'm using the low bar I know. As a first round pick the hope is he will do more than just make your team better. The expectation is that he makes your team quite a bit better.

The reality is, there is a chance a 1st rounder makes your team significantly better, and a chance he doesn't. In the end, the only bad pick is a pick that doesn't make good use of your draft resources, that causes you to deviate from your ratings due to positional need...or that doesn't take any account of the depth at various positions, etc. Apart from those kind of bad picks, bad evaluation is the main danger.

If Ruggs was rated ahead of Lamb on the Raiders board, they made the correct pick, although they may have had a poor analysis.

I think Henry Ruggs is a product of Tyreek Hill Syndrome.

Everybody wants a guy like Hill, who can take it to the house on any play ... deep pass, slant, bubble screen, reverse, special teams. They see Ruggs with the same size and similar speed and think they've got another super threat. The problem for me is that small receivers tend to get hurt. Even Hill has had numerous injuries ... hamstring, shoulder, foot and more. A guy like Lamb has the size to hold up, even if he's not as fast as Ruggs. And he projects to be among the very best after the catch, so it's not like you're getting a guy who's going to go down as soon as he catches the ball.

Don't get me wrong. Ruggs is good. Really good. But I'm not convinced he was the best receiver on his own team.