Analysis of Maccagnan's Draft Performance vs The Rest of The League

[joewilly12]

7 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Lets look at our WR picks from last year.  Do they not look like they are doing much because they are not good enough?  Does the coaches want vets that know what they are doing?  (We went out and got Kerley and Kearse just before the year.)

Exactly and MANY said we had so much depth at WR when in reality we had a bunch of JAGS most wouldn't be in the NFL if not for the NY Jets. 

[SouthernJet]

6 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

Pretty shocking numbers there OP.  Geesh, that shakes my confidence in Mac.  Could all the naysayers be right and we're just a mediocre team making mediocre moves, rinsing and repeating.  Are we really a franchise with a rain cloud firmly in place over our head.  Are we the  Charlie Brown of football and will we always have Lucy playing us forever.  Good grief.

Who, me worried, nah, I'll feel much better once we sign some FA's and draft some players.    

a sh*tty head coach doesnt help either who cant ingame adjust. and bad qb play last year at a horrid rate. we have/have had too many vets that just cash a check (Mo/Sheldon)..Bowles lets these thugturds get away w/missed mtg and doesnt fine Mo until 5th late Mtg ,last year. .WTF? Explayers as HCs can sometimes bite you in ass.

[CanadaSteve]

12 hours ago, Jack Straw said:

Total Receiving Yards: 677 (last in the NFL) 

Total Receiving TDs: 2 (last in the NFL)

Just out of curiosity for this information... I presume this does not factor Robby Anderson, since he has over 1,500 yards and 9 TD's himself in his two years himself.  Just wondering why he is not considered a Mac draft pick.  Its not a defense of his, but just trying to understanding the methodology of your research (which was quite good I might add)!

 

[SenorGato]

11 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Just out of curiosity for this information... I presume this does not factor Robby Anderson, since he has over 1,500 yards and 9 TD's himself in his two years himself.  Just wondering why he is not considered a Mac draft pick.  Its not a defense of his, but just trying to understanding the methodology of your research (which was quite good I might add)!

I have the same curiosity now that you mention it. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

This has been the trend but  If we find a QB this all changes.  The way to have consistent success is through a franchise QB.

That's certainly part of it, and the most important part of it at that. They can't continue to add basically 2 long-term pieces per season. Their careers don't last that long, and for draftees they don't stay on their low-priced rookie contracts forever either.

[BigO]

12 hours ago, Jack Straw said:

 

Bottom line is this: Maccagnan's draft picks aren't moving the football or producing points and they're not creating turnovers, and that's not a recipe for winning football games.

Great analysis- good stuff- thx for the hard work.

[rammagen]

I am reading some of the comments

I understand people are upset but figure Mauldin was injured and if you watched the games jenkins did agood job setting the edge and playing against the run. Jenkins was never expected to be a pass rush guy Mauldin was projected to be that guy and due to injuries he has not panned out but to bash Jenkins :(.

Again as other have noted rushing stats are slewed only 1 rb taken, same with throwing Hack has not seen the field bad pick quite possibly but when we have had a chance to play him the coach has not. Before bashing the gm I am bashing the coach, I have some of his choices and quite honestly they are mystifying 

[rammagen]

and to add looking at https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyj/draft.htm

3 picks in two drafts that is part of the reason we have so many holes .  I understand the posts above but jesus that is awful look at the picks since 2012 it is embarassing

[Jack Straw]

5 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Just out of curiosity for this information... I presume this does not factor Robby Anderson, since he has over 1,500 yards and 9 TD's himself in his two years himself.  Just wondering why he is not considered a Mac draft pick.  Its not a defense of his, but just trying to understanding the methodology of your research (which was quite good I might add)!

 

I only looked at draft picks. I did this because 1) the data was readily available (I didn't have to go around digging up stats for every UDFA for every team for the past three years)... 2) it shows how well Maccagnan allocated his limited resources (draft picks) and the return he's gotten on them versus the rest of the league. It's apples to apples, albeit, not perfect.

Additionally, missing on an un-drafted free agent has no downside, minus a couple of thousand dollars in signing bonus money, so Maccagan has every incentive to sign as many un-drafted free agents as possible. It's not like you can trade your ability to sign 10 un-drafted free agents to another team to move up in the following year's draft, but you can do that with draft picks and so that has "real" tangible value that you can leverage.

Furthermore, when a player signs with a team after the draft has ended, it's often more about the player picking the team rather than the team picking the player. Players go where they think they can make the roster and are often being recruited by several teams.

So in the case of Robbie Anderson (and others), it's more of him picking the Jets than the Jets picking him. I will say, Maccagnan deserves credit for finding Robby, but if he was so confident in his ability, why didn't he pick him in round 7 instead of Charon Peake?

Again, not a perfect analysis. I just wanted to look at drafts vs drafts and the performance associated with every team's picks because those assets have value.

[Jetsfan80]

lol @ Jets fans.

"This is meaningless!  You don't have our one UDFA we hit on!"

As if every other team doesn't have UDFA's who produce.  Jeeezus.  Just accept the truth and move on. 

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, Jack Straw said:

I only looked at draft picks. I did this because 1) the data was readily available (I didn't have to go around digging up stats for every UDFA for every team for the past three years)... 2) it shows how well Maccagnan allocated his limited resources (draft picks) and the return he's gotten on them versus the rest of the league. It's apples to apples, albeit, not perfect.

Additionally, missing on an un-drafted free agent has no downside, minus a couple of thousand dollars in signing bonus money, so Maccagan has every incentive to sign as many un-drafted free agents as possible. It's not like you can trade your ability to sign 10 un-drafted free agents to another team to move up in the following year's draft, but you can do that with draft picks and so that has "real" tangible value that you can leverage.

Furthermore, when a player signs with a team after the draft has ended, it's often more about the player picking the team rather than the team picking the player. Players go where they think they can make the roster and are often being recruited by several teams.

So in the case of Robbie Anderson (and others), it's more of him picking the Jets than the Jets picking him. I will say, Maccagnan deserves credit for finding Robby, but if he was so confident in his ability, why didn't he pick him in round 7 instead of Charon Peake?

Again, not a perfect analysis. I just wanted to look at drafts vs drafts and the performance associated with every team's picks because those assets have value.

Cool....just wanted an explanation!

 

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

lol @ Jets fans.

"This is meaningless!  You don't have our one UDFA we hit on!"

As if every other team doesn't have UDFA's who produce.  Jeeezus.  Just accept the truth and move on. 

Actually, not what that was about, but thanks for your input....

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, CanadaSteve said:

Actually, not what that was about, but thanks for your input....

Wasn't talking to you.

[tkiss24]

If Smith had become a #2 or even a #3 WR, the stats would look very different. Not to mention if Hack was competent enough to start a few games. The rushing stuff seems less meaningful since McGuire was the first RB he selected, and in fairness seems to be a very good late round selection.
That spreadsheet, IMO, is a reflection of two  wasted 2d round picks. Those two picks are by far the blackest marks on Macs short tenure. He will be haunted by his second round selections of Smith and Hack unless he hits on a QB this year because blowing that many high round selections is cause for termination.

The “ifs” are plentiful but in regard to devin smith he was a one trick pony who’s trick didn’t work in the NFL. Bottom line is Mac’s best picks required very little work on his part. Taking Leonard Williams (clearly the best player on the board and considers arguably the best player in that draft leading up to the day) and Jamal Adams was a safe choice at 6 last year. The picks that bulls franchises occur in the middle rounds and who exactly has he found thus far?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[tkiss24]

He basically made up missing on Smith with Anderson. Same way Vikings did with Treadwell and Thielen. 
Don’t see how that can “haunt” him. These aren’t top 5 picks he’s missing in. 

You cannot say that he made up for missing a second round pick with a undrafted free agent. If he was so sure Robby Anderson would be his productive he would have drafted him. That’s just silly


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[mphtrilogy]

He's done his best work at the trade tables and undrafted free agents, including those finds helps his case...

[MDL_JET]

7 minutes ago, tkiss24 said:

You cannot say that he made up for missing a second round pick with a undrafted free agent. If he was so sure Robby Anderson would be his productive he would have drafted him. That’s just silly


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Why not? Udfa’s don’t count anymore? 

 

[tkiss24]

Why not? Udfa’s don’t count anymore? 
 

An undrafted free agent does not make up for wasting a 2nd round round pick.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[bla bla bla]

This is a terrible representation of the information you are trying to convey. 

[SenorGato]

3 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Actually, not what that was about, but thanks for your input....

I think numbnuts was talking about me and all that rage I unleashed while agreeing with you. 

[Jack Straw]

1 hour ago, bla bla bla said:

This is a terrible representation of the information you are trying to convey. 

The irony here is that I have no idea what your post means. And how do you know what I'm trying to convey? And how would you like me to "represent the information"? This is a Jets messageboard, not a PhD thesis.

[bla bla bla]

1 hour ago, Jack Straw said:

The irony here is that I have no idea what your post means. And how do you know what I'm trying to convey? And how would you like me to "represent the information"? This is a Jets messageboard, not a PhD thesis.

It skews information to make it look like the Jets are far worse than they are IMO. Results should probably be organized based on round a player is selected and should also take into account the number of players selected at a given position per team. Comparing 4th round WRs to 1st and 2nd round WRs seems kind of silly. Much like comparing 1 6th round RB to other teams 1st to 3rd round RBs.

Notice how the high draft picks spent on players have equated to a higher stats in categories relating to their positions. Namely Leo, Lee, Adams, and Maye.

I admire the time put in to the research though.

[Jack Straw]

3 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

It skews information to make it look like the Jets are far worse than they are IMO. Results should probably be organized based on round a player is selected and should also take into account the number of players selected at a given position per team. Comparing 4th round WRs to 1st and 2nd round WRs seems kind of silly. Much like comparing 1 6th round RB to other teams 1st to 3rd round RBs.

Notice how the high draft picks spent on players have equated to a higher stats in categories relating to their positions. Namely Leo, Lee, Adams, and Maye.

I admire the time put in to the research though.

I'm in the process of updating the stats to reflect those points. I've already partially completed it and agree that it does provide some skewing. But it's a fluid work in progress.

Update:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRmKT2Hev5JVxEiG1-R-mtEp81xVRWDR7PjLByGrSP8yBf3qiTnI7T9KPREtBvzjHAueInaTe_iGTzs/pubhtml

[Dupe]

This is ridiculous analysis when our #1 reciever is an undrafted pickup.   

[jetrider]

On January 15, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Bugg said:

Same page; do you think Maccagnan is totally cool with a team 5-11 2 years running who's HC could not find a few game snaps for his 2nd round draft pick QB? What ever you think of Hackenberg, there were several points he could have gotten in, and Bowles did not do so. For a GM  that's embarrassing. 

Your point (or whatever it is) makes no sense. What you described is HC failure. But like always the HC factor sails over your head and out of the equation. First off, Bowles in his own words was totally onboard with Hack at #51. Secondly, Hackenberg hasn't developed, wasn't coached up. That's not Macc's job. Thirdly, Bowles' refusal to start Hack in a lost season proves HC Bowles has final say. He decides who practices what and who plays when. That is the ultimate final say for all intents and purposes. Therefore, it's not possible and makes zero sense for Macc to make moves behind Bowles' back or force-feed players Bowles doesn't want, which is what the anti-Macc circle-jerkin' tartcart tardholes' fairy dust rhetoric rides on. "Same page" according to real quotes and real reports, not the garbage Spam Edwards spills with his Bigfoot saliva ink pen. This thread is about Macc's performance.

If you're saying Macc should go straight to Woody and say, "I can't work with a one-dimensional jackhole" and have Bowles fired then you and I agree.

 

[#27TheDominator]

15 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

It skews information to make it look like the Jets are far worse than they are IMO. Results should probably be organized based on round a player is selected and should also take into account the number of players selected at a given position per team. Comparing 4th round WRs to 1st and 2nd round WRs seems kind of silly. Much like comparing 1 6th round RB to other teams 1st to 3rd round RBs.

Notice how the high draft picks spent on players have equated to a higher stats in categories relating to their positions. Namely Leo, Lee, Adams, and Maye.

I admire the time put in to the research though.

I don't know how much it skews anything.  I think it shows that safety, ILB and 3-4DE are not impact positions.  Williams has the bulk of our sacks and Dante Fowler sat a full year and has just as many.  What stat categories have Adams and Maye provided?  They have 2 INTs and 2 sacks between them.  Lee doesn't contribute much to your equation either with 4 sacks and 0 INTs.  Marcus Williams (whiff on Diggs notwithstanding) had 4INTs by himself, Justin Evans 3, Josh Jones an INT and 2 sacks. 

A better argument would be that better players at these positions don't produce stats, but that is what we have been saying.  Even then, Budda Baker was probably better than both our guys and so were several others. 

14 hours ago, Dupe said:

This is ridiculous analysis when our #1 reciever is an undrafted pickup.   

Does your #1 receiver being an undrafted pickup mean you drafted well or poorly?  When you spent a 2nd, 7th, 3rd and 4th at WR and a 4th at TE, shouldn't you expect some production?

[UnitedWhofans]

Macc's first draft through 3 years: 37 approx value

Maccs second draft through 2 years: 38 approx value

Third draft through 1 year: 18 approx value

 

[Matt39]

Jamal Adams had the most fiery pregame speeches in the league this year. You have to account for that.

[UnitedWhofans]

6 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Jamal Adams had the most fiery pregame speeches in the league this year. You have to account for that.

PFR had him valued the same as DeShaun Watson in his rookie year. Both had a value of 7

Now Watson accumulated his value in 7 games so if he had played he would have passed Adams. But durability is a skill in the NFL

[#27TheDominator]

18 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Macc's first draft through 3 years: 37 approx value

Maccs second draft through 2 years: 38 approx value

Third draft through 1 year: 18 approx value

It is nice that you added all this up, but what is it supposed to mean? 

Over the same time period: Buffalo 19/24/37, Carolina 19/24/57, Giants 18/33/53 and KC 19/46/92.  That is not to say any of those numbers were so great, but all of those guys were fired before the season even ended. 

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

It is nice that you added all this up, but what is it supposed to mean? 

Over the same time period: Buffalo 19/24/37, Carolina 19/24/57, Giants 18/33/53 and KC 19/46/92.  That is not to say any of those numbers were so great, but all of those guys were fired before the season even ended. 

What it means to me is that clearly his second draft was better than his first. He has already gotten more value from that draft in two years, then he did his first one in 3 years.

[#27TheDominator]

10 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

What it means to me is that clearly his second draft was better than his first. He has already gotten more value from that draft in two years, then he did his first one in 3 years.

Is somebody arguing that his 2015 draft didn't suck?  I don't think that stat is particularly  viable, but do the extent that it is, Mac's drafting strategy (high floor guys that can start immediately) should have more initial success. Color me unimpressed. 

[UnitedWhofans]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Is somebody arguing that his 2015 draft didn't suck?  I don't think that stat is particularly  viable, but do the extent that it is, Mac's drafting strategy (high floor guys that can start immediately) should have more initial success. Color me unimpressed. 

I think the stat is viable, but as JAck Straw said, to take anything from it would take extreme number crunching

[#27TheDominator]

9 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

I think the stat is viable, but as JAck Straw said, to take anything from it would take extreme number crunching

I don't even think the guy that made up the stat believes it means particularly much.  The numbers you are quoting are from pro football reference, not PFF.  PFF watches every play.  I think the guy from PFR just rates guys based on starts and stats. 

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

[Philc1]

20 hours ago, Dupe said:

This is ridiculous analysis when our #1 reciever is an undrafted pickup.   

When the best pickup of a college rookie in 3 years by far is a rookie UFA that is troubling