Cooper Kupp

[docdhc]

7 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

Go through TE, CB, OT, LBer etc, etc.    Of course you will find great players drafted outside of the top 10 or so because there are only 10 players drafted in the top 10 every year, vs. 250 other drafted players plus another 100 or so UDFA’s.    This is a silly argument.   

Off the top of my head - Top QBs in league - Mahomes, Allen, Herbert, Rodgers, Stafford, Jackson, Watson all first round picks. Only Brady a late rounder. Top Wrs- Lots out of first round- Cupp, Adams, Hill, Diggs, Godwin, metcalf.  You usually need to draft a QB high to get a good one.  WRs not necessarily.  I don’t know what’s silly about that  

 

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, Warfish said:

Outlier:

"A data point on a graph or in a set of results that is very much bigger or smaller than the next nearest data point."

We'll see if Cupp meets that below.....

Doesn't bother me in the least.  I enjoy the debate.

Let's look closer at that Cooper draft:

In 2017, there were 26 WR's picked in the third round or later.  Including the aforementioned ArDarius Stewart and Chad Hansen (both busts) by our own Jets.

Of that group, exactly three Cupp, Godwin and Galladay, turned out to be descent pro WR's.

Even if we limit it just to the third round, 8 WR"s were selected in the third, of which exactly two (Cupp and Godwin) became stars.  That's a 25% success rate.  37.5% if you want to count Galladay too.

In that same draft, 6 WR's were picked in he first two rounds.  Only 3 in the First.

Of that group, exactly three, Davis (before he got here), Williams and JuJu turned out to be descent pro WR's.   That's a 50% success rate in the first two rounds.  75% if we consider just the first round.  

Cupp, indeed the unquestionably best WR to-date of that draft, IS the outlier.  As is Godwin (who played in a high-passing O with Winston and Tom Brady).  ArDarius Stewart and Chad Hanson and the bulk of the other 3rd or later drafted WR's other are the norms.  

Meanwhile the first two rounds were a 50/50 shot.  Much better than the 11% (or 37.5% if you prefer just the 3rd) shot of picking a 3rd to 7th round WR that draft.

The NFL Draft is a crapshoot at best, we all know it.  Even 50/50 in the first two rounds is craptstic bad odds (Mims the best example here).  But the odds of landing a star WR drops precipitously the later in the draft you pick them, and the worse your team is on Offense and at QB.  Yes, in the aggregate across the entire league, a fair few number of mid-rounders, mostly on better teams with great QB's, have found success.  And most haven't.  

But that is not the entire population of this and later picked WR"s, it's a cherry picked subpopulation.  It's akin to the "well, Peyton Manning sucked as a rookie, so Zach Wilson will surely be an HOF'er" argument.  One guy is an outlier when the odds are 11% for and 89% against.

It's interesting to me that some folks look at Cupp, and see a sure thing for us picking later too, and don't even notice the two guys in that same draft WE OURSELVES picked who both busted, lol.  Even in that small sub-population, the odds are 2-1 against.

The higher you pick, the better prospect you should get, and the higher the chance of success.  The later you pick, especially as a bad or QB deficient team, the lower your odds.  Great teams with great QB's can afford to do this, because they have a great situation to put those lower-ranked prospects into.  Bad teams with bad QB's simply do not have this advantage.

IMO a team as utterly deficient as ours on offense should be doubling down.  Taking BOTH our positions.  Draft a WR high, and draft a WR mid-rounds.  A 1st and a 3rd or 4th.  Better than yet another Safety and DT in a modern NFL utterly driven by Offense and passing.

Ah, TLDR, I know.  Agree to disagree would have been much easier to write, lol.  

 

The fallacy with this logic is it doesn't add up even using your own numbers. Also TLDR depends upon the author: though I'll look at yours if you look at mine, lol. 

First your subliminal tone... c'mon, counting ~$5MM/year JuJu as an objectively "decent pro" but grudgingly referring to $18MM/year Golladay as an "if you want to count [him]" addition, as though he needed to be graded on a curve to be as much a success as JJSS; or feeling the need to clarify Godwin's own success based upon the offense he was in, without such qualifiers for JJSS or anyone else. If your argument wins on its merits, then this shouldn't (and wouldn't) be necessary.

A team could - at least in theory - trade down to the point that a top 10 pick yields about 7 of those 3rd rounders. Since that's unlikely to happen in direct, successive trade-downs, what's still clear is it holds that in terms of overall trade value (try trading for Hill without throwing in higher than a 3rd rounder and see how many picks it'd take). Even still, using your numbers - drafting a couple (or even a trio) of 3rd rounders yields an even greater chance of success, despite a top-10 1st round pick carrying far higher value than a pair or trio of 3rd rounders.

The 1st round pick is 7x more valuable than a 3rd round pick, but isn't anywhere near 7x more likely to yield a starting WR. Even in your own analysis of this one draft, it's a 3/8 vs 1/2 comparison. Hardly an earth-shattering difference, considering the value of the resources used to yield those numbers.

It's why statistics are eye-rolling stuff if you leave out elephant-in-the-room context. Specifically, I could trade down very little to pick up an extra 3rd rounder, then take 2 WRs in round 3 - doubling your stated chance of success from 37.5% to 75% - and I'd still preserve the ability to draft both an upper 1st and an upper 2nd rounder at two other positions.

OR I could burn a high 1st or 2nd round pick (carrying just a 50-50 chance of success) and further rely upon going 1-for-1 with my 3rd round pick to find an edge rusher who'd produce enough to get taken in round 1 in a re-draft (or who'd command a 1st rounder or more in trade). 

Seems that, using your figures, the best odds of landing a starting WR, and team-building in general are far & away:

1. trade down just-enough to yield an extra 3rd rounder (i.e. drop just 2-5 slots in round 1, depending which pick is the original)
2. draft a highly-rated non-WR in the top 10-15 overall picks
3. keep my 2nd rounder where it is, for another non-WR starter
4. draft two WRs in round 3 - maybe even moving up a hair, within the round, if you like someone just that much - figuring one will flop and one will be a good (maybe great) starter

For the record, I'm perfectly fine with and am behind drafting a WR in the top 10. Just not for the "odds" or "statistics" reasons you're stating here. Statistically, your numbers say they'd do better trading down as often as possible to take 5 WRs from rounds 2-4, and they'd still probably have change leftover. 

The imp has spoken.  

[Larz]

Good argument for the Rams approach actually. 
 

**** those picks !

[Sperm Edwards]

Eventually I'll be able to read Cooper Kupp's name without Squeeze's Cool for Cats starting to ring in my head.

Cooooooo Perrrr Kahhhhhhhp

Cooooooo......

I hate him for this. Hate. Hate. Hate.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The fallacy with this logic is it doesn't add up even using your own numbers. Also TLDR depends upon the author: though I'll look at yours if you look at mine, lol. 

Happy to, you're unquestionably one of our most insightful posters.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

First your subliminal tone... c'mon, counting ~$5MM/year JuJu as an objectively "decent pro" but grudgingly referring to $18MM/year Golladay as an "if you want to count [him]" addition, as though he needed to be graded on a curve to be as much a success as JJSS; or feeling the need to clarify Godwin's own success based upon the offense he was in, without such qualifiers for JJSS or anyone else. If your argument wins on its merits, then this shouldn't (and wouldn't) be necessary.

I wasn't using salary as my guide.  I was using production.

Source was this:  https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/draft.htm

Extracted the WR's (the data is nicely sortable, I love this site).

In determining successful picks, I used receiving yards and TD's as a general guide.  

Golladay at 300 fewer yards and 5 fewer TD's than JuJu is still a draft success.  Sorry if my qualifiers appeared to dismiss that, he's definitely in the percentage calculated as a successful mid-round WR.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

A team could - at least in theory - trade down to the point that a top 10 pick yields about 7 of those 3rd rounders.

Theoretically.  Impossible in reality, as no one team has 7 picks.  But sure, I'll play along.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Since that's unlikely to happen in direct, successive trade-downs, what's still clear is it holds that in terms of overall trade value (try trading for Hill without throwing in higher than a 3rd rounder and see how many picks it'd take). Even still, using your numbers - drafting a couple (or even a trio) of 3rd rounders yields an even greater chance of success, despite a top-10 1st round pick carrying far higher value than a pair or trio of 3rd rounders.

The 1st round pick is 7x more valuable than a 3rd round pick, but isn't anywhere near 7x more likely to yield a starting WR. Even in your own analysis of this one draft, it's a 3/8 vs 1/2 comparison. Hardly an earth-shattering difference, considering the value of the resources used to yield those numbers.

Yes, that's valid.  A #1 pick could be exchanged for multiple attempts (picks) in the lower rounds.  

But I would stress, this wasn't an analysis of that aspect, it was purely "what pick has the best odds at success".

Those odds of course change if you trade your #1 away for say, multiple 3's, 4's and 5's, your odds of success would be calculated using the individual odds of all those mid-rounders. 

And if you traded your #1 for all those, yes, you'd get alot of mid-round prospect WR's, and if you used them all on WR's, you'd probably have a good enough chance one would hit.  And most likely all the others wouldn't.  

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's why statistics are eye-rolling stuff if you leave out elephant-in-the-room context. Specifically, I could trade down very little to pick up an extra 3rd rounder, then take 2 WRs in round 3 - doubling your stated chance of success from 37.5% to 75% - and I'd still preserve the ability to draft both an upper 1st and an upper 2nd rounder at two other positions.

OR I could burn a high 1st or 2nd round pick (carrying just a 50-50 chance of success) and further rely upon going 1-for-1 with my 3rd round pick to find an edge rusher who'd produce enough to get taken in round 1 in a re-draft (or who'd command a 1st rounder or more in trade). 

Granted, if you're looking at it that way, draft pick inherent trade value, and not "what rounds to WR's have the highest odds to be successful", you're correct.

But that's not really what I was considering tbqh.  I don't think we're trading #10 (for example) for 7x 3rd rounders worth of value, and if we did, we're definitely not drafting 7x WR's, so it's sorta a moot point in real world terms.  

Also, keep in mind, I believe calculation of probability of success for each prospect would still be 37.5%.  Not 75%.  Probability doesn't nwork out like that, as each probability is it's own thing, they are not additive, at least to my "took stats years ago in college" level of knowledge.  I believe they call that thinking it does the "gamblers fallacy".  

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Seems that, using your figures, the best odds of landing a starting WR, and team-building in general are far & away:

1. trade down just-enough to yield an extra 3rd rounder (i.e. drop just 2-5 slots in round 1, depending which pick is the original)
2. draft a highly-rated non-WR in the top 10-15 overall picks
3. keep my 2nd rounder where it is, for another non-WR starter
4. draft two WRs in round 3 - maybe even moving up a hair, within the round, if you like someone just that much - figuring one will flop and one will be a good (maybe great) starter

For the record, I'm perfectly fine with and am behind drafting a WR in the top 10. Just not for the "odds" or "statistics" reasons you're stating here. Statistically, your numbers say they'd do better trading down as often as possible to take 5 WRs from rounds 2-4, and they'd still probably have change leftover. 

The imp has spoken.  

Looking at that plan (WR @10-15, 2x WR's in the third) I'd be ok with it.  I'd be sad to miss on Wilson, who as a specific prospect I think will be very good (he'll be gone @11 if not before that).  But as a "maximize your assets and chances" concept it has merit.

With that said, I don't see JD picking 3x WR's in one draft class.  More likely he does the usual JD with those 3rds (see his history so far).  Leaving us just with a still-top-tier, but not best-in-class prospect at whatever pick we end up at between 10-15.  Maybe London or some other.  

In such a scenario, you've hurt yourself in round one (although perhaps not so much) and you don't take the shot in round 3.  It's be Mims all over, where almost all of us wanted JD to take another WR in the 4th, and he took....Morgan, lol.

Cheers!

[Alka]

9 hours ago, Irish Jet said:

I don't think anyone is saying good WR's can't be found late. We're saying the Jets can't find them.

As far as I'm concerned, this should be the post of the decade!!!

When was the last time that the Jets got a good wide receiver not in the first round.  

Enunwa was definitely one of them, but he crapped out after getting injured.  Yes, Elijah Moore is one, but barely out of the first round.  Santana Moss- first rounder.  Wesley Walker- first rounder.  Keyshawn Johnson- first player taken in the entire draft.  Jerome Barkum- one of the best- 1st rounder, Al Toon- 1st rounder.  Let's not forget Rob Moore, drafted by the Jets in the 1st round of the supplemental draft.

I think I've made my point.  

[Sperm Edwards]

50 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Happy to, you're unquestionably one of our most insightful posters.

I wasn't using salary as my guide.  I was using production.

Source was this:  https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/draft.htm

Extracted the WR's (the data is nicely sortable, I love this site).

In determining successful picks, I used receiving yards and TD's as a general guide.  

Golladay at 300 fewer yards and 5 fewer TD's than JuJu is still a draft success.  Sorry if my qualifiers appeared to dismiss that, he's definitely in the percentage calculated as a successful mid-round WR.

Theoretically.  Impossible in reality, as no one team has 7 picks.  But sure, I'll play along.

Yes, that's valid.  A #1 pick could be exchanged for multiple attempts (picks) in the lower rounds.  

But I would stress, this wasn't an analysis of that aspect, it was purely "what pick has the best odds at success".

Those odds of course change if you trade your #1 away for say, multiple 3's, 4's and 5's, your odds of success would be calculated using the individual odds of all those mid-rounders. 

And if you traded your #1 for all those, yes, you'd get alot of mid-round prospect WR's, and if you used them all on WR's, you'd probably have a good enough chance one would hit.  And most likely all the others wouldn't.  

Granted, if you're looking at it that way, draft pick inherent trade value, and not "what rounds to WR's have the highest odds to be successful", you're correct.

But that's not really what I was considering tbqh.  I don't think we're trading #10 (for example) for 7x 3rd rounders worth of value, and if we did, we're definitely not drafting 7x WR's, so it's sorta a moot point in real world terms.  

Also, keep in mind, I believe calculation of probability of success for each prospect would still be 37.5%.  Not 75%.  Probability doesn't nwork out like that, as each probability is it's own thing, they are not additive, at least to my "took stats years ago in college" level of knowledge.  I believe they call that thinking it does the "gamblers fallacy".  

Looking at that plan (WR @10-15, 2x WR's in the third) I'd be ok with it.  I'd be sad to miss on Wilson, who as a specific prospect I think will be very good (he'll be gone @11 if not before that).  But as a "maximize your assets and chances" concept it has merit.

With that said, I don't see JD picking 3x WR's in one draft class.  More likely he does the usual JD with those 3rds (see his history so far).  Leaving us just with a still-top-tier, but not best-in-class prospect at whatever pick we end up at between 10-15.  Maybe London or some other.  

In such a scenario, you've hurt yourself in round one (although perhaps not so much) and you don't take the shot in round 3.  It's be Mims all over, where almost all of us wanted JD to take another WR in the 4th, and he took....Morgan, lol.

Cheers!

Not a moot point, but... it's Friday and I want to go home now. I owe you a chapter.

[sec101row23]

2 hours ago, docdhc said:

Off the top of my head - Top QBs in league - Mahomes, Allen, Herbert, Rodgers, Stafford, Jackson, Watson all first round picks. Only Brady a late rounder. Top Wrs- Lots out of first round- Cupp, Adams, Hill, Diggs, Godwin, metcalf.  You usually need to draft a QB high to get a good one.  WRs not necessarily.  I don’t know what’s silly about that  

 

Again, not talking about QBs.   Go through all the other positions.   It’s a silly argument just based on the sheer number of other draft picks outside of the top 10 or so.   Not sure what you aren’t getting.  Of course you can find stars in later picks because there are so many other later picks.   It’s tedious trying to explain this.