Ry...how did the better teams at the bottom of a round get to be "better teams"? they picked higher in the draft when down, kept their picks instead of trading them away, and intelligently worked FA.
you have introduced some considerations that make sense.
- it's more than just random luck. the better teams...as you and others note...have an environment more conducive to success - they have better players to start with. that's the context later round picks start off in - i.e., the probability for success is greater.
- hits and misses in a round trace to multiple influences that are not independent (i.e., covariance is in play with the stats). evaluation skill, team context, scheme/skills match, weather(!), motivation, money, coaching style, injuries....and on. player evaluation is only one component of predicting (and actual) success.
- the best teams have a strategy they hew to over time. the strategy is adjusted based on a "feedback loop" from previous seasons. perform well and a team is drafting toward the bottom of a round - these teams generally search for depth, gap fillers, role players. perform badly and a team is drafting toward the top of a round...the high cost end...looking for impact players at any of a number of positions. in short, teams at opposite ends of the first round aren't even evaluating the same pool of players. they have different objectives.
it boils down to a team's strategy...if you're drafting lower in the round you shoot for role players - and yes, sometimes, BPA. if drafting higher you opt for immediate impact at any of numerous "holes". teams are not even looking for the same thing in these respective draft positions. a team like the Skins is clearly in the impact/multiple holes scenario.
- yes..."gems" can be found in later draft positions....but they BECOME gems for a whole slew of reasons. the gems might not succeed at all if drafted in much higher positions (as you and others noted at one point in one of these threads). knowing this...how does some statistic about "probability" of success become an actionable metric? I submit that it doesn't. accepting the notion that later picks in a round have an equal probability of success to earlier picks isn't a strategy. that "metric" only correlates to one among many variables that constitute the roster management strategy and the draft strategy.
- a draft strategy is shaped by more than just internal variables. it is also shaped by expectations of what other teams are going to do. it is shaped by the talent pool in any given draft. the point is that a team has to make a rational decision executed through some sort of methodology/process. that process is based on more than just a statistic about early versus late round success rates.
so..the question I ask is this: if a team is a bad one with glaring talent deficiencies and multiple gaps....is the correct strategy to opt for lower picks in a round for role players or potential "gems" (that become gems by virtue of multiple factors many of which (by definition) losing teams don't offer).....or higher picks where raw impact talent is greater? a reasonable response is that that strategy could emphasize quantity over quality. I can buy into that. but if the strategy is to find core players who are athletically gifted and marked as high probability successes (the "foundation") as many teams have done in the past as the route to success...then drafting higher makes sense. you stay put or move up to draft the Bradford's of the world. the issue isn't that high draft picks can fail...the issue is that the return is huge if you hit with one of the high talent players. so, another variable, is a team's risk acceptance propensity.
I'll adjust somewhat my view on this. relative draft position in a round isn't the end all be all. the draft strategy, however, IS the end all be all. what should the Skins' draft strategy be 2011? I vote huge return at QB. I believe that the higher the draft position the greater the opportunity to control the probability of securing that type of player. El may be right that 6-9 does not matter. others can legitimately respond that here have been major late in the round QB successes. I respond that is all a matter of teams' relative needs in any given draft. if there are multiple teams coveting the best QBs and few to pick from...higher...everything else being equal...is better. I also believe this is one of those years. unless Shanny pulls a white rabbit out of the FA black hat.....the draft will be the path to a QB. reasonable people can differ on where to select that QB. in my mind, with this year's crop of QBs and other teams looking at QBs....earlier is better. guarantee you get the player you want. you may fail...but you got the player your system determined was the best. if..the team instead decides to opt for d-line..then the abundance of quality talent at that position in this year's draft affords more wiggle room.
immediate impact or development?
quantity?
control?
talent level?
other team's probable strategies?
talent pool?
need?
what should be weighted most in the Skins' upcoming draft strategy? in what order? and why?
 }})
