Schneider tried to trade up for Penix

[Lagartixa]

I wish there had been cameras on Cousins when he saw the pick being announced. I imagine some varieties of "What the fudge!" and "Gosh, darn it" followed by apologies to everyone in the room for flying off the handle like that.

"I don't like that! I don't like that!" (The action-green text is a link for those who don't get the reference)

 

[Lagartixa]

I wish I shared your optimism about Howell. The likelihood he goes from well below average to well above average is probably less than 5%.

My calculations show 17.5%

I don't know how you came up with that. I'm getting 13.329% to be precise. And I'm using tried and true Kelly's QB bluebook.

I know @cymatica and @Shane Falco are joking about the probability calculations, but there are a few different definitions of probability, all compatible in certain limits, but representing different approaches, and under some of them, different people could legitimately come up with a wide variety of different probabilities for the same event.

Some use the definition that only defines probability in the unreachable limit of infinite observations, specifically, that the probability of a given occurrence is the limit as the sample size goes to infinity of the "relative frequency" (number of times it occurs divided by the total sample size, so if something happens 357 times in a thousand observations, the relative frequency is 35.7%).

Others define probability differently, and some of them make more explicit the subjectivity that comes into assigning probabilities with finite samples, especially small ones. The great Bruno de Finetti famously wrote "probability doesn't exist!" What he meant by that is that probabilities are subjective. He still defined rules for coherently defining and assigning probabilities that are the basis for modern Bayesian statistics. In the limit of large samples, the different definitions of probability all end up converging to the same thing, and de Finetti's approach to probability theory allows a person to make good estimates even when sample sizes are small.

In something like an NFL draft, once you consider things like team situation, player history and age, what other players are available, and what the situations of other teams are, the relevant sample sizes will generally end up small, so the familiar "relative-frequency" definition of probability is basically useless, even though relative frequency is still really important for estimating probability distributions no matter what definition of probability you're using.

So as a result, I suspect different teams really do have very different assessments of the probability of a given college player succeeding in the NFL. In fact, in some cases, they probably vary more than your estimates of probabilities (a serious "less than 5%," and joking estimates of 17.5% and 13.329%) have varied. @Shane Falco even brought in another important point, the number of significant figures. Carrying probability estimates like these (even the ones that "use yesterday's posteriori as today's priori" and are informed by data from previous drafts and NFL careers) to five significant figures is silly.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Let's see, admit to trying to trade up for a QB and have to explain to Geno Smith and Sam Howell their reasoning (and the possible trade of Geno) or deny the reports and avoid the awkwardness with your QBs and 1st round pick defensive tackle that you selected as a backup plan.

I know there's a ton of crap reporting out there, but I have a hard time believing GMs post draft when almost all of them are saying their guy fell to them and what a miracle it was.

 

[WarHawks]

Carrying probability estimates like these (even the ones that "use yesterday's posteriori as today's priori" and are informed by data from previous drafts and NFL careers) to five significant figures is silly.

Assigning an actual number to the probability may certainly be inaccurate, but nothing about predicting player success is. It's all a crapshoot, some much more [crappy] than others.

 

[Lagartixa]

Assigning an actual number to the probability may certainly be inaccurate, but nothing about predicting player success is. It's all a crapshoot, some much more [crappy] than others.

We're talking about things with large amounts of uncertainty. The best tool human beings have for understanding and accounting for uncertainty is probability theory. Statistics applies probability theory and produces useful descriptive and predictive results that have real-world value.

Yes, there's a lot of uncertainty here, and every team makes terrible mistakes and every team stumbles into outrageously better-than-the-team-expects results from a pick too. However, we have tools that allow us to quantify our uncertainty and make the best choices we can make, given what we know and don't know, and in the long run, using them can be much more effective (using them correctly is more effective) than not using them.

It's true that even the best-run team making all the best decisions possible given what they know at the time could have a terrible draft, and that even the worst-run team making emotional and just plain silly-lookin' decisions can end up drafting one or more future Hall of Fame inductees. So I know what you mean by "(i)t's all a crapshoot," and I know why you say it. I too have said things were "a crapshoot" when I knew they had a certain probabilistic predictability. I've even described draft picks as "a crapshoot." I get it. I just want to emphasize that teams can improve their chance of success (and with it, their actual long-run real-world success rate) by using solid systematic statistical analysis and whichever applications of probability theory that involves, because while there's a lot of uncertainty, we have tools that can help us make the best decisions in that context.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Let's see, admit to trying to trade up for a QB and have to explain to Geno Smith and Sam Howell their reasoning (and the possible trade of Geno) or deny the reports and avoid the awkwardness with your QBs and 1st round pick defensive tackle that you selected as a backup plan.

I know there's a ton of crap reporting out there, but I have a hard time believing GMs post draft when almost all of them are saying their guy fell to them and what a miracle it was.

Best part is, they don't give a rip about perception in the manner you just described.

Fans do. They don't. It's a business. If they said that report isn't accurate, I have no fan created conspiracy that would lead me to not believe them.

 

[Grahamhawker]

I realize that if the QB prospect you want is there you likely better take him. That said, time-line wise might it not be better to wait a year or two given the present team situation? Seems like to really take advantage of the rookie goldilocks zone you would ideally want a few more positions solidified.

 

[cymatica]

I know @cymatica and @Shane Falco are joking about the probability calculations, but there are a few different definitions of probability, all compatible in certain limits, but representing different approaches, and under some of them, different people could legitimately come up with a wide variety of different probabilities for the same event.
you're using.

Hey now, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to de-legitimize all the hard work I put into coming up with that 17.5% figure

 

[SmokinHawk]

I am glad he didn't.

 

[12th_Bob]

Happy we didn't, although Penix was much better than the reaches in JJ and Nix (lol), was happy to stand pat and get Murphy.

 

[Smellyman]

4-5 QBs of the future are drafted every year. Must be 32 elite QBs in the league right now. Even the backups must be elite.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Best part is, they don't give a rip about perception in the manner you just described.

Fans do. They don't. It's a business. If they said that report isn't accurate, I have no fan created conspiracy that would lead me to not believe them.

Of course they care. There's a benefit in denying this. There's no benefit in admiting it.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Of course they care. There's a benefit in denying this. There's no benefit in admiting it.

 

[BigMeach]

Let's see, admit to trying to trade up for a QB and have to explain to Geno Smith and Sam Howell their reasoning (and the possible trade of Geno) or deny the reports and avoid the awkwardness with your QBs and 1st round pick defensive tackle that you selected as a backup plan.

I know there's a ton of crap reporting out there, but I have a hard time believing GMs post draft when almost all of them are saying their guy fell to them and what a miracle it was.

Or the even more likely scenario. The Falcons have a ton of fans very confused and a ton of damage control to do so they let it slip that three teams were wanting to trade up. They had to make it teams who would want a QB and also make sense. Seahawks would ALWAYS be on that list because of obvious reasons.

When the teams that had this "leaked" DURING THE FIRST DAY OF THE DRAFT. All refute it as complete nonsense?

 

[jeremiah]

I just watched the Presser after the Draft. Drafting a QB WAS NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE

 

[Maulbert]

All the Penix Stans in here tying themselves into knots over a rumor that is likely false (especially considering our history of trading down, not up) is utterly hilarious to me.

Even if Schneider wanted Penix, the capital was never there to move up. But keep telling yourself they wanted to, if it helps you sleep at night. I have a long memory, and I'll certainly remember this when Penix has flamed out by year 3.

 

[12AngryHawks]

Perhaps if they still had a 2nd rounder, and didn't make the Howell trade, they just might've actually made an offer to trade up for him. But alas, that's purely hypothetical.

I'm happy for Penix, he's a man with great heart and great talent. I just wish he went to a team where he could immediately compete for the starting job.

 

[Crizilla]

Doubt it

 

[Torc]

Perhaps if they still had a 2nd rounder, and didn't make the Howell trade, they just might've actually made an offer to trade up for him. But alas, that's purely hypothetical.

I'm happy for Penix, he's a man with great heart and great talent. I just wish he went to a team where he could immediately compete for the starting job.

Penix is in a great situation for Penix. He has a solid QB to learn from, and that QB will still be recovering from a major leg injury/surgery and I suspect that as a result Cousins will not be taking nearly as many snaps in camp as he would otherwise. Frankly I think that the Cousins signing was the dumb part - why guarantee that kind of money to a dude who will be on a completely untested surgical repair? Zero pressure on Penix to start his career, and QBs who sit on the bench to start their career tend to do better.

 

[12AngryHawks]

Penix is in a great situation for Penix. He has a solid QB to learn from, and that QB will still be recovering from a major leg injury/surgery and I suspect that as a result Cousins will not be taking nearly as many snaps in camp as he would otherwise. Frankly I think that the Cousins signing was the dumb part - why guarantee that kind of money to a dude who will be on a completely untested surgical repair? Zero pressure on Penix to start his career, and QBs who sit on the bench to start their career tend to do better.

Yeah, I agree. The contract was the dumber decision. That leads me to believe they didn't initially plan to take a QB at #8, but they changed course and swung for the fences in the moment when it was time to make their pick.