NFL Draft: A Scientific Approach

[*psychdoctor*]

This post is not for everyone; but I am asking for you input.  

As casual fans and aspiring fantasy GM, sometimes we try to improve team via FA, draft, and coaching changes; but at close inspection, it seems more complicated.  

I was thinking if we were to use a scientific approach to improve team performance, maybe we can identify ways or variables that would lead the Bengals to a championship season; at least in theory.    

Let's say there are 4 independent variables; two are static (unchangeable) and two are dynamic (changeable).  The independent variable is what influences outcome.  Therefore, the 4 IV would be:

Team Organization (ownership, money spent, training facilities) unfortunately this is static,  
Coaching (play calls, schemas, best-fit use of players) dynamic,
Team Composition  (chemistry, formal role usage, team fit, team leaders) dynamic, and
Talent, this is static.  

I have Talent separate because talent is a stable construct and is considered innate whereas team comp is dynamic and changes.  It would seem to draft the best talent works best.  Would you add to any of the IV?  


The problem I am having is at the dependent variable.  The dependent variable could be game outcome or wins. The problem of using "wins" as a dependent variable is other factors influence game outcome like weather, chance, injuries, and officials.   Also, winning the Superbowl is viewed as the ultimate goal but winning the Superbowl rarely occurs for most teams so maybe not the best measure.  The Mike Brown "being competitive" doesn't work because you cannot measure a competitive variable with consistency.  What does "competitive" mean?  Does it mean losing close games?  So are wins the best way to measure team's progress?  Is talent more important than meeting team needs in the draft?  

Also, I am Curious; what percent (%) do you place on team needs vs. Talent when you conduct Mock Draft Simulation?  


Some would consider a draft pick a "homerun" if the BPA is at team's highest need.  But what if it is a weak draft at team need?  Shouldn't you just select the best talent?

[impactplaya]

(01-29-2021, 06:42 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: This post is not for everyone; but I am asking for you input.  

As casual fans and aspiring fantasy GM, sometimes we try to improve team via FA, draft, and coaching changes; but at close inspection, it seems more complicated.  

I was thinking if we were to use a scientific approach to improve team performance, maybe we can identify ways or variables that would lead the Bengals to a championship season; at least in theory.    

Let's say there are 4 independent variables; two are static (unchangeable) and two are dynamic (changeable).  The independent variable is what influences outcome.  Therefore, the 4 IV would be:

Team Organization (ownership, money spent, training facilities) unfortunately this is static,  
Coaching (play calls, schemas, best-fit use of players) dynamic,
Team Composition  (chemistry, formal role usage, team fit, team leaders) dynamic, and
Talent, this is static.  

I have Talent separate because talent is a stable construct and is considered innate whereas team comp is dynamic and changes.  It would seem to draft the best talent works best.  Would you add to any of the IV?  


The problem I am having is at the dependent variable.  The dependent variable could be game outcome or wins. The problem of using "wins" as a dependent variable is other factors influence game outcome like weather, chance, injuries, and officials.   Also, winning the Superbowl is viewed as the ultimate goal but winning the Superbowl rarely occurs for most teams so maybe not the best measure.  The Mike Brown "being competitive" doesn't work because you cannot measure a competitive variable with consistency.  What does "competitive" mean?  Does it mean losing close games?  So are wins the best way to measure team's progress?  Is talent more important than meeting team needs in the draft?  

Also, I am Curious; what percent (%) do you place on team needs vs. Talent when you conduct Mock Draft Simulation?  


Some would consider a draft pick a "homerun" if the BPA is at team's highest need.  But what if it is a weak draft at team need?  Shouldn't you just select the best talent?

The NFL.is a bottom.line business. You either win or lose.
If you can win at a .640 clip you have a good chance to make the playoffs.
You don't get points for almost wins or moral victories.
The numbers support that Zac will never be  able to win consistantly at the NFL level. 
 When I conduct mock drafts I usually ready for need in the 
1st 3-rds. Then after that I draft best player available outside
Of QB in the next 4 RDs

[SunsetBengal]

Scientifically speaking, the game of football is typically won by the team that blocks and tackles better than their opponent.

Or, as John Madden once said "The team that scores the most points usually wins the game".

[BURROWorBUST]

(01-30-2021, 01:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Scientifically speaking, the game of football is typically won by the team that blocks and tackles better than their opponent.

Or, as John Madden once said "The team that scores the most points usually wins the game".

If there is a single dependent variable, the I can't think of a better one.

Sticking with psydoc's scientific approach, I think we can identity a whole array of stats as dependent variables.

For example: We want to improve our protection of Burrow, which we could measure in terms of at least 3 dependent variables (sacks, hits, hurries). 

Coaching is one independent variable that we could look at improving. Team composition would be another, but this is where the "talent" issue get fuzzy for me. If the composition of your Oline lacks talent, you're screwed. LOL So, I'm not sure that talent is static. A coach can improve the talent to some degree, right? Isn't that called player development? 

No coach is a total miracle worker, so coaching can't help someone with really low talent perform at a level to impact the dependent variables (sack, hits, hurries, etc). Case in point – Cedric Obweje (sp?). He's in Seattle now, and he still sucks. 

[kevin]

(01-29-2021, 06:42 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: This post is not for everyone; but I am asking for you input.  

As casual fans and aspiring fantasy GM, sometimes we try to improve team via FA, draft, and coaching changes; but at close inspection, it seems more complicated.  

I was thinking if we were to use a scientific approach to improve team performance, maybe we can identify ways or variables that would lead the Bengals to a championship season; at least in theory.    

Let's say there are 4 independent variables; two are static (unchangeable) and two are dynamic (changeable).  The independent variable is what influences outcome.  Therefore, the 4 IV would be:

Team Organization (ownership, money spent, training facilities) unfortunately this is static,  
Coaching (play calls, schemas, best-fit use of players) dynamic,
Team Composition  (chemistry, formal role usage, team fit, team leaders) dynamic, and
Talent, this is static.  

I have Talent separate because talent is a stable construct and is considered innate whereas team comp is dynamic and changes.  It would seem to draft the best talent works best.  Would you add to any of the IV?  


The problem I am having is at the dependent variable.  The dependent variable could be game outcome or wins. The problem of using "wins" as a dependent variable is other factors influence game outcome like weather, chance, injuries, and officials.   Also, winning the Superbowl is viewed as the ultimate goal but winning the Superbowl rarely occurs for most teams so maybe not the best measure.  The Mike Brown "being competitive" doesn't work because you cannot measure a competitive variable with consistency.  What does "competitive" mean?  Does it mean losing close games?  So are wins the best way to measure team's progress?  Is talent more important than meeting team needs in the draft?  

Also, I am Curious; what percent (%) do you place on team needs vs. Talent when you conduct Mock Draft Simulation?  


Some would consider a draft pick a "homerun" if the BPA is at team's highest need.  But what if it is a weak draft at team need?  Shouldn't you just select the best talent?

There is no rocket science to this.  If Penie Sewell is there, Bengals need to take him.  He is The Best Available Player if he is still on board and he fills The Weakest Need. Protection for our Franchise QB coming back from major knee surgery caused by no blocking.  People that will come on here talking WR or Edge Rusher don't know a darn thing about football. If the big Samoan Outland Trophy Winner is still there when Bengals pick, Take Him. ...The Bengals are very close to having Burrow end up another GREG COOK top pick career injury if they don't get some real talent on O Line. 

Sewell will be the Best Player On The Board if there and Fills The Biggest Need.  It Is Not Rocket Science. 

[*psychdoctor*]

(01-30-2021, 03:16 AM)BURROWorBUST Wrote: If there is a single dependent variable, the I can't think of a better one.

Sticking with psydoc's scientific approach, I think we can identity a whole array of stats as dependent variables.

For example: We want to improve our protection of Burrow, which we could measure in terms of at least 3 dependent variables (sacks, hits, hurries). 

Coaching is one independent variable that we could look at improving. Team composition would be another, but this is where the "talent" issue get fuzzy for me. If the composition of your Oline lacks talent, you're screwed. LOL So, I'm not sure that talent is static. A coach can improve the talent to some degree, right? Isn't that called player development? 

No coach is a total miracle worker, so coaching can't help someone with really low talent perform at a level to impact the dependent variables (sack, hits, hurries, etc). Case in point – Cedric Obweje (sp?). He's in Seattle now, and he still sucks. 

Some would say the ceiling is the talent level, floor is where the talent is before coaching.  Talent is either there are not.  On the other hand, Browns, as an example,  have talent but the players were not performing up to their talent.  It is up to the coaching staff to develop schematic fit for game planning and use of player's talent.  Talent is not always actualized because either coaching or injury.  

[Goalpost]

With Fisher hurt, here is the KC offensive line next weekend.

Nick Allegretti....7th round pick
Austin Reiter...7th round pick...this is his third team
Andrew Wylie...undrafted...this is his 4th team
Mike Remmers...undrafted...this is his 9th team
Stefen Wisniewski...2nd round...5th club...2nd time time with KC

These are the people who protect Mahomes. And here we are failing from Og, Fisher and Price....two 1sts and a 2nd.

[jfkbengals]

(01-29-2021, 06:42 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: This post is not for everyone; but I am asking for you input.  

As casual fans and aspiring fantasy GM, sometimes we try to improve team via FA, draft, and coaching changes; but at close inspection, it seems more complicated.  

I was thinking if we were to use a scientific approach to improve team performance, maybe we can identify ways or variables that would lead the Bengals to a championship season; at least in theory.    

Let's say there are 4 independent variables; two are static (unchangeable) and two are dynamic (changeable).  The independent variable is what influences outcome.  Therefore, the 4 IV would be:

Team Organization (ownership, money spent, training facilities) unfortunately this is static,  
Coaching (play calls, schemas, best-fit use of players) dynamic,
Team Composition  (chemistry, formal role usage, team fit, team leaders) dynamic, and
Talent, this is static.  

I have Talent separate because talent is a stable construct and is considered innate whereas team comp is dynamic and changes.  It would seem to draft the best talent works best.  Would you add to any of the IV?  


The problem I am having is at the dependent variable.  The dependent variable could be game outcome or wins. The problem of using "wins" as a dependent variable is other factors influence game outcome like weather, chance, injuries, and officials.   Also, winning the Superbowl is viewed as the ultimate goal but winning the Superbowl rarely occurs for most teams so maybe not the best measure.  The Mike Brown "being competitive" doesn't work because you cannot measure a competitive variable with consistency.  What does "competitive" mean?  Does it mean losing close games?  So are wins the best way to measure team's progress?  Is talent more important than meeting team needs in the draft?  

Also, I am Curious; what percent (%) do you place on team needs vs. Talent when you conduct Mock Draft Simulation?  


Some would consider a draft pick a "homerun" if the BPA is at team's highest need.  But what if it is a weak draft at team need?  Shouldn't you just select the best talent?

I would argue that Talent is a function of Team Composition.

(01-30-2021, 01:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Scientifically speaking, the game of football is typically won by the team that blocks and tackles better than their opponent.

Or, as John Madden once said "The team that scores the most points usually wins the game".

Throw in "without turning the ball over" and you have a winning formula!

[Luvnit2]

(01-29-2021, 06:42 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: This post is not for everyone; but I am asking for you input.  

As casual fans and aspiring fantasy GM, sometimes we try to improve team via FA, draft, and coaching changes; but at close inspection, it seems more complicated.  

I was thinking if we were to use a scientific approach to improve team performance, maybe we can identify ways or variables that would lead the Bengals to a championship season; at least in theory.    

Let's say there are 4 independent variables; two are static (unchangeable) and two are dynamic (changeable).  The independent variable is what influences outcome.  Therefore, the 4 IV would be:

Team Organization (ownership, money spent, training facilities) unfortunately this is static,  
Coaching (play calls, schemas, best-fit use of players) dynamic,
Team Composition  (chemistry, formal role usage, team fit, team leaders) dynamic, and
Talent, this is static.  

I have Talent separate because talent is a stable construct and is considered innate whereas team comp is dynamic and changes.  It would seem to draft the best talent works best.  Would you add to any of the IV?  


The problem I am having is at the dependent variable.  The dependent variable could be game outcome or wins. The problem of using "wins" as a dependent variable is other factors influence game outcome like weather, chance, injuries, and officials.   Also, winning the Superbowl is viewed as the ultimate goal but winning the Superbowl rarely occurs for most teams so maybe not the best measure.  The Mike Brown "being competitive" doesn't work because you cannot measure a competitive variable with consistency.  What does "competitive" mean?  Does it mean losing close games?  So are wins the best way to measure team's progress?  Is talent more important than meeting team needs in the draft?  

Also, I am Curious; what percent (%) do you place on team needs vs. Talent when you conduct Mock Draft Simulation?  


Some would consider a draft pick a "homerun" if the BPA is at team's highest need.  But what if it is a weak draft at team need?  Shouldn't you just select the best talent?

I think you left out the single most important coaching function.................player development or in the real world training

Great coaches need to have great concepts and then teach each position group to execute the concept. A team like the Steelers is a great example of having a great concept, then next man up (training) to make the team better. Or as Bill Belichick says, "Do your job" as he takes football players with less talent and teaches them and then holds them accountable for both their individual and team assignments.

[*bfine32*]

(01-30-2021, 05:11 AM)kevin Wrote: There is no rocket science to this.  If Penie Sewell is there, Bengals need to take him.  He is The Best Available Player if he is still on board and he fills The Weakest Need. Protection for our Franchise QB coming back from major knee surgery caused by no blocking.  People that will come on here talking WR or Edge Rusher don't know a darn thing about football. If the big Samoan Outland Trophy Winner is still there when Bengals pick, Take Him. ...The Bengals are very close to having Burrow end up another GREG COOK top pick career injury if they don't get some real talent on O Line. 

Sewell will be the Best Player On The Board if there and Fills The Biggest Need.  It Is Not Rocket Science.