Steelers sign Adam Podlesh, Punter.

[deljzc]

Drafting is not about being successful all the time. It's about being slightly more successful than average.

It's like the professional gambler. To beat Vegas you don't win every time, you just win a very, very small percentage MORE than the average guy. And if you bet enough games and enough money, that small, slight advantage vs. the average guy leads to profits and becoming a "professional" gambler.

The key to GM work is to understand how to tilt the averages into your team's favor, not stubbornly think your analysis is 90% or 100% correct (it's not).

As you say, Player A is not better than Player B on a so-called "Big Board". Player A might be 51% likely to be better than Player B. And understanding that relationship, along with positional value (both short term and long term) and scheme fit/diversity and the psychological profile of a player should all be used in making a decision on whom to draft. It's not just "the film" like that's some magic be-all, end-all. Every player has different risk and different peak potential.

 

[Idioteque]

Drafting is not about being successful all the time. It's about being slightly more successful than average.

It's like the professional gambler. To beat Vegas you don't win every time, you just win a very, very small percentage MORE than the average guy. And if you bet enough games and enough money, that small, slight advantage vs. the average guy leads to profits and becoming a "professional" gambler.

The key to GM work is to understand how to tilt the averages into your team's favor, not stubbornly think your analysis is 90% or 100% correct (it's not).

As you say, Player A is not better than Player B on a so-called "Big Board". Player A might be 51% likely to be better than Player B. And understanding that relationship, along with positional value (both short term and long term) and scheme fit/diversity and the psychological profile of a player should all be used in making a decision on whom to draft. It's not just "the film" like that's some magic be-all, end-all. Every player has different risk and different peak potential.

We're just talking about the theoretics of it. I'm sure the Steelers understand what you're saying, but I doubt they draft based on the philosophy of "Let's draft slightly better than average!" I know it's speculation on my part, but I assume they exclusively draft players they think will be good.

 

[bermudasteel]

all this talk of punters is giving me a raging soft-on.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[diver]

Drafting is not about being successful all the time. It's about being slightly more successful than average.

It's like the professional gambler. To beat Vegas you don't win every time, you just win a very, very small percentage MORE than the average guy. And if you bet enough games and enough money, that small, slight advantage vs. the average guy leads to profits and becoming a "professional" gambler.

The key to GM work is to understand how to tilt the averages into your team's favor, not stubbornly think your analysis is 90% or 100% correct (it's not).

As you say, Player A is not better than Player B on a so-called "Big Board". Player A might be 51% likely to be better than Player B. And understanding that relationship, along with positional value (both short term and long term) and scheme fit/diversity and the psychological profile of a player should all be used in making a decision on whom to draft. It's not just "the film" like that's some magic be-all, end-all. Every player has different risk and different peak potential.

Just a couple things with this. I am not arguing your point. However, people complain quite a bit about the Steelers drafting and the like. They have, however, been a pretty successful team. I would say that overall they have tilted the averages in their favor much more than they have not. The truth is that is not good enough for many. An example of that is griping about a 4th round pick of a punter that happened in 2007 in 2014. A pick of a 5th round QB in 2000, I think, in 2014. Even the 4th rounder used on Jones last year. My goodness, they are 4th and 5th round picks! I know there are some great players that teams have lucked into in those rounds, as well as some solid contributors to teams. But more often than not, those picks do not yield that much.

 

[deljzc]

Just a couple things with this. I am not arguing your point. However, people complain quite a bit about the Steelers drafting and the like. They have, however, been a pretty successful team. I would say that overall they have tilted the averages in their favor much more than they have not. The truth is that is not good enough for many. An example of that is griping about a 4th round pick of a punter that happened in 2007 in 2014. A pick of a 5th round QB in 2000, I think, in 2014. Even the 4th rounder used on Jones last year. My goodness, they are 4th and 5th round picks! I know there are some great players that teams have lucked into in those rounds, as well as some solid contributors to teams. But more often than not, those picks do not yield that much.

Colbert has drafted 5th round quarterbacks in 2000 (Martin), 2003 (St. Pierre), 2006 (Jacobs) and 2008 (Dixon). All of which yielded absolutely zero value to the team. Then he used a future 3rd round pick to get Landry Jones (costing us a pick in perhaps the deepest draft in a decade). That's not a pattern that concerns you? That's not something that should demand some re-evaluation of HOW those decisions were made in the first place? What went wrong?

There is one thing to swing and miss. There is another picking a player that isn't even a swing. Drafting QB's that are never given the time of day by the coaches or rise above 3rd string (and building rosters to always have them BE 3rd stringers) is not "swinging" at talent and missing. It's a complete waste of a resource with then no potential to reap a benefit. That is a fundamental FLAW in Colbert's drafting expertise. One that should be pointed out and used when we evaluate Colbert's job performance both past and present.

 

[obxsteeler]

Just not sure I'd be willing to judge Colbert's skills (or yours or mine) on the Landry Jones choice until it plays out. If he grows into a solid backup it's not bad-even if we lost a sure shot hall of famer with that #3.

 

[Lmob0621]

Just not sure I'd be willing to judge Colbert's skills (or yours or mine) on the Landry Jones choice until it plays out. If he grows into a solid backup it's not bad-even if we lost a sure shot hall of famer with that #3.

If we know this prospective third round pick we are missing out because of the Jones pick is a sure fire hall of famer, then we should just draft him with our 2nd round pick instead of wasting it...lol

 

[slashsteel]

Steelers had a three experienced QB depth and then two left due to age injury.

So they bring a free agent in and draft one to throw another body into the mix.

LJ had a productive collegiate career. So they gambled and drafted him.

I really don't have a problem with that thought pattern.

 

[hook]

Let's just bring back Bobby Walden.

 

[SteelerSask2]

Podlesh has a much better Downed inside the 20 / TB ratio. Looks like an improvement.

 

[Drink IRON City]

Let's just bring back Bobby Walden.

Are you saying, currently, Bobby Walden id better then Landry Jones?

Podlesh has a much better Downed inside the 20 / TB ratio. Looks like an improvement.

Back to the original Post, yes, I too feel this punter is an upgrade, to what we had last year.


Salute the nation

 

[Wingman]

My favorite all time late round draft pick is a guy named Deacon Jones. He was picked in the 13th round. Lots of picks turn out to be good from the later rounds. If we don't talk about the comp picks we are talking 32 times 7 gets us 224 guys. That should be the best 224 guys playing college football every year, out of what thousands? The college teams already went out to try and find as many of the best high school players possible so they have weeded out some of them for you. What are there maybe 20 thousand college players? These guys should do better than they have in the past. One can eliminate the busts due to injury as a strike against them because stuff like that happens and can't be predicted. But they should never have guys like Ryan Leaf hit the top pick discussion, that tells me they really blew it.

 

[deljzc]

I read an article today that said if you had thrown all the drafted players into a hat (1st through 7th rounders!) and randomly picked for the Detroit Lions from 2004-2008, you would have yielded better total players than what Matt Millan did.

Again. Ex-player. No educational background in risk/resource management. Little to no personal skills. Emotional. No front office experience.

Yet somehow the CEO of a billion dollar business thought to give him the reins to his company. It continually blows my mind.

 

[Drink IRON City]

GREAT example deljzc, and yet they kept him on forever! Making less than fair decisions, lost in the wind, picking wide receivers all the time. Maybe these teams get a cut of the pie and are satisfied with that?


Salute the nation

 

[Spike]

We just scooped up the worst ranked punter in the league?

hahahahahaha

I bet they call him "shank" for a reason.

 

[Steel Ballin]

deljzc making a lot of good points. Where's the karma option?

 

[diver]

I read an article today that said if you had thrown all the drafted players into a hat (1st through 7th rounders!) and randomly picked for the Detroit Lions from 2004-2008, you would have yielded better total players than what Matt Millan did.

Again. Ex-player. No educational background in risk/resource management. Little to no personal skills. Emotional. No front office experience.

Yet somehow the CEO of a billion dollar business thought to give him the reins to his company. It continually blows my mind.

Ozzie Newsome. Ex-player. Emotional? Who knows, but if the basis for that is that he is an ex-player, I guess he is. Backgound in risk/resource management? I would guess not. Front office experience? Did he gain much when he was with the Browns? Whatever the case, he has done pretty damn well.

I just don't know what the point is here. Are you saying in some way that Colbert does not deserve his job? I would think that this comes back to the Steelers in some way. I will continue to argue that sometimes you hit on picks, and sometimes you miss. It is just that simple. The example I will use is the same guys that picked the '74 draft made the draft picks from the late 70s through the mid 80s. What, did they get dumb all of the sudden? Or weren't they all that damn smart to begin with and got lucky? It isn't like in '74 they were way high in the draft and it was a bunch of no-brainer picks.

Regardless of what this may sound like, I am not really defending a Colbert or Millen or whomever. I just know, and I am right about this, if you bring someone else in, someone who fulfills all the requirements you set out, what will happen. That is they will hit on some and miss on others, just like most front office people.

 

[Wingman]

Wing as a punter has a nice ring to it, we can then have a wing and a prayer ever time we punt. That will get our special teams noticed yes sir ree.