mastershake

No, that's not what I'm saying, nor is that what a correlation or relationship implies. There are going to be exceptions as there always are, but generally the relationship holds true. I'm not saying any of what you're saying actually. You're arguing with yourself on those points. It's a correlation, but not a perfect correlation. I pointed out it's 0.77, which means there is a need to do more than purely look at draft grades - the problem I had is you guys were trying to dismiss them when they're actually pretty accurate in terms of making predictions.

And a preface to that correlation is David Wilson's draft grade (being lower than the trend line) is actually skewing the slope downward. If I do the correlation on picks 1-31, excluding Wilson, the slope is smaller y = -0.330x + 97.51 R² = 0.559

Crap, that didn't work. Go to the website. A correlation functions very much like a bell curve at the mean point - so at a given draft order, there's a certain probability that the players draft grade could fall above or below the trend line. At #32, Wilson's grade was below the trend line.... even at higher draft orders, if you project out, the probability would be higher until he feel to about the 40-45th pick. y = -0.347x + 97.69 R² = 0.598

I just said I calculated the correlation from ESPN: Here is the raw data 1 Andrew Luck QB Colts 99 2 Robert Griffin III QB Redskins 97 3 Trent Richardson RB Browns 97 4 Matt Kalil OT Vikings 96 5 Justin Blackmon WR Jaguars 95 6 Morris Claiborne DB Cowboys 97 7 Mark Barron S Buccaneers 95 8 Ryan Tannehill QB Dolphins 94 9 Luke Kuechly ILB Panthers 96 10 Stephon Gilmore DB Bills 93 11 Dontari Poe DT Chiefs 92 12 Fletcher Cox DT Eagles 95 13 Michael Floyd WR Cardinals 93 14 Michael Brockers DT Rams 94 15 Bruce Irvin OLB Seahawks 83 16 Quinton Coples DE Jets 94 17 Dre Kirkpatrick DB Bengals 92 18 Melvin Ingram DE Chargers 93 19 Shea McClellin OLB Bears 92 20 Kendall Wright WR Titans 89 21 Chandler Jones DE Patriots 94 22 Brandon Weeden QB Browns 86 23 Riley Reiff OT Lions 93 24 David DeCastro OG Steelers 93 25 Dont'a Hightower ILB Patriots 91 26 Whitney Mercilus DE Texans 89 27 Kevin Zeitler OG Bengals 88 28 Nick Perry DE Packers 88 29 Harrison Smith S Vikings 89 30 A.J. Jenkins WR 49ers 82 31 Doug Martin RB Buccaneers 90 32 David Wilson RB Giants 84

Yeah, the correlation between grades and draft order.

Haha.... ok ok. It's been fun sparring with you this evening, but you did give me a genuine smile with this. Honestly guys, to sum it up - I hope I'm wrong, and that this conversation is moot. It's probably silly to argue because I think he will be a good player (I just would have liked him and some extra draft picks via trading down).

We're saying two different things. I'm not debating Reese got the guy he wanted. Sure, based on the grades, and the historical correlation between grade and pick order, we likely could have gotten him - nothing is a sure thing, but the high probability (empirically proven) was there.

Really, he's never made a bad pick? Every player he's picked has worked out? haha.

You're banking on 28 guys not having a better career than Wilson?

I've been saying he's not the best player available. Like I said, I don't see what's so hard to understand that they could have drafted him lower.

I'm a statistician. I can tell you're not good with math (or facts).

I just calculated the 1st round correlation of grade vs draft order on ESPN. The correlation is 0.77 which is a high correlation between the two. You're arguing against empirically proven fact.

Plus Osi, you can't ignore the HIGH HISTORICAL CORRELATION between those grades, and NFL success and draft order. That's a proven fact you're trying to deny.

We're talking NFL draft experts and scout grades, not some blog. And most teams aren't operating blindly, they have similar grading systems. Former NFL scouts go to work and make these grades for the syndicated news sites. To put it into perspective. If any of those 28 players turn out to be better than Wilson, I'm right and you're wrong.

You are saying something different. You're saying he's the best player available on the giants board. I'm saying he is not the best player available. Follow?

Backing away from what you said now I see...haha. Nice. Nobody is saying he would be there are 64. Like I said, we could have traded down for him and acquired more picks as well.

Like I said, he was not the best player available, and he was not a value pick, he was a reach. What don't you understand?

I watched NFL.networks coverage. They, like Mel Kiper, love literally every pick. Speaking of NFL.com... yet another site that had at least 15 player graded ahead of Wilson.

Define good value. How is he good value if at least 20 players are rated better, and we could have traded down to get him?

I've seen plenty of experts who bashed the Bush pick at the time. Just because they get one or two wrong doesn't mean the entire trend and efficiency of the grades aren't robust. The grades they give have a high historical correlation with NFL success - and that's not as important as the point here, which is the position we could have drafted him at - and their grades have a high correlation with draft pick order as well. http://sportsillustr...able/index.html CNNSI has 28 players graded better than Wilson. That's just one source - and SI has one of the best grading systems. Like I said, feel free to applaud the pick all you want, but there's no way you can call Wilson the best player available, and not a reach.

Like I said, every site has about 15 players available graded better than Wilson. Say what you will about whether you like the pick or not, but he was not the best player available. Nobody had him graded the best player available where he was drafted, with the other options available.

None of those picks were reaches at the time. In fact quite the opposite for a few - JPP, Webster, and Prince were all rated higher than the # we drafted them at - in fact, many had JPP and Prince in their top 10. Those two could be considered steals. Nicks and Ross were rated at about the # we drafted - late 1st. David Wilson on the other hand was projected 2nd round, and isn't even close to the best player available - he had at least 15 guys generally ahead of him according to CNNSI, ESPN, NFL.com. We could have traded down and still picked him, or picked a better value. If he pans out, and becomes a great rusher, I'll be happy to be wrong in this assessment. Four guys on our starting OL are over the age of 30. Heck, I would have been happy with a C Konz pick as well. Beatty is injury prone, and hasn't shown us anything. I like Petrus too... who else do you have after that? Boothe is a career backup/spot starter, and Brewer is very raw. Plus, there was plenty of middle round RB talent available in this draft, Chris Polk, Turbin, Gray etc. Back to Wilson... in terms of where he fits on the giants with their OL: he can bounce if outside if the middle is clogged, and he's going to need to do this frequently on the giants with the current offensive line we have - unless we get some OL on day 2 and day 3 of the draft.

I'm not happy... we easily could have traded down and picked him... or picked Glenn.

He had all that production while VTech had a line that that didn't really run block all too well on the interior... so he'll fit right in with the gmen who also can't block on the inside, lol.

Watch them draft that CB from North Alabama Janoris Jenkins