There are 202 users in the forums
Originally posted by OnTheClock:Preliminary calculations are in...
Minimum goal to meet: 80% or higher on number of players predicted to be selected.
Players correctly projected to be drafted: 207 out of 256
Overall collective selection accuracy: 81%
Not a failure, but I feel I could've done much better. Very tough with such a deep draft. I expect MadDog will post his numbers soon. We'll see who the Draft King is this year.
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Preliminary calculations are in...
Minimum goal to meet: 80% or higher on number of players predicted to be selected.
Players correctly projected to be drafted: 207 out of 256
Overall collective selection accuracy: 81%
Not a failure, but I feel I could've done much better. Very tough with such a deep draft. I expect MadDog will post his numbers soon. We'll see who the Draft King is this year.
Originally posted by OnTheClock:Preliminary calculations are in...
Minimum goal to meet: 80% or higher on number of players predicted to be selected.
Players correctly projected to be drafted: 207 out of 256
Overall collective selection accuracy: 81%
Not a failure, but I feel I could've done much better. Very tough with such a deep draft. I expect MadDog will post his numbers soon. We'll see who the Draft King is this year.
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:Originally posted by OnTheClock:Preliminary calculations are in...
Minimum goal to meet: 80% or higher on number of players predicted to be selected.
Players correctly projected to be drafted: 207 out of 256
Overall collective selection accuracy: 81%
Not a failure, but I feel I could've done much better. Very tough with such a deep draft. I expect MadDog will post his numbers soon. We'll see who the Draft King is this year.
Not sure if guessing the late round players that will be drafted makes you the draft king, but it was impressive how similar his board seemed to be to the 49ers board early on.
Originally posted by GEEK:Originally posted by OnTheClock:Preliminary calculations are in...
Minimum goal to meet: 80% or higher on number of players predicted to be selected.
Players correctly projected to be drafted: 207 out of 256
Overall collective selection accuracy: 81%
Not a failure, but I feel I could've done much better. Very tough with such a deep draft. I expect MadDog will post his numbers soon. We'll see who the Draft King is this year.
That's damn good in my opinion - look at the run on WRs, early run on CBs, lack of RBs within the first 50 picks, disparity in QBs, etc.
When you factor all that in, along with insider info in terms of medical and off-field issues, 81% is DAMN good.
Congrats OTC - that's true zone cred right there that verifies your evaluation skills.
Originally posted by buck:Your big board is useful. It challenges my perceptions and makes me reconsider my evaluations.
Thank you for the board and the time and energy that you spend putting it together.
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Preliminary calculations are in...
Minimum goal to meet: 80% or higher on number of players predicted to be selected.
Players correctly projected to be drafted: 207 out of 256
Overall collective selection accuracy: 81%
Not a failure, but I feel I could've done much better. Very tough with such a deep draft. I expect MadDog will post his numbers soon. We'll see who the Draft King is this year.
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:For fun, I considered every player that was not picked the 300th selection (300 was arbitrary, but I didn't think it was fair to consider them all 257). Then I looked at how far off each projection was on MD and OTC's big board and added the sums for every pick. MD came out ahead being off 13132 places (an average of 51.3 per pick). OTC was off 13527 places (an average of 52.8 per pick). CBS came in between them being off 13296 places (an average of 51.9 per pick).
