<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Why Aren&#8217;t Teams Better At Drafting Now?	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.footballperspective.com/why-arent-teams-better-at-drafting-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/why-arent-teams-better-at-drafting-now/</link>
	<description>NFL History and Stats</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:24:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Steve		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/why-arent-teams-better-at-drafting-now/#comment-150214</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=19294#comment-150214</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Chase,

Kevin Meers used your CAV to make a new draft chart over at Harvard Sports Analytics as I&#039;m sure you know. He added a second article using values from that chart to point to over and under achievers. In that second article, he makes mention of how the GB Packers had four of the ten highest over achievers. They were drafted in 1996 through 2000 with only the 97 draft not producing a boomer.
Then in 2001, although not mentioned by Kevin, there is a top ten bust.

Is it any surprise to see ownership moved the coach in to the added position of GM?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chase,</p>
<p>Kevin Meers used your CAV to make a new draft chart over at Harvard Sports Analytics as I&#8217;m sure you know. He added a second article using values from that chart to point to over and under achievers. In that second article, he makes mention of how the GB Packers had four of the ten highest over achievers. They were drafted in 1996 through 2000 with only the 97 draft not producing a boomer.<br />
Then in 2001, although not mentioned by Kevin, there is a top ten bust.</p>
<p>Is it any surprise to see ownership moved the coach in to the added position of GM?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ed		</title>
		<link>http://www.footballperspective.com/why-arent-teams-better-at-drafting-now/#comment-112111</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 18:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=19294#comment-112111</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In your second chart, I&#039;d be willing to bet that your error bars due to yearly variance would eliminate any statistically significant trending that seems to exist.  At least since the 90s, when scouting/drafting theory really started to heat up.

Speaking of the chart, I still don&#039;t quite get what you did.  I understand you calculating a players value from a draft year, but then what are you doing with that number and your draft pick calculator values?  And how is that giving you a fraction that is about .5?  Seriously dude, add some graph axis titles in your posts.  Thanks.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In your second chart, I&#8217;d be willing to bet that your error bars due to yearly variance would eliminate any statistically significant trending that seems to exist.  At least since the 90s, when scouting/drafting theory really started to heat up.</p>
<p>Speaking of the chart, I still don&#8217;t quite get what you did.  I understand you calculating a players value from a draft year, but then what are you doing with that number and your draft pick calculator values?  And how is that giving you a fraction that is about .5?  Seriously dude, add some graph axis titles in your posts.  Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
