Mel Kiper NFL Mock 1.0
-
And that's kind of my problem with it. If it is so well guarded and there is no way for ANYONE to speak about it with any level of certainty, then why are these guys being paid? Well, because people want to hear what they have to say. Why do people want to hear what they have to say? Because they give people the impression that they have some sort of insight the rest of us don't have. Basically, it is dishonest to have it both ways. Either Mel Kiper and the rest of the experts know enough to formulate an educated guess, in which case we should listen to them, or they don't have any more clue than the rest of us and there's no point in listening to them. It doesn't make any sense to say, "Hey! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about here!" and then, when you're proven utterly wrong, to say, "Well, there was no way I could have known. No one could."
-
And that's kind of my problem with it. If it is so well guarded and there is no way for ANYONE to speak about it with any level of certainty, then why are these guys being paid? Well, because people want to hear what they have to say. Why do people want to hear what they have to say? Because they give people the impression that they have some sort of insight the rest of us don't have. Basically, it is dishonest to have it both ways. Either Mel Kiper and the rest of the experts know enough to formulate an educated guess, in which case we should listen to them, or they don't have any more clue than the rest of us and there's no point in listening to them. It doesn't make any sense to say, "Hey! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about here!" and then, when you're proven utterly wrong, to say, "Well, there was no way I could have known. No one could."
And that's kind of my problem with it. If it is so well guarded and there is no way for ANYONE to speak about it with any level of certainty, then why are these guys being paid? Well, because people want to hear what they have to say. Why do people want to hear what they have to say? Because they give people the impression that they have some sort of insight the rest of us don't have. Basically, it is dishonest to have it both ways. Either Mel Kiper and the rest of the experts know enough to formulate an educated guess, in which case we should listen to them, or they don't have any more clue than the rest of us and there's no point in listening to them. It doesn't make any sense to say, "Hey! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about here!" and then, when you're proven utterly wrong, to say, "Well, there was no way I could have known. No one could."
I do think they have much more of an educated guess because I'd hope they take the time to evaluate players based on film, interviews etc. Most people here including myself take our opinions from what others say and a few games we may have watched on TV of a guy. The only thing I'd say again is mock drafts are what people want and so naturally people are going to get paid to do them. It's the same reason Tebow is going to eventually be a lead person on ESPN like Ray Lewis (I'd bet my car on that). If it wasn't Kiper it'd be someone else and it will be once he retires.
-
So now we have a HC with a focus on defense, do we trade up for Downey? Or stay put and grab Barr?
-
We will take the best QB from the bunch and leave the bruised and stunted ones on the shelf.
Which means we will take Derek Carr, who will take us to the playoffs.
He has all the tools from which to draw from; he is mentally strong, has intelligence, a strong arm(a cannon), can make plays with his feet when needed but will give the pocket respect, he is accurate with his throws(gives the WR, and usually only the receiver a chance to make the play, throws it to where the receiver can make a play after the catch, puts good touch on his short throws and a zip on the quick ones) pretty much can flat out make all the throws, he doesn't come with all the hype of being the next R2D2 or Mike Vick, his brother was the number one overall draft pick at a relatively young age so he's grown up around the NFL and understands the business- he's not a young kid from the gutter with stars in his eyes.
I see the younger Carr, Derek doing great things in the future. Not saying that the other QB's will not have success, that would be foolish to pretend to know that, but in Derek Carr you have a young man that wants to be the best to ever play the position, a guy that will do the work needed- both in the classroom and on the field, both in practice and in games. He is our best chance, I believe, at QB.
He would also be a great understudy to a guy like Hoyer. Perfect match made in QB heaven IMO.
-
Derek Carr in early 2nd round?
6'3" with a rocket arm and learn from Hoyer who sat behind Tom Brady for 2 seasons.. Ya, i can dig that.
-
uh oh. derek carr is PoG's new TR.
RUN FOR THE HILLS!!
btw. mel kiper couldn't pick his ass from a hole in the ground.
-
uh oh. derek carr is PoG's new TR.
RUN FOR THE HILLS!!
btw. mel kiper couldn't pick his ass from a hole in the ground.
uh oh. derek carr is PoG's new TR.
RUN FOR THE HILLS!!
btw. mel kiper couldn't pick his ass from a hole in the ground.
Mel is no better or worse than anyone else out there now doing the job that he essentially invented.
-
Mel Kiper Jr?
The same guy that called Manziel a 2nd round pick at BEST in October.
The same guy that rated Geno Smith a top 3 pick in last year's draft.
The same guy that rated B. Gabbert a top 5 pick in 2011 draft.
Take a look at this article and you'll see guys like McShady and Kiper might be no better than your cleaning lady.
-
Mel Kiper Jr?
The same guy that called Manziel a 2nd round pick at BEST in October.
The same guy that rated Geno Smith a top 3 pick in last year's draft.
The same guy that rated B. Gabbert a top 5 pick in 2011 draft.
Take a look at this article and you'll see guys like McShady and Kiper might be no better than your cleaning lady.
Mel Kiper Jr?
The same guy that called Manziel a 2nd round pick at BEST in October.
The same guy that rated Geno Smith a top 3 pick in last year's draft.
The same guy that rated B. Gabbert a top 5 pick in 2011 draft.
Take a look at this article and you'll see guys like McShady and Kiper might be no better than your cleaning lady.
And if any single one of us tried doing their job our efforts would be absolutely no better than your cleaning lady either.
-
Lol, I love (sarcastically) this argument. "You can't do a good job at the professional's job, so you shouldn't criticize him for being bad at it." WHAT?! That's insane. I can't do surgery better than my surgeon, but you best believe I'm going to sue if the guy maims and/or mangles me. The professional has an obligation to be good at his profession. Random people who work in other professions do not have an obligation to be good at the first guy's profession. The "you can't do any better" argument is completely bogus.
-
Lol, I love (sarcastically) this argument. "You can't do a good job at the professional's job, so you shouldn't criticize him for being bad at it." WHAT?! That's insane. I can't do surgery better than my surgeon, but you best believe I'm going to sue if the guy maims and/or mangles me. The professional has an obligation to be good at his profession. Random people who work in other professions do not have an obligation to be good at the first guy's profession. The "you can't do any better" argument is completely bogus.
Lol, I love (sarcastically) this argument. "You can't do a good job at the professional's job, so you shouldn't criticize him for being bad at it." WHAT?! That's insane. I can't do surgery better than my surgeon, but you best believe I'm going to sue if the guy maims and/or mangles me. The professional has an obligation to be good at his profession. Random people who work in other professions do not have an obligation to be good at the first guy's profession. The "you can't do any better" argument is completely bogus.
That's really an apples to oranges argument. Surgeons have very precise, medical training that is factual in nature. Weather people are wrong half the time too, it doesn't mean they are bad at their job. Doing any sort of mock draft is extremely unpredictable, as well as scouting players. I'm not trying to say I have a love affair with the guy but you don't stay in the business as long as Kiper has by being bad at what you do. He's also in a crappy position where people only like to point out when he's wrong, when he's right a lot of the time too.
-
Lol, I love (sarcastically) this argument. "You can't do a good job at the professional's job, so you shouldn't criticize him for being bad at it." WHAT?! That's insane. I can't do surgery better than my surgeon, but you best believe I'm going to sue if the guy maims and/or mangles me. The professional has an obligation to be good at his profession. Random people who work in other professions do not have an obligation to be good at the first guy's profession. The "you can't do any better" argument is completely bogus.
Lol, I love (sarcastically) this argument. "You can't do a good job at the professional's job, so you shouldn't criticize him for being bad at it." WHAT?! That's insane. I can't do surgery better than my surgeon, but you best believe I'm going to sue if the guy maims and/or mangles me. The professional has an obligation to be good at his profession. Random people who work in other professions do not have an obligation to be good at the first guy's profession. The "you can't do any better" argument is completely bogus.
OK, so: As far as I am concerned Mel Kiper is better at his job than anyone in America. So, does that satisfy your criteria?
-
You're both missing my point. You didn't like the surgeon analogy? Okay, let's use one that is more equivalent, then, like the meteorologist one.
I work in field that deals with research and theory. In my field, when you're wrong, people point it out publicly and at great length. Even though it is a theoretical field, and there may be no way of knowing that one is wrong at the time a particular theory is offered, the people in that field are still held accountable and are subject to criticism when they are wrong. We accept this as one of the many expected aspects of our field. We all knew it coming in, and we chose to enter the field anyway, knowing that we would all probably someday be called out for theorizing something that later turned out to be wrong.
That's my point with guys in positions like Kiper's. Obviously, no one is going to always be right in his position. Obviously, he's right more often than your average lay person. However, that does not entitle him to be wrong about his predictions without fear of criticism. Being the target of and accepting criticism when your theories/predictions are proven wrong is a known part of the position he accepted. If anything, this makes it MORE acceptable to criticize him, not less.
When you work in a field that calls for you to make predictions or formulate theories, your predictions and theories are expected to be correct, even though there's a reasonable chance you could be mistaken. When those theories/predictions are not correct, you and/or your work may become the target of criticism. That is an inherent peril of those types of jobs. If you accept a position like that, it does indeed become "fair" for people who do not accept positions like that to criticize you for being incorrect.
-
You're both missing my point. You didn't like the surgeon analogy? Okay, let's use one that is more equivalent, then, like the meteorologist one.
I work in field that deals with research and theory. In my field, when you're wrong, people point it out publicly and at great length. Even though it is a theoretical field, and there may be no way of knowing that one is wrong at the time a particular theory is offered, the people in that field are still held accountable and are subject to criticism when they are wrong. We accept this as one of the many expected aspects of our field. We all knew it coming in, and we chose to enter the field anyway, knowing that we would all probably someday be called out for theorizing something that later turned out to be wrong.
That's my point with guys in positions like Kiper's. Obviously, no one is going to always be right in his position. Obviously, he's right more often than your average lay person. However, that does not entitle him to be wrong about his predictions without fear of criticism. Being the target of and accepting criticism when your theories/predictions are proven wrong is a known part of the position he accepted. If anything, this makes it MORE acceptable to criticize him, not less.
When you work in a field that calls for you to make predictions or formulate theories, your predictions and theories are expected to be correct, even though there's a reasonable chance you could be mistaken. When those theories/predictions are not correct, you and/or your work may become the target of criticism. That is an inherent peril of those types of jobs. If you accept a position like that, it does indeed become "fair" for people who do not accept positions like that to criticize you for being incorrect.
You're both missing my point. You didn't like the surgeon analogy? Okay, let's use one that is more equivalent, then, like the meteorologist one.
I work in field that deals with research and theory. In my field, when you're wrong, people point it out publicly and at great length. Even though it is a theoretical field, and there may be no way of knowing that one is wrong at the time a particular theory is offered, the people in that field are still held accountable and are subject to criticism when they are wrong. We accept this as one of the many expected aspects of our field. We all knew it coming in, and we chose to enter the field anyway, knowing that we would all probably someday be called out for theorizing something that later turned out to be wrong.
That's my point with guys in positions like Kiper's. Obviously, no one is going to always be right in his position. Obviously, he's right more often than your average lay person. However, that does not entitle him to be wrong about his predictions without fear of criticism. Being the target of and accepting criticism when your theories/predictions are proven wrong is a known part of the position he accepted. If anything, this makes it MORE acceptable to criticize him, not less.
When you work in a field that calls for you to make predictions or formulate theories, your predictions and theories are expected to be correct, even though there's a reasonable chance you could be mistaken. When those theories/predictions are not correct, you and/or your work may become the target of criticism. That is an inherent peril of those types of jobs. If you accept a position like that, it does indeed become "fair" for people who do not accept positions like that to criticize you for being incorrect.
I don't disagree but I never said that he didn't deserve criticism to begin with, of course he does. But what you're missing is that Kiper's real job is to provide entertainment value to fans. I guarantee no NFL team listens to Kiper's draft and base their draft strategy around it. His real value to ESPN is to get on TV and make the viewers happy, which he's done well for 20+ years.
My personal favorite memory of Kiper is the year Clausen was drafted. He had such a boner for the guy and when it was obvious he was terrible Kiper looked like someone killed his dog.
-
What? I don't follow. I didn't say anything (one way or the other) about NFL teams listening to Kiper or Kiper providing entertainment to fans. I said it was silly to say that you can't criticize someone who makes predictions for a living for being wrong, and I said that it was silly to support that argument by saying, "Well, YOU can't do better!" to someone who is not a professional forecaster on that topic.
I'm not missing Kiper's entertainment value; it just wasn't what we were discussing.
-
Mel is no better or worse than anyone else out there now doing the job that he essentially invented.
Agree...
Also agree that Mel would make a lousy surgeon...
-
gipper's just in love with his hair.
the guy is a tool. so i'm the most prolific personality for the upcoming pro football draft every year, and my mock drafts and opinions change every day, because i'm getting new information from some agent that just bought me an 8 ball allowing me to sniff a 5' line of blow off this hooker's ass?
same thing in the old day's of the radio game. agent brings in dope and cash and make sure you play my bands single every hour at the same time everyday until america realizes the band sucks, then on to another band and agent agent.
crazy man!
-
Carr does look pretty good there. That first set of highlights made me want Davante Adams more than Derek Carr, though.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login