Mel Kiper NFL Mock 1.0
-
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.
-
Can't dispute that arm. His deep pass look 'effortless'. I like him over ____, who looks like he's launching a shot-put.
-
Ice Dawg19 said:
Watch the highlights of him vs USC. You might change your mind.
Yea yea he had a bad game. I still think he has some great potential.
I'm starting to doubt he falls to #26 though and I don't think he's worth #4.
-
only thing wrong about carr is his last name carr.
-
Not Fags.pghbigkev said:
Question, if the Steelers are "fags" as posted with our pick, what does that make the Browns? .
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
Not Fags.
Thank you for clearing that up, now kiss me!
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