Catching on? Drafting a wide receiver in 1st round no sure fix
-
I wonder how many of those busts were guys who were overdrafted based on insane measurables. And how many guys busted due to poor hands, which isn't an issue with Crabtree.
-
As I've said before with regards to drafting players in the first round, the stats only tell us what we want to hear.
Have there been more busts at WR than great players taken in the first round? Sure. Have there been more busts than great players at QB? RB? OT? Also yes. Where is the statistical breakdown of all players? Do OTs taken in the first round go to the Pro Bowl at a higher rate?
At the very most, what has happened with players taken in the past tells us that, if you could go back in time, you would probably want to pass on Mike Williams. It tells us nothing of Michael Crabtree. You would want to take Peyton Manning, but that tells us nothing of Matthew Stafford.
I'm as much a fan of history and statistics as anyone, but we have to realize that they have their limitations. When it comes to deciding which player to draft, any conversation about, say, Michael Crabtree should begin with his production at Texas Tech, continue with his foot injury, and then proceed to his football IQ. Mike Williams or any other WR bust shouldn't come up until maybe eight minutes into the conversation, and then only if everyone has gotten bored.
Dennis
-
As I've said before with regards to drafting players in the first round, the stats only tell us what we want to hear.
Have there been more busts at WR than great players taken in the first round? Sure. Have there been more busts than great players at QB? RB? OT? Also yes. Where is the statistical breakdown of all players? Do OTs taken in the first round go to the Pro Bowl at a higher rate?
At the very most, what has happened with players taken in the past tells us that, if you could go back in time, you would probably want to pass on Mike Williams. It tells us nothing of Michael Crabtree. You would want to take Peyton Manning, but that tells us nothing of Matthew Stafford.
I'm as much a fan of history and statistics as anyone, but we have to realize that they have their limitations. When it comes to deciding which player to draft, any conversation about, say, Michael Crabtree should begin with his production at Texas Tech, continue with his foot injury, and then proceed to his football IQ. Mike Williams or any other WR bust shouldn't come up until maybe eight minutes into the conversation, and then only if everyone has gotten bored.
Dennis
As I've said before with regards to drafting players in the first round, the stats only tell us what we want to hear.
Have there been more busts at WR than great players taken in the first round? Sure. Have there been more busts than great players at QB? RB? OT? Also yes. Where is the statistical breakdown of all players? Do OTs taken in the first round go to the Pro Bowl at a higher rate?
Dennis
Successful OT's in the first round are a well know fact. Of the last 16 OT's taken in the first round only two have been complete bust. One has been moved to guard while the other 13 are still with their original teams.
-
As I've said before with regards to drafting players in the first round, the stats only tell us what we want to hear.
Have there been more busts at WR than great players taken in the first round? Sure. Have there been more busts than great players at QB? RB? OT? Also yes. Where is the statistical breakdown of all players? Do OTs taken in the first round go to the Pro Bowl at a higher rate?
At the very most, what has happened with players taken in the past tells us that, if you could go back in time, you would probably want to pass on Mike Williams. It tells us nothing of Michael Crabtree. You would want to take Peyton Manning, but that tells us nothing of Matthew Stafford.
I'm as much a fan of history and statistics as anyone, but we have to realize that they have their limitations. When it comes to deciding which player to draft, any conversation about, say, Michael Crabtree should begin with his production at Texas Tech, continue with his foot injury, and then proceed to his football IQ. Mike Williams or any other WR bust shouldn't come up until maybe eight minutes into the conversation, and then only if everyone has gotten bored.
Dennis
I'm as much a fan of history and statistics as anyone, but we have to realize that they have their limitations. When it comes to deciding which player to draft, any conversation about, say, Michael Crabtree should begin with his production at Texas Tech, continue with his foot injury, and then proceed to his football IQ. Mike Williams or any other WR bust shouldn't come up until maybe eight minutes into the conversation, and then only if everyone has gotten bored.
Dennis
His college production (stats) gives you an idea of what he can do....Your point actually goes againt the point you are trying to make.
-
I'm as much a fan of history and statistics as anyone, but we have to realize that they have their limitations. When it comes to deciding which player to draft, any conversation about, say, Michael Crabtree should begin with his production at Texas Tech, continue with his foot injury, and then proceed to his football IQ. Mike Williams or any other WR bust shouldn't come up until maybe eight minutes into the conversation, and then only if everyone has gotten bored.
Dennis
His college production (stats) gives you an idea of what he can do....Your point actually goes againt the point you are trying to make.
oldcow1945 said:
His college production (stats) gives you an idea of what he can do....Your point actually goes againt the point you are trying to make.I'm not sure how. If anything, even if you look at his college production, you're supporting my point that it's what Crabtree did that is relevant, not what Robert Meachem did.
Dennis
-
oldcow1945 said:
His college production (stats) gives you an idea of what he can do....Your point actually goes againt the point you are trying to make.I'm not sure how. If anything, even if you look at his college production, you're supporting my point that it's what Crabtree did that is relevant, not what Robert Meachem did.
Dennis
I'm not sure how. If anything, even if you look at his college production, you're supporting my point that it's what Crabtree did that is relevant, not what Robert Meachem did.
Dennis
You say stats have their limitations and then you mention them first by saying we should look at them to guage what he has done at TT. Followed by his Injury and then his Football IQ.
-
As I've said before with regards to drafting players in the first round, the stats only tell us what we want to hear.
Have there been more busts at WR than great players taken in the first round? Sure. Have there been more busts than great players at QB? RB? OT? Also yes. Where is the statistical breakdown of all players? Do OTs taken in the first round go to the Pro Bowl at a higher rate?
At the very most, what has happened with players taken in the past tells us that, if you could go back in time, you would probably want to pass on Mike Williams. It tells us nothing of Michael Crabtree. You would want to take Peyton Manning, but that tells us nothing of Matthew Stafford.
I'm as much a fan of history and statistics as anyone, but we have to realize that they have their limitations. When it comes to deciding which player to draft, any conversation about, say, Michael Crabtree should begin with his production at Texas Tech, continue with his foot injury, and then proceed to his football IQ. Mike Williams or any other WR bust shouldn't come up until maybe eight minutes into the conversation, and then only if everyone has gotten bored.
Dennis
At the very most, what has happened with players taken in the past tells us that, if you could go back in time, you would probably want to pass on Mike Williams. It tells us nothing of Michael Crabtree. You would want to take Peyton Manning, but that tells us nothing of Matthew Stafford.
Dennis
You are looking at it at a personal level and I'm looking at it at a positional level.
I think WR's are often the same as College QB's as far as not being able to translate their college success into success at the NFL level. There are a multitude of reasons for this. We see it in Qb's all the time. Quarterback Heisman winner after Quarterback Heisman winner either gets drafted low or if they do manage to get drafted high they often become busts.
Their game doesn't translate well into the NFL game. My point is that the WR postion is often the same.
It's not personal. We may not be able to look at Mike Williams personally and decide he is not going to translate into a fine NFL WR. I'm saying that the positional production one has in college does not translate into success at the NFL level just like the great college Qb's production does not.
In short, The stats I use are not personal....They instead look at the history and drafting a WR is inherently very, very risky.
-
Just out of curiosity, I looked at the QBs that have been drafted in the first round since 2000 to see how the Pro Bowl/Bust ratio worked out. Here is what I found:
23 QBs selected:
2000
Chad Pennington--Decent career, on his second team, no Pro Bowls
2001
Michael Vick--Went to the Pro Bowl, re-invented the QB position, currently employed elsewhere
2002
David Carr--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Joey Harrington--On his fourth team, no Pro Bowls
Patrick Ramsey--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
2003
Carson Palmer--Very good when healthy, two Pro Bowls
Byron Leftwich--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Kyle Boller--Got beaten out by cross-eyed midget Troy Smith. Surprisingly, no Pro Bowls
Rex Grossman--Actually plays both ways for the Bears. Plays QB, then puts on blackface and returns kicks as Devin Hester. As such, carried the Bears to the Super Bowl. Still, no Pro Bowls
2004--Otherwise known as what people were looking for in the QB class of 1999
Eli Manning--Super Bowl champ and Pro Bowler, which almost makes up for what collosal tools he and his daddy were on draft day
Phillip Rivers--Pro Bowler, has Ladanian Tomlinson around for people to blame when he throws three picks in a playoff game
Ben Roethliisberger--Pro Bowler, joins Hines Ward and Rod Woodson as Steelers Browns fans love to bash but would also secretly wish the team had drafted
J.P. Losman--Currently without a team, no Pro Bowls
2005
Alex Smith--No Pro Bowls
Aaron Rodgers--Decent start, no Pro Bowls
Jason Campbell--No Pro Bowls
2006
Vince Young--Oddly enough, a Pro Bowl
Matt Leinart--Can't use a condom, can't go to the Pro Bowl
Jay Cutler--Pro Bowl
2007
JaMarcus Russell--Makes Sebastian Janikowski look svelte, no Pro Bowls
Brady Quinn--Only pro accomplishment: beating out Ken Dorsey for #2. No Pro Bowls
2008
Matt Ryan--Probably should have gone, but no Pro Bowl
Joe Flacco--Ditto
So, 23 QBs 7 of whom have gone to the Pro Bowl. A better percentage? Yes. Does that tell us anything about Matthew Stafford? Nope. Sanchez? Nope. That other QB that will go in the first round? Nope.
Good teams don't take WRs? No, good teams don't take busts. Look at it this way--the Lions drafted Joey Harrington, then fifteen WRs before they finally got rid of Harrington (and half the WRs). If they take Stafford, they'll still suck. Is it because they took WRs? No, it's because they're the Lions. They could draft Jesus and it wouldn't work out.
Dennis
-
I'm not sure how. If anything, even if you look at his college production, you're supporting my point that it's what Crabtree did that is relevant, not what Robert Meachem did.
Dennis
You say stats have their limitations and then you mention them first by saying we should look at them to guage what he has done at TT. Followed by his Injury and then his Football IQ.
oldcow1945 said:
You say stats have their limitations and then you mention them first by saying we should look at them to guage what he has done at TT. Followed by his Injury and then his Football IQ.I should have been clearer by stats. What I meant was the conversation starter, the 7 Pro Bowlers in 40 picks, or whatever it was. His stats absolutely should come up.
Dennis
-
That Donte guy from 2002 rings a bell....ppppffffttttt!!!!
-
Just out of curiosity, I looked at the QBs that have been drafted in the first round since 2000 to see how the Pro Bowl/Bust ratio worked out. Here is what I found:
23 QBs selected:
2000
Chad Pennington--Decent career, on his second team, no Pro Bowls
2001
Michael Vick--Went to the Pro Bowl, re-invented the QB position, currently employed elsewhere
2002
David Carr--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Joey Harrington--On his fourth team, no Pro Bowls
Patrick Ramsey--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
2003
Carson Palmer--Very good when healthy, two Pro Bowls
Byron Leftwich--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Kyle Boller--Got beaten out by cross-eyed midget Troy Smith. Surprisingly, no Pro Bowls
Rex Grossman--Actually plays both ways for the Bears. Plays QB, then puts on blackface and returns kicks as Devin Hester. As such, carried the Bears to the Super Bowl. Still, no Pro Bowls
2004--Otherwise known as what people were looking for in the QB class of 1999
Eli Manning--Super Bowl champ and Pro Bowler, which almost makes up for what collosal tools he and his daddy were on draft day
Phillip Rivers--Pro Bowler, has Ladanian Tomlinson around for people to blame when he throws three picks in a playoff game
Ben Roethliisberger--Pro Bowler, joins Hines Ward and Rod Woodson as Steelers Browns fans love to bash but would also secretly wish the team had drafted
J.P. Losman--Currently without a team, no Pro Bowls
2005
Alex Smith--No Pro Bowls
Aaron Rodgers--Decent start, no Pro Bowls
Jason Campbell--No Pro Bowls
2006
Vince Young--Oddly enough, a Pro Bowl
Matt Leinart--Can't use a condom, can't go to the Pro Bowl
Jay Cutler--Pro Bowl
2007
JaMarcus Russell--Makes Sebastian Janikowski look svelte, no Pro Bowls
Brady Quinn--Only pro accomplishment: beating out Ken Dorsey for #2. No Pro Bowls
2008
Matt Ryan--Probably should have gone, but no Pro Bowl
Joe Flacco--Ditto
So, 23 QBs 7 of whom have gone to the Pro Bowl. A better percentage? Yes. Does that tell us anything about Matthew Stafford? Nope. Sanchez? Nope. That other QB that will go in the first round? Nope.
Good teams don't take WRs? No, good teams don't take busts. Look at it this way--the Lions drafted Joey Harrington, then fifteen WRs before they finally got rid of Harrington (and half the WRs). If they take Stafford, they'll still suck. Is it because they took WRs? No, it's because they're the Lions. They could draft Jesus and it wouldn't work out.
Dennis
Just out of curiosity, I looked at the QBs that have been drafted in the first round since 2000 to see how the Pro Bowl/Bust ratio worked out. Here is what I found:
23 QBs selected:
2000
Chad Pennington--Decent career, on his second team, no Pro Bowls
2001
Michael Vick--Went to the Pro Bowl, re-invented the QB position, currently employed elsewhere
2002
David Carr--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Joey Harrington--On his fourth team, no Pro Bowls
Patrick Ramsey--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
2003
Carson Palmer--Very good when healthy, two Pro Bowls
Byron Leftwich--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Kyle Boller--Got beaten out by cross-eyed midget Troy Smith. Surprisingly, no Pro Bowls
Rex Grossman--Actually plays both ways for the Bears. Plays QB, then puts on blackface and returns kicks as Devin Hester. As such, carried the Bears to the Super Bowl. Still, no Pro Bowls
2004--Otherwise known as what people were looking for in the QB class of 1999
Eli Manning--Super Bowl champ and Pro Bowler, which almost makes up for what collosal tools he and his daddy were on draft day
Phillip Rivers--Pro Bowler, has Ladanian Tomlinson around for people to blame when he throws three picks in a playoff game
Ben Roethliisberger--Pro Bowler, joins Hines Ward and Rod Woodson as Steelers Browns fans love to bash but would also secretly wish the team had drafted
J.P. Losman--Currently without a team, no Pro Bowls
2005
Alex Smith--No Pro Bowls
Aaron Rodgers--Decent start, no Pro Bowls
Jason Campbell--No Pro Bowls
2006
Vince Young--Oddly enough, a Pro Bowl
Matt Leinart--Can't use a condom, can't go to the Pro Bowl
Jay Cutler--Pro Bowl
2007
JaMarcus Russell--Makes Sebastian Janikowski look svelte, no Pro Bowls
Brady Quinn--Only pro accomplishment: beating out Ken Dorsey for #2. No Pro Bowls
2008
Matt Ryan--Probably should have gone, but no Pro Bowl
Joe Flacco--Ditto
So, 23 QBs 7 of whom have gone to the Pro Bowl. A better percentage? Yes. Does that tell us anything about Matthew Stafford? Nope. Sanchez? Nope. That other QB that will go in the first round? Nope.
Good teams don't take WRs? No, good teams don't take busts. Look at it this way--the Lions drafted Joey Harrington, then fifteen WRs before they finally got rid of Harrington (and half the WRs). If they take Stafford, they'll still suck. Is it because they took WRs? No, it's because they're the Lions. They could draft Jesus and it wouldn't work out.
Dennis
I have no idea what drafting Qb's in the 1st round means when it comes to drafting WR's in the 1st round. You completely lost me there.
But your last statement is the most obvious of all.....Of course teams will be bad when their draft picks do not work out.
That is obvious. Draft well and you'll be ok. Draft poorly and you'll be bad. That's obvious. I'm unsure of your point. Unless you are simply refering to certain franchises having a history of bad management... But again, none of this speaks to my point about it being a positional thing and not a personal thing.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
-
Just out of curiosity, I looked at the QBs that have been drafted in the first round since 2000 to see how the Pro Bowl/Bust ratio worked out. Here is what I found:
23 QBs selected:
2000
Chad Pennington--Decent career, on his second team, no Pro Bowls
2001
Michael Vick--Went to the Pro Bowl, re-invented the QB position, currently employed elsewhere
2002
David Carr--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Joey Harrington--On his fourth team, no Pro Bowls
Patrick Ramsey--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
2003
Carson Palmer--Very good when healthy, two Pro Bowls
Byron Leftwich--On his third team, no Pro Bowls
Kyle Boller--Got beaten out by cross-eyed midget Troy Smith. Surprisingly, no Pro Bowls
Rex Grossman--Actually plays both ways for the Bears. Plays QB, then puts on blackface and returns kicks as Devin Hester. As such, carried the Bears to the Super Bowl. Still, no Pro Bowls
2004--Otherwise known as what people were looking for in the QB class of 1999
Eli Manning--Super Bowl champ and Pro Bowler, which almost makes up for what collosal tools he and his daddy were on draft day
Phillip Rivers--Pro Bowler, has Ladanian Tomlinson around for people to blame when he throws three picks in a playoff game
Ben Roethliisberger--Pro Bowler, joins Hines Ward and Rod Woodson as Steelers Browns fans love to bash but would also secretly wish the team had drafted
J.P. Losman--Currently without a team, no Pro Bowls
2005
Alex Smith--No Pro Bowls
Aaron Rodgers--Decent start, no Pro Bowls
Jason Campbell--No Pro Bowls
2006
Vince Young--Oddly enough, a Pro Bowl
Matt Leinart--Can't use a condom, can't go to the Pro Bowl
Jay Cutler--Pro Bowl
2007
JaMarcus Russell--Makes Sebastian Janikowski look svelte, no Pro Bowls
Brady Quinn--Only pro accomplishment: beating out Ken Dorsey for #2. No Pro Bowls
2008
Matt Ryan--Probably should have gone, but no Pro Bowl
Joe Flacco--Ditto
So, 23 QBs 7 of whom have gone to the Pro Bowl. A better percentage? Yes. Does that tell us anything about Matthew Stafford? Nope. Sanchez? Nope. That other QB that will go in the first round? Nope.
Good teams don't take WRs? No, good teams don't take busts. Look at it this way--the Lions drafted Joey Harrington, then fifteen WRs before they finally got rid of Harrington (and half the WRs). If they take Stafford, they'll still suck. Is it because they took WRs? No, it's because they're the Lions. They could draft Jesus and it wouldn't work out.
Dennis
I have no idea what drafting Qb's in the 1st round means when it comes to drafting WR's in the 1st round. You completely lost me there.
But your last statement is the most obvious of all.....Of course teams will be bad when their draft picks do not work out.
That is obvious. Draft well and you'll be ok. Draft poorly and you'll be bad. That's obvious. I'm unsure of your point. Unless you are simply refering to certain franchises having a history of bad management... But again, none of this speaks to my point about it being a positional thing and not a personal thing.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
oldcow1945 said:
I have no idea what drafting Qb's in the 1st round means when it comes to drafting WR's in the 1st round. You completely lost me there.But your last statement is the most obvious of all.....Of course teams will be bad when their draft picks do not work out.
That is obvious. Draft well and you'll be ok. Draft poorly and you'll be bad. That's obvious. I'm unsure of your point. Unless you are simply refering to certain franchises having a history of bad management... But again, none of this speaks to my point about it being a positional thing and not a personal thing.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
My point with the QB breakdown is directly related to the original post in the thread, which referred to a story that, if I may be so bold as to boil it down to its main point, argued that you shouldn't take a WR in the first round, because the numbers show that most of them are busts (as always, without explaining what "bust" and it's besteroided cousin, the "major bust," mean). My point was that picking one position over another because of what a guy drafted in 2000 simply doesn't make sense. My final point--on the Lions--was about how bad teams skew the numbers; the Lions draft fifteen WRs in the first round, all of them bust, and everyone howls, "Look, twenty WRs have been drafted in the first round, and sixteen of them have been busts!" while ignoring the big statistical outlier.
Also, I'm slightly confused as to how my argument can be simultaneously head-slappingly obvious and obscure.
Dennis
-
I am not sold on crabtree at all or fully sold on any other WR this year...gut instinct tells me crabtree will bust and if we had to take a WR maclin will be an above average durable WR with some fringe benifits...fortunately we will get a LB instead which also doesnt give us a sure fix there either since curry will be gone...
-
It is interesting we have 2 young WR's, one drafted 3rd overall and the other 13th overall and we're looking for another.
As far as the offense goes, not sure I wouldn't prefer getting another O-lineman with a DA traded draft pick and concentrating on D otherwise.
-
oldcow1945 said:
I have no idea what drafting Qb's in the 1st round means when it comes to drafting WR's in the 1st round. You completely lost me there.But your last statement is the most obvious of all.....Of course teams will be bad when their draft picks do not work out.
That is obvious. Draft well and you'll be ok. Draft poorly and you'll be bad. That's obvious. I'm unsure of your point. Unless you are simply refering to certain franchises having a history of bad management... But again, none of this speaks to my point about it being a positional thing and not a personal thing.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
My point with the QB breakdown is directly related to the original post in the thread, which referred to a story that, if I may be so bold as to boil it down to its main point, argued that you shouldn't take a WR in the first round, because the numbers show that most of them are busts (as always, without explaining what "bust" and it's besteroided cousin, the "major bust," mean). My point was that picking one position over another because of what a guy drafted in 2000 simply doesn't make sense. My final point--on the Lions--was about how bad teams skew the numbers; the Lions draft fifteen WRs in the first round, all of them bust, and everyone howls, "Look, twenty WRs have been drafted in the first round, and sixteen of them have been busts!" while ignoring the big statistical outlier.
Also, I'm slightly confused as to how my argument can be simultaneously head-slappingly obvious and obscure.
Dennis
My point with the QB breakdown is directly related to the original post in the thread, which referred to a story that, if I may be so bold as to boil it down to its main point, argued that you shouldn't take a WR in the first round, because the numbers show that most of them are busts (as always, without explaining what "bust" and it's besteroided cousin, the "major bust," mean). My point was that picking one position over another because of what a guy drafted in 2000 simply doesn't make sense. My final point--on the Lions--was about how bad teams skew the numbers; the Lions draft fifteen WRs in the first round, all of them bust, and everyone howls, "Look, twenty WRs have been drafted in the first round, and sixteen of them have been busts!" while ignoring the big statistical outlier.
Also, I'm slightly confused as to how my argument can be simultaneously head-slappingly obvious and obscure.
Dennis
I guess Lions coach and long Time Titan Defensive coordinator doesn't make sense then. It's not something I came up with on my own. It was he who talked about this very thing concerning OT's taken in the first round. His point was the same as mine. That history shows what positions are solid #1's and that a team needs to be sure with that #1 pick.
Schwartz is a 'Stat" guy in the truest sense. He breaks down everything into numbers. You are arguing with one of the greatest defenive minds in the game today.
You are coming up with terms in this dicussion that I never used. The stats I used only made reference to "busts". Again, I have no idea where you are coming up with this. Out of no where the discussion turned to "Bust" and "Major busts".
The 14 bust of the 40 1st round picks in the last ten years I made reference to are those that are out of football today.
I believe firmly that failure to learn from history condemns you to repeat it. The Lions should know this more than anyone.
It's like going to Vegas. A person may know a lot of people that have gone to Vegas and have lost money, but this person is convinced that he will not lose because he is a different person. It doesn't matter what the odds have shown. That is a huge risk and the odds have shown (And Vegas itself is proof) that he is going to lose too.
I never said your points were obscure. I said they were were obvious. You said bad teams make bad picks. The obvious result of bad picks are bad teams. There is nothing more obvious than that.
-
My point with the QB breakdown is directly related to the original post in the thread, which referred to a story that, if I may be so bold as to boil it down to its main point, argued that you shouldn't take a WR in the first round, because the numbers show that most of them are busts (as always, without explaining what "bust" and it's besteroided cousin, the "major bust," mean). My point was that picking one position over another because of what a guy drafted in 2000 simply doesn't make sense. My final point--on the Lions--was about how bad teams skew the numbers; the Lions draft fifteen WRs in the first round, all of them bust, and everyone howls, "Look, twenty WRs have been drafted in the first round, and sixteen of them have been busts!" while ignoring the big statistical outlier.
Also, I'm slightly confused as to how my argument can be simultaneously head-slappingly obvious and obscure.
Dennis
I guess Lions coach and long Time Titan Defensive coordinator doesn't make sense then. It's not something I came up with on my own. It was he who talked about this very thing concerning OT's taken in the first round. His point was the same as mine. That history shows what positions are solid #1's and that a team needs to be sure with that #1 pick.
Schwartz is a 'Stat" guy in the truest sense. He breaks down everything into numbers. You are arguing with one of the greatest defenive minds in the game today.
You are coming up with terms in this dicussion that I never used. The stats I used only made reference to "busts". Again, I have no idea where you are coming up with this. Out of no where the discussion turned to "Bust" and "Major busts".
The 14 bust of the 40 1st round picks in the last ten years I made reference to are those that are out of football today.
I believe firmly that failure to learn from history condemns you to repeat it. The Lions should know this more than anyone.
It's like going to Vegas. A person may know a lot of people that have gone to Vegas and have lost money, but this person is convinced that he will not lose because he is a different person. It doesn't matter what the odds have shown. That is a huge risk and the odds have shown (And Vegas itself is proof) that he is going to lose too.
I never said your points were obscure. I said they were were obvious. You said bad teams make bad picks. The obvious result of bad picks are bad teams. There is nothing more obvious than that.
oldcow1945 said:
I guess Lions coach and long Time Titan Defensive coordinator doesn't make sense then. It's not something I came up with on my own. It was he who talked about this very thing concerning OT's taken in the first round. His point was the same as mine. That history shows what positions are solid #1's and that a team needs to be sure with that #1 pick.Schwartz is a 'Stat" guy in the truest sense. He breaks down everything into numbers. You are arguing with one of the greatest defenive minds in the game today.
I never said your points were obscure. I said they were were obvious. You said bad teams make bad picks. The obvious result of bad picks are bad teams. There is nothing more obvious than that.
I wasn't aware that I was responding to Schwartz...who knew that he posted on the Browns Board? Stan, you need to alert the media on this one, since it will only help to bring in new members!
The original post--which you will find at the top of the page--breaks down the number of wide receivers taken since 2000 in terms of how many of them have been to the Pro Bowl. My response to the original post--which you will find at the top of the page--was that looking at past drafts is, at best, of limited use, since each player is different and each team is different. It's quite simple, really.
As for the whole obvious/obscure thing, it was a reference to the fact that your last reply to one of my posts had some version of "that's really obvious" or "I don't know what you're arguing" in each sentence--sometimes one of each. It seemed to me that those are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Dennis
-
oldcow1945 said:
I guess Lions coach and long Time Titan Defensive coordinator doesn't make sense then. It's not something I came up with on my own. It was he who talked about this very thing concerning OT's taken in the first round. His point was the same as mine. That history shows what positions are solid #1's and that a team needs to be sure with that #1 pick.Schwartz is a 'Stat" guy in the truest sense. He breaks down everything into numbers. You are arguing with one of the greatest defenive minds in the game today.
I never said your points were obscure. I said they were were obvious. You said bad teams make bad picks. The obvious result of bad picks are bad teams. There is nothing more obvious than that.
I wasn't aware that I was responding to Schwartz...who knew that he posted on the Browns Board? Stan, you need to alert the media on this one, since it will only help to bring in new members!
The original post--which you will find at the top of the page--breaks down the number of wide receivers taken since 2000 in terms of how many of them have been to the Pro Bowl. My response to the original post--which you will find at the top of the page--was that looking at past drafts is, at best, of limited use, since each player is different and each team is different. It's quite simple, really.
As for the whole obvious/obscure thing, it was a reference to the fact that your last reply to one of my posts had some version of "that's really obvious" or "I don't know what you're arguing" in each sentence--sometimes one of each. It seemed to me that those are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Dennis
-
I dont know how I feel about drafting Crabtree with Dez Bryant looming next year... hey... gotta think ahead
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