oldcow1945 said:

I wake up blithe. One has to do something to avoid getting bored when slowing things down for others.

Again, I refer to the first post of the board:

>>Thirty-seven wide receivers have been drafted in the first round since 2000. By our count, nine have been named to the Pro Bowl. <<

Premise of the argument? It's a dangerous idea--if not an outright bad one--to draft a WR in the first round. That was what I responded to at first. Incidentally, it's also what you responded to:

>>In the last ten drafts forty WR's have been drafted in the first round. Of those forty only SEVEN have become Pro bowlers while 14 have been complete bust. The rest are marginal players.

(One of those seven pro bowlers is Braylon Edwards!)

Think of that! Only one in six 1st round WR's in the last ten years have become big time players while almost 2 in 6 become complete bust!

Michael Crabtree is a bust in waiting. Between the history of WR failures in the first round and his lack of size and speed, he scares me to no end.

Any team drafting him high is going to be making a HUGE mistake!<<

Note the lack of references to offensive tackles or to Jim Schwartz, who apparently has become your L. Ron Hubbard in only a few months. The discussion was about WRs, I questioned the premise of said discussion, and away we went.

Again...the original post implied that it is a bad idea to draft a WR based on the history of people who have been drafted at that position. At best, the logic underlying the argument is flawed. If you want to make it an argument about taking an OT instead, I'm sure plenty of threads will open up about that (for the record, I'm in favor of taking one...I have questions about Crabtree's foot).

Dennis

@dencyguy said:

Dennis

This is what people do who have lost an argument. They become blithe.

oldcow1945 said:

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

@dencyguy said:

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.

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:

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

Comparing Crabtree to "workout warriors" with crap college production (Williamson, Soward) or questionable intangibles (Mime Williams, Charles Rogers) is just plain silly.

@dencyguy said:

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 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

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

@dencyguy said:

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.

@dencyguy said:

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:

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

@dencyguy said:

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.

@dencyguy said:

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.

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

(One of those seven pro bowlers is Braylon Edwards!)

Think of that! Only one in six 1st round WR's in the last ten years have become big time players while almost 2 in 6 become complete bust!

I think it's a well know fact that being a successful QB in college does not come close to making a successful QB in the NFL.

But right behind that postion is the wide receiver postion.

Michael Crabtree is a bust in waiting. Between the history of WR failures in the first round and his lack of size and speed, he scares me to no end.

Any team drafting him high is going to be making a HUGE mistake!