We are not schizophenic lol

Rymanofthenorth said:

what I am talking about is very simple, the math says that higher picks are better. obviously there are no guarentees except one, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING HASNT WORKED OUT. the way you guys talk about the draft you would think you would like trading picks for players lol.

Click to expand...

What we are saying is that losing is not an option and your fallacious assertion that we will get better as a team and that 20 years of mediocrity will be over with a pick at #8 instead of #11 is idiotic!

I do my best to refrain from the personal attacks with you because it really serves no purpose. The most ironic thing is we agree on a great deal. The problem is you have very little tact when trying to express yourself. Have you ever been called a bull in a China shop? That is how you act here. You bull your way through an argument instead of using respectful tact to make your point. It is much like arguing to win by attrition.

The quoted statement is another of your ridiculous claims! You know damn well that we are not pleased with the way things have been run and that trading picks in most situations is foolish, but going out to lose a football game or even being pleased if you do because there is a slight, remote, slim, miniscule possibility it will make out team better is losing overall.

Your claim was meant in jest, I assume by your use of lol, but you come across in a way that many of us who debate with you find condescending. You sit on your lofty perch as if your experience in the football world makes you smarter than the rest of us.

Ryman, you are an internet bully! Plain and simple. You belabor your point until people simply give up. Then you claim victory. It doesn't make you right. It just makes you annoying.

So, yesterday we had a lot of younger players go out and prove themselves on the field and some who didn't, yet we still won. Is that acceptable? Does that somehow satisfy your demand? I would imagine not because you know better than the coaching staff of the Washington Redskins and all of us here on the interwebz! Oh and by the way, that was me being facetious!

Im sorry El, but your argument is ridiculous which is probably why you think im being condescending. Its hard to take someones argument very seriously when its massively incorrect. You can argue that IN YOUR OPINION draft slots dont matter, but math and almost every successful GM in the NFL will disagree because the FACT is that it does. I am not trying to talk down to you but I will concede that sometimes the way I speak and write it comes off that, its an issue I have had since I was a child and noticed that I think differently than most people.

My initial assertion was that we need every little advantage we can get to complete this rebuild and that one major advantage would be being able to pick the players we want ,ergo with a better draft choice than the guys picking behind us which means its actually better for us to lose out than win out.

you and Ax seem to think that it doesnt matter because talent can be found at any slot in the draft, while I agree there is talent to be had at all levels of the draft, have you noticed one common denominator for this team since 1993? WE DONT DRAFT WELL AFTER ROUND 4. Period. we have some busts in our early picks but after 4 they rarely even make the team let alone contribute for multiple seasons. You damn sure dont hang your hat on getting a Brady in the 6th (who by the way was drafted as a flyer by a team that felt it was set at QB not exactly the same boat as us).

Last year we were 2 picks away from being able to get bradford, had we been even a bit higher then the rams probably would have pulled the trigger, do you not think we would be better off with Bradford than Mcrapp? and thats just the most recent example of one or two draft slots making a drastic difference.

if we accept that draft pick order doesnt matter, and we accept that its because as you and Ax have stated " nothing is guaranteed anyway" then why would we not trade the draft picks for known quantities in veteran players? thats always been the excuse of the coaches and gms who dont place much stock in the draft , they may not be getting a chance at a star but they get a pretty much guaranteed decent starter. thats ok when you have a core, not when you are commencing a massive rebuild. Unless of course you arent trying to win a superbowl and are happy with being around 500 every year.



I am more used to an academic setting where one person presents their argument, then the next person argues only what was said, not what is inferred, and I often dont catch tone or context when discussing thing with people on the net. My bad, I suppose I will get over it.

vis a vis the original argument? you arent going to change your opinion that draft status doesnt matter and I am not going to argue with that because its not worth the headache of trying to explain why it does, so we can agree to disagree. You might not believe me but I do like and respect you guys, even when we dont agree.

Rymanofthenorth said:

LOL I can play the throw names out while making absolutely no point game too.

here are some qb's drafted early

Sam bradford, Matt Ryan,aaron rodgers,phillip rivers, ben rapistberger,Drew brees, peyton manning,brett favre,troy aikman,boomer esiason,john elway,jim kelly, dan marino, phil simms, joe montana.

Click to expand...

Thanks for agreeing with, and also proving my point.

In reading through the rest of this thread, it's apparent that you Canadians have a different verbiage than normal people.

NOWHERE, did I say that 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round picks weren't more consistently valuable than 4th through 7th rounders. That's your invention. Created, then attacked, by you & fansince, because my assertion, is indisputable.

My assertion being, that where you draft, in each round, doesn't limit the ability to draft well, nor prevent you from drafting poorly.

I don't have time to google them all right now, but your little list backs up my argument, well.

If memory serves me...

Peyton was #1 overall
Rapistberger was 7-11
Marino was one the last picks of the 1st round
Brees was a second rounder
Montana was a 3rd

So, thanks for playing, but you get nothing for finishing second.

Rymanofthenorth said:

seriously Ax, you cannot possibly be arguing that because tom brady was a sixth round pick that we shouldnt take a QB until the 6th?

Click to expand...

You are correct. I am not, have not, and will not argue that. My only curiosity is, why would you invent such an argument, and attach it to me?

It is, however, a FACT, that bad/good/great players, have been selected in every slot, of every round, of every draft.

And, shocking as you may find it, some bad/good/great players aren't drafted at all.

fansince62 said:

you're absolutely right. effective IMMEDIATELY...we need to trade all our high round picks for 7th round picks. more picks at much lower cost....and since it doesn't matter where you draft....it falls on the scouts to hit home runs!!!

Click to expand...

Now as for you, I expect a better grasp of the english language than our Canadian brother. As you see in my response to him, I never said we don't want high round picks. Only that, where we pick WITHIN that round, is nowhere near as important as who we pick.

Slot position guarantees nothing. There are great/good/bad players available at every slot, of every round, of every draft. And while one could argue that there are more good players to choose from, the earlier you pick in each round, there are also more bad ones available too.

Not stooping to wishing for your team to lose, is more important, to me, than some minuscule chance, of a possibility, that maybe, you might improve your ability, to draft next years biggest bust of each round.

No cookies for you, either.

Ax said:

Now as for you, I expect a better grasp of the english language than our Canadian brother. As you see in my response to him, I never said we don't want high round picks. Only that, where we pick WITHIN that round, is nowhere near as important as who we pick.

Slot position guarantees nothing. There are great/good/bad players available at every slot, of every round, of every draft. And while one could argue that there are more good players to choose from, the earlier you pick in each round, there are also more bad ones available too.

Not stooping to wishing for your team to lose, is more important, to me, than some minuscule chance, of a possibility, that maybe, you might improve your ability, to draft next years biggest bust of each round.

No cookies for you, either.

Click to expand...

1) You have moved from a factual state to assertions about state of mind: "wishing to lose". What? Ry and I clicked our heels 3 times and, while looking at Toto, blurted "I hope we lose. I hope we lose. I hope we lose"? I know the position I adopted was that I didn't really care whether we won or lost at this point in the season, the season is a total loss; I was interested in seeing whether any of the younger players had staying power; I viewed winning and a higher draft position with equal energy. get it right. and no one is speaking to guarantees - strawman response. let's do a thought experiment: if players were free....as a GM would you prefer to be drafting in the top 5-6 or 20-32 of the first round?

2) You haven't addressed any of the arguments made in favor of drafting higher - especially what is really under discussion presently - higher in the first round. you have pinned yourself to the notion that it doesn't matter where - in a given round - a team drafts since the probabilities of a hit are about the same. first, I don't accept that position. Show me the data, by whatever metric, that supports the claim that top 5 draft picks fair no better, over time, than the bottom 5 picks in a round - cuz the present discussion is about drafting in the top 5 or 6 positions in the first round....not some average over all rounds. none of you have done that.

- It's clearly obvious that in any given draft you have a shot at the Suhs of the world by drafting toward the top - the teams at 22-32 simply don't draft from the same talent pool. You have a shot at the Bradfords of the world by being bad enough to secure a top 5 position. The idea in play here is that the Skins have a better shot at the top players by drafting in the top 5-6 than 9-12. Ask Shanahan - who went all out to get this "once in every 10 years" QB. Draft position does make a difference at the top. The claim isn't being made that it makes a difference IN EVERY INSTANCE. The claim is that you have greater control over who you can draft the higher your position. let's assume you have a draft board and you have rank ordered all the players you are interested in - the team has already made the decision on where the value is. It's common sense - especially in the first round in respect to the top talent - that the probability is higher of drafting the priority players the higher the draft position.

I also find the idea laughable with this particular team. You can't prove that the statistics you prefer apply to THIS TEAM. The history of this team is clearly that it only hits the higher its draft position. Let's say we draft 10th instead of 4th in the 2010 draft. You telling me that we get an LT - the number 1 priority for this team - as good as TW?

Ax said:

Draft position is completely irrelevant, when it comes to player quality. There is ZERO evidence to the contrary. It is the player, his abilities, and his personal drive to succeed that means something. His draft position is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Rymanofthenorth said:

You are missing the entire point. Im not going to argue common sense with you,

IF WE DRAFT THE BEST PLAYER AND IF WE DO OUR HOMEWORK AND IF THAT PLAYER DOESNT GET CANCER OR GET IN A CAR ACCIDENT OR GET ADDICTED TO DRUGS OR TURN OUT TO BE ILLITERATE OR A SEX CRIMINAL THEN THAT PLAYER WILL PROBABLY BE A GOOD ADDITION. there I added some caveats for you that for most people go without saying.

Obviously even if we have a good draft position we still need to draft the best player available, but the law of averages says the higher you draft, the better the player. period.

Click to expand...

Actually, Ax is right. I posted the link earlier - some economist at Yale did a study showing there is more value lower in the draft than higher. So picks 10-20 are more valuable than picks 1-10.

Also, for our needs, you can look back at the last decade of drafts, and you will find a dominating interior lineman taken in picks 20-30 almost every year. Go ahead and do it, you'll see I'm right.

Bryan Baluga was the only OT taken 20-32 this last draft. he is not dominating. there were no guards or centers drafted in those positions.

So sorry, Pouncey was taken 2 picks before the 20th pick. The point still stands - we will not have a draft pick in the bottom 12.

EDIT: and what was that in another thread you said about taking specific examples and applying them to a broader point? Riiiiight...hypocrisy, thy name is fansince62.

Lanky Livingston said:

So sorry, Pouncey was taken 2 picks before the 20th pick. The point still stands - we will not have a draft pick in the bottom 12.

EDIT: and what was that in another thread you said about taking specific examples and applying them to a broader point? Riiiiight...hypocrisy, thy name is fansince62.

Click to expand...

have a nice New Year!

fansince62 said:

have a nice New Year!

Click to expand...

You too - hope the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future showed you the true spirit of the holidays!

fansince62 said:

strawman response.

Click to expand...

That would be something like...

you're absolutely right. effective IMMEDIATELY...we need to trade all our high round picks for 7th round picks.

Click to expand...

Talk about your strawman calling the kettle hay.

fansince62 said:

let's do a thought experiment: if players were free....as a GM would you prefer to be drafting in the top 5-6 or 20-32 of the first round?

Click to expand...

Players aren't free, so this experiment proves nothing. The only reason I'd like the Redskins to have a top 5 draft pick is so they have the opportunity to trade down.

2) You haven't addressed any of the arguments made in favor of drafting higher - especially what is really under discussion presently - higher in the first round. you have pinned yourself to the notion that it doesn't matter where - in a given round - a team drafts since the probabilities of a hit are about the same. first, I don't accept that position. Show me the data, by whatever metric, that supports the claim that top 5 draft picks fair no better, over time, than the bottom 5 picks in a round - cuz the present discussion is about drafting in the top 5 or 6 positions in the first round....not some average over all rounds. none of you have done that.

Click to expand...

I previously posted an article from a Yale economics professor that showed that very thing.

- It's clearly obvious that in any given draft you have a shot at the Suhs of the world by drafting toward the top - the teams at 22-32 simply don't draft from the same talent pool. You have a shot at the Bradfords of the world by being bad enough to secure a top 5 position. The idea in play here is that the Skins have a better shot at the top players by drafting in the top 5-6 than 9-12. Ask Shanahan - who went all out to get this "once in every 10 years" QB.

Click to expand...

Where was Aaron Rodgers drafted, just out of curiosity? Josh Freeman? Joe Flacco? Matt Schaub? Drew Brees? And most recently, Tim Tebow?

Also, Jay Cutler was taken 11th overall, right around where the Redskins will likely pick. So that argument is bunk also.

Draft position does make a difference at the top. The claim isn't being made that it makes a difference IN EVERY INSTANCE. The claim is that you have greater control over who you can draft the higher your position.

Click to expand...

Obviously. And the team that scores more points generally wins the game. -John Madden

I also find the idea laughable with this particular team. You can't prove that the statistics you prefer apply to THIS TEAM. The history of this team is clearly that it only hits the higher its draft position. Let's say we draft 10th instead of 4th in the 2010 draft. You telling me that we get an LT - the number 1 priority for this team - as good as TW?

Click to expand...

The problem for the Redskins in the past hasn't been who they've hit on (because they've had their share of later-round gems), its been lack of total draft picks. Busts stand out more when you only have 4 picks in a given draft. But if you're like the Patriots, and have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds and 1 busts, its not such a big deal.

Rymanofthenorth said:

vis a vis the original argument? you arent going to change your opinion that draft status doesnt matter and I am not going to argue with that because its not worth the headache of trying to explain why it does, so we can agree to disagree. You might not believe me but I do like and respect you guys, even when we dont agree.

Click to expand...

I believe there is no animosity Ryman. I also know I can be that same Bull in a China shop, that is why it's so easy for me to see. The problem I think both of us may be having is truly understanding the other. I do understand your point that a #8 pick is inherently better than a #11 pick. I get that. My point is, although I would prefer a chance at a better player if a couple of draft spots would net us such, I would much rather see the team win.

Somehow this spiraled into I would want to trade picks away and you would throw a game in an effort to get better picks. I believe both are false.

Look, I agree about the younger players getting time to see what they can do in game time. I have wanted to see more than players playing because of injury on defense. I want to see Stephon Heyer released altogether so we can see if Selvish Capers is capable. I just cannot believe that kid has not progressed enough to play better than Heyer!

The problem I believe I see is that you have resigned yourself to a loss by doing so. But we did it on defense and had one of our best defensive games of the year. I know Jones-Drew was not there, but we still played with heart on the defensive side of the ball and did not give the game awayagainst a gamer in Garrard, even though it was close.


Now, if they started Capers and Cook on either side of Montgomery for the last game of the year against a talented defensive line for the Giants, we saw much of the same defense and we went out and won again, what would you say then?

fansince62 said:

Bryan Baluga was the only OT taken 20-32 this last draft. he is not dominating. there were no guards or centers drafted in those positions.

Click to expand...

I believe Lanky said interior lineman, Bulaga earned a starting job at RT for the Pack.. He has been more than serviceable, he has had a good season. I have seen him play a lot of games this year. He has been beaten, but more often than not he has played well. I have seen Trent Williams beat as often as Bulaga. Hold on! I know Williams is a much more talented T, but Bulaga is gonna be a good one for a long time for Green Bay.

Elephant said:

I believe Lanky said interior lineman, Bulaga earned a starting job at RT for the Pack.. He has been more than serviceable, he has had a good season. I have seen him play a lot of games this year. He has been beaten, but more often than not he has played well. I have seen Trent Williams beat as often as Bulaga. Hold on! I know Williams is a much more talented T, but Bulaga is gonna be a good one for a long time for Green Bay.

Click to expand...

1) no...he wrote one of his broad generalizations that become almost meaningless (dominant not eq servicable).

2) there was only one interior O-lineman taken from 20-32 in the last draft. if he wants...true to form....to change the argument to fit his objectives...fine! even were one to accept Pouncey as a bona fide response...it still doesn't answer the mail. everyone in the Universe understood that the Skins were going to draft a LT. Show me...per the "theory" in play...who in picks 12-32 was going to be as capable as the LT we got with the fourth pick. THAT'S WHAT THE TEAM WANTED. THAT'S WHAT THE TEAM NEEDED. THAT WAS THE NUMBER 1 PRIORITY.

3) No disrespect El...but you have no idea whether Baluga is going to be a great one. he substitutes technique for physical limitations quite well. but none of us know what his future holds.......

Lanky Livingston said:

Players aren't free, so this experiment proves nothing. The only reason I'd like the Redskins to have a top 5 draft pick is so they have the opportunity to trade down.



I previously posted an article from a Yale economics professor that showed that very thing.



Where was Aaron Rodgers drafted, just out of curiosity? Josh Freeman? Joe Flacco? Matt Schaub? Drew Brees? And most recently, Tim Tebow?

Also, Jay Cutler was taken 11th overall, right around where the Redskins will likely pick. So that argument is bunk also.



Obviously. And the team that scores more points generally wins the game. -John Madden



The problem for the Redskins in the past hasn't been who they've hit on (because they've had their share of later-round gems), its been lack of total draft picks. Busts stand out more when you only have 4 picks in a given draft. But if you're like the Patriots, and have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds and 1 busts, its not such a big deal.

Click to expand...

1) Both my parents were Yale graduates (under and graduate). So I know what's in the package. Either way...appeals to authority don't fly for me.

2) You skillfully avoid the issue of drafting in the top 5-6 vice at the bottom of the round. I would too if I were running with an idea that flies in the face of the obvious.

3) Your logic doesn't equate to anything remotely approaching a strategy.

4) Shall we list all the QB draft picks from later in the first round on down who have failed? Think that this list is longer than the successes? You have proven nothing that is actionable. As for your employment of the term bunk...pls pls young one...try to temper your emotions. it's embarrassing for all of us.

5) Earth shattering analysis there: more draft picks equates to greater opportunity. of course, the "analysis" doesn't cover why some teams are better than others with the same number of picks. and yea...the Skins have been very skilled at discovering late round "gems". you nailed that one.

6) Gee...why do the Pats have more picks? Because they have a strategy they hew to year in and year out? Because they value the draft more? does that strategy have a dyanmic of using high first round picks for D-linemen?

7) Jay Cutler? yes...he did look great against the Skins. Man...do you just ratchet from one emotion to the next when you post this stuff?

8) I understand you can't grasp the concept of a thought experiment. That's ok. PM me and I'll elaborate.

fansince62 said:

1)

3) No disrespect El...but you have no idea whether Baluga is going to be a great one. he substitutes technique for physical limitations quite well. but none of us know what his future holds.......

Click to expand...

I know your POV is meant as no disrespect, but you did not read what I posted. I said he is going to be a good one, not a great one. I see in Bulaga what I saw in Jon Jansen. He will be a good one for a long time. My assertion is as provable as us stating that Williams will be a great one! That was my point.


I also believe I know what Lanky was trying to say. I saw you insert Bulaga's name when he was talking about interior lineman in picks 20-32. You said that Bulaga was the only OT taken in that series of picks. That was true, but I was confused by your introduction of Bulaga. Why would you mention OT when Lanky was discussing interior lineman. If you had stated Bulaga was the only lineman taken in the 20-32 range last year. I would have said nothing.

Lanky also stated "almost" which he should have because he knows it is not a set rule. There were 2 interior lineman taken in the 1st round last year, Iupati 17 and Pouncey 18. This goes against the 20-32 rule, but Lanky knows it's not a given. As for those picks, Pouncey has had a great season and if his brother is 75% the player he is, then we should try to get him. He would be a marked upgrade over Rabach. Iupati? Haven't seen him play in San Fran so I don't know.

Ax said:

That would be something like...

Talk about your strawman calling the kettle hay.

Click to expand...

bubba...that's called hyperbole! but funny comeback just the same!

Elephant said:

I believe Lanky said interior lineman, Bulaga earned a starting job at RT for the Pack.. He has been more than serviceable, he has had a good season. I have seen him play a lot of games this year. He has been beaten, but more often than not he has played well. I have seen Trent Williams beat as often as Bulaga. Hold on! I know Williams is a much more talented T, but Bulaga is gonna be a good one for a long time for Green Bay.

Click to expand...

one guy! and a guy with short arms at that!!! hardly a resounding empirical proof. and note the implicit lesson of that draft - out of 12 slections only one team found an O-linemen worth drafting. is that a rule of nature? no. but it also undercuts the idea that "gems" are just there to be found every draft.

as for your point on TW's future...good one....got me there in the context of the argument!

fansince62 said:

one guy! and a guy with short arms at that!!! hardly a resounding empirical proof. and note the implicit lesson of that draft - out of 12 slections only one team found an O-linemen worth drafting. is that a rule of nature? no. but it also undercuts the idea that "gems" are just there to be found every draft.

as for your point on TW's future...good one....got me there in the context of the argument!

Click to expand...

Wait a second, Anthony Davis, #12 pick last year, is starting for the Niners and so is Iupati #17. It says something about starting in your rookie season even if your team sucks, i.e. Williams here in Washington. Bulaga was a good pick for Green Bay, having a solid season, not great, solid. And Pouncey has had an outstanding season in Pittsburgh. That is 4 offensive lineman in the mid to latter range of the first round who are starting.

If we can trade down from our spot to get 2 picks in the 25-40 range in the next draft, we could get 2 interior lineman who would likely start within 2 years, but definitely get some playing time in their first season. Wisniewski at Penn State, Mike Pouncey at Florida and Rodney Hudson at FSU are the three top rated guys at this point. All three are very athletic and Wisniewski and Pouncey can play C/G.

At this point if we cannot get a trade down, I am afraid that we will not go OL in the first, not worth a pick. If not, then Locker would be the best choice at the 11 or 12 spot we are likely going to have. If this occurs, I hope they will take whichever of those 3 could be available with the 2nd rounder.