We are not schizophenic lol

[Rymanofthenorth]

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.

direct quote from you, post 8

"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."

Other than the last sentence which again is grade school logic and common sense, that statement couldnt possibly be more wrong, and there is nothing in that statement that would say WITHIN THE ROUND. I may speak english and bad english, but in either one, that statement very clearly states that in your belief draft position is irrelevant, so either be more careful or more clear but insinuating a lack of intelligence on my part when its clearly a lack of writing skill on yours is a pretty lame way to debate.

thanks for coming out

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

El, Bulaga early on was playing guard for the Packers and he played better inside than he has at tackle, he will most likely be serviceable than very good.

Lanky, the yale report was based on value, and they placed a large emphasis on cost, the top of the first round stats are skewed by guys like gallery who got LT money and ended up as a great guard but obviously an overpaid one as well as the fact that busts at the top are far more costly, but the truth is among superstars there are far more at the top of the round.

the initial argument between myself and AX has been corrupted, his initial assertion was that draft position didnt matter, he has since changed his assertion, mission accomplished, argument over.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

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.

Huh? You asked for data, I gave you data. Where in the world did this response come from?

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.

You responded to the rest of my post, so I'm assuming you read it. My response to the issue is in there, read again.

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

I'm not supplying a draft strategy, I'm addressing the top of the 1st round vs the bottom of the 1st, and the strategy of losing games to improve draft position.

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.

I'd be willing to bet the number of QB "busts" from picks 17-32 are equal to or less than the number of QB "busts" from picks 1-16, from the past 10 years. Of course, it depends on what you consider a bust.

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?

Your numbering system is starting to go awry - The Pats have more picks because of draft strategy, yes. And funny you should mention that, because the last DT the Patriots selected in the 1st round was all-world 3-4 NT Vince Wilfork, at 21st overall. Point, Lanky.

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?

Again, your numbering system is confusing at this point, so I'm not sure what you are responding too. And I didn't comment on his performance against the Skins; so...lay off the sauce this early in the day, bud.

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

And, what post by you would be complete without a personal attack?

 

[Ax]

direct quote from you, post 8

"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."

Other than the last sentence which again is grade school logic and common sense, that statement couldnt possibly be more wrong, and there is nothing in that statement that would say WITHIN THE ROUND. I may speak english and bad english, but in either one, that statement very clearly states that in your belief draft position is irrelevant, so either be more careful or more clear but insinuating a lack of intelligence on my part when its clearly a lack of writing skill on yours is a pretty lame way to debate.

thanks for coming out

Excuse me.

I assumed, in a thread where the discussion was improving ones position, WITHIN THE ROUND, by losing, that everyone would comprehend, that we were discussing the picking order, WITHIN THE ROUND.

Sorry.

Next time I'll type slower, for the Canadians.

Ooooooooh!!!!

Ax-2
Ryman-0

 

[Lanky Livingston]

direct quote from you, post 8

"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."

Other than the last sentence which again is grade school logic and common sense, that statement couldnt possibly be more wrong, and there is nothing in that statement that would say WITHIN THE ROUND. I may speak english and bad english, but in either one, that statement very clearly states that in your belief draft position is irrelevant, so either be more careful or more clear but insinuating a lack of intelligence on my part when its clearly a lack of writing skill on yours is a pretty lame way to debate.

thanks for coming out

The argument, as I understand it, is early first round verse late first round. If you want to take Ax's statement verbatim, go ahead, but I think you have to take it within context of the argument.

 

[Elephant]

...

the initial argument between myself and AX has been corrupted, his initial assertion was that draft position didnt matter, he has since changed his assertion, mission accomplished, argument over.

And your initial argument was that "we NEED to lose"! Making it appear you wanted this team to lose instead of win to gain a better draft pick.

I would say we have accomplished our mission of exposing the ridiculousness of someone desiring the NEED to lose.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Excuse me.

I assumed, in a thread where the discussion was improving ones position, WITHIN THE ROUND, by losing, that everyone would comprehend, that we were discussing the picking order, WITHIN THE ROUND.

Sorry.

Next time I'll type slower, for the Canadians.

Ooooooooh!!!!

Ax-2
Ryman-0

there was nothing that should have led you to that conclusion, your statement was clear, its rather funny that you expect us to debate on assumption. I said from the get go we need to lose out for the best possible outcome, not that I was in any way happy about it.

ax-0
everyone else-a billion

Lanky, go back and read the thread. and as for the patriots, they draft at the end of the round because they are succsessful, I dont suppose scouting and coaching would have anything to do with that? when they get good picks through trades they usually pan out as well. your "stats and facts" are skewed by that variable alone.

 

[fansince62]

The argument, as I understand it, is early first round verse late first round.

correct.......early as in top 5-6.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

And your initial argument was that "we NEED to lose"! Making it appear you wanted this team to lose instead of win to gain a better draft pick.

I would say we have accomplished our mission of exposing the ridiculousness of someone desiring the NEED to lose.

My initial statement was correct, for the best possible outcome we need to lose. my own personal wants mean nothing, I dont WANT to be in pain when I fall down, but gravity and common sense tells me it will be so.

and nowhere ever did I say I desired the need to lose, ffs thats the antithesis of everything I have ever said.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

correct.......early as in top 5-6.

OUR argument, which was myself and EL, which both of us were clear on, however AX clearly brought another variable into the argument.

 

[fansince62]

And, what post by you would be complete without a personal attack?

said the Zen master of personal attacks!!!!!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Lanky, go back and read the thread. and as for the patriots, they draft at the end of the round because they are succsessful, I dont suppose scouting and coaching would have anything to do with that? when they get good picks through trades they usually pan out as well. your "stats and facts" are skewed by that variable alone.

Yes, their scouts and coach are very successful. I only brought up the Patriots for 2 reasons: one to compare the Redskins 4 picks in one draft versus their 6 picks in the first 3 rounds, and 2 to say they found Vince Wilfork in the bottom 3rd of the draft (in response to their draft strategy being selecting DL early in the first round every year). I never commented on their scouting or coaching.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Here are the QBs drafted in the upper and lower halves of the first round for the past 20 years. My count is 16-8 busts taken in the first half of the 1st round versus second half. Depending on your criteria for a "bust," it will be different, I'm sure.

2010
1-16: Bradford
17-32: Tebow

2009
1-16: Stafford, Sanchez
17-32: Freeman

2008
1-16: Ryan
17-32: Flacco

2007
1-16: Russel
17-32: Quinn

2006
1-16: Young, Leinart, Cutler
17-32: none

2005
1-16: Alex Smith
17-32: Rodgers, Campbell

2004
1-16: Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger
17-32: Losman

2003
1-16: Palmer, Leftwich
17-32: Boller, Grossman

2002
1-16: Carr, Harrington
17-32: Ramsey

2001
1-16: Vick
17-32: Brees (32nd overall was 1st pick in 2nd round, since Texans did not exist yet)

2000
1-16: none
17-32: Pennington

1999
1-16: Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Culpepper, McNown
17-32: none

1998:
1-16: Manning, Leaf
17-32: none

1997:
1-16: none
17-32: Druckenmiller

1996:
1-16: none
17-32: none

1995
1-16: McNair, Kerry Collins
17-32: none

1994
1-16: Shuler, Dilfer
17-32: none

1993
1-16: Bledsoe, Mirer
17-32: none

1992
1-16: Klingler
17-32: Maddox

1991
1-16: McGwire
17-32: Marinovich

1990
1-16: Jeff George, Andre Ware
17-32: none

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

so what you are saying is that to get a decent QB you need to spend a first round pick and that its usually an early one? because thats what my point was when I posted QB's drafted in the first 3 rounds. teams rightfully place a premium on QB's and generally only very desperate teams will risk a very high first unless the prospect is very very good.

if the argument between ax and myself is transitioning to whether or not an early first is still better than a mid round or late first than I stand by my assertion only its a little less obvious.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

so what you are saying is that to get a decent QB you need to spend a first round pick and that its usually an early one?

No...not at all.

if the argument between ax and myself is transitioning to whether or not an early first is still better than a mid round or late first than I stand by my assertion only its a little less obvious.

Read the article I posted, it goes into why this is an incorrect assertion. When teams like the Ravens, Colts, Patriots, etc. continuously hit on late first round draft picks, while other teams keep getting "busts" in the early first round, I'd say Ax and my assertion is the obvious one. Just my 2 cents though.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Actually, if you take my numbers of 16 and 8, that's a 47.1% bust rate for the top half of the first round, and a 53.3% bust rate for bottom half of the first round. This would also support Ax's assertion that draft position doesn't really matter.

If you look at QBs overall, the top half accounts for almost 33% of "busts" at the position, and the bottom half accounts for just over 16%.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

No...not at all.



Read the article I posted, it goes into why this is an incorrect assertion. When teams like the Ravens, Colts, Patriots, etc. continuously hit on late first round draft picks, while other teams keep getting "busts" in the early first round, I'd say Ax and my assertion is the obvious one. Just my 2 cents though.

Ok I am going to try to say this without sounding smug.

1- who drafts in the eary rounds? now ask why. now ask how often do these teams draft early. as in a team like the Lions who have been inept in the past 2 decades shouldnt be in the conversation because they were run by idiots. the bengals are a team run by the cheapest man in sports, he often would trade picks based on money not skill. another team that shouldnt be included. teams like the steelers and Patsies draft late all the time, but they prepare very well, do you not think if they drafted earlier they would get even better players?


2- teams who are successful are that way for a reason, its called research and preparation, we are not operating in a vacuum here, the teams who have busts when they draft early have them for a reason, and they continue to draft early because of that reason. Look at the Lions, they drafted 3 wideouts in quick succession, rogers and williams were busts but megatron may be the best WR in the NFL. the first two were killer and the Lions if they had had better gms may have gotten far better players and accelerated their rebuild by 5 years. thats sort of my point here.

3- the redskins in particular have not drafted well after the first 4 rounds, Horton was the exception not the rule, as a matter of fact how many late round picks by the skins are even in the league anymore?

4- about the qb bust rate, thats why I wanted bradford, history shows that most QBs will be busts,if there is a true blue chipper you do whatever it takes to grab him and anytime you force a pick you increase your bust potential, its the same with any position, look the worst 2 picks in our own recent history, Shuler and that POS lineman from penn state, we grabbed Shuler because we desperately needed a QB, that Lineman because we needed OL, neither of them panned out because neither should have been drafted so high.

bottom line, teams drafting in the lower part of the draft are doing so because they are good, good FO, good coaching, the inverse is true about the top of the draft. that doesnt mean that a good team would or should turn down the chance to draft high. You have got to learn to look big picture, surface stats are why we have failed this year.

 

[Bulldog]

the Redskins have one of the smallest scouting departments in the NFL and the scouts don't have much independence from the coaching staff and head coach in re recommenations for players.

that's the primary barrier to being successful here. the head coach and the position coaches are knowledgeable and intelligent people, but they are caught up in preparing the team to play 16 games over 18 weeks from September through December.

These guys don't even start to look at college players until January.

Meanwhile, my guess is that scouts for the Steelers, Patriots, Giants and Eagles already have canvassed the draft eligible players and have gone over their prelims with the GM and Director of Player Personnel.

The Redskins don't have those slots in any tangible sense.

Shanahan thinks the coaching staff is in the best position to know which players fit their schemes and project them to the NFL.

History is against Shanahan on this one.

Yes, Parcells and Jimmy Johnson did it at different times.

But in Johnson's case he had just come out of the college ranks and had SEEN most of the draft eligible players in 1989-91 PLAY IN COLLEGE while Dallas was building its core for a Super Bowl run.

That's the kind of knowledge Shanahan and his staff don't have.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

1- who drafts in the eary rounds? now ask why. now ask how often do these teams draft early. as in a team like the Lions who have been inept in the past 2 decades shouldnt be in the conversation because they were run by idiots. the bengals are a team run by the cheapest man in sports, he often would trade picks based on money not skill. another team that shouldnt be included. teams like the steelers and Patsies draft late all the time, but they prepare very well, do you not think if they drafted earlier they would get even better players?

Of course if you have a crappy GM, he's going to pick poorly no matter where he picks. My point is, there are quality players available throughout the first round; so the good teams get better, because they draft good players wherever they end up. You are stating the obvious when you say teams draft late because they are good. And if earlier first-round picks were such huge home runs, as you say, the good teams would trade up much more than they do. However, they usually stay where they are, and do quite well. Would the Colts be better if they'd had a top 5 draft pick and taken Megatron? Of course they would have; but they hit on Reggie Wayne in the late first a few years prior, so that was not necessary anyway.

The argument - as I understood it - was whether it was advantageous to intentionally lose to slide up and grab a higher draft pick. I'm saying no, I'd rather see the team win.

2- teams who are successful are that way for a reason, its called research and preparation, we are not operating in a vacuum here, the teams who have busts when they draft early have them for a reason, and they continue to draft early because of that reason. Look at the Lions, they drafted 3 wideouts in quick succession, rogers and williams were busts but megatron may be the best WR in the NFL. the first two were killer and the Lions if they had had better gms may have gotten far better players and accelerated their rebuild by 5 years. thats sort of my point here.

Yes, but you must ask yourself - if the Lions did not take Rogers or Williams when they did, would they have slipped much further? There's no real way to know. Or would a QB like Ryan Leaf have slipped out of the first round if the Chargers did not take him? Doubtful but again, there's no real way to know. I do think its safe to assume that if players like Rogers and Williams didn't bust for the Lions, they'd have been high-draft pick busts for someone else.

3- the redskins in particular have not drafted well after the first 4 rounds, Horton was the exception not the rule, as a matter of fact how many late round picks by the skins are even in the league anymore?

There are quite a few, but this is beyond the scope of the discussion.

4- about the qb bust rate, thats why I wanted bradford, history shows that most QBs will be busts,if there is a true blue chipper you do whatever it takes to grab him and anytime you force a pick you increase your bust potential, its the same with any position, look the worst 2 picks in our own recent history, Shuler and that POS lineman from penn state, we grabbed Shuler because we desperately needed a QB, that Lineman because we needed OL, neither of them panned out because neither should have been drafted so high.

Where a player "should" have been picked is extremely subjective. Hindsight helps (obviously), but at the time, there is no way to know, unless you're in every single team's war room, where that player was on their board.

bottom line, teams drafting in the lower part of the draft are doing so because they are good, good FO, good coaching, the inverse is true about the top of the draft. that doesnt mean that a good team would or should turn down the chance to draft high. You have got to learn to look big picture, surface stats are why we have failed this year.

It most certainly does - if they have to give up several draft picks for the chance to draft earlier in the first round, they most certainly should make sure they're going to hit on that pick.

 

[Bulldog]

The best value picks in the draft are in Rounds 2 and 3.

Teams often are able to find players that at one time had a first round grade but dropped due to rumors, a poor combine, etc.

So you are able to wrap up a talented football player on a 3 year deal for a small signing bonus and enjoy cheap production.

The Redskins trade all their #2 and #3 picks, so the club is left with #1's and then #5's and #7s.

You can't build a football team on just a #1 pick and a series of #7's.