Combine Chatter Thread

[Risen Star]

Most of the time the best OL prospects are college OT as you've made so clear with your example with Martin and your statement B), and it makes sense because of the position bias. Most kick-*** G in the NFL played OT in college, IIRC even Pouncey played some T at college.

This is about NFL value boards and whether you can simply assume the 2nd rated T is the 2nd best OL prospect in the draft. What an OL played in college is irrelevant if he's not projected to play it in the NFL. So Zack Martin was graded as a G not a T. The Cowboys drafted him as a G not a T. If he was considered a T in the NFL his grade goes up and he is not selected behind inferior players like Robinson, Matthews and Lewan. This is my point.

Ryan Kelly is considered a pro bowl type C prospect. If he carried that same potential at T he's a top 10 pick in this draft easy if not top 5.

 

[Risen Star]

Positional bias definitely factors in, but who's to say that Jake Matthews wouldn't be an all pro guard? I think tackles tend to guy higher because if all else fails, they usually can play guard at a high level. Robert Gallery was a colossal bust at LT, but was actually a pretty good guard. Same for Leonard Davis. I can't think of anyone who was a bust at guard, moved to tackle and had not just more success, but pro-bowl/all-pro success.

What does it matter if any of them could be great OGs? The point is the NFL scouting world views them as capable to excel at OT and they didn't with Martin. Not that Martin was a lesser talent, he just didn't have the specific skill set to play outside on the pro level. If you can't do that as an OL, your overall grade will suffer. That's why Martin was the 4th or 5th ranked OL that year. That's the only reason.

It's position bias and something I've never agreed with. To me, Martin and Frederick are just as impactful on Sundays as any OT in the league.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It's position bias and something I've never agreed with. To me, Martin and Frederick are just as impactful on Sundays as any OT in the league.

And the vast majority of GMs say it does matter, hence why guards and centers don't go in the top 5 every year. As far as impact on the o-line goes, conventional wisdom says two things, 1.) a tackle that fails at that position can sometimes make an impact at guard and 2.) it's easier to hide the deficiencies of a guard/center than a tackle. So while you could make the argument that a top guard equals a top tackle, I'd say once you move further down the list, it becomes more important that you get a quality starter at tackle, than guard.

 

[Risen Star]

 

[Risen Star]

 

[Risen Star]

 

[texbumthelife]

See, this is the thing with you guys. You always change the argument when you're wrong. Always.

This is how it went down....

You - Stanley is the 2nd best OL prospect and closing in on Tunsil on many boards.

Me - He's actually not. He's ranked 2nd along the OL because of position bias. Kelly's just as good at his position.

You - Yeah, okay. On everyone's board he's #2 but in Risen Star's world he's not. Contrarian.

Me - That's position bias. T's will always be graded higher than an equally skilled G or C. They are valued more.

-

You've now went from saying he was the clear cut #2 because everyone's board reflected it to the other extreme where it doesn't always mean it's just position bias (something I don't think you even knew and considered in the first place).

I never said it's always the case that the 2nd ranked T has to be lesser than the best G. I said Ts will always have a grade bump. LTs even more. It's just a fact. So you can not simply look at a value board at the top, skip an OL to the next and declare that player the 2nd best OL prospect in the draft. It doesn't work that way. It could, depending on the year, but it doesn't always work that way. In fact, I'd say it's often not the case. Like 2014. When Zack Martin was only the 4th or 5th ranked OL prospect simply because he was projected to play inside in the NFL. Robinson isn't a better player. Neither is Matthews or Lewan. Yet you would have looked at those boards at that time and assumed that they were.

Now, of course, me saying Kelly is as good if not better is opinion. Yours may be different but you didn't use that as any vindication. You said the boards proved it and they do not prove that at all.

The whole discussion began and then continued based on MY opinion of Stanley.

My second comment to you was total tongue and cheek and I said so pages ago. I was just digging at you.

I haven't changed my argument. Your projection of a bias into the argument changed the argument. I said all along I think Stanley is the second best OL in the draft and close to Tunsil. You said that was incorrect and only based on positional bias. That's when this all devolved into some argument about the application of bias. I haven't argued that once. All I have done is defend my position.

I said:

Very good prospect from ND. Second best OL prospect in the draft that has been closing the gap lately.

You said:

He's actually not. It's just position bias that creates that perception. Stanley is not any better at his position than Kelly is at his.

Me:

And then you have Risen Star's take which wouldn't be his if it didn't want to cash in on hyperbole and the long shot odds of being right, while being against the grain.

Stanley was the best offensive linemen on one of the best lines in college football. He is absolutely the second best offensive line talent in the draft.

Notice that's the very same argument. It's a partial defense of why I think he's the second best OL in the draft.

You:

Yes. Long shot odds.

Of course believing your highly intelligent, paint by numbers theory I would have to believe that practically every single year the 2 or 3 best OL prospects in the entire class are OTs. It has nothing to do with position bias why the best of those tend to go in the top 12 and the best Gs and Cs go later. No. The OTs are always better players than the OG and Cs. Every year!

Sorry, tex. I know better. When you catch up with me we can talk about it.

You changed the argument by implying my evaluation was based on some sort of bias, sport.

 

[Risen Star]

My second comment to you was total tongue and cheek and I said so pages ago. I was just digging at you.

I haven't changed my argument. Your projection of a bias into the argument changed the argument. I said all along I think Stanley is the second best OL in the draft and close to Tunsil. You said that was incorrect and only based on positional bias. That's when this all devolved into some argument about the application of bias. I haven't argued that once. All I have done is defend my position.

I said:

You said:

Me:

Notice that's the very same argument. It's a partial defense of why I think he's the second best OL in the draft.

You:

You changed the argument by implying my evaluation was based on some sort of bias, sport.

Link me to that post.

 

[Risen Star]

My second comment to you was total tongue and cheek and I said so pages ago. I was just digging at you.

You did? I must have missed that.

What was the tongue in cheek part?

 

[texbumthelife]

Link me to that post.

Which one? Most are on page 3 of this thread.

 

[texbumthelife]

You did? I must have missed that.

What was the tongue in cheek part?

I was digging at you about being "contrarian" as you put it.

 

[texbumthelife]

Link me to that post.

Here's my very next post where I still haven't cited anyone else's rankings, simply stated MY opinion.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/combine-chatter-thread.343527/page-3#post-6567260

I also mentioned in this post my dig at you being in jest.

 

[Risen Star]

Here's my very next post where I still haven't cited anyone else's rankings, simply stated MY opinion.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/combine-chatter-thread.343527/page-3#post-6567260

I also mentioned in this post my dig at you being in jest.

That post starts with - I haven't and wouldn't argue positional bias. Of course OT's carry more value. Never said they didn't. The fact of the matter is, they are more valuable.

That's probably why I didn't see the tongue in cheek part. I just assumed the rest was pure garbage too and scrolled.

Let me ask you this. Would you trade Zack Martin straight up for any OT in the league that you think is comparable to him?

 

[Alexander]

I don't like this.

 

[texbumthelife]

That post starts with - I haven't and wouldn't argue positional bias. Of course OT's carry more value. Never said they didn't. The fact of the matter is, they are more valuable.

That's probably why I didn't see the tongue in cheek part. I just assumed the rest was pure garbage too and scrolled.

Let me ask you this. Would you trade Zack Martin straught up for any OT in the league that you think is comparable to him?

Not on this team, because I think he has more value than what would most likely be an incoming RT. If we didn't have Tyron Smith, I would trade him for a LT of his caliber in a heartbeat.

 

[texbumthelife]

That post starts with - I haven't and wouldn't argue positional bias. Of course OT's carry more value. Never said they didn't. The fact of the matter is, they are more valuable.

That's probably why I didn't see the tongue in cheek part. I just assumed the rest was pure garbage too and scrolled.

Let me ask you this. Would you trade Zack Martin straught up for any OT in the league that you think is comparable to him?

How old are you?

 

[Risen Star]

Not on this team, because I think he has more value than what would most likely be an incoming RT. If we didn't have Tyron Smith, I would trade him for a LT of his caliber in a heartbeat.

So OGs are more important on this team? It's a team specific thing that we should probably chart.

But if, say, he was a Philadelphia Eagle you'd trade him for any OT of the same caliber?

 

[texbumthelife]

So OGs are more important on this team? It's a team specific thing that we should probably chart.

But if, say, he was a Philadelphia Eagle you'd trade him for any OT of the same caliber?

Probably not, they've got Lane Johnson and Jason Peters.

If we are talking a team with no good tackles, then yes I would trade Martin for a LT of the same caliber. Though I don't think any team would ever accept that.

 

[Risen Star]

I don't like this.

You should dislike your recently drafted little girly OG doing 16 bench press reps.

That's warm up weight.

 

[Risen Star]

Probably not, they've got Lane Johnson and Jason Peters.

If we are talking a team with no good tackles, then yes I would trade Martin for a LT of the same caliber. Though I don't think any team would ever accept that.

Why do you keep saying LT only? Is your stance that an OG is equal to a RT? Is an OC equal as well? I seriously need to know this theory.