I feel this needs its own thread (drafting a WR related)

[theogt]

actually out of 12 teams 6 of their QBs were first rounders. I dont see how you draw the no QB in the first round thing.

The WR stats show somwthing completely different.

The numbers aren't that different. Four of the twelve #1 WRs were first round draft picks. That number increases to 5 if you count Glenn as a #1 receiver, and Reggie Wayne would be a #1 receiver if he were on most of the other teams.

If you counted all 3 QBs on the rosters of those teams, the numbers would actually be about the exact same.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

who would you have us draft Fuzzy?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:bang2: Let's just draft a kicker in the 1st, and be done with it.:horse: :abuseme:

How about we draft a OLB, CB, OT or RB in the first and be done with it.

This is just another example of the risk in drafting a WR in the first and why it should only be done if

A) You clearly have him valued higher than any other player or

B) You are HUGELY in need of a WR.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

who would you have us draft Fuzzy?

depends on who is available when we pick. im not even saying I dont see a scenario where in the first where a WR would be the best pick but I can see a whole lot more where it wouldnt be. I would basically pick all of these players before i picked Jarrett, Meachum or Bowe.

Thomas, Landry, Branch, Peterson, Okoye, Anderson, Willis, Hall, Brown, Lynch, Nelson, Houston, Revis, Ross or Moss.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The numbers aren't that different. Four of the twelve #1 WRs were first round draft picks. That number increases to 5 if you count Glenn as a #1 receiver, and Reggie Wayne would be a #1 receiver if he were on most of the other teams.

If you counted all 3 QBs on the rosters of those teams, the numbers would actually be about the exact same.

well you might as well include all the WRs then as well. The top 3 WRs were listed because all three regularly were in games and normally only one QB sees action in a game.

thing is i see a whole lot of reasoning and stats showing why its a bad idea but you of the WR in the first club dont really have much showing its a good idea.

the more i think on it the more i like WR in the second.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

you can rule out CB Fuzzy, from '95 to '03, that's as far back as I'm gonna go

2003

Newman-boom
Trufant-boom
Andre Woolfork-bust
Sammy Davis-bust
Nmandi Asomugha-boom

2002

Quentin Jammer-bust
Phillip Buchanan-bust
Lito Sheppard-boom
Mike Rumph-bust

2001

Nate Clements-boom
Will Allen-bust
Willie Middlebrooks-bust
Jamar Fletcher-bust

2000

Deltha O’Neal-boom, barely
Rashard Anderson-bust
Ahmed Plummer-bust

1999

Champ Bailey-boom
Chris McCallister-boom
Antoine Winfield-boom
Fernando Bryant-bust

1998

Charles Woodson-boom
Duane Starks-boom
Terry Fair-bust
RW McQuarters-bust

1997

Shawn Springs-boom
Bryant Westbrook-bust
Tommy Knight-bust
Michael Booker-bust
Chad Scott-boom
Chris Canty-bust

1996

Alex Molden-bust
Walt Harris-boom

1995

Tyrone Pool-boom
Ty Law-boom


18/34=53% bust rate for CBs taken in the 1st round

 

[theogt]

well you might as well include all the WRs then as well. The top 3 WRs were listed because all three regularly were in games and normally only one QB sees action in a game.

Uh...so? The numbers still aren't that much different. Certainly not significant enough to claim any sort of indication one way or the other. In addition, the argument can certainly be made that the teams that didn't have #1 receivers certainly would have been better off with #1 receivers.

thing is i see a whole lot of reasoning and stats showing why its a bad idea but you of the WR in the first club dont really have much showing its a good idea.

the more i think on it the more i like WR in the second.

Once again, I'm not stating whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. I don't have enough information to conclude either way. I'm just saying that these supposed arguments that it's a bad idea aren't very persuasive. In fact, they've been very poorly reasoned and they certainly don't contain "a whole lot of ... stats." If such an argument were made this easily, you'd see a lot fewer teams drafting WRs in the 1st round.

Either (1) nearly every scout and GM in the NFL is too dumb to see these arguments, or (2) they're simply wrong. Like I said, I don't have the information to make a decision as to whether it would be a good idea, but given those two choice, I can make a decent guess.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you can rule out CB Fuzzy, from '95 to '03, that's as far back as I'm gonna go

Newman-boom
Trufant-boom
Andre Woolfork-bust
Sammy Davis-bust
Nmandi Asomugha-boom

2002

Quentin Jammer-bust
Phillip Buchanan-bust
Lito Sheppard-boom
Mike Rumph-bust

2001

Nate Clements-boom
Will Allen-bust
Willie Middlebrooks-bust
Jamar Fletcher-bust

2000

Deltha O’Neal-boom, barely
Rashard Anderson-bust
Ahmed Plummer-bust

1999

Champ Bailey-boom
Chris McCallister-boom
Antoine Winfield-boom
Fernando Bryant-bust

1998

Charles Woodson-boom
Duane Starks-bust
Terry Fair-bust
RW McQuarters-bust

1997

Shawn Springs-boom
Bryant Westbrook-bust
Tommy Knight-bust
Michael Booker-bust
Chad Scott-boom
Chris Canty-bust

1996

Alex Molden-bust
Walt Harris-boom

1995

Tyrone Pool-boom
Ty Law-boom

20/34=56% bust

good stuff summer but i see a few right off the top of my head i disagree with ill go over them real quick.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

good stuff summer but i see a few right off the top of my head i disagree with ill go over them real quick.

I think I'm being pretty fair w/ my classifications, because outside of '04, Lito Shepperd has been burnt toast, Deltha O'Neal was a glorified PR until he came to Cincy, but his play fell off a bit last year, Nmandi Osamugha only came on last year, Duane Starks was never worth the 10th overall selection, they all could have easily been labeled busts

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I disagree with the following

Jammer
Allen
Starks
Bryant
Plummer
Molden

Plummer and Starks were considered standout corners and the rest at least consistently started for the mjority of their careers. Bryant started 93 games. That makes it 14/34 or 41%. Similar to DEs.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

depends on who is available when we pick. im not even saying I dont see a scenario where in the first where a WR would be the best pick but I can see a whole lot more where it wouldnt be. I would basically pick all of these players before i picked Jarrett, Meachum or Bowe.

Thomas, Landry, Branch, Peterson, Okoye, Anderson, Willis, Hall, Brown, Lynch, Nelson, Houston, Revis, Ross or Moss.

these in bold will not be available at 22 IMO

Thomas is a top 5 pick

Landry is a top 10 pick

Branchi is a top 20 pick

Okoye is a top 10 pick

Hall is a top 15 pick

Nelson is a top 20 pick

Revis is a top 20 pick

Moss is a top 20 pick

Willis is a top 20 pick, hey, if Ernie Sims can go at #9...

Brown is a top 15 pick

Peterson is a top 10 pick

Jamaal Anderson is a top 20 pick

JMO

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

these in bold will not be available at 22 IMO

Thomas is a top 5 pick

Landry is a top 10 pick

Branchi is a top 20 pick

Okoye is a top 10 pick

Hall is a top 15 pick

Nelson is a top 20 pick

Revis is a top 20 pick

Moss is a top 20 pick

Willis is a top 20 pick, hey, if Ernie Sims can go at #9...

Brown is a top 15 pick

Peterson is a top 10 pick

Jamaal Anderson is a top 20 pick

JMO

And I bet one will be there at 22. just saying.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Jammer-burnt toast, definitely not worth the 6th overall pick
Allen-major toast
Starks-I have him as a boom
Bryant
Plummer
Molden-bust

Plummer and Starks were considered standout corners and the rest at least consistently started for the mjority of their careers. Bryant started 93 games. That makes it 14/34 or 41%. Similar to DEs.

I'll make a concession though, and give you the guys who were solid such as Plummer and Bryant, so 47% have been busts

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And I bet one will be there at 22. just saying.

the only ones I can possibly see being available at 22 are Branch and Willis

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh...so? The numbers still aren't that much different. Certainly not significant enough to claim any sort of indication one way or the other. In addition, the argument can certainly be made that the teams that didn't have #1 receivers certainly would have been better off with #1 receivers.

Once again, I'm not stating whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. I don't have enough information to conclude either way. I'm just saying that these supposed arguments that it's a bad idea aren't very persuasive. In fact, they've been very poorly reasoned and they certainly don't contain "a whole lot of ... stats." If such an argument were made this easily, you'd see a lot fewer teams drafting WRs in the 1st round.

Either (1) nearly every scout and GM in the NFL is too dumb to see these arguments, or (2) they're simply wrong. Like I said, I don't have the information to make a decision as to whether it would be a good idea, but given those two choice, I can make a decent guess.

Actually the numbers are hugely different.

50% of the QBs were first rounders.
16% of the WRs were first rounders.

And actually you dont make any real arguments Theo. All you ever claim is that there isnt enough information when there is NO information saying that its a good idea outside of the 'NFL teams do it so its got to be a good idea' argument which is fallacious and makes no sense anyway.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

fuzzy, just pulled this off of Wikipedia

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7k6Z...ttp%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Molden

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the only ones I can possibly see being available at 22 are Branch and Willis

well i wish i had your crystal ball. i dont even bother with projecting who is actually going to be where until i see gosselin and the huddle report mocks right beofre the draft.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

fuzzy, just pulled this off of Wikipedia

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7k6Z...86/**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Molden

no offense summer but citing wiki is not credible. it reeks of being written by a fan. show me a credible article.

he started for 8 years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jammer-burnt toast, definitely not worth the 6th overall pick
Allen-major toast
Starks-I have him as a boom
Bryant
Plummer
Molden-bust



I'll make a concession though, and give you the guys who were solid such as Plummer and Bryant, so 47% have been busts

you dont have starks as a boom look again. and your 'major toast' anlysis isnt as compelling to me as the 'games started out of games played' stats.

Jammer may not be worth the 6th pick but thats not the standard i used on my previous list.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

no offense summer but citing wiki is not credible. it reeks of being written by a fan. show me a credible article.

he started for 8 years.

it is a non-biased source, and we're talking about 1 CB here making the difference between the risk being neglible, it's not like Molden's status bumps the bust percentage of CBs a whole lot