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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

oh, since Fuzzy says it's not credible, it must be true

dear lord summer. i dont have to prove that your source is credible. you do.

Its wikipedia for crissakes.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

he's not bad because he has a fearsome pass-rush to compensate for his horrible coverage skills, he was horrible in '04 and '05, and looked stupid in the playoff loss vs. New England, he has slow hips and is slow making up for his mistakes, he's a great tackler, but that's about it, just watch a Charger game

kk summer nice anecdotes. well just have to agree to disagree.

i wont disagree though that prima facia CB does seem to be one of the riskier positions.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and youre right it is only two players but when youre dealing with 2 out of 30 it becomes significant. which brings up another point: that lists sample size is really too small to say anything one way or antoher anyway.

going any further in years is pointless now that there's the no contact rule, that's why corners such as Charles Woodson and Ty Law are bad

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

going any further in years is pointless now that there's the no contact rule, that's why corners such as Charles Woodson and Ty Law are bad

fair enough but you also need to look at the fact that Jammers rookie year was the first year they implemented the recent changes.

Also a small sample size is a small sample size which sucks because going back farther does seem to not be worthwhile.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

dear lord summer. i dont have to prove that your source is credible. you do.

Its wikipedia for crissakes.

again, show me something where it says Molden was not a bust

arguing about the credibility of the source I provided is pointless since there's no telling either way

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

again, show me something where it says Molden was not a bust

actually i just spent a modicum of time and he didnt start after his third year and has been a nickel back since. yeah hes a bust.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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-boom

1999

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

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


16/34=47% bust rate for CBs taken in the 1st round

my revised classification y'alls

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

again, show me something where it says Molden was not a bust

arguing about the credibility of the source I provided is pointless since there's no telling either way

if the source isnt credible its comletely ignored. but yeah i looked deepe and hes bad.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

if the source isnt credible its comletely ignored. but yeah i looked deepe and hes bad.

again, give me something that says he wasn't a bust

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you miscounted thats only 15 according to your list and i still disagree with some.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

again, give me something that says he wasn't a bust

read what i said again. i looked deeper and he was bad after his second year.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

if the source isnt credible its comletely ignored. but yeah i looked deepe and hes bad.

you should have just taken my word for it then

 

[Bob Sacamano]

you miscounted thats only 15 according to your list and i still disagree with some.

it's 16 and oh well if you disagree, it's not like I said Aundrey Bruce boomed or anything

 

[starfrombirth]

Look..the numbers tell the truth.

Our Passing Offense was ranked # 5 in the NFL in 2006.

Our Passing DEFENSE was ranked # 24.

It's not "rocket science"...

We need to draft a CB in the 1st round and then the healing can begin...

I'm not sold on this idea either. Pass defense can be dramatically affected by a pass rush and I've never believed that Bill's use of Canty and Spears played to either of their strengths. Both were top flight rushers in college but Bill used them as 2gap ends. Thats not their strength. They are excellent at attacking a single gap tho and that is what Wades scheme is. The lineup for the 3-4 is the same, it's how you use that lineup that makes the difference. The nosetackle playes two gap while one or both ends attack one or both of the same gaps. This overloads an offensive lineman while leaving another olineman standing their uselessly. While all this is going on your big linebackers are coming along plugging running lanes or putting further pressure via lanes to the qb. Bill never did this. To summarize I think "Scheme" will vastly improve our pass d.

 

[theogt]

Actually the numbers are hugely different.

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

Again, look at the #1 receiver position. It's virtually identical to QBs (4/12 v. 6/12). Of course teams can't stack all 3 WR positions with #1 picks. I've seen you make some borderline arguments before, but this takes the cake. Unless something happens, in two years, the only WRs we'll have on the roster are a 7th rounder and a few undrafted guys. Though they may be decent players, we'll need a clear #1 guy.

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.

Why can't you grasp the notion that criticizing someone else's argument does not require the critic to actually put forward a comprehensive argument of their own? You talk about logical fallacies so much, but I don't think really understand what they are.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, look at the #1 receiver position. It's virtually identical to QBs (4/12 v. 6/12). Of course teams can't stack all 3 WR positions with #1 picks. I've seen you make some borderline arguments before, but this takes the cake. Unless something happens, in two years, the only WRs we'll have on the roster are a 7th rounder and a few undrafted guys. Though they may be decent players, we'll need a clear #1 guy.

Calling my argument borderline and not backing it up with anything substantive is just what you normally posit theo. you are one of the most intellectually lazy people ive ever encountered. Oh and BTW 1/3 is not anywhere remotely near 1/2. I think some remedial math is in order for you. Again what i come to expect from you however

In the last 25 years, 48 QBs are first rounders while 89 WR have been. Thats nearly a two to one ration. That should be no surprise to anyone.

of the starting WR only 6/24 (25%) were first rounders versus that same 50% for starting QBs.

Why can't you grasp the notion that criticizing someone else's argument does not require the critic to actually put forward a comprehensive argument of their own? You talk about logical fallacies so much, but I don't think really understand what they are.

You dont 'have' to do anything. However if you want to make a point you have to construct an argument not merely refute one all the time. All you ever do is mitigate and you do a piss poor job of that. Oh and apparently you have no idea what a logical fallacy is.

But again i understadn why you do this theo. youre intellectually lazy. well either that or incapapable.

 

[theogt]

Calling my argument borderline and not backing it up with anything substantive is just what you normally posit theo. you are one of the most intellectually lazy people ive ever encountered. Oh and BTW 1/3 is not anywhere remotely near 1/2. I think some remedial math is in order for you. Again what i come to expect from you however

Actually the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 can be considered both significant and minimal. Both terms are relative -- there is no absolute definition. To me, $0.50 is not much different from $0.33, but $500,000 is a significant difference from $333,333. It all depends on the context, and in this context of 12 QBs, the difference is, in my opinion, minimal.

In the last 25 years, 48 QBs are first rounders while 89 WR have been. Thats nearly a two to one ration. That should be no surprise to anyone.

of the starting WR only 6/24 (25&#37 were first rounders versus that same 50% for starting QBs.

There are so many variables at play that this doesn't really tell us much. You can't seriously draw any conclusions from this.

You dont 'have' to do anything. However if you want to make a point you have to construct an argument not merely refute one all the time. All you ever do is mitigate and you do a piss poor job of that. Oh and apparently you have no idea what a logical fallacy is.

Wait, wait, wait... So in order for me to point out that your logic is wrong (i.e., refute your argument), I have to construct an entire argument leading to a conclusion opposite of yours? Are you serious? No, wait, you're clearly delusional.

But again i understadn why you do this theo. youre intellectually lazy. well either that or incapapable.

I'm not sure whether I'd rather be intellectually lazy or intellectually lacking, like yourself. By the way, you've dismissed all of my arguments as either "reductionist" or as "red herrings." You've failed to take a single argument head on. Talk about intellectually lazy.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 can be considered both significant and minimal. Both terms are relative -- there is no absolute definition. To me, $0.50 is not much different from $0.33. It all depends on the context, and in this context of 12 QBs, the difference is, in my opinion, minimal.

There are so many variables at play that this doesn't really tell us much. You can't seriously draw any conclusions from this.

Wait, wait, wait... So in order for me to point out that your logic is wrong (i.e., refute your argument), I have to construct an entire argument leading to a conclusion opposite of yours? Are you serious? No, wait, you're clearly delusional.

I'm not sure whether I'd rather be intellectually lazy or intellectually lacking, like yourself.

YOu are trying to tell me that 16% is statistically insignificant and then have the audacity to call me stupid? Thats rich.

Plus in your usual laziness you comletely ignore the numbers of QBs and WRs drafted and their relevance. But hey that is the theo way. just throw out garbage and see what sticks. When it doesnt just act like it never happened.

But now there are too many variables. Care to tell us what they are? Doubt you will or can. Either that or youll come up with some halfwitted list and try to pass that off.

And exactly how are you pointing out and logical error in these arguments. Like i said before when you simply mitigate and nothing more. I expect you dont understand what that means but that makes no difference to me. You can say something doesnt work as well as one might think but that doesnt mean that it doesnt work. and if you cant show something else that does work then you have nothing at all to say at the end.

Again you dont 'have' to do anything.

 

[theogt]

YOu are trying to tell me that 16% is statistically insignificant and then have the audacity to call me stupid? Thats rich.

In a sample of 12 and 24 out of a population of hundreds, yes that 16% difference can be considered minimal. This shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.

Plus in your usual laziness you comletely ignore the numbers of QBs and WRs drafted and their relevance. But hey that is the theo way. just throw out garbage and see what sticks. When it doesnt just act like it never happened.

No, I addressed it.

But now there are too many variables. Care to tell us what they are? Doubt you will or can. Either that or youll come up with some halfwitted list and try to pass that off.

See? Told you I addressed it. Player injury is one example of a variable that is not accounted for. The number of prospects available for each position is another. How about the level of talent on non-playoff teams? You can't say a WR in the 1st isn't worth it just because the rest of his team is complete trash. I'm sure you'll just brush these and any other off as "reductionist" or as "red herrings."

And exactly how are you pointing out and logical error in these arguments. Like i said before when you simply mitigate and nothing more.

I'm refuting your argument by pointing out that you conclusion is drawn from evidence that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion. It's the simplest form of refutation.

I expect you dont understand what that means but that makes no difference to me. You can say something doesnt work as well as one might think but that doesnt mean that it doesnt work.

There may be some threshold the passage of which an analysis might meet minimal level of helpfulness, but simply stating that yours passes this threshold isn't too terribly convincing.

and if you cant show something else that does work then you have nothing at all to say at the end.

Again with the logical fallacies. I don't have to prove that it is a good idea to draft a WR in the 1st round to show that your argument is a bad one. I've said it several times -- a complete analysis of this issue would require so much time and effort that I'm not willing to engage in it. Just think about it -- if the analysis were this easy, such that a fan could, within a matter of minutes, conclusively state that drafting a WR in the 1st is a bad idea, wouldn't every team in the NFL have already done this analysis and cease drafting WRs in the 1st round?

 

[iceberg]

Look..the numbers tell the truth.

Our Passing Offense was ranked # 5 in the NFL in 2006.

Our Passing DEFENSE was ranked # 24.

It's not "rocket science"...

We need to draft a CB in the 1st round and then the healing can begin...

no it's not rocket science, but i'm more inclined to say it's the serious lack of a pass rush that's killing us - NOT bad cb's.

you can only run around as someone's shadow for so long before you lose 'em. that being the case, since we can't get to the qb they have all day back there to do just that. if we fix the pass rush problem either through an impact player or change of style, all of a sudden the cb's we have will get a LOT better.

it's a team sport. you can't pick one area by such a rediculous stat and make the conclusion that we must have a cb when they're not the ONLY factor in the overall problem.