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

[CrazyCowboy]

Your research shows 1st hand why we have to be careful.....

 

[tm1119]

I made this thread to argue agaisnt the people who are saying WR in the 1st regardless of what WR's were there. In my opinion we are in the perfect position to draft BPA. If that happens to be a WR then fine, I actually really like Meachem.

 

[BlueStar II]

While there is never any guarantee that an early round WR (or any position for that matter) is going to be an "impact" player, considering the age of our starters and, plus the fact that we don't have too much behind them that would be viewed as proven players, if one were to slip to us, I would like us to give him a significant amount of consideration though. Of course we could also certainly benefit from an early round pick at CB or DT as well, so I imagine it will mainly depend upon who is still on the board when we pick. IMO, and in no specific order of preference, we should target either a DT, WR, or CB with out first pick.

 

[Big Dakota]

How about this for logic only four quarterbacks drafted number one overall in the 41 year history of the Super Bowl era have led a team to a ring.

They are: Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Troy Aikman and Peyton Manning who were drafted in 1970, 1983, 1989 and 1998 respectively.

So by this trend teams should quit looking for a franchise QB to go number one overall, it is a waste of money except for once a decade.

The crazy thing is those 4 guys total 1/4 of all SB wins.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

No, I addressed it.

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."

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.

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.

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?

You did not address the argument you just gave some reference to 'something deeper' and leave it at that. This is exactly why I call you intellectually lazy. You say that its not worth your time but if WR in the first round was a good idea then you could easily display some statistics or something to demonstrate that fact. You dont and we both no why.

The fact of the matter is that every variable weve looked at so far points towards WR not being needed nor prudent from a risk standpoint in the first round other positions being equal. You stating that there is a threshold is just arbitrary BS. When you look at something from several different angles and it draws the same conclusion then it bears at least considering.

Thats why your blanket dismissal is so stupid. So far we have looked bust rates, rosters of playoff teams WRs, and heck theres even an article now talking about how WR is inherently difficult to scvout and all you ever come back with is its not good enough. I imagine nothing would ever be good enough for the all knowing yet all lazy theo.

And I really dont think you understand the whole concept of mitigation versus solvency. Your never saying what we present isnt coherent. All you say is that its not enough when your not waffling like a cook at IHOP that is.

 

[eduncan22]

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.

NOT True.

In 2003, the Dallas Cowboys had the # 1 Ranked Pass Defense in the NFL.

We only had 32 sacks, yet only gave up 164.4 YPG!

In 2006, We had the # 24 Ranked Pass Defense.

We only had 34 sacks...allowing 219 YPG!

We've got serious problems in the secondary.

I quote my sources.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2003

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NOT True.

In 2003, the Dallas Cowboys had the # 1 Ranked Pass Defense in the NFL.

We only had 32 sacks, yet only gave up 164.4 YPG!

In 2006, We had the # 24 Ranked Pass Defense.

We only had 34 sacks...allowing 219 YPG!

We've got serious problems in the secondary.

I quote my sources.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2003

Replacing Darren Woodson with Tony Dixon, Keith Davis and Pat Watkins will do that to you.

 

[eduncan22]

Replacing Darren Woodson with Tony Dixon, Keith Davis and Pat Watkins will do that to you.

I believe replacing Mario Edwards with Henry might be the real problem.

 

[Hostile]

I believe replacing Mario Edwards with Henry might be the real problem.

:laugh2:

He stole your lunch money didn't he?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe replacing Mario Edwards with Henry might be the real problem.

Im sorry but that is just ignorant. Our free safety play has literally been worst in the league the last few seasons.

 

[iceberg]

NOT True.

In 2003, the Dallas Cowboys had the # 1 Ranked Pass Defense in the NFL.

We only had 32 sacks, yet only gave up 164.4 YPG!

In 2006, We had the # 24 Ranked Pass Defense.

We only had 34 sacks...allowing 219 YPG!

We've got serious problems in the secondary.

I quote my sources.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2003

you can keep your stats. i'll keep my common sense.

 

[eduncan22]

you can keep your stats. i'll keep my common sense.

I believe that Stats speak the truth.

Sometime people just wont listen.

 

[eduncan22]

Im sorry but that is just ignorant. Our free safety play has literally been worst in the league the last few seasons.

That is an overstatement.

 

[iceberg]

I believe that Stats speak the truth.

Sometime people just wont listen.

stats can say whatever you want them to say.

sometimes people realize that.

 

[eduncan22]

stats can say whatever you want them to say.

sometimes people realize that.

Can you make a # 24 Pass Defense turn into a # 1 Pass Defense by "saying so"??

 

[iceberg]

Can you make a # 24 Pass Defense turn into a # 1 Pass Defense by "saying so"??

nope. sure can't. but before parcells got here we had the #1 defense in the league, did we not?

how many stats did we hear after that to say yes, no, in this situation, in that...smoke, mirrors...schedule. luck.

look dude - this is more ignorant than most discussions i get into. if you wanna feel a stat is a stat is a stat and always right, you go do that.

the rest of us will be in the other room laughing at you from time to time.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

eduncan

we had the #1 ranked passing D in '00

we also had the 31st ranked rushing D

 

[eduncan22]

nope. sure can't. but before parcells got here we had the #1 defense in the league, did we not?

how many stats did we hear after that to say yes, no, in this situation, in that...smoke, mirrors...schedule. luck.

look dude - this is more ignorant than most discussions i get into. if you wanna feel a stat is a stat is a stat and always right, you go do that.

the rest of us will be in the other room laughing at you from time to time.

Well...I believe that Draft day is going to settle a lot of this.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is an overstatement.

No it isnt. Out of 102 safties Davis was 102nd in YPA against and watkins was 101st. thats last place.

 

[iceberg]

Well...I believe that Draft day is going to settle a lot of this.

you do that.