It's Bosa or bust

[Sydla]

And you aren't doing a good job explaining why NFL draft history started 6 years ago, except for your own cherry picking needs. Try harder, you're failing miserably.

LOL.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

With all due respect, you just lost all credibility. Busts don't win Offensive rookie of the week three times nor do they put up 1,000 yard seasons (well, 982 and with average quarterbacking).

Winning "offensive rookie of the week" is pretty trivial... how many candidates are there even? I just said he was a solid player with potential to be more. But he has also been a disappointment in many ways as well.

Google "AJ Green bust" and "Sammy Watkins bust". I bet you won't get a single result on Green, because no one thought he was a bust.

 

[tyke1doe]

And you aren't doing a good job explaining why NFL draft history started 6 years ago, except for your own cherry picking needs. Try harder, you're failing miserably.

He doesn't have too.

This is what you said:

People have an extremely warped view of what you can get with the #4 pick and clearly have not reviewed draft history in a while.

If he shows that great players can be had at the #4 pick, that reveals of segment of history that contradicts your statement.

And he did that. It doesn't matter if 10 out of 14 players over the past 14 years have been busts being picked at the #4 position. The fact that 4 were not busts and turned out to be great players PROVES that you can get a great player picking at the #4 spot.

Therefore, what history tells us is that you can pick a crappy player at #4 or/and you can pick a great player at #4.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

He doesn't have too.

This is what you said:



If he shows that great players can be had at the #4 pick, that reveals of segment of history that contradicts your statement.

And he did that. It doesn't matter if 10 out of 14 players over the past 14 years have been busts being picked at the #4 position. The fact that 4 were not busts and turned out to be great players PROVES that you can get a great player picking at the #4 spot.

Therefore, what history tells us is that you can pick a crappy player at #4 or/and you can pick a great player at #4.

Is this supposed to mean something? I never said anything contrary to that. I also never said you shouldn't try to get a good player. I simply said that if you get a solid starter for 5-6 years at this pick, then you have done well... which anyone who can read (not sure that applies to you) can see that is true simply by reviewing draft history (and not cherry picking). The #4 pick is not the #1 or #2. You are going to pick a player who has warts, like Bosa or Ramsey.

 

[tyke1doe]

Winning "offensive rookie of the week" is pretty trivial... how many candidates are there even? I just said he was a solid player with potential to be more. But he has also been a disappointment in many ways as well.

If it's trivial, then why do they give the award?
Second, you amended your statement because you initially said he was an "almost bust." So now he's a solid player? Sounds like you're backing off your initial comment.

Google "AJ Green bust" and "Sammy Watkins bust". I bet you won't get a single result on Green, because no one thought he was a bust.

So? Who outside of you thinks Sammy Watkins is a bust? Can you cite one reputable expert who thinks or calls Sammy Watkins a bust?

 

[dfense]

So you're banking on Darren McFadden, Alfred Morris and Lance Dunbar to carry the running game this season? Really?

McFadden was sharing the load last year, got tweaked in some games and had to sit out a spell and will be another year older.
Dunbar is coming off a major injury and Morris was an after-thought in Washington.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to go into the season with just those three.

And I understand the desire to trade down, but we may not have a partner. The Chargers probably have the last remaining trade down spot in the top five. We may get screwed with the #4 pick. So absent a trade down, we may be forced to take Elliott, which isn't such a bad idea.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sold on Bosa. Maybe I'm judging him too critically, but he has the perpetual presence of a pothead, and that scares me.

There's a whole lot of assumptions in there. I'll go by what I've seen.

McFadden was bringing the load last year, all year. No injuries. He sat out some of the "Randall" games or he would have been around 1200 yds. With Romo getting those 3rd and 2's and converting, McFadden will have another good year.
Morris was systematically fazed out for another player. He would get a couple carries here and there. Never got into a rhythm. Never been hurt. You don't think he is going to be a little motivated for week 2?
Bosa has been so overanalyzed at this point. When the season ended, Bosa was #1 player on the majority of talent evaluators lists. He will be a force on the Cowboys line.

 

[tyke1doe]

Is this supposed to mean something? I never said anything contrary to that. I also never said you shouldn't try to get a good player. I simply said that if you get a solid starter for 5-6 years at this pick, then you have done well... which anyone who can read (not sure that applies to you) can see that is true simply by reviewing draft history (and not cherry picking). The #4 pick is not the #1 or #2. You are going to pick a player who has warts, like Bosa or Ramsey.

You would have been okay if you simply said this ...

If Bosa is a starter here for 5-6 years of solid, above average play then the pick will be a smashing success.

Okay, fine. That's your opinion. But then you said this ...

People have an extremely warped view of what you can get with the #4 pick and clearly have not reviewed draft history in a while.

Now, you're stating people who don't agree with you somehow are willfully ignorant and lack understanding.

So Sydla offered you information that contradicts your insulting perceptive (Yes, you CAN get a player without warts and a great player at #4. Hence, Sydla's examples). But instead of apologizing, you persist in telling us we don't know what we're talking about when clearly we do, and offer history to support our opinion - well, Sydla did. I just happen to agree with him.

Don't get mad at us when we respond to what you've said.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

If it's trivial, then why do they give the award?
Second, you amended your statement because you initially said he was an "almost bust." So now he's a solid player? Sounds like you're backing off your initial comment.



So? Who outside of you thinks Sammy Watkins is a bust? Can you cite one reputable expert who thinks or calls Sammy Watkins a bust?

Is there some rule that says they can't give trivial awards? The entire Pro Bowl is trivial. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these silly questions.

Arguing about what a "bust" and a "stud" is pointless, it's not like they have official definitions. Again, he caught a whopping 60 passes last year, which tied him for 49th in the league. I will let you make excuses for him and others determine if he has lived up to being the #4 pick or not.

 

[dfense]

If it's trivial, then why do they give the award?
Second, you amended your statement because you initially said he was an "almost bust." So now he's a solid player? Sounds like you're backing off your initial comment.



So? Who outside of you thinks Sammy Watkins is a bust? Can you cite one reputable expert who thinks or calls Sammy Watkins a bust?

Well, I'm no reputable expert but, I live within the Buffalo Bills broadcasting circle. Sammy can't seem to stay healthy, keep his foot out of his mouth, walk the walk or show up to off-season program on time. He's a good receiver. Not a 2 number 1's pick receiver. no.

 

[Sydla]

Is this supposed to mean something? I never said anything contrary to that. I also never said you shouldn't try to get a good player. I simply said that if you get a solid starter for 5-6 years at this pick, then you have done well... which anyone who can read (not sure that applies to you) can see that is true simply by reviewing draft history (and not cherry picking). The #4 pick is not the #1 or #2. You are going to pick a player who has warts, like Bosa or Ramsey.

When the 4th pick has produced many elite players over the years, to say you have done well at the 4th pick picking a guy who gives you 5-6 years of solid play is hilarious.

Phillip Rivers was a 4th pick. Charles Woodson was the 4th pick. Edgerrin James was the 4th pick. Jonathon Ogden was the 4th pick. Derrick Thomas was a 4th pick. Chris Doleman was a 4th pick. Kenny Easley was a 4th pick. Willie McGinest was the 4th pick. Justin Smith (granted, who came along much later in his career) was also a 4th pick. In fact, it seems the 4th pick has a lot of feast or famine........... some elite, pro bowl level, all pro players and then some spectacular busts (Curry, McCants, Warrick, Adams).

So because the 4th pick has produced more than it's fair share of upper echelon, stud players it's not really accurate to state that at 4, you are destined to pick a guy with warts and should be happy if you get 5-6 years of solid but unspectacular play.

 

[tyke1doe]

Is there some rule that says they can't give trivial awards? The entire Pro Bowl is trivial. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these silly questions.

The Pro Bowl is trivial to whom? You? So you're the arbitrator of what is serious and what is silly, what is meaningful and what is meaningless?

Since, for the sake of argument, it's just your opinion and my opinion, please share a reputable expert(s) who says the Pro Bowl is trivial? The only triviality with regards to the Pro Bowl is that players don't give their all, and it becomes a joke. But the concept of the Pro Bowl is very much important because players' monetary incentives and future impact on the game are measured by Pro Bowls. And that's why there is a need for a Pro Bowl. Hardly trivial.

Arguing about what a "bust" and a "stud" is pointless, it's not like they have official definitions. Again, he caught a whopping 60 passes last year, which tied him for 49th in the league. I will let you make excuses for him and others determine if he has lived up to being the #4 pick or not.

You say arguing about "bust" and "stud" is pointless but YOU are the one who raised the issue.

So are you NOW saying that your initial comment was pointless?

 

[tyke1doe]

When the 4th pick has produced many elite players over the years, to say you have done well at the 4th pick picking a guy who gives you 5-6 years of solid play is hilarious.

Phillip Rivers was a 4th pick. Charles Woodson was the 4th pick. Edgerrin James was the 4th pick. Jonathon Ogden was the 4th pick. Derrick Thomas was a 4th pick. Chris Doleman was a 4th pick. Kenny Easley was a 4th pick. Willie McGinest was the 4th pick. Justin Smith (granted, who came along much later in his career) was also a 4th pick. In fact, it seems the 4th pick has a lot of feast or famine........... some elite, pro bowl level, all pro players and then some spectacular busts (Curry, McCants, Warrick, Adams).

So because the 4th pick has produced more than it's fair share of upper echelon, stud players it's not really accurate to state that at 4, you are destined to pick a guy with warts and should be happy if you get 5-6 years of solid but unspectacular play.

It's going, it's going, it's GONE!!!!

 

[reddyuta]

Watt was also a former TE picked at 11, not 4.

At the time, you were taking a chance on a freak athlete with great intangibles just without the production, experience or technique. He was all upside, that's why he went at 11, not 4.

Bosa has produced at the same position for three years, got worse in his final year, has already developed his technique, is not noted for his athleticism or size, has bad intangibles, and is projected to go top 5.

They are not remotely similar prospects. If anything, Watt compares better to Buckner

I don't think Bosa got worse in his final year at all, teams were extremely aware of him and gameplanned accordingly.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

When the 4th pick has produced many elite players over the years, to say you have done well at the 4th pick picking a guy who gives you 5-6 years of solid play is hilarious.

Phillip Rivers was a 4th pick. Charles Woodson was the 4th pick. Edgerrin James was the 4th pick. Jonathon Ogden was the 4th pick. Derrick Thomas was a 4th pick. Chris Doleman was a 4th pick. Kenny Easley was a 4th pick. Willie McGinest was the 4th pick. Justin Smith (granted, who came along much later in his career) was also a 4th pick. In fact, it seems the 4th pick has a lot of feast or famine........... some elite, pro bowl level, all pro players and then some spectacular busts (Curry, McCants, Warrick, Adams).

So because the 4th pick has produced more than it's fair share of upper echelon, stud players it's not really accurate to state that at 4, you are destined to pick a guy with warts and should be happy if you get 5-6 years of solid but unspectacular play.

Yes it is accurate, I'll say it again, if you pick a guy at 4 that starts for 5-6 years and is solid then that is a smashing success. Anyone who looks at draft history and doesn't cherry pick can clearly see that. Poor a job as you did, you have stated your case... there's nothing more to be said. At the very least, you have one cheerleader who agrees with you.

 

[stilltheguru88]

So basically we wasted a pick on Gregory and Ryan Russell. Great! Instead of beefing up the interior wete always worried about the edge.

 

[stilltheguru88]

And theres nothing elite about Joey Bosa so stop it.

 

[Sydla]

Yes it is accurate, I'll say it again, if you pick a guy at 4 that starts for 5-6 years and is solid then that is a smashing success. Anyone who looks at draft history and doesn't cherry pick can clearly see that. Poor a job as you did, you have stated your case... there's nothing more to be said. At the very least, you have one cheerleader who agrees with you.

The fact you think you won is priceless.

Hahahaha.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

The fact you think you won is priceless.

Hahahaha.

The fact that you have to make this comment.. and think it matters... is hilariously priceless.

Hahahaha.

 

[Oh_Canada]

He can be a regular 10-12 sack guy, play terrific run defense and considering his position that trumps virtually any position outside QB.

His shuttle and three cone were ridiculously good for his size and no one effected the opposing qb in college ball as much as did last year. Guy would be a terrific pick.

 

[tyke1doe]

There's a whole lot of assumptions in there. I'll go by what I've seen. McFadden was bringing the load last year, all year. No injuries. He sat out some of the "Randall" games or he would have been around 1200 yds. With Romo getting those 3rd and 2's and converting, McFadden will have another good year.
Morris was systematically fazed out for another player. He would get a couple carries here and there. Never got into a rhythm. Never been hurt. You don't think he is going to be a little motivated for week 2?
Bosa has been so overanalyzed at this point. When the season ended, Bosa was #1 player on the majority of talent evaluators lists. He will be a force on the Cowboys line.

First, I appreciate your opinion. I just don't happen to agree.

Second, you offered an assumption of your own with respect to Morris' motivation. Granted, he may be motivated, we just don't know that.

Third, McFadden's history has been that he gets nicked pretty easily. He had a good season last year, true. But I remember him coming out of games too. And he'll be a year older. And there's just something about him that's "blah" to me. I admit, my feelings are totally subjective, but I just considered his game "ho hum."

I still think we need a lead back. Hopefully, that will be Elliott, but if not, we need not pass on a running back in this draft. I think it will be unwise for the Cowboys and for Romo's health.