Not talking me into this being a good pick, sorry

[NolanRyan77]

how do you know they didn't try or what the cost would have been?

They literally said they didn't try.

 

[waving monkey]

They literally said they didn't try.

well I guess thats conclusive enough

 

[_sturt_]

Damn. You were given a mulligan @CalPolyTechnique, and you just blow it off and sacrifice it like a virgin to the gods...

Hey, at least I tried to be kind, tho.

Like I told the other guy, it's just not that hard to check out your own theory... a few clicks would have helped you debunk yourself before you stuck foot in mouth. Only had a few encounters as i recall, but I really thought you were better than this. Then again, maybe I shouldn't read too much into a college's logo as an avatar. Maybe that's just overcompensating (?). I'll try not to judge. Still.

 

[bodi]

Michael Gallup, Colorado St.

but who did he play against ?

the Mountain West

oh no not that the same conference that Leighton Vander Esch played in


I kid

 

[_sturt_]

Michael Gallup, Colorado St.

but who did he play against ?

the Mountain West

oh no not that the same conference that Leighton Vander Esch played in


I kid

(Or that same conference that DLaw once played in... )

 

[Hadenough]

Dallas has nailed these picks so far! This isnt Jerry making these picks anymore and you have to have trust in McClay. He has been doing a good job for a while.
You cant compare who the Giants are drafting because they are picking 17 picks ahead of Dallas every round.

 

[vicjagger]

https://www.ndtscouting.com/tuls-vander-esch-is-a-home-run-pick-for-the-cowboys/

 

[RoboQB]

I'm gonna go on record that you're sincerely misinformed.

You're being far too kind.

 

[RoboQB]

How dumb. You have said he was a second round talent, yet all but two have him in their top 32.

Lol...I know. Keep reading. Later in the thread, he completely denies basing it off of mocks... smh.

 

[iceberg]

Not going to try, we just gift wrapped the division to the Giants, once they get a motivated Dez after the draft it's a wrap.it's between them& Philly for the division. We had certain players we like somewhat fall into striking range& we didn't strike.smh.. Now get this they're going to be posters who pumps up the pick& claim he's Brian Urlacher 2 but anybody who knows football knows he is " Bobby Carpenter 2" mark my words 7-9 last place in the division

Well there's always a poster who refuses to be happy and gets mad at those who are.

Tag, you're it.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Damn. You were given a mulligan @CalPolyTechnique, and you just blow it off and sacrifice it like a virgin to the gods...

Hey, at least I tried to be kind, tho.

Like I told the other guy, it's just not that hard to check out your own theory... a few clicks would have helped you debunk yourself before you stuck foot in mouth. Only had a few encounters as i recall, but I really thought you were better than this. Then again, maybe I shouldn't read too much into a college's logo as an avatar. Maybe that's just overcompensating (?). I'll try not to judge. Still.

Loool, player rankings?

That changes absolutely nothing.

“Hey guys, Joe Blow from DraftTek 3000 had LVE as the 28th ranked player! We didn’t get value!”

Again, if your analysis of a prospect is limited to what you ascertain from what others write instead what you’ve determined yourself by watching you have no business trying to talk about the Draft.

Player rankings, smh.

 

[RoboQB]

Loool, player rankings?

That changes absolutely nothing.

“Hey guys, Joe Blow from DraftTek 3000 had LVE as the 28th ranked player! We didn’t get value!”

Again, if your analysis of a prospect is limited to what you ascertain from what others write instead what you’ve determined yourself by watching you have no business trying to talk about the Draft.

Player rankings, smh.

"Some people, you just can't reach".
I'd dare say that using player rankings is even worse than a mock.
How does one determine an offensive lineman to be better than a defensive back, for example?
This dude has dug such a deep hole that he needs a ladder to get out. Unfortunately, if we threw one down to
him, it might hit him in the head. Clearly, he can't afford any more damage to the cranium, so I
say we just leave him in the hole... lol

 

[_sturt_]

Loool, player rankings?

That changes absolutely nothing.

“Hey guys, Joe Blow from DraftTek 3000 had LVE as the 28th ranked player! We didn’t get value!”

Again, if your analysis of a prospect is limited to what you ascertain from what others write instead what you’ve determined yourself by watching you have no business trying to talk about the Draft.

Player rankings, smh.

I would have thought a more appropriate response would have been "Oops, I owe you an apology for alleging something that just wasn't accurate, and I could have avoided that with just a smidgen of a few seconds of research on my part but instead just assumed and reacted"...

But then again, yeah, it would have been surprising to see you NOT maintain you were already right, and just move to a different track for getting to your same conclusion. You appear to be one of those. Yes, you've got plenty of company, but nonetheless, "one of those."

One of those? Yes, one of those who, as said about another like you, consider people to have fallacious reasoning simply on the basis that they don't agree with your perspective.

But let's play along as-if you come to this kind of thing with a more neutral, more intellectually honest, less narcissistic perspective... kind-of like one might do if s/he were writing for a social science research journal (... and yeah, actually, you don't want to challenge me on this since I'm likely one of the few on the board who can claim to have been published in just such a journal...)

From a social science point of view, we're studying something that is by its nature inherently subjective... placing a value on the potential job performance of a given person relative to all of the others who are being considered for being selected. And then, more specifically, inserting into the equation the idea of a draft so that companies (teams) each follow an order in selecting a new employee from the pool., and determining the likelihood that that given person would be selected by a particular company at the slot in that employee draft.

How do you study that most effectively/validly?

I'll throw it back to you... for now... talk to me about how YOU believe that would be achieved. We already know there are a couple of options that you consider far too invalid to be taken seriously, so set those aside, and talk to me/us about the option you consider to yield the best conclusions... ? Mind you, you can't say "there is none," because we already know that there are, indeed, some options... so the question is, of the options we know exist, which option is most valid?

By the way and one more thing, if you choose to answer, don't presume me to be the hypocritical type because, I'm not. I'll grant you some intellectual honesty, and accept it if it seems your idea of a more valid way to determine the most solid conclusion is more reasonable than using player rankings from multiple rankers whose sites have gained sufficient popularity that they show up at the top of a Google search. You might doubt that, but you shouldn't, because I will. I don't invest a lot of my ego in these things. I've been wrong too many times to count. And, of course, I can be comfortable with that because the dirty little secret is that I have plenty of company, even though several are too delusional and/or egotistical to realize they're in that same group with me.

 

[kskboys]

Reach.

Not a reach at all, simply a high ceiling/low floor type of player. He might be Urlacher, or he might be a backup.

 

[kskboys]

Man, how bad was that Cowboys Forum that folded?

Not much different than this one.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I would have thought a more appropriate response would have been "Oops, I owe you an apology for alleging something that just wasn't accurate, and I could have avoided that with just a smidgen of a few seconds of research on my part but instead just assumed and reacted"...

But then again, yeah, it would have been surprising to see you NOT maintain you were already right, and just move to a different track for getting to your same conclusion. You appear to be one of those. Yes, you've got plenty of company, but nonetheless, "one of those."

One of those? Yes, one of those who, as said about another like you, consider people to have fallacious reasoning simply on the basis that they don't agree with your perspective.

But let's play along as-if you come to this kind of thing with a more neutral, more intellectually honest, less narcissistic perspective... kind-of like one might do if s/he were writing for a social science research journal (... and yeah, actually, you don't want to challenge me on this since I'm likely one of the few on the board who can claim to have been published in just such a journal...)

From a social science point of view, we're studying something that is by its nature inherently subjective... placing a value on the potential job performance of a given person relative to all of the others who are being considered for being selected. And then, more specifically, inserting into the equation the idea of a draft so that companies (teams) each follow an order in selecting a new employee from the pool., and determining the likelihood that that given person would be selected by a particular company at the slot in that employee draft.

How do you study that most effectively/validly?

I'll throw it back to you... for now... talk to me about how YOU believe that would be achieved. We already know there are a couple of options that you consider far too invalid to be taken seriously, so set those aside, and talk to me/us about the option you consider to yield the best conclusions... ? Mind you, you can't say "there is none," because we already know that there are, indeed, some options... so the question is, of the options we know exist, which option is most valid?

By the way and one more thing, if you choose to answer, don't presume me to be the hypocritical type because, I'm not. I'll grant you some intellectual honesty, and accept it if it seems your idea of a more valid way to determine the most solid conclusion is more reasonable than using player rankings from multiple rankers whose sites have gained sufficient popularity that they show up at the top of a Google search. You might doubt that, but you shouldn't, because I will.

Parsing through that long-winded screed, you made one actual point "we're studying something that is by its nature inherently subjective."

Which is EXACTLY THE POINT why pointing to what others are thinking (e.g. mock drafts, player rankings, "scouting reports") about a player is equally silly and lazy.

What is preventing you from doing your own analysis?

If you love the game, have a feel and understanding what you should be looking for at each position, there is nothing preventing you from formalizing your own opinion.

I don't expect you (or anyone) to watch 400+ prospects (I certainly don't), but you can whittle it down to a few (15-20) prospects from a couple of position groups you think the team is targeting. I don't speak on every prospect named, but when I do it's because I've actually watched them and formed my own conclusions. There's nothing worse than discussing a prospect and someone say "Player X can't block! See, here's a 'scouting report' that says so!" Even worse when someone claims a player was a bad value and then points to their meta-analysis of player rankings across the Web.

 

[waving monkey]

Bobby Carpenter 2 is not going

that is very lazy label [Carpenter 2]
I have gone back gone watch more vids on LVE and from where he came to be drafted is impressive.
Carpenter was no where near the talent of LVE no where near.
Look at sites and what they say if nothing else.
LVE is talented and driven

 

[waving monkey]

What limitations?

I suspect Ccijcladac has agenda

 

[Jaxonsdaddd]

Using general player rankings when it comes to a specific teams needs and then bashing a picks value makes no sense at all.

For example if collecting the average values of LVE from the internet "experts" puts him at #25, that may be true as a general position but not a cowboys specific position. As an example everyone knows the cowboys were not ever going to draft a QB in round one so they sort of have to be removed as a first round consideration. So once Darnold, Mayfield, etc are set aside, the value board for the Cowboys puts him around 20. Same goes for a RB and it goes on and on.

So team specific boards and needs will have players in much different levels than all of the internet draft experts. So based on need and LVE talent level he was not over drafted at all. Great pick

 

[_sturt_]

Parsing through that long-winded screed,

First, don't talk down to me about "long-winded" when it lies with you that you wanted to pursue the topic. And, at least I respect you enough to think you're intelligent enough to engage.

Some people like you prefer conclusions and very scant reasoning to support the conclusion. The more people we have in the world like that, that becomes a problem... flimsy conclusions come from shallow rationale... good conclusions come from solid rationale... and rationale? I regret to inform you since you appear to have an allergy to it, requires word count.

Aside from any of that, that's a dead giveaway that a person feels a rhetorical need to attack the person (for being long-winded or otherwise) because they don't feel their rationale on its own can stand the test. I don't make the rules. That's just how it gets perceived among the intelligent readership.

Parsing through that long-winded screed, you made one actual point "we're studying something that is by its nature inherently subjective."

I'll grant you this much of that... I have no clue what credentials any single one of those sites' person(s) who built the rankings brings to the discussion. They could be just another Joe Schmo, or they could have be people who have been or are so well-regarded that a team has employed them as a scout.

Silly and lazy?

My opinion, those are silly and lazy terms one uses when s/he is not so much interested in a genuine dialogue as s/he is to demagogue a discussion.

So, "silly," no, but it is accurate as I've just said that all we really know about all of them as a group is that they all appear to be very invested in offering such an intelligent perspective on the NFL draft that they can build up some following... and, additionally, that they have indeed built-up some following, otherwise the Google algorithm wouldn't push the sites to the top.

"Lazy?" Well, crucify me, but I'm a Joe Schmo whose opinion has never been so highly regarded that others would pay me for my scouting reports... and secondly, a Joe Schmo for whom this is a recreational/entertainment pursuit, and "draft expert" is not barely close to something I desire to be discussed about me at my funeral.

So, technically, I suppose "lazy" fits. But it's not as-if I feel any desire to apologize for that. To the contrary, I would feel more inclined to apologize if I were investing the limited amount of time I have on this earth trying to make a name for myself as a scout. Nothing against scouts at all... I appreciate that they're there because it serves my entertainment interests, and if that's how they feel compelled to use their time, that's for them to decide, not me.

What is preventing you from doing your own analysis?

I'm going to answer this straight up, but in a couple of ways, okay?

First, I could do that, and it would probably be somewhat satisfying to say that I did so, and that everyone here including yourself should listen to my opinion.

But then, would you?

First, would you take me for my word that I did that? Maybe, maybe not. Second... and most saliently... should you care about my opinion? Maybe... depending on my, um, credentials... ie, my background/history that would establish why my opinion should have any regard. So, you might want to know... very legitimately so... what is that background/history???

Have I been employed as a scout... ie, did someone else think so highly of my capacity to study and analyze players that they actually offered to pay me for my opinions? Or, failing that, is there empirical evidence that I have poured myself into that kind of study and work, and am not merely barking some conclusions arrived at based on a YouTube highlights clip, but rather, several hours of film study of entire games???

So, no, actually, since I can't claim any of that, it's less about being lazy or silly, and more about using the resources already given to me at my disposal, and allowing the power (in the precise statistical term sense of that term) of sheer number of people online who have attained some degree of following to help me assess what the value of player X is relative to what the other players in the draft are.

And wrapping up, EVEN IF I DID perform my own analysis, and EVEN IF I DID have some gravitas and credentials that would compel you and others to give a damn what I think... I'm a humble enough soul that I STILL would want to compare my own assessment of the value of the players to what others had surmised.

Why is there anything wrong with that?

I mean, other than the fact it doesn't appear to serve your evidently desired conclusion that we shouldn't even care about assessing value of players X versus Y versus Z since you so like player X and/or have complete confidence that player X was the best option at #19?

And tying that back to my original question, we just inherently disagree if you REALLY think it's invalid to even pursue the question. I'm suspicious that's not actually how you think about it, but you just can't figure out any other options other than the "silly and lazy" one that I chose to evaluate the question... but that, by seemingly your own admission, should be a smarter approach to assessing value than using mock drafts to come to a solid conclusion.

With that, today is both a moving day for me and the wife, and Day 3 of the draft... pardon me that I'll leave the last word to you and/or others. This is all the time I have for this discussion, unfortunately.