Supposedly Cowboys had a second round grade on Weeden

[tyke1doe]

I dont think its all luck at all. But some is involved. And to be honest I dont know how you could really determine how much is luck vs. skill or how much of each is involved.

Fair enough.

This is how I would explain it. There is an element of luck to the draft in that we don't know how any of the players will ultimately turn out. We can guess, but we don't know, e.g., Ryan Leaf.

However, skill comes in when we do our research on a player and compare that research to other players available at a particular point in the draft and choose based on that research. That involves skill. I would say the Seahawks were lucky that Wilson was available because they had no control over what other teams did or whom they would pick. But I would say they exercised skill in researching and recognizing Russell's gifts and talents and took him at the right spot when others didn't recognize his talent or recognized by didn't deem his talent and skills matched where he was picked.

It's the difference between playing the lottery and investing in stock. The former is pure luck because there is no research one can apply to a random process. However, investing in stock takes skill (and a little bit of luck) because it involves researching the company, researching trends as well as other factors to determine if a particular company's stock is one you should purchase. The luck comes in based on the unknown, i.e., you don't know whether the company's founder will be indicted for embezzlement or a disgruntled employee will go all postal or some other circumstance that leads the company to go belly up. But if you do your research on what is known and you invest in the company's stock, then it's a pretty good bet that the company will likely do well and reward you based on your decision.

That's the difference as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Setackin]

So did 80% of the league... what's surprising is after multiple sucky years in Cleveland they still liked him

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Fair enough.

This is how I would explain it. There is an element of luck to the draft in that we don't know how any of the players will ultimately turn out. We can guess, but we don't know, e.g., Ryan Leaf.

However, skill comes in when we do our research on a player and compare that research to other players available at a particular point in the draft and choose based on that research. That involves skill. I would say the Seahawks were lucky that Wilson was available because they had no control over what other teams did or whom they would pick. But I would say they exercised skill in researching and recognizing Russell's gifts and talents and took him at the right spot when others didn't recognize his talent or recognized by didn't deem his talent and skills matched where he was picked.

It's the difference between playing the lottery and investing in stock. The former is pure luck because there is no research one can apply to a random process. However, investing in stock takes skill (and a little bit of luck) because it involves researching the company, researching trends as well as other factors to determine if a particular company's stock is one you should purchase. The luck comes in based on the unknown, i.e., you don't know whether the company's founder will be indicted for embezzlement or a disgruntled employee will go all postal or some other circumstance that leads the company to go belly up. But if you do your research on what is known and you invest in the company's stock, then it's a pretty good bet that the company will likely do well and reward you based on your decision.

That's the difference as far as I'm concerned.

Yea but Seattle could have taken Wilson in a higher round if they were really convinced he would take them to 2 Super Bowls. And actually if they thot he would be the real deal they were fools for waiting as long as they did to pick him.

The lottery/stock comparison is similar but I think there is a bit more luck in the draft by comparison than in picking stocks.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yea but Seattle could have taken Wilson in a higher round if they were really convinced he would take them to 2 Super Bowls. And actually if they thot he would be the real deal they were fools for waiting as long as they did to pick him.

The lottery/stock comparison is similar but I think there is a bit more luck in the draft by comparison than in picking stocks.

Not if that's where his value was set in the draft. I've used this analogy before, but I think it's appropriate.

If a comic book is worth $1, but you think it will be worth $10,000 in the future, do you buy it at $10,000 based on future expectations, or do you buy it at the going rate of $1?

If you're wise with your money, you'll buy it closer to its present-day value not its future value.

There may be other comic books you want that you believe will yield greater value, so you use your extra money and buy the $5 comic book because you think that book will pay future dividends more so than the $1 book.

A similar principle applies to players picked in the draft. Many teams have draft boards and use those boards to rank players. Many if not most teams share the same general beliefs about a player's value. No one valued Russell Wilson as a first round pick; otherwise, they would have taken him. Looking back, we can say he is better than many of the guys taken higher than he, but at the time, his value was a third to lower round pick.

It's all about maximizing value. Besides, the Seahawks didn't know he would lead them to two Super Bowls. But that doesn't matter. The fact is they recognized he had SOMETHING which is why they took him when other teams passed on him.

And the reason why they selected him is because they did their Homewood (skill) and took him at the spot they thought he was worth taking.

I'm sorry, but if I can get a comic book or player closer to its/his present-day value compared to paying its/his higher value based on its/his future potential, I'm taking the lower value every day and twice on Sundays.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Not if that's where his value was set in the draft. I've used this analogy before, but I think it's appropriate.

If a comic book is worth $1, but you think it will be worth $10,000 in the future, do you buy it at $10,000 based on future expectations, or do you buy it at the going rate of $1?

If you're wise with your money, you'll buy it closer to its present-day value not its future value.

There may be other comic books you want that you believe will yield greater value, so you use your extra money and buy the $5 comic book because you think that book will pay future dividends more so than the $1 book.

A similar principle applies to players picked in the draft. Many teams have draft boards and use those boards to rank players. Many if not most teams share the same general beliefs about a player's value. No one valued Russell Wilson as a first round pick; otherwise, they would have taken him. Looking back, we can say he is better than many of the guys taken hire than he, but at the time, his value was a third to lower round pick.

It's all about maximizing value. Besides, the Seahawks didn't know he would lead them to two Super Bowls. But that doesn't matter. The fact is they recognized he had SOMETHING which is why they took him when other teams passed on him.

And the reason why they selected him is because they did their Homewood (skill) and took him at the spot they thought he was worth taking.

If I thot a comic book would be worth 10 g's and it was for sale at a dollar and 31 other guys were possible buyers, I'd be happy to buy it for more than $1 if I could get it before anybody else. And if I thot a QB was good enough to get my team to a Super Bowl Id gladly grab him in the 1st round and consider it a bargain. And if I didnt think he was good enuff to grab in the first or second round then Im either a fool, or Im lucky he got me to 2.

 

[tyke1doe]

If I thot a comic book would be worth 10 g's and it was for sale at a dollar and 31 other guys were possible buyers, I'd be happy to buy it for more than $1 if I could get it before anybody else.

Right. And that's what the Seahawks likely did. Here are some of the comments made about Russell Wilson pre draft.

"(Wilson) is not a legitimate NFL prospect."

"He's got a little money in his pocket, which helps."

"He can play in the NFL, but I don't see a team drafting him and making him a quarterback of the future."

Wilson is not a legitimate NFL prospect but he can play in the NFL, don't draft him but do consider him the type that can play in the NFL. Also, he was drafted into baseball so he's rich so he doesn't give a *****. The most important thing though is that this illegitimate QB prospect has the poise to play in the NFL, just don't draft him or put him on your team.

Based on those comments, does that sound like a quarterback who should be drafted in the third round?

Yet Seattle took him in the third round. It seems that they assessed his value, determined he wasn't a first or second rounder yet felt confident they could get him in the third, which they did. They may have overpaid a little at the time, but we don't know what other teams thought of him. There may have been a team that had multiple fourth round picks and could have taken a shot on him.

Nevertheless, they got a two-time Super Bowl quarterback at a bargain price and closer to where his value was in the draft.
And that's why he is considered a STEAL of the 2012 NFL Draft.

And if I thot a QB was good enough to get my team to a Super Bowl Id gladly grab him in the 1st round and consider it a bargain. And if I didnt think he was good enuff to grab in the first or second round then Im either a fool, or Im lucky he got me to 2.

So what you're saying is you'll overpay for a player and miss out on other players who have a higher ranking who could also help your team?

Remind me not to go with you bargain shopping.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I can't believe how many people are reading waaaaaaaaay to much into this.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Right. And that's what the Seahawks likely did. Here are some of the comments made about Russell Wilson pre draft.



Based on those comments, does that sound like a quarterback who should be drafted in the third round?

Yet Seattle took him in the third round. It seems that they assessed his value, determined he wasn't a first or second rounder yet felt confident they could get him in the third, which they did. They may have overpaid a little at the time, but we don't know what other teams thought of him. There may have been a team that had multiple fourth round picks and could have taken a shot on him.

Nevertheless, they got a two-time Super Bowl quarterback at a bargain price and closer to where his value was in the draft.
And that's why he is considered a STEAL of the 2012 NFL Draft.



So what you're saying is you'll overpay for a player and miss out on other players who have a higher ranking who could also help your team?

Remind me not to go with you bargain shopping.

Then you'll miss out on bargains. I never over pay.

So Seattle was either smart. Lucky. Or dumb for taking a chance of somebody else getting him.

My money is on lucky for the most part.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

I can't believe how many people are reading waaaaaaaaay to much into this.

And to think I may see him play this weekend in person against Indy.

ARGH!

My boy has a broken hand and still would be the better qb over Weeden.

 

[Craig]

Id be curious to see what happenned to that guy if the browns hadnt had any influence on him.

 

[Stash]

You sound like you'd make a very good gm after the fact.

Or maybe I can give credit where credit's due and not have to base what I think on what's on the side of the helmet?

 

[tyke1doe]

Then you'll miss out on bargains. I never over pay.

So Seattle was either smart. Lucky. Or dumb for taking a chance of somebody else getting him.

My money is on lucky for the most part.

It seems like you're arguing to be arguing now.

First, never argue a hypothetical with an actual. You'll lose every time.

Second, I've given you quotes and comments from people (however anonymous) who thought Russell Wilson's value was lower than the first or second round.

Consider this story from Bret Bielema, current Arkansas coach:

It is the winter of 2012, and Bielema, Wisconsin's coach at the time, is interviewing for the head coaching job with the Miami Dolphins. He is a day and a half into his meetings, and is mapping out his plans with the Dolphins' brass. He promises them a Super Bowl ring within five years if they pick Wilson, his quarterback at Wisconsin, in the upcoming draft. The idea of selecting a 5-10 quarterback in the second round, which is where Bielema thinks they need to, does not go over well. They think he's crazy.

"One hundred percent," Bielema says.

"They all looked at me like, 'You can't say that. That's the difference between college and pro. He's undersized. He can't throw.' I was like, 'OK, all right,' and I honestly, that day, kind of pulled myself out of it."

Bielema says he couldn't work for people he wasn't on the same page with. (Former Miami GM Jeff Ireland, now a scout with New Orleans, was not made available through the Saints for this article.)

The Dolphins wound up picking Texas A&M's Ryan Tannehill, who's 6-4, with the No. 8 overall pick. Five quarterbacks were drafted before Wilson.

Schneider visited Wilson four times during his senior season, but was very low-key. He didn't want to tip his hand. While most scouts wanted the measurables, Bielema says (Seahawk General Manager John) Schneider asked different questions. What did he do best in the locker room? What kind of a leader was he in practice?

Bielema says Schneider texted him the morning the second round started and asked if there were any teams sniffing around Wilson. That night, when the Seahawks drafted him in the third round, Bielema was settling in for dinner with his wife at a country club in Madison, Wisconsin. When he heard the news, he yelled out something that he says "you get bleeped for."

Everyone in the room stared at him. Just like in Miami.

You offered the argument that if the Seahawks were convinced he would take them to two Super Bowls why didn't they take him higher, and the answer is because his value wasn't higher because no one else had him being taken in the first or second round.

I've given you evidence to support this point.

Furthermore, based on your argument, the Seahawks should have taken Russell Wilson in the first round. But if they had overvalued him relative to his then value, they would have missed out on Bruce Irvin, who contributed to the defense that basically shut out all-world Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl. Irvin was ranked higher than Wilson. If Seattle had chose Wilson in the second, they would have likely missed out on Bobby Wagner, who has contributed to the Seahawks Super-Bowl winning defense.

So, basically, the Seahawks got three players who contributed heavily to their Super Bowl win as opposed to two. That's bargain shopping.

And, yes, the Seahawks may have been lucky, but they also exercised skill in understanding Wilson's value relative to other factors and picking him where they did.

 

[Alexander]

Who cares?????

I mean seriously? At that stage, who the hell cares????

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Who cares?????

I mean seriously? At that stage, who the hell cares????

He's just trolling for retweets.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

It seems like you're arguing to be arguing now.

First, never argue a hypothetical with an actual. You'll lose every time.

Second, I've given you quotes and comments from people (however anonymous) who thought Russell Wilson's value was lower than the first or second round.

Consider this story from Bret Bielema, current Arkansas coach:



You offered the argument that if the Seahawks were convinced he would take them to two Super Bowls why didn't they take him higher, and the answer is because his value wasn't higher because no one else had him being taken in the first or second round.

I've given you evidence to support this point.

Furthermore, based on your argument, the Seahawks should have taken Russell Wilson in the first round. But if they had overvalued him relative to his then value, they would have missed out on Bruce Irvin, who contributed to the defense that basically shut out all-world Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl. Irvin was ranked higher than Wilson. If Seattle had chose Wilson in the second, they would have likely missed out on Bobby Wagner, who has contributed to the Seahawks Super-Bowl winning defense.

So, basically, the Seahawks got three players who contributed heavily to their Super Bowl win as opposed to two. That's bargain shopping.

And, yes, the Seahawks may have been lucky, but they also exercised skill in understanding Wilson's value relative to other factors and picking him where they did.

Ok, the Seahawks werent lucky, they're just smarter than everybody.

 

[KJJ]

At least we didn't have a first round grade on him like Cleveland.

 

[Jarv]

Easy folks, it was a typo. They meant to say a 2nd grade round on him. The 3rd graders really add a lot of bulk on them when they turn 9.

 

[Vanilla2]

I'll agree with the last two, but I don't see where Seattle 'lucked' into Wilson. I see smart scouting and drafting there and being undeterred by the prototypical size requirements.



It's the hardest thing to do in all of pro sports in my opinion, and that's why it needs to be of the highest priority to do it better than everyone else.

And in my opinion, we haven't just done poorly, we've failed miserably. And that needs to change and change quickly.

Who did they take round 1 and 2 the year they drafted Wilson?

 

[Rogerthat12]

 

[Stash]

Who did they take round 1 and 2 the year they drafted Wilson?

OLB Bruce Irvin and LB Bobby Wagner. They knocked it out of the park that in 2012.