"Why I'm neither high nor low on Switzer", otherwise titled "A History of Cowboys 4th Rounders"

[CCBoy]

Yeah, past performance doesn't matter otherwise you'd have to like put together non existing things like a resume for any job interview.

Or always referring to a golden basis of insight, yet never applying that to a topic at hand.

The most functional elements in projection, are not individual players from the past...but current talent levels; player insights; how dedicated they as people, really are; and how they can be integrated into the team concepts at work in particular schemes.

It boils down to applying those basic elements into a projection of how they will work on a group of players and coaching there.

 

[aikemirv]

Yes. That is correct. We agree.

Please. Read. If that's your opinion of what I've said, you're...

Just.

Not.

Reading.

It's really a little disturbing that people are quite this doggedly determined to ignore the actual message as opposed to the knee-jerk.

Please show me in your original post where you discuss your evaluation of the actual player

 

[aikemirv]

Yeah, past performance doesn't matter otherwise you'd have to like put together non existing things like a resume for any job interview.

Past performance reflects on who is taking the pick, not the pick itself. The player himself should rest on his own merits, not the merits of the picker!

 

[_sturt_]

Please show me in your original post where you discuss your evaluation of the actual player

Exactly.

Where did I discuss an "evaluation" of the actual player at all in that post?

You're getting warmer. Maybe just read one of the posts that followed that one... look for the key term "context."

 

[aikemirv]

Exactly.

Where did I discuss an "evaluation" of the actual player at all in that post?

You're getting warmer. Maybe just read one of the posts that followed that one... look for the key term "context."

Oh, I am getting warmer. I thought people usually stated their opinion in the original post when creating a thread. I thought I was allowed to respond to that post, not have to read other post after your original.

 

[Stash]

Cop out.

Check yourself in the mirror. If there's any "cop out", it's there.

Because it is you that can't handle valid criticism of a poorly conceived thread topic giving stats that have nothing to do with the named player.

But it's typical of someone who fails to communicate, blame the audience.

 

[Risen Star]

Past performance reflects on who is taking the pick, not the pick itself. The player himself should rest on his own merits, not the merits of the picker!

You're right. I should expect the same from players picked by the Patriots as those by the Browns.

This is good insight.

 

[_sturt_]

Damn. Seems Switzer's family have all been hanging out on this board all these years, don't it?

Guys, really. Some of you... not all... are just not engaging. And yes, you'd like to put it back on me as-if it's so difficult to understand that I'm speaking to what history indicates is most typical, which in turn, provides some context. I will take the blame to this degree... yes, my title could have led you in that direction more concretely than it did. But after that, it's on you. I've even spelled it out in very common sports terms... Trout comes to bat, his history has no bearing on what will happen in that at-bat... but it does provide context for what appropriate expectations should probably be.

Lower your guns. It's not that bad.

 

[Stash]

Damn. Seems Switzer's family have all been hanging out on this board all these years, don't it?

Guys, really. Some of you... not all... are just not engaging. And yes, you'd like to put it back on me as-if it's so difficult to understand that I'm speaking to what history indicates is most typical, which in turn, provides some context. I will take the blame to this degree... yes, my title could have led you in that direction more concretely than it did. But after that, it's on you. I've even spelled it out in very common sports terms... Trout comes to bat, his history has no bearing on what will happen in that at-bat... but it does provide context for what appropriate expectations should probably be.

Lower your guns. It's not that bad.

People "understand" just fine. There is no "context" whatsoever, no matter how many times you throw the word in there. Your "logic" has no merit.

And your own Trout example here illustrates it. You're not talking about Trout's history here, you're talking about dozens of other players who's accomplishments and failures have nothing to do with and no bearing on his.

Sounds like you don't even know what you're trying to say yourself.

 

[aikemirv]

You're right. I should expect the same from players picked by the Patriots as those by the Browns.

This is good insight.

No, you should not assume that a player picked by the Browns is bad just because he is picked by the Browns. This concept is difficult huh?

Based on your thought process you could think a player was great but change your mind because the Browns picked him

 

[_sturt_]

I don't like to get into the "who can be more condescending" contest stuff. I really don't.

But you're really embarrassing yourself, stash, in my maybe-not-so-humble opinion to be so brazen as to pretend you can't get the analogy, ie, illustrating that history provides context of what expectations should probably be, but that it does not hold any power over what will or won't happen with the current situation.

That's all.

I'll try one more time.

No one expected Dak to be the player he was.

Why?

Because of the context. He was drafted where he was drafted.

It had no bearing on what he would actually do.

But it did have bearing on what appropriate expectations were.

 

[Stash]

I don't like to get into the "who can be more condescending" contest stuff. I really don't.

But you're really embarrassing yourself, stash, in my maybe-not-so-humble opinion to be so brazen as to pretend you can't get the analogy, ie, illustrating that history provides context of what expectations should probably be, but that it does not hold any power over what will or won't happen with the current situation.

That's all.

I'll try one more time.

No one expected Dak to be the player he was.

Why?

Because of the context. He was drafted where he was drafted.

It had no bearing on what he would actually do.

But it did have bearing on what appropriate expectations were.

I'm not embarrassing myself. I'm not the guy arguing with multiple people validly criticizing my poor attempt at making a point, that would be you.

And again, type "context" until your fingers bleed, it still won't make it valid.

And you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with these poor "examples". Now you'll point to Prescott exceeding "appropriate expectations" while being oblivious of the fact that those "expectations" were proven totally, utterly, and completely wrong.

None of it has any bearing, that's the point that has eluded you from the beginning, when you started this misguided thread.

 

[xwalker]

I don't like to get into the "who can be more condescending" contest stuff. I really don't.

But you're really embarrassing yourself, stash, in my maybe-not-so-humble opinion to be so brazen as to pretend you can't get the analogy, ie, illustrating that history provides context of what expectations should probably be, but that it does not hold any power over what will or won't happen with the current situation.

That's all.

I'll try one more time.

No one expected Dak to be the player he was.

Why?

Because of the context. He was drafted where he was drafted.

It had no bearing on what he would actually do.

But it did have bearing on what appropriate expectations were.

I only have 2 people on ignore and it appears you're talking to one of them.

That's my hint to try the ignore option.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Are 4th round picks aren't really the problem as if you look at most teams in the league their success rate in the 4th round is similar.

4th round picks are more borderline in nature as the first 3 rounds is where you expect to get quality production fairly immediately. It's hard to expect quality production out a 4th round QB, 4th round RB, 4th round WR. And if you do, then you wonder why he fell so far. Was it an injury concern? Off the field issues?

Being nonplussed about Switzer should be due to him being a 4th round pick and the success rate of 4th rounders in the league.

Our lack of 2nd round success is more troubling, but our success with UDFA's helps offset that.

I tend to like the Switzer pick here as the past 4th rounders were indicative of how the rest of the league takes 4th round picks...they usually go after either specialists or take chances on players that are either making a sizeable position and/or scheme change and that the player's athleticism could translate to the NFL.

What I like about Switzer is he does have some specialist ability in him in that he's a returner, but he's not making a position change. At the same time he was a productive WR at a big school program. So we are not expecting him to make any real changes nor are we taking a chance on an 'athlete' that didn't produce in college. He's also not a player that dropped due to injury.

As I said when we drafted him, NFL teams continue to undervalue the effective and efficient pivot route type of receiver because the measurables are not as appealing as the X-receiver who is taller, runs a faster 40-yard dash and jumps higher.

My main concern with Switzer, based on 4th rounders around the league, is if he can stay healthy. If he does like Beasley has in his career, I think he's a player to be excited about.






YR

 

[_sturt_]

...And again, type "context" until your fingers bleed, it still won't make it valid.

And you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with these poor "examples". Now you'll point to Prescott exceeding "appropriate expectations" while being oblivious of the fact that those "expectations" were proven totally, utterly, and completely wrong.

Um. No. That there were... as you yourself finally acknowledge here..."expectations"... distilled from the history of what you ordinarily should be able to expect from a given 4th round pick... is why I brought it up in the first place.

How do you not get this? Now you're just being contrarian for the hell of it.. or just too emotionally tied to the topic to calm down and see it.

And it appears you continue to glaze over as-if I'm making a prediction. I'm not. For the 37th time. I've stated flat-out that it's altogether plausible that Switzer will be an exceptional player. But. We've thought the same thing about players before, and have been wrong, and on the other hand, have thought a player like Hitchens might not even make it through training camp.

Nothing wrong with keeping some feet on the ground. In spite of your seeming protest to the contrary.

 

[_sturt_]

Are 4th round picks aren't really the problem as if you look at most teams in the league their success rate in the 4th round is similar.

4th round picks are more borderline in nature as the first 3 rounds is where you expect to get quality production fairly immediately. It's hard to expect quality production out a 4th round QB, 4th round RB, 4th round WR. And if you do, then you wonder why he fell so far. Was it an injury concern? Off the field issues?

Being nonplussed about Switzer should be due to him being a 4th round pick and the success rate of 4th rounders in the league.

Our lack of 2nd round success is more troubling, but our success with UDFA's helps offset that.

I tend to like the Switzer pick here as the past 4th rounders were indicative of how the rest of the league takes 4th round picks...they usually go after either specialists or take chances on players that are either making a sizeable position and/or scheme change and that the player's athleticism could translate to the NFL.

What I like about Switzer is he does have some specialist ability in him in that he's a returner, but he's not making a position change. At the same time he was a productive WR at a big school program. So we are not expecting him to make any real changes nor are we taking a chance on an 'athlete' that didn't produce in college. He's also not a player that dropped due to injury.

As I said when we drafted him, NFL teams continue to undervalue the effective and efficient pivot route type of receiver because the measurables are not as appealing as the X-receiver who is taller, runs a faster 40-yard dash and jumps higher.

My main concern with Switzer, based on 4th rounders around the league, is if he can stay healthy. If he does like Beasley has in his career, I think he's a player to be excited about.






YR

Agree with practically all of this.

 

[Stash]

Um. No. That there were... as you yourself finally acknowledge here..."expectations"... distilled from the history of what you ordinarily should be able to expect from a given 4th round pick... is why I brought it up in the first place.

And then came up with irrelevant history from 10 years ago which has no bearing at all, despite your repeated "context" mentions. Maybe you're a math guy, futilely trying to somehow make your numbers mean something, even when they don't? As if expectations are some constant when they're obviously not.

How do you not get this? Now you're just being contrarian for the hell of it.. or just too emotionally tied to the topic to calm down and see it.

My criticisms are of the flawed attempt to make an argument, I have no emotional connection at all. And I am in no way worked up or needing to calm down. If it's bothering you that much, I'll leave it alone and not respond again.

And it appears you continue to glaze over as-if I'm making a prediction. I'm not. For the 37th time. I've stated flat-out that it's altogether plausible that Switzer will be an exceptional player. But. We've thought the same thing about players before, and have been wrong, and on the other hand, have thought a player like Hitchens might not even make it through training camp.

No, you're going to great lengths to maintain that "no position at all" status. That's clear.

Nothing wrong with keeping some feet on the ground. In spite of your seeming protest to the contrary.

Who appointed you the "gate keeper" for expectations?

Who gave you the job of determining "context" or "appropriateness"?

And who's feet are "off the ground"?

 

[_sturt_]

I only have 2 people on ignore and it appears you're talking to one of them.

That's my hint to try the ignore option.

Just philosophically, for what anyone should care... I never accepted this concept for myself that I can't ignore someone on my own, needing no automatic something to force it. To the contrary, I like being able to read, even when I think someone's completely off the mark... or not read, if I see a username that tends to produce what I consider to be uninformed gobbledygook.

But to each his/her own.

And. Yes, some people just need to lighten up a little. No carpet bombing going on outside... fully stocked grocery stores... air conditioning... car in the driveway... internet access... and the Cowboys have as good a shot as ever to win a championship next season. Life isn't so bad.

(Also... apologies for the first edition of this post... I misread your post at first, but edited mine after realizing my mistake.)

 

[_sturt_]

stash, we're done.

I read the first few words and could tell you're in a spin cycle, and this is going nowhere.. if anything, you're just that much more doggedly determined to save face, it seems. Didn't read the rest.

Of course, only you control you... but I control me... and I won't be participating in your spin cycle any further... test me if that's your bent, but you're going to find me to be totally non-responsive on this topic with you. There's simply no new ground to cover here... and actually, hasn't been any actual new ground for a few exchanges now.

 

[xwalker]

Just philosophically, I never accepted this concept for myself that I can't ignore someone on my own, needing no automatic something to force it. To the contrary, I like being able to read, even when I think someone's completely off the mark... or not read, if I see a username that tends to produce what I consider to be uninformed gobbledygook.

But to each his/her own.

I was just trying to save you the aggravation of trying to logically respond to someone that will never respond to logic.