WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[tomson75]

scouts.com ......

...and yet they continue to take WR's in the first. Wierd.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Hey its true. The vast majority of people are stupid. Im not here to win friends; I have enough friends. Im here to talk about the Cowboys as only a few of my friends are Cowboys fans and none as rabid as I.

just because noone agrees w/ you, doesn't make them stupid

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

...and yet they continue to take WR's in the first. Wierd.

And again the appeal to popularity thing. Really you would think that some of you would stop it but yet here we go.

You guys nothing to mitigate my point that outside of QB, WR is the riskiest position. Unless you absolutely NEED a WR or there is noone else of value at your choice you should go with another position of relative need. That doesnt mean NEVER do it but rather only do it if you have to.

So keep on talking about scouts.com or pretty much any other mock draft site because theyll have WRs in the first but that still doesnt stop the fact that of those WRs half of them will no longer be in the league after 5 years, never get a 1000 yard season or just plain suck. But hey you keep on thinking that drafting a WR has a high probability of success relative to other positions and Ill keep on thinking its a bad idea.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

keep ignoring that NFL teams, besides knowing the figures, probably before you did, still select 3 to 4 WRs in the 1st round every year

Fuzzy, you should e-mail all 32 NFL teams that article

 

[Aikbach]

keep ignoring that NFL teams, besides knowing the figures, probably before you did, still select 3 to 4 WRs in the 1st round every year

I'm not against a first round pick being a wideout but NFL teams do sometimes make you wonder what they were thinking on draft day, Detroit and Houston for instance.

Despite that the stats seem to imply that you have pretty much a 50/50 shot at getting an above average starter out of a wideout selected in round one, that is a fair gamble to make for a team wanting a complementary playmaker with the chance of snagging a star.

For instance: 1988 brought Michael Irvin as the star and 1991 brought Alivn Harper as the complementary playmaker.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

just because noone agrees w/ you, doesn't make them stupid

I never said that was the case.

You dont have to agree with me to be smart. But being able to generate and present sound logical arguments certainly helps. And very few here ever do.

Someone was comparing Patrick Watkins to Troy Aikman earlier for chrissakes.

I have yet to see anyone argue that WRs are the biggest risk outside of QB in the first round yet at least. Its all boiling down to how bad you need the WR and people just wanting to argue with me.

 

[Alexander]

The one had a 1000 yard season. It was an automatic nonbust.

:laugh2:

I won't count the three (Hester, Wendell Davis and Donte Stallworth) who came up less than 70 yards short of this benchmark achievement, but since you brought it up as a threshold, you need to revise your little list.

Change Eric Metcalf to "boom" because he had 1189 yards in 1995.

Curtis Conway had THREE 1,000 yard seasons.

Better add Charles Johnson to "boom", his 1,009 yards in 1996 automatically nonbusts him.

Westbrook had 1191 in 1999.

Boston had two.

Koren Robinson had 1240 yards in 2002. Nonbust for him, then.

Rod Gardner, congratulations you are now a nonbust with your 1,006 whopping yards in 2002.

Fact is, you have no idea why you labeled players boom or bust, do you?

And judging by your pathetic excuse here, I suppose you are admitting that you made up your criteria as you went along. Right?

Perhaps you should do a little more research.

And then tell us all how you felt it was unappreciated.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

keep ignoring that NFL teams, besides knowing the figures, probably before you did, still select 3 to 4 WRs in the 1st round every year

Fuzzy, you should e-mail all 32 NFL teams that article

yeah those picks sure have worked out well for Detroit and Pittsburgh who kept on picking them now havent they. and agin your appealing to popularity.

just because NFL teams do it doesnt mean its a good idea.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2:

I won't count the three (Hester, Wendell Davis and Donte Stallworth) who came up less than 70 yards short of this benchmark achievement, but since you brought it up as a threshold, you need to revise your little list.

Change Eric Metcalf to "boom" because he had 1189 yards in 1995.

Curtis Conway had THREE 1,000 yard seasons.

Better add Charles Johnson to "boom", his 1,009 yards in 1996 automatically nonbusts him.

Westbrook had 1191 in 1999.

Boston had two.

Koren Robinson had 1240 yards in 2002. Nonbust for him, then.

Rod Gardner, congratulations you are now a nonbust with your 1,006 whopping yards in 2002.

Fact is, you have no idea why you labeled players boom or bust, do you?

And judging by your pathetic excuse here, I suppose you are admitting that you made up your criteria as you went along. Right?

Perhaps you should do a little more research.

And then tell us all how you felt it was unappreciated.

Ahh Alex how are you. As I stated there wer several other criteria how about you read the thread and get back to me. perhaps automatic nonbust was not appropriate. Whats great here is your not arguing any of their labels but the methodology. How about you talk about which ones you feel i get wrong.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm not against a first round pick being a wideout but NFL teams do sometimes make you wonder what they were thinking on draft day, Detroit and Houston for instance.

I'm not hell-bent on getting a WR in the 1st, but we're in a unique position, at least for us, to be able to get a very good WR prospect at 22, or OT, or OLB, sure there is a higher bust rate for WRs taken in the 1st round, but if the value is there, you take it, cuz any player we take at 22 could go either way, it's all about how well your scouting is, and w/ Jeff Ireland and Stephen Jones, I think that's a strength

 

[Aikbach]

I'm not hell-bent on getting a WR in the 1st, but we're in a unique position, at least for us, to be able to get a very good WR prospect at 22, or OT, or OLB, sure there is a higher bust rate for WRs taken in the 1st round, but if the value is there, you take it, cuz any player we take at 22 could go either way, it's all about how well your scouting is, and w/ Jeff Ireland and Stephen Jones, I think that's a strength

Exactly and with a pair of 33 year old wideout that are backed up by a seventh round pick and two undrafted free agents it would be wise for Dallas to consider Jarret.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

yeah those picks sure have worked out well for Detroit and Pittsburgh who kept on picking them now havent they. and agin your appealing to popularity.

just because NFL teams do it doesnt mean its a good idea.

I'm not appealing to popularity, I'm thinking like a GM, if a very good WR prospect falls into my lap where I pick, I think long and hard about taking him, not because of his position, but what kind of player he is and what value he's at

 

[Bob Sacamano]

:laugh2:

I won't count the three (Hester, Wendell Davis and Donte Stallworth) who came up less than 70 yards short of this benchmark achievement, but since you brought it up as a threshold, you need to revise your little list.

Change Eric Metcalf to "boom" because he had 1189 yards in 1995.

Curtis Conway had THREE 1,000 yard seasons.

Better add Charles Johnson to "boom", his 1,009 yards in 1996 automatically nonbusts him.

Westbrook had 1191 in 1999.

Boston had two.

Koren Robinson had 1240 yards in 2002. Nonbust for him, then.

Rod Gardner, congratulations you are now a nonbust with your 1,006 whopping yards in 2002.

Fact is, you have no idea why you labeled players boom or bust, do you?

And judging by your pathetic excuse here, I suppose you are admitting that you made up your criteria as you went along. Right?

Perhaps you should do a little more research.

And then tell us all how you felt it was unappreciated.

the Rod Gardner part was funny as hell

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not appealing to popularity, I'm thinking like a GM, if a very good WR prospect falls into my lap where I pick, I think long and hard about taking him

And Im saying if Im the GM and a very good WR, OLB and OT fall into my lap where i pick I DONT pick the WR.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And Im saying if Im the GM and a very good WR, OLB and OT fall into my lap where i pick I DONT pick the WR.

fair enough, but if the WR grades out as the better prospect, I'm taking him

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the Rod Gardner part was funny as hell

Actually whats sad is that in 10+ hes the first one to actually look at my list. When I made this list i did it in an hour and I figured that the majority of the discussion would be about the labels and where their were disagreements.

But only Alex has looked at it and he doesnt disagree with my labels but just wanted to take a shot at me.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Actually whats sad is that in 10+ hes the first one to actually look at my list. When I made this list i did it in an hour and I figured that the majority of the discussion would be about the labels and where their were disagreements.

But only Alex has looked at it and he doesnt disagree with my labels but just wanted to take a shot at me.

I looked at your list, I just didn't let the #s influence me that much

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I looked at your list, I just didn't let the #s influence me that much

were there any busts or booms you disagreed with?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

were there any busts or booms you disagreed with?

not really cuz I already knew that WRs in the 1st round haven't had the greatest success

 

[Alexander]

Ahh Alex how are you. As I stated there wer several other criteria how about you read the thread and get back to me.

Why?

I have seen them. And they are about as ripe for debunking as this one was.

perhaps automatic nonbust was not appropriate.

Not appropriate? How about completely lame? Can we agree and move on? Good.

Whats great here is your not arguing any of their labels but the methodology. How about you talk about which ones you feel i get wrong.

I think the labels are indeed wrong in some of these cases.

But you are the person with the criteria. By your own admission, a thousand yards is a big deal. You have brought it up again just a few posts ago:

So keep on talking about scouts.com or pretty much any other mock draft site because theyll have WRs in the first but that still doesnt stop the fact that of those WRs half of them will no longer be in the league after 5 years, never get a 1000 yard season or just plain suck

If you would like to admit you made it up, fine.

Once we know what the Fuzzy Lumpkins WR analysis technique is, we can then roll up the sleeves and get down to it.

Please let everyone know we can drop the 1,000 yard rule and start a real discussion of what makes a "boom" or a "bust". Your choice.

And if you like, we can go through each of the other positions you outlined and examine the flaws in your criteria. But let's get those criteria ironed out, you know, just in case they differ from the WR rules.

Then we can send the results to an independent firm for analysis, then schedule an announcement so you may reveal the results, here, live on the message board, and then ask for attention again.