WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[peplaw06]

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

Lemme get this straight. The basic premise of your thread is that a guy is either 100% success or 100% failure, and you're basing the labels on Stallworth and Lelie on a difference of a little more than 100 yards.

Stallworth as Alexander pointed out was 55 yards away from 1000. Lelie was 85 yards over that threshold. Nevermind that for their careers, Stallworth has more total yards in 11 fewer games, more receptions, and 15 more TDs.

But none of that matters, Lelie hits 1000 yards one time, and he's not one of the 50% who bust, and Stallworth is 55 yards short and is one of the 50%.

And you wonder why people are questioning your methodology??

 

[Bob Sacamano]

you kill me Alex

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Lemme get this straight. The basic premise of your thread is that a guy is either 100% success or 100% failure, and you're basing the labels on Stallworth and Lelie on a difference of a little more than 100 yards.

Stallworth as Alexander pointed out was 55 yards away from 1000. Lelie was 85 yards over that threshold. Nevermind that for their careers, Stallworth has more total yards in 11 fewer games, more receptions, and 15 more TDs.

But none of that matters, Lelie hits 1000 yards one time, and he's not one of the 50% who bust, and Stallworth is 55 yards short and is one of the 50%.

And you wonder why people are questioning your methodology??

:laugh2: :laugh1: just stop

fuzzy, you got some 'splainin to do

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why?

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



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



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:



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.

Anbd agin you arent arguing the results just the methodology. Like i said, I did the whole thing in about an hour and i ws thinking that i had erred because I was trying to get it done quickly.

To be honest with you i remember looking at Lelies and Stallworths numbers --they were right next to each other--and wanting to make them both busts becuase they both have been mediocre however i didnt want to deviate from my initial desire to not make the standrards too difficult so i compromised and used the 1000 yards as a tiebreaker if you will.

i mean they both truly are mediocre. 650ish yards average, not many TDs, Stallworth had been hurt as well so yeah i made a judgement call on that one but over all i did my best to try to adhere to the guidelines i had mentioned earlier.

I never went around stating that my work was professional and like i said in the OP I was expecting to have erred so all you bluster is you just trying to be a jerk but hey thats your shtick anyway. But in the end which of those labels do you disagree with overall, criteria or not or are you just going ot continue to try and bash me?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lemme get this straight. The basic premise of your thread is that a guy is either 100% success or 100% failure, and you're basing the labels on Stallworth and Lelie on a difference of a little more than 100 yards.

Stallworth as Alexander pointed out was 55 yards away from 1000. Lelie was 85 yards over that threshold. Nevermind that for their careers, Stallworth has more total yards in 11 fewer games, more receptions, and 15 more TDs.

But none of that matters, Lelie hits 1000 yards one time, and he's not one of the 50% who bust, and Stallworth is 55 yards short and is one of the 50%.

And you wonder why people are questioning your methodology??

actually only you and alex are. And finally we get to this its only take 10+ pages. Read the post above this one and it explains what i wsa thinking but if there are specific evals you disagree with i actually would like to hear them.

 

[Alexander]

Since you appear to be unable to defend your WR grades, how about the others in your exhaustive analysis? I think if you revisit and do some recalculations, you will see a difference.

I won't go into the WR situation since you are confused what the criteria are. I would like to keep things simple.

So let's turn to the DEs and OL.

And I will provide my feedback so we can compare and contrast, okay?

Smashing.

DE
Rick Bryan boom - Journeyman
Alphonso Carriker boom - No, he was a bust. Go ask Forrest Gregg and Ron Wolf. They will agree with me.
Jon Hand boom - I'd love to hear how this one was a boom.
Reggie Rogers bust - Only because he died. I doubt he could help that. But if you want to hold that against him, you are a cruel person.
Jason Buck boom - I can only laugh at this one. One of the more famous busts of the 1980s.
Aundray Bruce boom - I can only laugh even harder here. One of the more famous busts of all time.
Burt Grossman boom - Do you just make these up as boom as you go along?
Keith McCants boom - See above.
Anthony Smith boom - Ditto.
Alonzo Spellman boom - Ditto again.
Chris Mims boom - Hey, look another one.
John Copeland boom - This is getting to be a trend.
Derrick Alexander boom - Are you joking?
Ebenezer Ekuban boom - I guess you are.

26 of 78 busts or 33% busts - A revision is in order, don't you think?

OT
Chris Henton bust -Chris Hinton right? How can a seven time Pro Bowler be a "bust"?
Brian Blados boom - What exactly did Blados do? Other than be someone you remember from the Bengals? How is he a boom?
Antone Davis boom - This tells me you have absolutely no idea who Antone Davis was.
Pat Harlow boom - see above.
Kyle Turley boom - I would go bust here. He had four seasons of steroid bliss, and that is about it.
Victor Riley boom - Being a journeyman doesn't make you a "boom".
LJ Shelton boom he started for 7 years and only missed 8 games - see above
Bryant McKinnie boom - How is McKinnie a bust, yet Victor Riley a boom? Help me out here. I am at a loss.
Marc Columbo boom - I think Colombo's recovery is remarkable, but how is one decent season justify "boom" status?

21 of 64 busts or 33% busts - I think we can revise this number also.

Get your calculator out, Fuzzy.

We can do better.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Since you appear to be unable to defend your WR grades, how about the others in your exhaustive analysis? I think if you revisit and do some recalculations, you will see a difference.

I won't go into the WR situation since you are confused what the criteria are. I would like to keep things simple.

So let's turn to the DEs and OL.

And I will provide my feedback so we can compare and contrast, okay?

Smashing.

DE
Rick Bryan boom - Journeyman
Alphonso Carriker boom - No, he was a bust. Go ask Forrest Gregg and Ron Wolf. They will agree with me.
Jon Hand boom - I'd love to hear how this one was a boom.
Reggie Rogers bust - Only because he died. I doubt he could help that. But if you want to hold that against him, you are a cruel person.
Jason Buck boom - I can only laugh at this one. One of the more famous busts of the 1980s.
Aundray Bruce boom - I can only laugh even harder here. One of the more famous busts of all time.
Burt Grossman boom - Do you just make these up as boom as you go along?
Keith McCants boom - See above.
Anthony Smith boom - Ditto.
Alonzo Spellman boom - Ditto again.
Chris Mims boom - Hey, look another one.
John Copeland boom - This is getting to be a trend.
Derrick Alexander boom - Are you joking?
Ebenezer Ekuban boom - I guess you are.

26 of 78 busts or 33% busts - A revision is in order, don't you think?

OT
Chris Henton bust -Chris Hinton right? How can a seven time Pro Bowler be a "bust"?
Brian Blados boom - What exactly did Blados do? Other than be someone you remember from the Bengals? How is he a boom?
Antone Davis boom - This tells me you have absolutely no idea who Antone Davis was.
Pat Harlow boom - see above.
Kyle Turley boom - I would go bust here. He had four seasons of steroid bliss, and that is about it.
Victor Riley boom - Being a journeyman doesn't make you a "boom".
LJ Shelton boom he started for 7 years and only missed 8 games - see above
Bryant McKinnie boom - How is McKinnie a bust, yet Victor Riley a boom? Help me out here. I am at a loss.
Marc Columbo boom - I think Colombo's recovery is remarkable, but how is one decent season justify "boom" status?

21 of 64 busts or 33% busts - I think we can revise this number also.

Get your calculator out, Fuzzy.

We can do better.

wow, can't believe I missed him having Aundrey Bruce as a boom

 

[theogt]

"This thread was a resounding success."

"Drafting WRs in the first round is universally accepted as a horrible idea."

"All criticisms are simply red herrings."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since you appear to be unable to defend your WR grades, how about the others in your exhaustive analysis? I think if you revisit and do some recalculations, you will see a difference.

I won't go into the WR situation since you are confused what the criteria are. I would like to keep things simple.

So let's turn to the DEs and OL.

And I will provide my feedback so we can compare and contrast, okay?

Smashing.

DE
Rick Bryan boom - Journeyman
Alphonso Carriker boom - No, he was a bust. Go ask Forrest Gregg and Ron Wolf. They will agree with me.
Jon Hand boom - I'd love to hear how this one was a boom.
Reggie Rogers bust - Only because he died. I doubt he could help that. But if you want to hold that against him, you are a cruel person.
Jason Buck boom - I can only laugh at this one. One of the more famous busts of the 1980s.
Aundray Bruce boom - I can only laugh even harder here. One of the more famous busts of all time.
Burt Grossman boom - Do you just make these up as boom as you go along?
Keith McCants boom - See above.
Anthony Smith boom - Ditto.
Alonzo Spellman boom - Ditto again.
Chris Mims boom - Hey, look another one.
John Copeland boom - This is getting to be a trend.
Derrick Alexander boom - Are you joking?
Ebenezer Ekuban boom - I guess you are.

26 of 78 busts or 33% busts - A revision is in order, don't you think?

OT
Chris Henton bust -Chris Hinton right? How can a seven time Pro Bowler be a "bust"?
Brian Blados boom - What exactly did Blados do? Other than be someone you remember from the Bengals? How is he a boom?
Antone Davis boom - This tells me you have absolutely no idea who Antone Davis was.
Pat Harlow boom - see above.
Kyle Turley boom - I would go bust here. He had four seasons of steroid bliss, and that is about it.
Victor Riley boom - Being a journeyman doesn't make you a "boom".
LJ Shelton boom he started for 7 years and only missed 8 games - see above
Bryant McKinnie boom - How is McKinnie a bust, yet Victor Riley a boom? Help me out here. I am at a loss.
Marc Columbo boom - I think Colombo's recovery is remarkable, but how is one decent season justify "boom" status?

21 of 64 busts or 33% busts - I think we can revise this number also.

Get your calculator out, Fuzzy.

We can do better.

Hey like i said I did it in an hour and it was late let me look these over and ill get back to you.

 

[peplaw06]

actually only you and alex are. And finally we get to this its only take 10+ pages. Read the post above this one and it explains what i wsa thinking but if there are specific evals you disagree with i actually would like to hear them.

The thing is it's just too hard to deal in absolutes. There are guys who are no brainers, on both sides, then there are guys in between. On those guys, it's all subjective whether a guy was worth his draft selection.

Not only that, but you have lumped all first rounders into one category. You say it's not a good idea to select a WR at all in round 1... well, what about when a guy like Johnson comes along? He's arguably the best player in the draft. He's a sure fire top 5 pick. But a guy who may be a reach at number 32 gets lumped into the same category.

It's not that I completely disagree with your premise. It's just that it's not convincing enough for me (if I were a GM) to pass on a guy I had rated BPA on my board, simply because he's a WR. The draft isn't a sure thing, no matter what position you're drafting. But you can't draft out of fear of making the wrong choice.

 

[Alexander]

Hey like i said I did it in an hour and it was late let me look these over and ill get back to you.

Wait, you did in "in an hour" yet you said this:

I made this post last night at the end of a thread and it got no love at 1 AM and seeing as i put some work into it I decided to let it stand on its own.

Forgive me if I am confused.

From what I can see, this was a mental fart of a post yet you decided to label it as an epic and are now backtracking.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"This thread was a resounding success."

"Drafting WRs in the first round is universally accepted as a horrible idea."

"All criticisms are simply red herrings."

hey theo heres a hint: they did what you never could do and that put up a compelling argument. Go pat yourself on the back all day long but you still cant elaborate a dam thing. They can. See the difference?

And again like I said in the OP I was very unfamiliar with alot of the players from the eighties and WANTED input.

Now back to doing a bit of research.

 

[theogt]

hey theo heres a hint: they did what you never could do and that put up a compelling argument. Go pat yourself on the back all day long but you still cant elaborate a dam thing. They can. See the difference?

And again like I said in the OP I was very unfamiliar with alot of the players from the eighties and WANTED input.

Now back to doing a bit of research.

Whatever, dude. I told you from the beginning I wasn't going to engage in a player-for-player debate (even though it was obvious, as I claimed, from just randomly picking 2 players). That, however, wasn't the thrust of my argument. Your reading comprehension so incredibly poor that you never picked up on my real argument despite having reposted it several times.

 

[Alexander]

But you can't draft out of fear of making the wrong choice.

I agree.

I won't argue that drafting a WR in the first round is a risky process.

Practically any position on the field can be nitpicked like this. Particularly if you make up your grading criteria as we go along.

Even if there were an exact statistical device to prove this, it would probably point to the simple fact that the draft is a crapshoot and anyone attempting to apply absolutes and truisms is simply pissing in the breeze and ignoring the backsplash.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait, you did in "in an hour" yet you said this:



Forgive me if I am confused.

From what I can see, this was a mental fart of a post yet you decided to label it as an epic and are now backtracking.

some work is a subjective remark and yeah i did spend some time on it. when was the last time you worked over an hour on a post?

and again I have wanted input from the beginning especially on the older guys as i wasnt old enough to remember but hey you go ahead and thump your chest on stuff that i freely have admitted from the getgo.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It's not that I completely disagree with your premise. It's just that it's not convincing enough for me (if I were a GM) to pass on a guy I had rated BPA on my board, simply because he's a WR. The draft isn't a sure thing, no matter what position you're drafting. But you can't draft out of fear of making the wrong choice.

same here, I don't totally disregard the premise, but if 2 prospects grade equal at the top of my board when we pick, then that's when I look into the subjective matter such as value of the pick, character and the figure for bust rates, which one is technically a safer pick etc. but if the WR is the highest rated player on my board when it's time to pick, I'm taking him, same for if it were an OT instead, I'm not going to say, well, this WR is the highest rated player on my board, but the WR position is risky business, so I'm going to take #3 on my list, it's safer

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whatever, dude. I told you from the beginning I wasn't going to engage in a player-for-player debate (even though it was obvious, as I claimed, from just randomly picking 2 players). That, however, wasn't the thrust of my argument. Your reading comprehension so incredibly poor that you never picked up on my real argument despite having reposted it several times.

and why was it that you NEVER were aboe to reproduce those two players? You couldnt so you didnt.

and again what was your 'real' argument? your list isnt wholistic enough to give a true representation argument or was it something else that you still are too obtuse to elaborate?

 

[Alexander]

some work is a subjective remark and yeah i did spend some time on it. when was the last time you worked over an hour on a post?

I really wouldn't. I don't have to.

And if I did, I would be embarassed if it could be challenged like this one is.

and again I have wanted input from the beginning especially on the older guys as i wasnt old enough to remember but hey you go ahead and thump your chest on stuff that i freely have admitted from the getgo.

If anyone is chest thumping, it is you. You demanded "love" first, remember?

You have been thin-skinned and defensive this whole thread. And then act wounded when things don't go your way.

 

[dmoore]

Okay, I've read only half way through the thread so I'm not sure if someone else has expressed a similar opinion, but I feel that the line of thinking that it's a bad idea to draft a WR in the first based on the supposed 50% bust rate is dangerous. You can't use statistics like that. If I draft Robert Meachem, for example, that doesn't mean he personally has a 50% chance of being a bust. It just means that of all the WRs, 50% are likely to bust. Again, I'm not commenting on your statistics or agreeing with their accuracy, but you can't use a statistic about a group to describe an individual. My opinion is that if you feel confident in your assessment of a player and think he improves the team, you take him. No matter what position he plays. And honestly, if you refuse to draft WRs in the first, you make if far more unlikely that you ever draft impact recievers. I'd rather take 1 WR in the first, with a 50% chance of being a "boom", then have to use multiple 2nd's, 3rd's, and late round picks trying to find one.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

some work is a subjective remark and yeah i did spend some time on it. when was the last time you worked over an hour on a post?

and again I have wanted input from the beginning especially on the older guys as i wasnt old enough to remember but hey you go ahead and thump your chest on stuff that i freely have admitted from the getgo.

the problem is when someone disagreed w/ your work, you invited them to pit their analysis up against your's, personally, I wouldn't have done that if I knew my list was incomplete, cuz like you've just witnessed, Alex just picked it apart, ate it and shart it out on your plate