WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The word is defensive, I believe.

sure thing alex thats what it was

 

[Bob Sacamano]

since we're on the WR busting angle, another avenue I would like to explore, and which I tried to get going, was the percentage of busts for WRs taken after the 1st round

for the '03 draft, of the 3 receivers taken in the 1st, 1, Andre Johnson, has boomed, and Bryant Johnson has been marginal, while of the 30 receivers taken after the 1st, only Anquan Boldin boomed, while only Kevin Curtis has been marginal

that was one of the topics of that ESPN article that started this whole mess, that w/ the risk for receivers taken in the 1st round, there's a Marques Colston waiting to be had in the 7th round, but just by looking at the '03 draft, that simply isn't true, as the percentage of busts for the WRs taken after the 1st was much greater

let's elaborate on that

 

[Alexander]

since we're on the WR busting angle, another avenue I would like to explore, and which I tried to get going, was the percentage of busts for WRs taken after the 1st round

for the '03 draft, of the 3 receivers taken in the 1st, 1, Andre Johnson, has boomed, and Bryant Johnson has been marginal, while of the 30 receivers taken after the 1st, only Anquan Boldin boomed, while only Kevin Curtis has been marginal

that was one of the topics of that ESPN article that started this whole mess, that w/ the risk for receivers taken in the 1st round, there's a Marques Colston waiting to be had in the 7th round, but just by looking at the '03 draft, that simply isn't true, as the percentage of busts for the WRs taken after the 1st was much greater

let's elaborate on that

I blame Colston.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have this idiotic conclusion that great WRs can be found and unearthed in the seventh round with regularity.

Listen to Payton. Even he was surprised. Colston took off after the cuts and wasn't even his most surprising WR in camp, Hass was.

So we should be okay with just ignoring the position in the first round? That's crazy.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I blame Colston.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have this idiotic conclusion that great WRs can be found and unearthed in the seventh round with regularity.

Listen to Payton. Even he was surprised. Colston took off after the cuts and wasn't even his most surprising WR in camp, Hass was.

So we should be okay with just ignoring the position in the first round? That's crazy.

I do blame Colston, if Colston didn't bust out like he did, this discussion would never be taking place, it's just another ESPN-generated myth along the lines of TO is a bad teammate, Romo gets bottled up when he's forced to stay in the pocket, Jerry and Bill Parcells are due for a blow-up, etc

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If that helps you sleep at night.

This is absolutely hilarious for two reasons.

One, you don't understand what expected return is, and two, you criticize it for having the same problem of subjectivity that others are criticizing your original analysis.

You're being mind-bogglingly stubborn, and I supposed it's because you got your feelings hurt.

i actually didnt get my feelings hurt you pissed me off yesterday but i wouldnt say that i was hurt. i dont care about you theo.. i would have to care to be hurt.

and i remember you reading your posts and you talking about numbered grading systems and the need to look at the later rounds it got muddlesd certainly but please explain to me why i need a weighted average when all i have are two possibilities?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I blame Colston.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have this idiotic conclusion that great WRs can be found and unearthed in the seventh round with regularity.

Listen to Payton. Even he was surprised. Colston took off after the cuts and wasn't even his most surprising WR in camp, Hass was.

So we should be okay with just ignoring the position in the first round? That's crazy.

Ive actually never said that. What i have said is that if you have three needs say RB OT and WR and when you are set to draft there is a RB, OT and a WR that have equal value at the spot then you dont pick the WR.

if hes BPA then of course you take him.

 

[theogt]

i actually didnt get my feelings hurt you pissed me off yesterday but i wouldnt say that i was hurt. i dont care about you theo.. i would have to care to be hurt.

and i remember you reading your posts and you talking about numbered grading systems and the need to look at the later rounds it got muddlesd certainly but please explain to me why i need a weighted average when all i have are two possibilities?

I'm not talking about weighted averages, but you need further analysis because otherwise it tells you nothing.

You can say 50% of WRs bust and 33% of OTs bust, but that doesn't tell you whether it's better to draft an OT or a WR.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You invited the abuse, but it is clear you probably spent about 30 minutes of your exhaustive one hour on this and then just breezed over the other two so your averages looked better.



I disagree with all of the above.

cool thanks

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ive actually never said that. What i have said is that if you have three needs say RB OT and WR and when you are set to draft there is a RB, OT and a WR that have equal value at the spot then you dont pick the WR.

if hes BPA then of course you take him.

I don't know fuzzy, from your OP:

Now to me this is huge. I realize that some like Meacham, some like Jarrett and some like Ginn but at the end of the day I wouldnt even want Johnson. There is a 50% chance that any WR drafted in the first round will crap out on you and with the first day WRs being 10 deep i would rather take my chances later on.

you're not saying it now, but you did say it

 

[bbgun]

I haven't seen this many poseurs outside of a museum opening.

 

[theogt]

I haven't seen this many poseurs outside of a museum opening.

You go to museum openings?

Nerd.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I haven't seen this many poseurs outside of a museum opening.

another sociopath

welcome to the club, you're late btw

 

[bbgun]

You go to museum openings?

Yes. Unless it conflicts with monster truck rallies.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes. Unless it conflicts with monster truck rallies.

or ES meetings :

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not talking about weighted averages, but you need further analysis because otherwise it tells you nothing.

You can say 50% of WRs bust and 33% of OTs bust, but that doesn't tell you whether it's better to draft an OT or a WR.

you do understand that the success rates of OT, WR and DE are independent right? expected retun is a weighted average by definition. and you say i dont know what im talking about.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know fuzzy, from your OP:



you're not saying it now, but you did say it

and that was with the underlying premise of our needs given this specific circumstance. WR by far is not our greatest need. I clarified that with hos soon after the op.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and that was with the underlying premise of our needs given this specific circumstance. WR by far is not our greatest need. I clarified that with hos soon after the op.

oops, sorry, didn't feel like wading through 15 pages

and our greatest needs depends on how you look at it, for me, only getting another pass-rusher is our greatest need

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

since we're on the WR busting angle, another avenue I would like to explore, and which I tried to get going, was the percentage of busts for WRs taken after the 1st round

for the '03 draft, of the 3 receivers taken in the 1st, 1, Andre Johnson, has boomed, and Bryant Johnson has been marginal, while of the 30 receivers taken after the 1st, only Anquan Boldin boomed, while only Kevin Curtis has been marginal

that was one of the topics of that ESPN article that started this whole mess, that w/ the risk for receivers taken in the 1st round, there's a Marques Colston waiting to be had in the 7th round, but just by looking at the '03 draft, that simply isn't true, as the percentage of busts for the WRs taken after the 1st was much greater

let's elaborate on that

sorry but the idea that WRs are risky has been old hat for quite some time now.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

sorry but the idea that WRs are risky has been old hat for quite some time now.

I'm trying to get a discussion going to disprove the myth that w/ the risk for WRs taken in the 1st, that you're better off waiting to after the 1st round to draft a WR, which was started by that ESPN article, as the 2 go hand in hand

 

[Alexander]

you do understand that the success rates of OT, WR and DE are independent right?

So, if this is true, what is the point of this thread to begin with?

I realize it is late, but I thought your whole point was to scare everyone with the alarming bust percentage at WR in comparison to the other two.

Are you always this wishy-washy in general?