WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[Hostile]

500 replies. Amazing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, answer this one simple question: If drafting a WR in the first round is "horrible" and that conclusion is so easily reached, why do NFL teams continue to draft WRs?

Are they all managed by idiots?

No its called an appealing to popularity fallacy.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

500 replies. Amazing.

Thats one way of looking at it. :laugh2:

 

[theogt]

Ive been over your arguments and they were garbage.

I'll take that as a yes, you do get the occasional breeze up in those clouds. My arguments are garbage, because you say so.

You still never responded to my take on your 'its expected returns, i mean the mathetmatical version oh wait no i actually meant on what they actually contributed oh wait i really dont have any idea what im talking about but ill just say that you dont' argument.

That certainly does paraphrase your reponse to my expected returns argument.

The 'NFL teams draft WR i the first therefore it must be a good idea' argument is inherently fallacious.

Oh, goodness. We can forget logic. We can forget mathematics. But please, let's not completely leave the realm of sanity and common sense. Just use your head. That's all I'm asking. Use your noggin'.

Why does everyone in this thread disagree with you?

Why does the entire NFL disagree with you?

What could possibly be the reason?

Maybe someday, you'll begin to accept the fact, that it just ... might ... be ... possible ... that ... you're ... simply ... wrong.

 

[theogt]

No its called an appealing to popularity fallacy.

Are they all wrong?

Is everyone in the NFL wrong, but you?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll take that as a yes, you do get the occasional breeze up in those clouds. My arguments are garbage, because you say so.

That certainly does paraphrase your reponse to my expected returns argument.

Oh, goodness. We can forget logic. We can forget mathematics. But please, let's not completely leave the realm of sanity and common sense. Just use your head. That's all I'm asking. Use your noggin'.

Why does everyone in this thread disagree with you?

Why does the entire NFL disagree with you?

What could possibly be the reason?

Maybe someday, you'll begin to accept the fact, that it just ... might ... be ... possible ... that ... you're ... simply ... wrong.

Like I said before whn you just were going to repeat the same drivel i was just going to copey and paste that post.

Okay so now youre waffling back to your original position. Now youre not saying its mathematical despite all of your posts saying it was but now youre back to what I was initially arguing and I will restate what those arguments were. Now im sure you will once again switch your stance and say i dont know what im talking about thus the red herring comments but here we go for the 4th time now:

1) The expected contribution of a player to the team is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. It is one thing to say player x is either a bust or a quality starter versus saying player x was expected to contribute x amount to his team or player x actually contributed this much to his team. If you were to poll 10 different people you would get 10 radically different answeres on one player much less on 200 or more. As such a concensus would be impossible and it would be pointless for the purposes of discussion.

Remember that? Remember how you said nothing other than i dont know what Im talking about?

2) Because of the ambiguous nature of 'contributions' it is an unduly onerous task to chart the players. It would be one thing to chart WRs but the 'contributions' of OT and DE esp in the run game are intangible. Essentially you set an unachievable task and then cry foul when its not achieved.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

3) Setting the standard low subsumes all of this. By setting the standard low, you automatically trap all of the quality players that actually would 'contribute' to a team and put significance to it. As such including 'contributions' is unecessary.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

4) Even if you could do what you say there is no guarantee that your system would be truly representative. The people looking at my system do not necessarily disagree with my data that WRs are the highest risk but rather how apply it to decision making. In order to truly prove your point you would need to actually do it and demonstrate is effectiveness. SOMETHING >>>> NOTHING.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

5) Even if there is a 'better' system out there. That does not mean my system has no value. There is no pecking order if you will. If i grant that your system is better that doesnt lessen the value of my system it just means your system is better. Seeing that your system doesnt exist and mine does then its a moot point to even discuss it.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

6) If one were to assign arbitrary value to the positions WR would be clearly the lesser value. In the passing game all three are integral as the primary pass rusher pass protector and pass receiver however a WRs role in the run game as limited. As such adding an arbitrary value to WR, OT or DE would simply agnify the risk factor of WR and give the same conclusion already presented.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

So we going to go back to math now? Im just going to copy and paste this to all your posts that repeat the same drivel from now on.

It should be clear that despite you ignoring it they were garbage for all of these reasons and the fact that you kept on waffling your position.

And for the rest of it i contribute THIS

Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

And THIS

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

Could it.... possibly ... well ... maybe .... be just that... YOUR INTELLECTUALLY LAZY AND CANNOT COME UP WITH A REASONABLE ARGUMENT ON YOUR OWN?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And lookie once again Theo 'has other things to do.' Well I guess well just have to wait for another 3 pages of replies so that he can come back and repeat the same drivel once again as if these posts never happened for the fifth time.

 

[5Stars]

And lookie once again Theo 'has other things to do.' Well I guess well just have to wait for another 3 pages of replies so that he can come back and repeat the same drivel once again as if these posts never happened for the fifth time.

All knowledge is built upon bull**** beliefs, failing that there is nothing left. - FuzzyLumkins.

 

[theogt]

Okay so now youre waffling back to your original position. Now youre not saying its mathematical despite all of your posts saying it was but now youre back to what I was initially arguing and I will restate what those arguments were.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I said it's not mathematical? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

1) The expected contribution of a player to the team is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. It is one thing to say player x is either a bust or a quality starter versus saying player x was expected to contribute x amount to his team or player x actually contributed this much to his team. If you were to poll 10 different people you would get 10 radically different answeres on one player much less on 200 or more. As such a concensus would be impossible and it would be pointless for the purposes of discussion.

Remember that? Remember how you said nothing other than i dont know what Im talking about?

I've already responded to that long ago with this:

Fuzz, I'll respond in more depth later, but at this point it suffices to say that your response in paragraph "1)" is just silly. Your argument is that it would be too difficult to determine whether certain positions contribute more to success than others. This is pure and simple laziness.

Yes, it would be difficult, but it doesn't make your analysis any more useful. Intuitively we can all agree that a pro-bowl QB contributes more than a pro-bowl center. Your argument boils down to this: since it would be too difficult to accurately determine wether a pro-bowl QB contributes more than a pro-bowl Center, we shouldn't make such a distinction and therefore it is just as valuable to draft a Center as it is to draft a QB. That's just dumb. Really, it's just a horrible argument.

Admittedly, after reading paragraph 1) I conflated it with paragraph 2), but the point still stands. Moving on to the next point...

2) Because of the ambiguous nature of 'contributions' it is an unduly onerous task to chart the players. It would be one thing to chart WRs but the 'contributions' of OT and DE esp in the run game are intangible. Essentially you set an unachievable task and then cry foul when its not achieved.

This is virtually the same argument, worded differently. You're simply dismissing my argument without any refutation. You say that it's "meaningless" or "ambiguous" or "unduly onerous." Yes, it may be ambiguous, and it may be a little onerous, but you didn't actually expect a mathematical determination to be easy did you? Oh wait, scratch that. You did. You thought you could revolutionize the entire draft process by spending less than an hour researching. Silly, you.

3) Setting the standard low subsumes all of this. By setting the standard low, you automatically trap all of the quality players that actually would 'contribute' to a team and put significance to it. As such including 'contributions' is unecessary.

Nearly the same argument as in paragraph 1). No, the standard doesn't subsume all of this. "Bust" WRs can be valued different than "bust" OTs or DEs or CBs. Peyton Manning is a "boom" QB. Flozell Adams is a "boom" OT. They're both "booms." Do they provide the same value? No, of course not. QBs provide greater value than OTs. Thus, "Boom" QBs would likely provide greater value than "boom" OTs. Logical conclusion: Even if QBs "busted" at a higher rate than OTs, it might still be a wiser decision to draft QBs.

4) Even if you could do what you say there is no guarantee that your system would be truly representative. The people looking at my system do not necessarily disagree with my data that WRs are the highest risk but rather how apply it to decision making. In order to truly prove your point you would need to actually do it and demonstrate is effectiveness. SOMETHING >>>> NOTHING.

This is intellectually dishonest, and just plain wrong. I do not have to prove that drafting WRs in the first round is a good idea in order to prove that your analysis does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that drafting WRs int he first round is a bad idea. In fact, all I have to do is negate one single pillar of your argument, and it is sufficient. I've refuted your argument. Job done.

5) Even if there is a 'better' system out there. That does not mean my system has no value. There is no pecking order if you will. If i grant that your system is better that doesnt lessen the value of my system it just means your system is better. Seeing that your system doesnt exist and mine does then its a moot point to even discuss it.

I don't dispute that your "system" has some value. I think it's a fantastic starting point, in fact. I just don't think you can make the logical leap from your analysis to the conclusion that drafting a WR in the 1st is a horrible idea. It would take much, much, much more work.

So we going to go back to math now? Im just going to copy and paste this to all your posts that repeat the same drivel from now on.

I still don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say no math? If I were to do an analysis, it would be completely mathematical.

 

[theogt]

And lookie once again Theo 'has other things to do.' Well I guess well just have to wait for another 3 pages of replies so that he can come back and repeat the same drivel once again as if these posts never happened for the fifth time.

Oh good lord. I was going to reply to that post earlier in the day, but I didn't want to dredge this thread up again. I assumed people were tired of it. Since you brought it up, I decided I would go ahead and reply to the post. The arguments you made in it were so obviously weak, it really didn't even need a response.

 

[theogt]

So for the third time, are all NFL GMs and scouts wrong?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I said it's not mathematical? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

I've already responded to that long ago with this:

Admittedly, after reading paragraph 1) I conflated it with paragraph 2), but the point still stands. Moving on to the next point...

This is virtually the same argument, worded differently. You're simply dismissing my argument without any refutation. You say that it's "meaningless" or "ambiguous" or "unduly onerous." Yes, it may be ambiguous, and it may be a little onerous, but you didn't actually expect a mathematical determination to be easy did you? Oh wait, scratch that. You did. You thought you could revolutionize the entire draft process by spending less than an hour researching. Silly, you.

Nearly the same argument as in paragraph 1). No, the standard doesn't subsume all of this. "Bust" WRs can be valued different than "bust" OTs or DEs or CBs. Peyton Manning is a "boom" QB. Flozell Adams is a "boom" OT. They're both "booms." Do they provide the same value? No, of course not. QBs provide greater value than OTs. Thus, "Boom" QBs would likely provide greater value than "boom" OTs. Logical conclusion: Even if QBs "busted" at a higher rate than OTs, it might still be a wiser decision to draft QBs.

This is intellectually dishonest, and just plain wrong. I do not have to prove that drafting WRs in the first round is a good idea in order to prove that your analysis does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that drafting WRs int he first round is a bad idea. In fact, all I have to do is negate one single pillar of your argument, and it is sufficient. I've refuted your argument. Job done.

I don't dispute that your "system" has some value. I think it's a fantastic starting point, in fact. I just don't think you can make the logical leap from your analysis to the conclusion that drafting a WR in the 1st is a horrible idea. It would take much, much, much more work.

I still don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say no math? If I were to do an analysis, it would be completely mathematical.

You would have to come up with numerical values for every position on the field. You would put in values for OT, WR, and DE. After that was done the math would be amazingly easy. My point is actually assigning point values to those positions would be wildly subjective and overly onerous.

Asking the question, which position has more value: OT or DE, would get wildly different responses depending on who you talked to and you would need to do that for every position on the field. On top of that you would have to insert degree to it as well. Should a QB be 1 and a DE be .64 or a .66. For the purposes of discussion such a system would be pointless.

And those arguements dont negate as much as they mitigate. You dont say this is wrong instead you say this is not enough. when youre shown to other examples of how drafting WRs is problematic or not significant in getting to the playoffs you say the same thing.

I mean youre real fond of saying that people and clubs like drfting WRs but I could come back with this: if drafting a WR is a good idea why is it that EVERY analysis weve seen on it lends credence to the opposing view?

And i dont say there is no situation where a club drafting a WR in the first is rational but with Flozell, Glenn and Jones contacts running out those positions are as much a need as WR and with that in mind i dont see how you would say us selecting a WR in the first is a good idea.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im not going to respond to the GM and CZ popularity contest arguments with anything other than this:

And for the rest of it i contribute THIS


Quote:
Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

And THIS


Quote:
Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All knowledge is built upon bull**** beliefs, failing that there is nothing left. - FuzzyLumkins.

wow more insight by the second coming of isaac newton himself. You have no idea what the signifigance of that quote is id wager. since you troll my posts you should but i doubt you do.

 

[theogt]

You would have to come up with numerical values for every position on the field. You would put in values for OT, WR, and DE. After that was done the math would be amazingly easy. My point is actually assigning point values to those positions would be wildly subjective and overly onerous.

Yes, it would be onerous. Subjective? No, I think it's possible to mathematically determine a reasonably accurate assessment. Economists do this sort of thing all the time.

Asking the question, which position has more value: OT or DE, would get wildly different responses depending on who you talked to and you would need to do that for every position on the field. On top of that you would have to insert degree to it as well. Should a QB be 1 and a DE be .64 or a .66. For the purposes of discussion such a system would be pointless.

You're just repeating the "onerous" complaint. Yes, it would be "onerous," but if you want to get from point A to B, it would be required.

And those arguements dont negate as much as they mitigate. You dont say this is wrong instead you say this is not enough. when youre shown to other examples of how drafting WRs is problematic or not significant in getting to the playoffs you say the same thing.

No, they negate. They show that it's quite possible that it is a better choice to draft a position with a higher "bust" rate than a position with a lower "bust" rate. Your conclusion was that higher "bust" rates necessarily correlated with the value of the pick. My argument completely refutes this.

I mean youre real fond of saying that people and clubs like drfting WRs but I could come back with this: if drafting a WR is a good idea why is it that EVERY analysis weve seen on it lends credence to the opposing view?

I haven't seen any analysis anywhere near complete enough to "lend credence" to either decision. I can bring in 12 wackos off the street to make any claim in court. It doesn't make their assertions true. Wait, weren't you the one crying about appeal to popularity?

And i dont say there is no situation where a club drafting a WR in the first is rational but with Flozell, Glenn and Jones contacts running out those positions are as much a need as WR and with that in mind i dont see how you would say us selecting a WR in the first is a good idea.

Your conclusion was that "WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea."

Are you now prepared to admit that this conclusion is incorrect? That there are possibly other factors than "bust rate" that fit into the decision?

Are you *shocker* finally admitting you were wrong?

 

[theogt]

Im not going to respond to the GM and CZ popularity contest arguments with anything other than this:

Just answer the question. For the 4th time, are all NFL GMs and scouts wrong?

If we're to beleive you are correct, then they must be wrong. Are they wrong? It's a simple yes or no. If their opinions don't matter to you (and since you used the "popularity fallacy" argument, presumably their opinions must not matter), what is keeping you from simply stating that all NFL GMs and scouts are wrong?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just answer the question. For the 4th time, are all NFL GMs and scouts wrong?

If we're to beleive you are correct, then they must be wrong. Are they wrong? It's a simple yes or no. If their opinions don't matter to you (and since you used the "popularity fallacy" argument, presumably their opinions must not matter), what is keeping you from simply stating that all NFL GMs and scouts are wrong?

First of all you cannot say that all NFL scouts and GMs think that drafting a WR in the first is a good idea. I would think that Parcells who didnt want to draft Glenn in the first for one is a person that seemed to agree with the idea that its not a good idea.

Your going by the fact that GMs have picked a WR in the first to mean that they all think its a good idea and I dont agree with that notion.

Matt Millen seemed to think it was a good idea and how did that turn out?

 

[theogt]

First of all you cannot say that all NFL scouts and GMs think that drafting a WR in the first is a good idea. I would think that Parcells who didnt want to draft Glenn in the first for one is a person that seemed to agree with the idea that its not a good idea.

Your going by the fact that GMs have picked a WR in the first to mean that they all think its a good idea and I dont agree with that notion.

Matt Millen seemed to think it was a good idea and how did that turn out?

Nice attempt at changing the subject.

Yes, Parcells wasn't particularly fond of drafting WRs in the first. Got any evidence that any other GM or scout thinks that way?

Do you honestly think that Calvin Johnson, Dwayne Bowe, and Robert Meachem aren't rated as first round draft picks by every single GM and every single scout in the NFL?

You can't possible think that.

So, answer the question. For the 5th time, are all NFL GMs and scouts wrong? Are you the sole voice of reason in the wilderness of idiots?

 

[smarta5150]

Nice attempt at changing the subject.

Yes, Parcells wasn't particularly fond of drafting WRs in the first. Got any evidence that any other GM or scout thinks that way?

Do you honestly think that Calvin Johnson, Dwayne Bowe, and Robert Meachem aren't rated as first round draft picks by every single GM and every single scout in the NFL?

You can't possible think that.

So, answer the question. For the 5th time, are all NFL GMs and scouts wrong? Are you the sole voice of reason in the wilderness of idiots?

You sound like you are talking in mineshaft.

5 times now

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, it would be onerous. Subjective? No, I think it's possible to mathematically determine a reasonably accurate assessment. Economists do this sort of thing all the time.

You're just repeating the "onerous" complaint. Yes, it would be "onerous," but if you want to get from point A to B, it would be required.

No, they negate. They show that it's quite possible that it is a better choice to draft a position with a higher "bust" rate than a position with a lower "bust" rate. Your conclusion was that higher "bust" rates necessarily correlated with the value of the pick. My argument completely refutes this.

I haven't seen any analysis anywhere near complete enough to "lend credence" to either decision. I can bring in 12 wackos off the street to make any claim in court. It doesn't make their assertions true. Wait, weren't you the one crying about appeal to popularity?

Your conclusion was that "WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea."

Are you now prepared to admit that this conclusion is incorrect? That there are possibly other factors than "bust rate" that fit into the decision?

Are you *shocker* finally admitting you were wrong?

How would you get that?

Economists have dollar signs to work with as well as market values to insert for values. Even issues that at first glance would seem ambiguous like consumer confidence use figures such as consumer spending and savings rates to help determine values.

you cannot say the same for an OT or a CB or a safety. I mean do you set the standard as yardage, points, point differential or do you go reductionist and look at runs to a particualar side or completion percentage against. Or do you look at value compared to a replacement player like they do in baseball.

I mean the whole reductionist versus wholistic side would be an issue and that is even before you look at specifics. Even if you were to come up with a system i guarantee you more than half of everyone would disagree with it and that is the point.

You state that it negates but in fact it does not. The busts rates do indeed correlate that WR in the first is bad you just say that its not conclusive. There are 'other factors.'

And that is not an appeal to popularity either. Im referring to other arguments without actually restating them. Im not saying that x and y believe this so its true. What i am sying is there is argumnt x stating that WR is more difficult to evaluate than other positions and there is argument YU showing that playoff teams have a relatively low number of first round draft picks as well as my argument but why are there no arguments stating that it is a good idea. That is quite a difference.