WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[L-O-Jete]

Actually that is exactly what i say. Dont draft a WR in the first round. Its the same reason at the casino I play poker and blackjack and never roullette or craps.

You may win big on the latter but that doesnt make it a smart move relative to the other games.

Actually your best odds in a casino are at the craps table...

 

[Champsheart]

Actually that is exactly what i say. Dont draft a WR in the first round. Its the same reason at the casino I play poker and blackjack and never roullette or craps.

You may win big on the latter but that doesnt make it a smart move relative to the other games.

Umm, actually your odds are better on both Craps and Roulette then either BJ or poker, but hey whatever floats your boat.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Me too. Maybe Ginn if you think you can harness that speed and develop him.

When I see Dewayne Bowe, I see Reggie Williams or Rod Gardener.

were you directing that question for just the WR position, or the prospects as a whole? the latter is what my opinion was given for, CJ is the only player I see 'special' when looking at the top half of the talent pool

 

[zeromaster]

This thread will go 8 pages, with FL taking up at least 30% of them, if for no other reason than continuing to respond with quotes that, on average, are almost as long as his responses.


Of course this post has nothing to do with the matter at hand, but with a month to go before the draft, and none of us in the war room when it does happen, all this draft speculation is just idle musing.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Ok. So now a guy has to be "special" in order to draft him?

Yes. At WR at least ... given that its a historically poor position to draft in the first round. Just like I wouldn't draft an offensive center with a first round draft pick unless I thought he was going to be special, compared to a defensive end or cornerback.

For the life of me, I really don't know why its so hard to understand.

 

[zeromaster]

Actually your best odds in a casino are at the craps table...

Exactly: pass/come odds and the place 6 and 8. The rest is just for adrenaline purposes.

 

[theogt]

Yes. At WR at least ... given that its a historically poor position to draft in the first round. Just like I wouldn't draft an offensive center with a first round draft pick unless I thought he was going to be special, compared to a defensive end or cornerback.

For the life of me, I really don't know why its so hard to understand.

Prove it.

 

[Hostile]

My point is that the relative bust rates to other positions. The bust rate of WRs is not only high but there are other positions that are much safer such as OT and DE. Now I really need to look at CB and S as wella s thos are other positions we should be loooking at in round one but I dont have time right now.

But overall my point is that with 10 WRs worthy of first round consideration and the bounty of CBs, OT and DE on this draft i think the safer route is to wait on WR. Thats all.

That's what I'm saying Fuzz. I don't see how it can be safer when the failure rate of WRs goes up the lower they get drafted. For every Colston out there you can find 1000 Deveren Johnson's out there. Better that we address it now while there is a WR heavy draft than when the pickings are slim.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Prove it.

I and Fuzzy have ... repeatedly. I even took the time to look up and list every WR drafted in the first round in the past 10 years and showed that around 60% of them aren't even on an NFL roster anymore. Meanwhile, you've put absolutely zilch amount of time into proving anything you throw out.


Why even bother putting in the work again when we know you're not even going to objectively look at facts. You're just going to throw out some outlier and present it as the norm. You've made up your mind, and nothing is going to change it.

 

[theogt]

I and Fuzzy have ... repeatedly. Why even bother putting in the work again when we know you're not even going to objectively look at it. You've made up your mind, and nothing is going to change it.

I'm sure you think you have, but ultimately you haven't shown squat. I think you've made up your mind and think that throwing up a list of names and saying "I think there are more busts in this position than others" is sufficient, but it's not.

Do you know what "expected return" means?

 

[InmanRoshi]

I'm sure you think you have, but ultimately you haven't shown squat. I think you've made up your mind and think that throwing up a list of names and saying "I think there are more busts in this position than others" is sufficient, but it's not.

Do you know what "expected return" means?

I listed every WR drafted between the years of 1996-2003 and proved that around 60% of them aren't even in the NFL anymore. Every single player from Torry Holt to Rae Carruth with no omissions ... show me how expected outcome came into play on that.

What have you done to prove your argument? Show me a list of every single CB's or OT's drafted from 1996-2003 and well see if its even close to 60% who arent even gathering an NFL paycheck anymore. Why do Fuzzy and I have to take time and effort to backup our argument, while you just get to throw out little one liners?

 

[theogt]

I listed every WR drafted between the years of 1996-2003 and proved that around 60% of them aren't even in the NFL anymore.

What have you done to prove your argument? Show me a comparable list of CB's or OT's and show me how 60% aren't even in the league anymore.

Why do Fuzzy and I have to take time and effort to backup our argument, while you just get to throw out little one liners?

I don't think you understand what's going on here. I'm not saying it's good to draft WRs in the 1st. I'm not holding a position one way or the other. I dont' know whether it's a good idea or not. I'm simply saying that you haven't proven that it's a bad idea. You can say 60% of them aren't even in the NFL, but that doesn't prove anything. That doesn't tell me whether it's a good or bad idea to draft WRs in the 1st round. I'm sorry if you aren't able to understand why that doesn't prove anything.

Perhaps, like Fuzzy, you should look into the term "expected return."

 

[InmanRoshi]

I don't think you understand what's going on here. I'm not saying it's good to draft WRs in the 1st. I'm not holding a position one way or the other.

Obviously you are ... since you've gone about 50 posts into this topic. Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing. One position fails at a much higher rate than other positions, and you still insist it doesn't mean anything. I know what expected return is. Unfortunately, you don't know when it applies.

Again, if you want to say our results are invalid, fine. Bring your own to disprove us. Show us a large sample where OT's and/or CB's fail at the same percentage as WR's. It would be nice if you actually put some data on the table ..... for a change.

 

[Alexander]

I listed every WR drafted between the years of 1996-2003 and proved that around 60% of them aren't even in the NFL anymore. Every single player from Torry Holt to Rae Carruth with no omissions ... show me how expected outcome came into play on that.

What have you done to prove your argument? Show me a list of every single CB's or OT's drafted from 1996-2003 and well see if its even close to 60% who arent even gathering an NFL paycheck anymore. Why do Fuzzy and I have to take time and effort to backup our argument, while you just get to throw out little one liners?

Has it ever occurred to you both that WR is a hard position to evaluate and often decision makers can make choices based off critical factors like workout figures?

That is no reason to ignore one of the strongest positions in this draft, much less an outstanding player like Calvin Johnson.

Team can do force choices for need. They can and do force choices based off some player working out well. Those factors could easily figure into the percentages.

 

[theogt]

Obviously you are ... since you've gone about 50 posts into this topic. Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing. One position fails at a much higher rate than other positions, and you still insist it doesn't mean anything. I know what expected return is. Unfortunately, you don't know when it applies.

Again, if you want to say our results are invalid fine. Bring your own. It would be nice if you actually put some data on the table ..... for a change.

Where have I stated or argued that it is a good idea to draft WRs in the first round? I don't have the time to do a complete analysis of whether it's a good idea to draft a WR in the first round. That would be a massive undertaking. It would take a week or two straight of doing nothing but analyzing the players and coming up with formulas, etc. All I'm saying is that your and Fuzzy's analysis is absolutely without a doubt incomplete.

Some people can never understand that if someone disagrees with their analysis, that it doesn't necessarily mean they're arguing the opposite.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Fuzzy, not looking to pick a fight, but by your definitions here after round 1 even more WRs end up as busts. So should we NEVER, ever draft WRs? Should we restrict ourselves to Free Agent castoffs?

We have two of them who are both past 30. Drafting a WR in the first round is about building towards the future. Given who we have on the roster there is less chance of a bust because this draft choice will not be expected to come in right away and be a #1 or #2 guy. It will be about getting up to NFL speed.

I think given the depth of the WR crop of this draft it is the perfect time to draft one. Every position has busts, WR and TE rely not only on their own skills to succeed but without a QB to get them the ball they are handcuffed. We have a good QB to get them the ball.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

I agree with you Hos. To me, this whole post kinda gets off track the minute you get away from the 1st rd. I mean, if you say it's a horrible idea to draft a WR in the first round, then present numbers that support that idea. It gets a bit convoluted if you include all WRs in all rounds. I mean, the numbers may indeed support the idea that it's foolish to draft WRs in the first round but you gotta be able to review that with just first round info to support that position. Also, you have to have specific criteria that qualifies bust or boom.

Not that it matters but Eric Metcalf was not a WR. He was also not a bust IMO. He was a RB but really, he was a wing back IMO. He played 13 years in the league. Between the years of 89 and 98 (9 years), he produced 15228 all purpose yards and scored 54 TDs. That roughly equates to an average of 1692 yards and 6 TDs a season. I would love to be able to draft such a bust in the first round this year.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Has it ever occurred to you both that WR is a hard position to evaluate and often decision makers can make choices based off critical factors like workout figures?

That is no reason to ignore one of the strongest positions in this draft, much less an outstanding player like Calvin Johnson.

Team can do force choices for need. They can and do force choices based off some player working out well. Those factors could easily figure into the percentages.

Probably because no one is arguing that. All we're saying is that traditionally WR's have a poor history in the first round ... for whatever reason. The fact that they're so difficult to truly evaluate just stresses why they're dangerous to draft in the first round.

There's workout number problems and there are problems with the fact that a WR's college production and film can lie as well. Teams that use spread out offenses that flood the field with WR's, which is currently en vogue, and have them find soft spots in zones doesn't really translate well how a WR is going to get seperation from bump and run coverage against an NFL press cornerback ... which is why every WR to come out of the University of Florida in the last decade has been a bust. College defenses typically don't run a lot of strict bump and run man-to-man coverage, especially against good WR's, because the types of CB's who can do it effectively are too rare.

Also, I said I would draft a WR in the first round if I thought he had elite or special ability ... like a Calvin Johnson. I would draft an offensive center or guard in the first round if I thought he was going to be a 10 year Pro Bowler ... that doesn't mean I typically think drafting an offensive center in the first round is a good way to go about doing business.

 

[Concord]

The Cowboys pick in the First...and he's going to be a Star.

 

[Chuck 54]

I respectfully disagree with the premise of this thread.

I don't care what the bust factor is....and I certainly hope that it doesn't affect professionals who are paid to make these decisions. If you draft based on nothing but history and stats, you aren't likely to get many superstars.

Thank goodness we took a QB #1 overall despite the bust history....and a WR in the first round....and a RB in the first round. Without any one of the three amigos, I seriously doubt we'd have our last 3 SB trophies.

I'm sure Cinncy is glad they didn't chicken out on Carson Palmer, and only an idiot would skip drafting Calvin Johnson because of the WR bust factor.

I hope with all my heart that we do indeed draft a WR in round 1...if not, certainly in round 2, but I trust we will have done our homework and I assume we won't draft a WR that we don't also rate as a first round prospect....that's all I ask.

To skip on big time playmakers to play it safe with a DL or a TE would drive me crazy.

 

[Clove]

Every now and then, a player comes around that makes your jaws drop. Guys like Barry Sanders, Reggie Bush, Calvin Johnson, Julius Peppers, Peyton Manning, etc. When I say special, I don't mean Ted Ginn type special.

Someone with speed and can cut and all of this, but someone who can play the game and has very few flaws. We don't know the future, but if you see a player that you feel will be very very special, then go for him with all of your heart and soul, only if you don't have a ton of glaring needs.

It won't kill you not to go for him, but if you feel you have to, do it and don't turn back. It wasn't guaranteed you were going to win the Super Bowl if you had 3 1st round picks, 3 second round picks and 4 third rounders... You're still not guaranteed to go to the Super Bowl.

It takes a combination of a ton of things for a team to have enough to win a Super Bowl, but if you have super stars on your team, it makes it a heck of a lot easier.