WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so average players count as booming?

it more of a not bust. id classify them as solid starters not average players.

hey lelie was a boom too for what its worth.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

it more of a not bust. id classify them as solid starters not average players.

hey lelie was a boom too for what its worth.

average is not solid

and Leonard Davis was best as an OG, rather than the position he was drafted to play, OT, where he's been a complete bust, Colombo has been average 2 out of 6 years, that is not a solid career, or even average

 

[SuspectCorner]

Most 1st-round WRs won't impact your team immediately the way a 1st-round RB will.

So what? We should regret Michael Irvin even though he wasn't a major contributor for the first two or three injury-plagued seasons? Wasn't Alvin Harper a major cog in the machine even though he opted to move on when his his original contract ran out?

A good one would come in handy right now as our starters are beginning to get AARP mailings.

BPA - and if that's a WR - so be it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

average is not solid

sorry but tackles that start for the same team and dont miss time for 8 years are solid. sorry but longevity played a big role. and its not like Davis and McKinney are/were crap.

i intentionally set the standard rather low. i mean if a first rounder turned into a guy you cold count on to start for the better part of a decade then the pick wasnt a bust. it might not meet expectations but at least you got something worthwhile out of it.

that also sets those WR numbers in perspective. 50% of those guys didnt lst more than 4 seasons or averaged under 600 yards a season. they were garbage.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most 1st-round WRs won't impact your team immediately the way a 1st-round RB will.

So what? We should regret Michael Irvin even though he wasn't a major contributor for the first two or three injury-plagued seasons? Wasn't Alvin Harper a major cog in the machine even though he opted to move on when his his original contract ran out?

A good one would come in handy right now as our starters are beginning to get AARP mailings.

BPA - and if that's a WR - so be it.

its not that they dont contribute immediately. its that so many of them dont contribute at all. the number of guys that were around for only three years from the first round WRs is actually astonishing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

average is not solid

and Leonard Davis was best as an OG, rather than the position he was drafted to play, OT, where he's been a complete bust, Colombo has been average 2 out of 6 years, that is not a solid career, or even average

leonard davis was a probowl alterante last year. hes not a complete bust he just hasnt played what you would expect a no 2 overall to play.

he was a solid LT. i remember Larry allen having issues out at LT with guys like hugh douglas and he was considered a top notch LT.

and i took columbo completely off the list. hes more or less an incomplete at this point because of how chicago bungled his injury.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

sorry but tackles that start for the same team and dont miss time for 8 years are solid.

no, they aren't if they don't play solid

sorry but longevity played a big role. and its not like Davis and McKinney are/were crap.

Davis was crappy at OT

i intentionally set the standard rather low. i mean if a first rounder turned into a guy you cold count on to start for the better part of a decade then the pick wasnt a bust. it might not meet expectations but at least you got something worthwhile out of it.

1st rounders are supposed to be your team's cornerstones, not JAG

that also sets those WR numbers in perspective. 50% of those guys didnt lst more than 4 seasons or averaged under 600 yards a season. they were garbage.

I'll have to go through that list of your's for WRs another time

 

[Bob Sacamano]

leonard davis was a probowl alterante last year. hes not a complete bust he just hasnt played what you would expect a no 2 overall to play.

he was a solid LT. i remember Larry allen having issues out at LT with guys like hugh douglas and he was considered a top notch LT.

OMG Davis was not solid at LT

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no, they aren't if they don't play solid



Davis was crappy at OT



1st rounders are supposed to be your team's cornerstones, not JAG



I'll have to go through that list of your's for WRs another time

like i said i set the metric low intentionally. i mean if you put the criteria for play at something like making the probowl. then the bust rate would be HUGE.

Fact is that most first rounders dont end cornerstones.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OMG Davis was not solid at LT

then how was a he a probowl alternate at the position? there are like 32 starting tackles in the NFC. it certainly wasnt on rep cause his rep sucks.

 

[superpunk]

Ok, I need a recap of the last 35 pages

Anyone?

First, it was all like

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/orlyprogression.gif

Then it was all like

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/1170849889456pe1.gif

Then, things got a little out of hand, and it was all like

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/bunniestakeover.gif

All in all, just another weeklong lovefest at CBZ

 

[theogt]

Give examples. The you dont know what youre talking about thing is really old. I give examples and you hide behind that crap. Give an example of an economic forecasting model that does not use monetary values predominantly. Otherwise your point is worthless. Again SOMETHING >>> NOTHING.

Check out the book "Freakonomics." It's not exactly rigorous academics, but it's an example of some of the things economists study outside of micro and macro-economics. I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't care that you're too ignorant to see me.

Obviously you dont know how it would work out and you also dont address the issue at hand. There can be no concensus on this and you also dont know that it would work. The simple model leads to a simple conclusion. Your model becomes muddled beyond comprehension.

You're right. I don't know exactly how it would work. Clearly you've never done academic (or any kind of) research before. It takes time to develop models. There may not be consensus as to a final product, but that hardly is necessary. Again, appeal to popularity? The simple model is insufficient, no matter what conclusions it leads too.

Dont deign to present my argument for me. You completely missed the boat. did you ever stop and wonder why OT and DE were selected for the comparison? Its because both are equal or greater needs than WR for our team.

I know your argument. It's clearly stated in the first post in this thread. It may have evolved or changed throughout this thread, but that would simply be a result of you realizing how stupid it was originally.

Additionally you also simply ignored that WR are not as important to a team as OT and DE/tweener are.

And you know this how? You don't. It's simply your opinion. I might agree with it, but it would take me more research before coming to the conclusion.

We have seen first hand how losing Ellis and losing Adams was, however in losing Glenn in 2004 we didnt see nearly the impact. The reason for that is simple: WR lose signifignace in the run game.

That doesn't prove your point at all. It's hilarious how you can simply think you have a point, provide minimal evidence, and feel perfectly at ease that you've proven your point. You're simply too arrogant to realize when you haven't shown a damned thing.

chossing the most impactful position and comparing it to one of the least is not very cogent to the discussion at hand.

Sure it is. I used the most egregious example (QB vs. OG) to prove my point, and it worked quite well.

If a WR, DE, or OT are there, we should NOT pick the WR.

That is your opinion. You haven't proven it to be true.

Now youre fumbling about. Its quite different to the appeal to popularity fallacy was what i said but nice try to make sesne even if you failed.

Oh, brother. Another point is proven wrong, just because you "say so." I wish knew where you achieved this amazing authority, to simply claim "you're wrong" when you disagree with something. Then again, given the horrible argument that started this entire thread, I shouldn't expect to be able back any of your assertions with evidence.

1) WR, outside of QB has the highest bust rate in the first round.

Yes, I will agree with this.

2) 3/4 of the starting WR of playoff teams last year were selected after the first round.

No, I won't agree with this. I don't consider 3rd WRs as "starting WRs." I would say that 5 out of 12 playoffs teams had at least one first round receiver in their starting 2. That's nearly equal to the proportion of starting QBs drafted in the first round (6 of 12).

3) WR has less impact than OT and DE.

No, I won't agree with this. I think it's possible that a WR could have greater impact. On average, it's hard to say. I would have to do more research. I think it's possible that LT has more impact, but I certainly don't think it's possible that RT has more impact.

4) Outside of QB, WR is the most difficult position to evaluate.

No, I certainly won't agree with this.

 

[Mavs Man]

I decided to throw my two cents into this mess. The only way to truly measure the value of drafting a WR in the 1st round would be to follow every WR, drafted and undrafted, and measure their production as a group.

That would take an incredible amount of work - which I'm not willing to do.

So, instead I decided to go back each of the last six years (since data is easily available from those seasons) and taking the top 50 or so receivers by stats (catches and yards), remove all RBs and TEs, and see what round they were drafted in.

Here's what I found from 2001 to 2006:


2001 Season
1st round: 17
2nd round: 13
3rd round: 6
4th round: 5
5th round: 1
6th round: 1
7th round: 0
8th round: 1
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 6
Total: 51
% 1st Rnd Picks: 33.33%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 58.82%
% 1st Day Picks: 70.59%

2002 Season
1st round: 18
2nd round: 12
3rd round: 10
4th round: 2
5th round: 2
6th round: 2
7th round: 1
8th round: 1
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 6
Total: 55
% 1st Rnd Picks: 32.72%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 54.55%
% 1st Day Picks: 72.73%

2003 Season
1st round: 23
2nd round: 14
3rd round: 8
4th round: 2
5th round: 1
6th round: 2
7th round: 1
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 2
Total: 54
% 1st Rnd Picks: 42.59%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 68.51%
% 1st Day Picks: 83.33%

2004 Season
1st round: 20
2nd round: 13
3rd round: 6
4th round: 4
5th round: 1
6th round: 1
7th round: 4
Undrafted: 5
Total: 54
% 1st Rnd Picks: 37.03%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 61.11%
% 1st Day Picks: 72.22%

2005 Season
1st round: 18
2nd round: 12
3rd round: 7
4th round: 4
5th round: 1
6th round: 0
7th round: 3
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 5
Total: 51
% 1st Rnd Picks: 35.29%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 58.82%
% 1st Day Picks: 72.55%

2006 Season
1st round: 21
2nd round: 10
3rd round: 8
4th round: 2
5th round: 0
6th round: 1
7th round: 4
Undrafted: 5
Total: 51
% 1st Rnd Picks: 41.18%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 60.78%
% 1st Day Picks: 76.47%

On average, about 35-40% of the top performing WRs the past six years were former 1st round draft picks, and about 75% were drafted on the 1st day.

The next thing I did was to compare those figures to the proportion of WRs drafted over the same period. As I said before, the best method would be to follow all WRs drafted and undrafted - that's simply too much to do. Also, I don't know how many WRs went undrafted so I left that blank. Suffice it to say, the proportion of 1st round WRs should be lower when adding undrafted WRs back into the equation.


2001 Draft
1st round: 6
2nd round: 4
3rd round: 2
4th round: 3
5th round: 7
6th round: 4
7th round: 8
Total: 34
% 1st Rnd Picks: 17.65%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 29.41%
% 1st Day Picks: 35.29%

2002 Draft
1st round: 3
2nd round: 8
3rd round: 3
4th round: 1
5th round: 6
6th round: 5
7th round: 8
Total: 34
% 1st Rnd Picks: 8.82%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 32.35%
% 1st Day Picks: 41.18%

2003 Draft
1st round: 3
2nd round: 4
3rd round: 4
4th round: 3
5th round: 6
6th round: 7
7th round: 9
Total: 36
% 1st Rnd Picks: 8.33%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 19.44%
% 1st Day Picks: 30.56%

2004 Draft
1st round: 7
2nd round: 3
3rd round: 3
4th round: 4
5th round: 5
6th round: 4
7th round: 5
Total: 31
% 1st Rnd Picks: 22.58%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 32.26%
% 1st Day Picks: 41.94%

2005 Draft
1st round: 6
2nd round: 5
3rd round: 3
4th round: 5
5th round: 3
6th round: 4
7th round: 5
Total: 31
% 1st Rnd Picks: 19.35%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 35.48%
% 1st Day Picks: 45.16%

2006 Draft
1st round: 1
2nd round: 3
3rd round: 5
4th round: 6
5th round: 2
6th round: 4
7th round: 7
Total: 28
% 1st Rnd Picks: 3.57%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 14.29%
% 1st Day Picks: 32.14%

So, on average about 15% of WRs drafted are taken in the 1st round and 40% of WRs drafted are taken on the 1st day.

In conclusion, let's summarize this data:


SUMMARY

2001-2006 Seasons
1st round: 117
2nd round: 74
3rd round: 45
4th round: 19
5th round: 6
6th round: 7
7th round: 13
After 7th round: 6
Undrafted: 29
Total: 316
% 1st Rnd Picks: 37.03%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 60.44%
% 1st Day Picks: 74.68%

2001-2006 Drafts
1st round: 26
2nd round: 27
3rd round: 20
4th round: 22
5th round: 29
6th round: 28
7th round: 42
Undrafted: ?
Total: 194
% 1st Rnd Picks: 13.40%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 27.32%
% 1st Day Picks: 37.63%

Just by looking at the data year-to-year, it's clear that there is a disproportionate representation of high-performing 1st round and 1st day WRs. Many of those may be busts, but there is a drop every round from 1st to 7th (though, interesting enough it may be better if you don't draft a 1st day WR to wait until the 7th round or sign an undrafted player).

The higher you draft a WR, the more likely you hit.

The lower you draft a WR, the more likely you miss.

But what does that really say? That's how it is at every position.

 

[Established1971]

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.

I went back 25 years and looked at 3 of the highest bust factor positions in the draft, WR DE and OT. WRs have gotten a bad rap but so have DE with Wadsworth, Mamula dn Brown as well as OT with Mike Williams and Tony Mandarich. Heres what I got:

Since 1982 these are all the WR, DE and OT drafted in the first. Next to their names is either bust or boom. In order to be a bust you had to not make it to season 5, not start for the majority of their career or thier numbers sucked.

WR

Anthony Hancock bust
Lindsay Scott bust
Perry Tuttle bust
Mike Quick boom
Willie Gault boom
Irving Fryar boom
Kenny Jackson bust
Clyde Duncan bust
Louis Lipps boom
Al Toon boom
Eddie Brown boom
Jerry Rice boom
Jessie Hester bust
Mike Sherrard bust
Tim McGee boom
Haywood Jeffries boom
Ricky Nattiel boom
Mark Ingram boom
Tim Brown boom
Sterling Sharpe boom
Michael Irvin boom
Anthony Miller boom
Aaron Cox bust
Wendell Davis bust
Eric Metcalf bust
Hart Lee Dykes bust
Andre rison boom
Shawn Collins bust
Herman Moore boom
Alvin Harper boom
Mike Pritchard bust
Randall Hill bust
Desmond Howard bust
Curtis Conway bust
Sean Dawkins boom
OJ McDuffie boom
Charles Johnson bust
Johnnie Morton boom
Thomas Lewis bust
Derrick Alexander boom
Michael Westbrook bust
Joey Galloway boom
JJ Stokes bust
Key Johnson boom
Terry Glenn boom
Eddie Kennison boom
Marvin Harrison boom
Eric Moulds boom
Ike Hilliard boom
Yatil Green bust
Reidel anthony bust
Rae Carruth bust
Kevin Dyson bust
Randy Moss boom
Marcus Nash bust
Torry Holt boom
Davis Boston bust
Troy Edwards bust
Peter Warrick bust
Plax Burress boom
Travis Taylor bust
Sylvester Morris bust
RJ Soward bust
David Terrell bust
Koren Robinson bust
Rod Gardener bust
Sanatana Moss boom
Freddie Mtchell bust
Reggie Wayne boom
Donte Stallworth bust mediocre
Ashley Lelie boom
Javon Walker boom

36 of 73 or 49% busts

DE
Ken Sims bust
Jeff Bryant boom
Glenn Collins bust
Mike Pitts boom
Jim Jeffcoat boom
Rick Bryan boom
Alphonso Carriker boom
Ron Faurot bust
Pete Koch bust
Bruce Smith boom
Chris Doleman boom
Ron Holmes boom
Kevin Brooks bust
Darryl Sims bust
Jon Hand boom
Leslie Oneal boom
Gerald Robinson boom
Tim Green boom
Eric Dorsey bust
Bob Buczkowski bust
Reggie Rogers bust
John Bosa bust
Jason Buck boom
Tony Woods boom
Aundray Bruce boom
Neil Smith boom
Aaron Jones boom
Derrick Thomas boom
Burt Grossman boom
Trace Armstrong boom
Jeff Lageman boom
Wayne Martin boom
Bill Hawkins bust
Keith McCants boom
Anthony Smith boom
Marco Coleman boom
Alonzo Spellman boom
Chris Mims boom
Robert Porcher boom
John Copeland boom
Eric Curry bust
Bryant Young boom
Joe Johnson boom
Shante Carver bust
Derrick Alexander boom
Kevin Carter boom
Mike Mamula bust
Hugh Douglas boom
Simeon Rice boom
Cedric Jones bust
Regan Upshaw boom
Duane Clemons boom
Marcus Jones boom
Reinald Williams bust
Kenard Lang bust
Kenny Holmes boom
Renaldo Wynn bust
Joe Harris bust
Trevor Pryce boom
Andre Wadsworth bust
Grant Wistrom boom
Jason Peter bust
Jevon Kearse boom
Ebenezer Ekuban boom
Lamar king bust
Patrick Kerney boom
Courtney Brown bust
Shaun Ellis boom
John Abraham boom
Erik Flowers bust
Justin Smith boom
Richard Seymour boom
Andre Carter boom
Jamal Reynolds bust
julius Peppers boom
Dwight Freeney boom
Bryan Thomas bust
Charles Grant boom

26 of 78 busts or 33% busts

OT
Luis Sharpe boom
Chris Henton bust
Jimbo Covert boom
Dean Steinkuhler boom
Jon Alt boom
Brian Blados boom
Lokmas Brown boom
Ken Ruettgers boom
Kevin Allen bust
Jim Lachey boom
Wil Wolford boom
John Clay bust
Harris Barton boom
Bruce Armstrong boom
Paul Gruber boom
Tony Mandarich bust
David Williams boom
Tom Ricketts bust
Richmond Webb boom
Charles McRae bust
Antone Davis boom
Stan Thomas bust
Pat Harlow boom
Bob Whitfield boom
Ray Roberts boom
Leon Searcy boom
Jon Fina boom
Willie Roaf boom
Lincoln Kennedy boom
Brad Hopkins boom
Ernest Dye bust
Bernard Williams bust
Wayne Gandy boom
Aaron Taylor bust
Todd Steussie boom
Tony Boselli boom
Korey Stringer boom sad one though
Billy Milner bust
Blake Brokermeyer bust
Trazelle Jenkins bust
Jonathon Ogden boom
Willie Anderson boom
John Michels bust
Jamain Stephens bust
Andre Johnson bust
Orlando Pace boom
Walter Jones boom
Tarik Glenn boom
Kyle Turley boom
Tra Thomas boom
Victor Riley boom
John Tait boom
Luke Petitgout boom
LJ Shelton boom he started for 7 years and only missed 8 games
Aaron Gibson bust
Chris Samuels boom
Stockar McDougal bust
Leonard Davis boom
Kenyatta Walker bust
Jeff Backus boom
Mike Williams bust
Bryant McKinnie bust
Levi Jones boom
Marc Columbo boom

21 of 64 busts or 33% busts

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.

If you disagree with some of my assessments thats fine but overall they should remain about the same.

this is good research and info but what is the overall boom/bust ratio regardless of position?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Check out the book "Freakonomics." It's not exactly rigorous academics, but it's an example of some of the things economists study outside of micro and macro-economics. I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't care that you're too ignorant to see me.

You know this is the normal BS you try and work with. You pick a book that is not used to teach economics in any classroom in the united states and use it as the shining example of academic research when it truly has more place on the back of someones crapper.

It took me all of about 5 seconds to come up with a prima facia nonmonetary economic model and how it resorted to dollar signs at then end. Yet im supposed to read some toiltet book because you are unable to come up with one in 12 hours.

This is quite the trend with you Theo. 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. And you wonder why i say youre intellectually lazy. I mean dear lord theo, that book is written by a self proclaimed 'rogue' economist.

You're right. I don't know exactly how it would work. Clearly you've never done academic (or any kind of) research before. It takes time to develop models. There may not be consensus as to a final product, but that hardly is necessary. Again, appeal to popularity? The simple model is insufficient, no matter what conclusions it leads too.

Thats nice coming from the guy that uses Freakonomincs as his example of market forecasting. Look man I started the groundwork for what the calculus would need to be and you just completely ignore it . I call this the 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. Its all fun and nice but in the end its hollow.

Ill give you an example that pertains to professional sports as to why your model is garbage. Defensive sabermetrics in baseball. Perhaps youre familiar with the work of Bill James? What it boils down to is this. Terms like VORP, EQA, OPS and a whole slew of others come from him. Far and wide baseball people use these figures for forecasting player performance. However they are pretty much limited to offensive production.

There are defensive stats like RF and ZR however they are not widely accepted in fact they are generally discarded by baseball people. the reason for this is that there are no statistics for defense and these stats are wildly subjective. Zone rating for example is aobut whether or not a player should or should not have made aplay in his defensive zone.

the parrallel is obvious. In football you have players like the entire offensive line, safteies and cornerbacks that have no real statistics. Pretty much every other player on the field has a significant facets of his game that have no metric. The whole run game for instance.

Bill james has been working on sabermetrics since the 1960s. he is also employed by the Red Sox as a prime analyst. He is a shining reallife example of why your system is pretty much impossible but hey you have your toilet book.

I know your argument. It's clearly stated in the first post in this thread. It may have evolved or changed throughout this thread, but that would simply be a result of you realizing how stupid it was originally.

apparently you dont. i can also see that by this point you have once again become VERY lazy in your response. This one was about as well thought out as a kid eating glue.

I gave a reductionist argument as to why it was where WR essentially take time off during the running game and DE and OT never do. I also talked about a wholistic argument with the effects teams have when they lose the respective positions with the examples of what happened to us in losing Adams, Ellis and Glenn and the subseequent dropoff. But hey we once again get 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument.

And you know this how? You don't. It's simply your opinion. I might agree with it, but it would take me more research before coming to the conclusion.

Apparently you cannot read because i gave clear reasons as to why i felt that way. Once again you give no reasons and then hide behind 'i dont have to' when it should be 'i cant.' Just read Theo and dont pretend like i said nothing. this little tactic of your is annoying but i understand its because youre lazy.

That doesn't prove your point at all. It's hilarious how you can simply think you have a point, provide minimal evidence, and feel perfectly at ease that you've proven your point. You're simply too arrogant to realize when you haven't shown a damned thing.

Lazy lazy lazy. What you quoted wasnt even the whole argument and then you go with 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. Why doesnt it prove anything if its empirical evidence Theo? Oh let me guess its becuase of 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. why do you ignore the rest of the argument?

Youre whole refutation is based on looking at each additional supporting argument and crying 'its not enough' and ignoring everything that come from behind it.

Sure it is. I used the most egregious example (QB vs. OG) to prove my point, and it worked quite well.

Wr is central to the discussion. Choosing a comparison that does not include WR is not cogent to the discussion. Its great for emotional appeal but its not worth a lick.

That is your opinion. You haven't proven it to be true.

Oh, brother. Another point is proven wrong, just because you "say so." I wish knew where you achieved this amazing authority, to simply claim "you're wrong" when you disagree with something. Then again, given the horrible argument that started this entire thread, I shouldn't expect to be able back any of your assertions with evidence.

This was a summation not a direct refutation. Those kinds of things normally go at the end, Theo in case you didnt know. And you really do fumble about with 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument or your blathering of 'not enough' or your lies about me not giving evidence and analysis Nice ad hominems that form the basis of your arguments in that little diddy though.

Yes, I will agree with this.

No, I won't agree with this. I don't consider 3rd WRs as "starting WRs." I would say that 5 out of 12 playoffs teams had at least one first round receiver in their starting 2. That's nearly equal to the proportion of starting QBs drafted in the first round (6 of 12).

I removed the 3rd WRs becuase of just this argument. Apparenlty you were too dense to realize it though. There are 24 starting WRs on those teams and of them only 6 are first rounders. thats 25%. None of the third WRs wre 1 st rounders FWIW.

And you do remember the part where i shoed that there were almost 2 times as many WR selected in the first compared to QB right? It showed why my metric was better. i suppose you for got that part because i dont ever say anything to back up my arguments according to you.

No, I won't agree with this. I think it's possible that a WR could have greater impact. On average, it's hard to say. I would have to do more research. I think it's possible that LT has more impact, but I certainly don't think it's possible that RT has more impact.

No, I certainly won't agree with this.

At least your not arguing that WR has more impact then DE. Prima facia WR < DE and OT = WR or very close according to you. So exactly how does that impact my numbers? Oh wait it doesnt.......

The evidence mounts.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I decided to throw my two cents into this mess. The only way to truly measure the value of drafting a WR in the 1st round would be to follow every WR, drafted and undrafted, and measure their production as a group.

That would take an incredible amount of work - which I'm not willing to do.

So, instead I decided to go back each of the last six years (since data is easily available from those seasons) and taking the top 50 or so receivers by stats (catches and yards), remove all RBs and TEs, and see what round they were drafted in.

Here's what I found from 2001 to 2006:


2001 Season
1st round: 17
2nd round: 13
3rd round: 6
4th round: 5
5th round: 1
6th round: 1
7th round: 0
8th round: 1
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 6
Total: 51
% 1st Rnd Picks: 33.33%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 58.82%
% 1st Day Picks: 70.59%

2002 Season
1st round: 18
2nd round: 12
3rd round: 10
4th round: 2
5th round: 2
6th round: 2
7th round: 1
8th round: 1
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 6
Total: 55
% 1st Rnd Picks: 32.72%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 54.55%
% 1st Day Picks: 72.73%

2003 Season
1st round: 23
2nd round: 14
3rd round: 8
4th round: 2
5th round: 1
6th round: 2
7th round: 1
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 2
Total: 54
% 1st Rnd Picks: 42.59%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 68.51%
% 1st Day Picks: 83.33%

2004 Season
1st round: 20
2nd round: 13
3rd round: 6
4th round: 4
5th round: 1
6th round: 1
7th round: 4
Undrafted: 5
Total: 54
% 1st Rnd Picks: 37.03%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 61.11%
% 1st Day Picks: 72.22%

2005 Season
1st round: 18
2nd round: 12
3rd round: 7
4th round: 4
5th round: 1
6th round: 0
7th round: 3
12th round: 1
Undrafted: 5
Total: 51
% 1st Rnd Picks: 35.29%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 58.82%
% 1st Day Picks: 72.55%

2006 Season
1st round: 21
2nd round: 10
3rd round: 8
4th round: 2
5th round: 0
6th round: 1
7th round: 4
Undrafted: 5
Total: 51
% 1st Rnd Picks: 41.18%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 60.78%
% 1st Day Picks: 76.47%

On average, about 35-40% of the top performing WRs the past six years were former 1st round draft picks, and about 75% were drafted on the 1st day.

The next thing I did was to compare those figures to the proportion of WRs drafted over the same period. As I said before, the best method would be to follow all WRs drafted and undrafted - that's simply too much to do. Also, I don't know how many WRs went undrafted so I left that blank. Suffice it to say, the proportion of 1st round WRs should be lower when adding undrafted WRs back into the equation.


2001 Draft
1st round: 6
2nd round: 4
3rd round: 2
4th round: 3
5th round: 7
6th round: 4
7th round: 8
Total: 34
% 1st Rnd Picks: 17.65%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 29.41%
% 1st Day Picks: 35.29%

2002 Draft
1st round: 3
2nd round: 8
3rd round: 3
4th round: 1
5th round: 6
6th round: 5
7th round: 8
Total: 34
% 1st Rnd Picks: 8.82%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 32.35%
% 1st Day Picks: 41.18%

2003 Draft
1st round: 3
2nd round: 4
3rd round: 4
4th round: 3
5th round: 6
6th round: 7
7th round: 9
Total: 36
% 1st Rnd Picks: 8.33%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 19.44%
% 1st Day Picks: 30.56%

2004 Draft
1st round: 7
2nd round: 3
3rd round: 3
4th round: 4
5th round: 5
6th round: 4
7th round: 5
Total: 31
% 1st Rnd Picks: 22.58%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 32.26%
% 1st Day Picks: 41.94%

2005 Draft
1st round: 6
2nd round: 5
3rd round: 3
4th round: 5
5th round: 3
6th round: 4
7th round: 5
Total: 31
% 1st Rnd Picks: 19.35%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 35.48%
% 1st Day Picks: 45.16%

2006 Draft
1st round: 1
2nd round: 3
3rd round: 5
4th round: 6
5th round: 2
6th round: 4
7th round: 7
Total: 28
% 1st Rnd Picks: 3.57%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 14.29%
% 1st Day Picks: 32.14%

So, on average about 15% of WRs drafted are taken in the 1st round and 40% of WRs drafted are taken on the 1st day.

In conclusion, let's summarize this data:


SUMMARY

2001-2006 Seasons
1st round: 117
2nd round: 74
3rd round: 45
4th round: 19
5th round: 6
6th round: 7
7th round: 13
After 7th round: 6
Undrafted: 29
Total: 316
% 1st Rnd Picks: 37.03%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 60.44%
% 1st Day Picks: 74.68%

2001-2006 Drafts
1st round: 26
2nd round: 27
3rd round: 20
4th round: 22
5th round: 29
6th round: 28
7th round: 42
Undrafted: ?
Total: 194
% 1st Rnd Picks: 13.40%
% 1st & 2nd Rnd Picks: 27.32%
% 1st Day Picks: 37.63%

Just by looking at the data year-to-year, it's clear that there is a disproportionate representation of high-performing 1st round and 1st day WRs. Many of those may be busts, but there is a drop every round from 1st to 7th (though, interesting enough it may be better if you don't draft a 1st day WR to wait until the 7th round or sign an undrafted player).

The higher you draft a WR, the more likely you hit.

The lower you draft a WR, the more likely you miss.

But what does that really say? That's how it is at every position.

This is actually really, really good stuff. From this i see that one can get really good value from the second and third rounds. It seems that there as many top 50 WRs from the second round as there are from the first if im not mistaken.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this is good research and info but what is the overall boom/bust ratio regardless of position?

you know im not sure man. if it want for the fact that if i did the work id get trolled by theo alex and 5stars, Id do it. I actually probably will later this week.

 

[theogt]

You know this is the normal BS you try and work with. You pick a book that is not used to teach economics in any classroom in the united states and use it as the shining example of academic research when it truly has more place on the back of someones crapper.

It took me all of about 5 seconds to come up with a prima facia nonmonetary economic model and how it resorted to dollar signs at then end. Yet im supposed to read some toiltet book because you are unable to come up with one in 12 hours.

This is quite the trend with you Theo. 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. And you wonder why i say youre intellectually lazy. I mean dear lord theo, that book is written by a self proclaimed 'rogue' economist.

Do you have a hard time reading? Did you not miss the point where I said it was anything but "rigorous academics?" It's a book by a very well known economist, who actually does credible economic work outside of the book. He's not some wack-job. It was just an example of non-"dollar" economic study. You had a misconception that is very common among ignorant people. You don't quite understand what it is that economists do. I can see that now.

Thats nice coming from the guy that uses Freakonomincs as his example of market forecasting.

Where did I do that?

Look man I started the groundwork for what the calculus would need to be and you just completely ignore it

No, I didn't. In fact, I said it was a "fantastic starting point" for a much larger analysis that would be necessary.

I call this the 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. Its all fun and nice but in the end its hollow.

It's quite obvious to so many people but yourself. I call this the "Fuzzy is too ignorant to know he is wrong" syndrom.

Ill give you an example that pertains to professional sports as to why your model is garbage. Defensive sabermetrics in baseball. Perhaps youre familiar with the work of Bill James? What it boils down to is this. Terms like VORP, EQA, OPS and a whole slew of others come from him. Far and wide baseball people use these figures for forecasting player performance. However they are pretty much limited to offensive production.

There are defensive stats like RF and ZR however they are not widely accepted in fact they are generally discarded by baseball people. the reason for this is that there are no statistics for defense and these stats are wildly subjective. Zone rating for example is aobut whether or not a player should or should not have made aplay in his defensive zone.

the parrallel is obvious. In football you have players like the entire offensive line, safteies and cornerbacks that have no real statistics. Pretty much every other player on the field has a significant facets of his game that have no metric. The whole run game for instance.

Bill james has been working on sabermetrics since the 1960s. he is also employed by the Red Sox as a prime analyst. He is a shining reallife example of why your system is pretty much impossible but hey you have your toilet book.

Here's the logic problem in this. You're saying that because we can never possibly know the true extent of some variable (which I disagree with), we must be able to draw any conclusion we like from whatever small information we do know. Sorry, but that logic don't fly. You can't say, "I don't know if I can get to point C from point B, therefore I must be able to get to point C from point B." I guess you missed that class in logic.

apparently you dont. i can also see that by this point you have once again become VERY lazy in your response. This one was about as well thought out as a kid eating glue.

Oh, how ironic that you follow this statement with the following:

I gave a reductionist argument as to why it was where WR essentially take time off during the running game and DE and OT never do.

Uh...what? In English please? Could you try setting down that bottle of glue?

I also talked about a wholistic argument with the effects teams have when they lose the respective positions with the examples of what happened to us in losing Adams, Ellis and Glenn and the subseequent dropoff. But hey we once again get 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument.

Hey, buddy, if you make the assertion you must prove it to be true. You can't offer a statement and say, "Until theo proves this to be false, it is true." I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Apparently you cannot read because i gave clear reasons as to why i felt that way. Once again you give no reasons and then hide behind 'i dont have to' when it should be 'i cant.' Just read Theo and dont pretend like i said nothing. this little tactic of your is annoying but i understand its because youre lazy.

Yup, here's that pattern again. You think something is true because you "feel" it is true. No need to prove anything when you can simply say it is true unless Theo proves it to be false. That is beautiful logic.

Lazy lazy lazy. What you quoted wasnt even the whole argument and then you go with 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. Why doesnt it prove anything if its empirical evidence Theo? Oh let me guess its becuase of 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument. why do you ignore the rest of the argument?

Youre whole refutation is based on looking at each additional supporting argument and crying 'its not enough' and ignoring everything that come from behind it.

Once again, you want to make a statement, claim it's true, and require anyone questioning it to prove it's false.

Wr is central to the discussion. Choosing a comparison that does not include WR is not cogent to the discussion. Its great for emotional appeal but its not worth a lick.

It's logic. If your logic was sound it would apply regardless of the position. Your logic is very simple: Because WRs bust at a higher rate, it is a terrible idea to draft them in the 1st round. If that same logic doesn't apply to other positions, there must be something inherent within the WR position or any other position that changes the conclusion. If that is the case, then there MUST BE further study to see why that is. From my example, it seems quite obvious there are inherent differences between the positions. Thus, it's entirely cogent.

The reason you don't like it, and claim it's "emotional appeal," is because it so easily refutes your argument.

This was a summation not a direct refutation. Those kinds of things normally go at the end, Theo in case you didnt know. And you really do fumble about with 'The Theo Cant Prove it But Theo Knows It So It Must Be True' argument or your blathering of 'not enough' or your lies about me not giving evidence and analysis Nice ad hominems that form the basis of your arguments in that little diddy though.

You're simply incoherent here. You're not really even replying to the quoted part.

I removed the 3rd WRs becuase of just this argument. Apparenlty you were too dense to realize it though. There are 24 starting WRs on those teams and of them only 6 are first rounders. thats 25&#37;. None of the third WRs wre 1 st rounders FWIW.

Ok. So? The fact still stands that out of the 12 teams, 5 had a 1st round receiver in the starting lineup.

And you do remember the part where i shoed that there were almost 2 times as many WR selected in the first compared to QB right? It showed why my metric was better. i suppose you for got that part because i dont ever say anything to back up my arguments according to you.

You probably think it did, but that doesn't make it so. How's this: I think it made it worse! Oh no, did I just prove a point?!?! Of course I didn't. Neither did you.

At least your not arguing that WR has more impact then DE. Prima facia WR < DE and OT = WR or very close according to you. So exactly how does that impact my numbers? Oh wait it doesnt.......

The evidence mounts.

This gets us to another great point, one that was brought up by others including Hostile, I believe. Even if you knew (1) the bust rate of all positions and (2) the value of "booms" at each position (or combine both and call it "expected value"), that analysis still wouldn't be complete. You would then obviously have to take into account team need.

 

[BigDFan5]

If you are going to take a WR and want successful WR IN THE LONG RUN, THE FIRST ROUND IS WHERE YOU NEED TO GET HIM

 

[5Stars]

If you are going to take a WR and want successful WR IN THE LONG RUN, THE FIRST ROUND IS WHERE YOU NEED TO GET HIM

Short, sweet, and logical....!

Now, fuzzymath will not agree and call you someone that is very obese and obtuse!

:laugh2: Don't make him add you to his little list of fans!