WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[Bizwah]

I am at work and don't have time to read this thread, but I think a statistician would disagree with your assessment. Given the option of bust or boom, I would think that any player taken would always have a 50% chance of being either.

In short - I don't see how a previous draft influences the probability of later drafts. I think there are way too many other factors involved. A good player is a good player.

You're absolutely right.

Just because you flip a coin (a regular coin with one head and one tail) 10 times and have it land on heads 8 of the 10 doesn't mean that it's more probable to land on tails with the 11th flip.

There's still a fifty/fifty chance it'll land on heads.

I'd also like to see the "bust" factor for all positions. I would wager that the difference is negligible.

WR and QB, IMO, are the two toughest positions to evaluate. There's so much involved for both. Those are also the two toughest positions to come in and play right away. WRs almost always need grooming.

Couple the idea that WRs need grooming, with the opinion that this is a WR rich draft, and it totally makes sense for us to draft one in round one. WR is a strength....but both our stars are over 30, Crayton will be an UFA, and Hurd and Austin were UDFAs....If we want to have a team that can contend for years, then we have to have players at the skill positions. QB appears to be settled....TE is good....RB is manned by a two-headed monster...WR?

 

[5Stars]

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 have to say, that's alot of work...FuzzyCookie...

Thanks! Somewhat flawed...but, hey, who's always right anyway?


:starspin

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

Really i would like to see you explain how that is. i really would seeing ath i am not playing the house in poker. You can bet the dark side in craps if you want but you wont win anything and everyone at the table will hate you but really I am interested to see your explanation.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

theo we have at least backed upw hat we have to say with something. you have contributed noting. The best you can do is say two of the over 200 players i listed were worng as if that proves something. If you want to be lazy then fine but something will always be >> than nothing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

That reasoning would make sesne if WR was our greatest area of need. I would put CB, S, OL and LB higher or equla needs at this point.

Given that and the bust rate of WRs being higher for at the very least of OL and LB then that leads me to believe we would be better off picking one of those positions and being morre likely to fill a need. Add in the fact that there are about 10 very good WRs in this draft and the decision becomes that much easier.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Really that is about as dumb and unfounded as it is. I made this thread and i dare you to find another post that took as much effort on the next 10 pages as did the OP here.

As for the draft speculation being pointless; if that is true you posting in this thread at all about something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand makes you a moron by your reasoning.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

so much name-calling

so much anger

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I randomly picked 2 players. I disagreed with your assessment of the first 2 I looked at. That's not a good sign. I don't really have the time or desire to go through and debate each pick. I think it's sufficient to point out a couple mistakes on your part to show that the analysis isn't helpful. It doesn't really matter if I have a "feeling" or not. It's your burden of proof. If you want to make the claim that WR in the 1st is a bad idea, then you should prove it. So far you haven't proven squat.

Beyond that, you still haven't addressed the "expected return" vs. "risk" argument that I made.

i told ou what my standards were for bust or boom argue those and you still havent ponied up to tell me who those two players were. Like I said I call BS.

Pat Watkins was in position and played well in the second half?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so much name-calling

so much anger

I was poitning out that by ones standard they do not meet up. Im not mad I actually just got home from a very fruitful meeting and am in quite the good mood.

I think you confuse derision for anger.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow I am interested in people actually adding to the discussion yeaht hat is so funny.

What it comes down to is this:

The only way I see drafting a WR in the first is if that is your biggest need.

If you have needs that are greater than equal WR then it makes more sense to try and fill those needs at equal value as it is more likely to be a successful pick.

How is that flawed logic? I see a whole bunch of people making assertions and doing nothing to back it up.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

my definition of a bust was played at least 5 seasons. Started at least 2/3 of the time. Had at least one 1000 yard season as a WR OR averaged over 650 yards a season. One 10 sack season or averaging over 5 sacks a season. OT was a bit more difficult so I moved the seasons played up to 6 and looked at probowlls and games started. I would want at least that in the first round. A probowl automatically put you in the boom category. That is the type of expected return i would want out of a 1st rounder.

Whats your definition? Oh thats right you dont actually posit ANYTHING.

You whine but you propose no better solution.

Something >>>>>> nothing which is what you provide and I went byond that.

 

[Hostile]

That reasoning would make sesne if WR was our greatest area of need. I would put CB, S, OL and LB higher or equla needs at this point.

Given that and the bust rate of WRs being higher for at the very least of OL and LB then that leads me to believe we would be better off picking one of those positions and being morre likely to fill a need. Add in the fact that there are about 10 very good WRs in this draft and the decision becomes that much easier.

That's fair, but I don't. WR is very high on my needs list given the age and volatile nature of what we have at WR. If we don't address it now, in 2 years we'll be cussing the missed chance.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's fair, but I don't. WR is very high on my needs list given the age and volatile nature of what we have at WR. If we don't address it now, in 2 years we'll be cussing the missed chance.

My reasoning goes like this: of all the positions on the squad only a LB, S or CB would start if drafted in the first round. To me that makes them our biggest needs to upgrade. Right behind them would be WR, OT, RB and DT as those are the positions that we will need next year.

As such unless the WR there at 22 is significantly better than those other players at the prospective positions, you pass on him and go for the more sure thing.

Meachem, Bowe, GInn and Jarret all have a very likely chance to be there at 22 but if Nelson, Ross, Houston, Moss, Revis, Spencer, Willis, Lynch, Okoye or Bracnh are there then I think they fill an equal or better need and are more likely to succeed.

There is noway on Earth I pick Ginn there.

 

[Hostile]

My reasoning goes like this: of all the positions on the squad only a LB, S or CB would start if drafted in the first round. To me that makes them our biggest needs to upgrade. Right behind them would be WR, OT, RB and DT as those are the positions that we will need next year.

As such unless the WR there at 22 is significantly better than those other players at the prospective positions, you pass on him and go for the more sure thing.

Meachem, Bowe, GInn and Jarret all have a very likely chance to be there at 22 but if Nelson, Ross, Houston, Moss, Revis, Spencer, Willis, Lynch, Okoye or Bracnh are there then I think they fill an equal or better need and are more likely to succeed.

There is noway on Earth I pick Ginn there.

It is all about philosophies Fuzz. Look at the Packers a couple of years ago taking Rodgers. Was QB their number 1 need? No, but it was a move they hoped was for the future.

IMO, you cannot look at this year alone, you have to look 2 and 3 years down the road too.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is all about philosophies Fuzz. Look at the Packers a couple of years ago taking Rodgers. Was QB their number 1 need? No, but it was a move they hoped was for the future.

IMO, you cannot look at this year alone, you have to look 2 and 3 years down the road too.

I undersatnd and I cant argue with you about what you consider most important. Thats just silly. All I can do is expalin why i think the way that i do.

i know Glenn isnt coming back but do you really see TO going apefeces next year?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I undersatnd and I cant argue with you about what you consider most important. Thats just silly. All I can do is expalin why i think the way that i do.

i know Glenn isnt coming back but do you really see TO going apefeces next year?

the risk is still there, but in any event, TO is here for only 2 more years IMO

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the risk is still there, but in any event, TO is here for only 2 more years IMO

My school of thinking is that he knows that if he screws this up he will never see a contract this sweet for the rest of his life and he knows it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

My school of thinking is that he knows that if he screws this up he will never see a contract this sweet for the rest of his life and he knows it.

true, but he only has 2 years left of contract, think he's going to dip lower in his demands to stay in Dallas beyond that?

 

[Hostile]

I undersatnd and I cant argue with you about what you consider most important. Thats just silly. All I can do is expalin why i think the way that i do.

i know Glenn isnt coming back but do you really see TO going apefeces next year?

No, I don't, but I'll tell you this, I wouldn't bet my nads on it.

 

[jimmy40]

Look at that offense as a whole. No running game and shoddy QB play for his entire tenure yet he puts up great numbers every year. Being obtuse is nice and all but this is just sad.

So now your saying a WR IS worth a first round pick? and why are you calling me fat?