WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[The Realist]

In football, supplies are always limited.

Just like any other asset/commodity.

If there is more than usual available at any given time......there will be more of it available lower.

 

[Hostile]

Just like any other asset/commodity.

If there is more than usual available at any given time......there will be more of it available lower.

At diminishing quality levels.

Whoop dee freaking doo, you can still draft a WR in the 3rd round. Doesn't mean much other than his chances of being a difference maker are less than 1st round.

 

[The Realist]

At diminishing quality levels.

Whoop dee freaking doo, you can still draft a WR in the 3rd round. Doesn't mean much other than his chances of being a difference maker are less than 1st round.

You said in football supplies are always limited.

Makes no sense when we are talking about a deep WR class.

Does a deep WR class have the same amount of talent than non-deep class has?

No. Hence more supply than a normal year.

Will that cause players to slide?

Obviously.

Or maybe that gallon of gas at $3 is just flat-out better than the gas at $2.75?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

heres to hoping that was a joke.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At diminishing quality levels.

Whoop dee freaking doo, you can still draft a WR in the 3rd round. Doesn't mean much other than his chances of being a difference maker are less than 1st round.

you just have a raging..... um yeah..... for Meacham.

And yes i know i misspelled his name and i vow to do it again with yet another vowel til i get it right.

 

[theogt]

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

Dude, a whole lotta crap is still just crap. I'm not claiming that WR in the first is good or bad, so I don't have to provide evidence. I'm simply stating that your analysis isn't worth a hill of beans. I've stated my reasons for thinking that and you've yet to refute a single one.

 

[superpunk]

I think at 22, you're getting the second wave of the skill positions (T, WR, QB, RB, CB, DE, DT) and the first wave of the auxillary positions (S, LB, G,C,TE). So, odds say in our range, you're more likely to get a top-notch auxillary player than a top notch skll player.

But - odds are what they are - odds. And the odds you've outlined for WRs (considering your evaluations are - and I think you'll agree - completely speculative) are not terrible. So I don't think the decision to go with a WR can be quantified as "horrible", if that's where we go.

 

[David276]

i dont know , i say go for receiver next year. And draft anything but Wr this one. Not that there isnt talent but we can use that pick better i think. Anyone know whos coming out in next years draft for Wr?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dude, a whole lotta crap is still just crap. I'm not claiming that WR in the first is good or bad, so I don't have to provide evidence. I'm simply stating that your analysis isn't worth a hill of beans. I've stated my reasons for thinking that and you've yet to refute a single one.

thats nice theo go ahead and repeat yourself. ill even list your responses.

You: I looked at your list and saw two players that i dont agree with.

Me: What players and there are over 200 players on that list. I might add that your inability to produce them is pretty sad. If you did produce them and I felt that I had erred I would be more than happy to adjust them but you dont so I call BS.

You: Your lists is subjective.

Me: Of course its subjective. Saying someone is a bust is inherently subjective but if you disagree with my assessments how about you make your own. No response from you other than saying I didnt respond.

You: You dont look at expected return nor did you give them a numbered scaling system for evaluation.

Me: You criticize me for being subjective then say this. They both dont jive. I intentionally made it difficult to be labeled a bust. Only play 6 seasons as an OL, 5 at the other positions, never make a probowl, have terrible stats, dont start. I think that these are expected returns from a first rounder and actually being quite nice about it. As for the numbered system i chose not to do that but if you want to go ahead and make your evals that way.

And to all of this you say I dont respond but hey thats what Ive come to expect from you in this thread. And the crap thing man thats pretty sad. You canot even give a good explanation as to why it is. Two players???!?!?! Cmon you cna do better than that.

 

[theogt]

Fuzz, I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Your reading comprehension can't possibly be this bad.

I'll repost this (from the first page of this thread) to help you out:

Your analysis is woefully incomplete and subject to a very high amount of subjectivity.

For example, you lable a WR as a "bust" who averaged 50 catches per season over a 10 year career, yet you label an OT a "boom" who essentially had a 6 year career and didn't start much.

Assuming that your "boom" and "bust" labels were correct (and they most certainly are not), the analysis is incomplete. To determine whether it is wise to draft a WR you would have to analyze the contributions of the "boom" WRs vs. the contributions of the "boom" OTs (or any other position). For example, say you valued, on a scale of 1 to 10, the contributions of all the "boom" WRs as 8 on average, but the "boom" OTs had a contribution level of 5 on average. If WRs had a 50% bust rate, and OTs had a 33% bust rate, the expected return on a WR would be a 4 contribution and the expected return of a lineman would be a 3 contribution. Thus, it would be a better investment to draft a WR. Of course, all of these numbers are very subjective, so you would have to do a great deal of mathematical justification for you analysis.

In the end, your post isn't very informative at all.

I suggest you study the term "expected return" rather than just the term "risk."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Furthermore i would like to add that I was really hoping for people to come in and comment on my evals about players that were from the 80s and whatnot. I didnt really watch the NFL then as I was very young outside of Cowboys games so I knew i had probably made some mistakes.

It quickly turned into a Fuzzy sucks thread but hey you guys just love me so much Im overcome with joy. But i was really hoping for more of a discussion about those players. Noone has and its kind of odd. I dont if people are just lazy or what. Call out my list and then < crickets chirping > as to why.

 

[theogt]

This is from the previous thread on the same topic:

This is all fine and dandy but it tells us nothing. We also need to know (1) the bust rate of WRs taken in the later rounds, (2) the overall value of WRs taken in the 1st round and later rounds (to get a sense of the possible returns, because determingin risk without knowledge of returns is useless), (3) the bust rate of other positions taken in the 1st and later rounds, (4) the overall value of other positions etc., etc., etc...

I think you get the point, which is: Determining whether taking a WR in the 1st is wise or not would be a massive undertaking. I'm sure that scouting departments have actually done so, and the fact that they continue to draft WRs in the 1st round is indicative of their view of the results.

Could you please address any of these issues. Please? All you do is keep saying "I'm right and you're wrong because I've posted evidence and you haven't." I've addressed why your evidence is inconclusive numerous times. You simply keep ignoring the problems with your analysis.

 

[theogt]

Furthermore i would like to add that I was really hoping for people to come in and comment on my evals about players that were from the 80s and whatnot. I didnt really watch the NFL then as I was very young outside of Cowboys games so I knew i had probably made some mistakes.

It quickly turned into a Fuzzy sucks thread but hey you guys just love me so much Im overcome with joy. But i was really hoping for more of a discussion about those players. Noone has and its kind of odd. I dont if people are just lazy or what. Call out my list and then < crickets chirping > as to why.

Dude, get over yourself. I don't know how old you are, but you can't be this sensitive when people criticize your analysis. Think of it as an academic exercise. You analyze evidence. People criticize your analysis and tell you how it could be more complete and then you go and re-evaluate the evidence. I've tried to explain to you how your analysis could be more complete, but you're either not comprehending what I'm telling you or you're simply ignoring it.

It's not about you. It's about your analysis. I couldn't care less who posted the analysis, I'm just pointing out flaws.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzz, I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Your reading comprehension can't possibly be this bad.

I'll repost this (from the first page of this thread) to help you out:

How am i joking and how did i not respond to all of that. You saw the whole numbered system response. You saw my response to the two players. i dont know what youre missing.

Ill go a bit further on the numbering system thing. You are saying that you have to quantify the value of a OT to a team to a WR to a team to a DE to a team and each player independtly.

Not only is that obnoxiously onerous. Which I think you know it is: Give him an impossible task and then call him out when he doesnt do it. But furthermore i dont think its necessary.

I would first say that I think that of the three postions, WR is the least important. A good defensive end and good offensive tackle help control the line ofscrimmage and the pass rush and are integral to each and every play whereas a WR is peripheral on may plays being on the perimeter.

I didnt want to get into all that because all of that is grossly open to interpretation. I set down what i felt were resonable standards of expectations for a player and saw if they measured up. Make it a simple yes or no situation to keep it simple but not make it difficult for a player to meet those standards.

Now you may not agree with that but for you to just blanket it as crap really brings nothing to the table theo other than bluster. If you disagree that someone is a bust or not then fine discuss but you refuse to do that and jsut blather.

Your entire response to this thread has been baffling frankly. You wont tell me who those two players are. You ignore my responses when I even go so far to list yours and then my answers. If you dont think they apply then that would be cool but you say nothing. its jsut weird.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dude, get over yourself. I don't know how old you are, but you can't be this sensitive when people criticize your analysis. Think of it as an academic exercise. You analyze evidence. People criticize your analysis and tell you how it could be more complete and then you go and re-evaluate the evidence. I've tried to explain to you how your analysis could be more complete, but you're either not comprehending what I'm telling you or you're simply ignoring it.

It's not about you. It's about your analysis. I couldn't care less who posted the analysis, I'm just pointing out flaws.

Dude get over YOURSELF. Read the thread: 5mics and afew others came in for no tother reason than to bash me. That post was not in reference to you.

I dont want to go through and come up with some BS arbitrary value of value to the team relative to postion. My point was 'was this player a decent sarter or bust." If you want to do a 'more complete' analysis then fine and I guarantee you my critique will be a lot better than 'you didnt do it the way i want you to so its crap,' or 'there are two players that are wrong but i wont tell you who they are so its crap.' And you say Im childish?

A lot of those WR were not decent starting WRs compared to the decent starting OTs and DEs in the first round. thats my point. If you think some of the players were or wre not decent then Id be happy to talk about it but if you think there is a 'better' way then do it yourslef. We'll see.

But in the end like i said SOMETHING >>>> NOTHING.

 

[Hostile]

you just have a raging..... um yeah..... for Meacham.

And yes i know i misspelled his name and i vow to do it again with yet another vowel til i get it right.

I don't think you misspelled his name, unless I have been.

It isn't about players I crave for me though Fuzzy. You should realize that about me. Who on this forum is higher on Laron Landry than I am? Yet I am not concocting wild schemes on how we can end up with Landry. I recognize he's out of touch now.

I'm also real high on Patrick Willis. Suddenly he is rising. If we end up with him, or Levi Brown, or Darrelle Revis do you think I'll be all butt sore about it? I won't be.

Meacham just happens to be the player slotted in that area by most sites that I happen to like the best. Doesn't mean I have to be unrealistic about it. I don't think I am. It's a position of need, more for the future than now. I recognize that, but the future has a way of arriving faster than plans allow.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think you misspelled his name, unless I have been.

It isn't about players I crave for me though Fuzzy. You should realize that about me. Who on this forum is higher on Laron Landry than I am? Yet I am not concocting wild schemes on how we can end up with Landry. I recognize he's out of touch now.

I'm also real high on Patrick Willis. Suddenly he is rising. If we end up with him, or Levi Brown, or Darrelle Revis do you think I'll be all butt sore about it? I won't be.

Meacham just happens to be the player slotted in that area by most sites that I happen to like the best. Doesn't mean I have to be unrealistic about it. I don't think I am. It's a position of need, more for the future than now. I recognize that, but the future has a way of arriving faster than plans allow.

Youre a realist not a automaton though brah. I know you know that Landry isnt going to happen so youdont try to force it. but are you really going ot tell me that you being partisan to Meachom has not one iota of anything to do with this?

And i know ive been mispelling his name cause im not sure what that last vowel is.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't think you misspelled his name, unless I have been.

it's MeachEm

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it's MeachEm

meacham meachem meachim meachom meachum they all work really.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

meacham meachem meachim meachom meachum they all work really.

who's your favorite prospect

so I can be cute just like you and misspell his name