WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[theogt]

If there is excess supply of anything (deep WR class), doesn't that mean you can buy it lower?

Not really. Having more quality players of one position in a draft doesn't necessarily mean they'll all last longer. It could just mean there's more taken earlier. For example there may be 7 or 8 receivers taken by the time it took 2 to get off the board last year. So you can't really say that since there's more available you'll just wait to draft one lower.

 

[jackrussell]

OK...this much I've gathered from you so far...you've learned a new word and by gawd you're going to use it!

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.

whats so difficult to understand? are you trying to be obtuse?

Adam you are intentionally being obtuse as you very well know what he meant.

I'm sorry, that was showing lack of intelligence and sensitivity....but really...on the WRS in the first.

I look at what is considered the 3 top 'skill positions', QB, RB, WR. I'm sure all 3 would have less than a 50% boom rate. But that's what makes it considered a skill position to begin with.....it is very difficult to master those skills at the NFL level to at least be considered a serviceable player, let alone a boom. Because they are not booms, does not make them busts. You should at the very least break them into 3 categories, while also listing those same rates for 2nd through 7th rounds in the same time period.

Let's say you move to a new community.....you need a good mechanic, and someone to cut your lawn. While it may be more difficult to find a good mechanic, you don't put them down your list to grab someone that's good at cutting your lawn simply because you'd have a better chance of succeeding by finding him early.

Your skill positions are your mechanics....the rest mow your lawn and trim your hedges. Your lawn may look great.....but not so much if your car is on blocks in the middle of it.

 

[bbgun]

Of course, New England has won three Super Bowls with a bunch of ragtag guys at wideout (Branch, Patten, Brown, etc.) so there are exceptions. But your scouting better be damn good .. and somewhat lucky.

 

[windward]

OK...this much I've gathered from you so far...obtuse is your favorite word.







I'm sorry, that was showing lack of intelligence and sensitivity....but really...on the WRS in the first.

I look at what is considered the 3 top 'skill positions', QB, RB, WR. I'm sure all 3 would have less than a 50% boom rate. But that's what makes it considered a skill position to begin with.....it is very difficult to master those skills at the NFL level to at least be considered a serviceable player, let alone a boom. Because they are not booms, does not make them busts. You should at the very least break them into 3 categories, while also listing those same rates for 2nd through 7th rounds in the same time period.

Let's say you move to a new community.....you need a good mechanic, and someone to cut your lawn. While it may be more difficult to find a good mechanic, you don't put them down your list to grab someone that's good at cutting your lawn simply because you'd have a better chance of succeeding by finding him early.

Your skill positions are your mechanics....the rest mow your lawn and trim your hedges. Your lawn may look great.....but not so much if your car is on blocks in the middle of it.

analogy of the day.

 

[theogt]

Of course, New England has won three Super Bowls with a bunch of ragtag guys at wideout (Branch, Patten, Brown, etc.) so there are exceptions. But your scouting better be damn good .. and somewhat lucky.

Yeah, but New England wins with ragtag guys at nearly every position.

 

[THUMPER]

Wow.....that is a big bunch of bust's

I like big busts and I cannot lie... :laugh2:

Sorry, I just had to go there.

 

[windward]

Of course, New England has won three Super Bowls with a bunch of ragtag guys at wideout (Branch, Patten, Brown, etc.) so there are exceptions. But your scouting better be damn good .. and somewhat lucky.

We sorta tried that philosophy after Alvin Harper left. Kevin Williams was good enough for a SB win in 95 but Stepfret Williams, Macey Brooks, Anthony Miller, Billy Davis, Ernie Mills? Yuck.That's a pretty big reason why our offense grounded to a near halt in the mid 90s. It's a dangerous game when you neglect the skill positions the way we did

 

[bbgun]

Yeah, but New England wins with ragtag guys at nearly every position.

And sometimes the first round is the way to go.

Indy: Harrison, Wayne and Clark were all #1's.

Dallas: Irvin and Harper were #1's; K. Williams #2.

 

[bbgun]

We sorta tried that philosophy after Alvin Harper left. Kevin Williams was good enough for a SB win in 95 but Stepfret Williams, Macey Brooks, Anthony Miller, Billy Davis, Ernie Mills? Yuck.That's a pretty big reason why our offense grounded to a near halt in the mid 90s. It's a dangerous game when you neglect the skill positions the way we did

I liked Ernie Mills. I thought he played well for us. Miller was a much bigger disappointment.

 

[The30YardSlant]

This mis all well and good, but if ANY team passes up Clavin Johnson, it will be a HUGE mistake. A 6'5", 235 pound WR with a 45" vert and 4.3 speed comes along once a generation.

 

[windward]

I liked Ernie Mills. I thought he played well for us. Miller was a much bigger disappointment.

Yeah, Mills was ok for us as a slot receiver until Jay Bellamy laid a wicked hit on him that caused internal injuries. As a slot receiver he was fine, don't get me wrong. But I think we needed to address the wideout position and we more or less ignored it until 99 when we went out to sign Rocket.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

this is just another media-perpetuated myth that I hate

Marques Colston does well, and all of a sudden, it's abandon the 1st round and wait till the 7th round, your franchise WR is bound to be there, but I would be careful w/ that thinking, Tampa Bay thought they had a WR in Michael Clayton after his rookie year, but he's quickly turning into a bust, so I'd wait a couple more years before I set Colston as the standard on where you should evaluate taking a WR in the draft

Fuzzy, it's like your mother on telling you where to find a good time, "oh, don't hang out w/ your friends and go to parties, people OD and get into fights and get arrested, go to the roller-skating rink, you can have safe fun"

 

[dalboy]

Then what do we draft.

 

[tomson75]

Then what do we draft.

WE don't draft anyone.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

WE don't draft anyone.

What....... do you mean like Minnesota a few times a couple years ago?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Kudos Fuzzy.

Very nice job.

 

[Crown Royal]

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.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Kudos Fuzzy.

Very nice job.

Gone to the dark side I see. Afternoon Mike.

 

[Crown Royal]

Kudos Fuzzy.

Very nice job.

I am now forced to disagree on principle, based on the fact that this guy agrees.

 

[L-O-Jete]

I'm sorry, but some positions are so important that you have no choice but to dip your toe into the pool again. Blowing it on Ryan Leaf didn't dissuade the Chargers from drafting Eli Manning. You just keep doing it till you get it right.

And... Drew Brees, I guess they're happy they did.