PDA

View Full Version : Team: "He Sucks, but We Were on the Clock; It Was Him or a Punter." Draft Pick: "It's the Last Place I Wanted to Go, but That's the Draft."



Joel
05-12-2013, 04:58 AM
Just once I'd like a post-draft article with one/both those titles. ;) Don't get me wrong, I hope all our rookies have long successful Broncos careers. I know no reason they can't, and don't think our scouts idiots.

It's just that the annual OTA lovefest about how we got our top seven targets, each of whom has dreamed of being a Bronco—and ONLY a Bronco—from the womb, always makes me chuckle and stretches my credulity well past the breaking point. We need only look at past drafts to see anyone predicted booms or busts from ANY teams particular draft class is only making an educated guess. All the background and additional data on our new players' college careers is great and informative, but the gushing almost makes me pity people setting themselves up for disappointment.

Let's face it, if Werner had been available at our pick and Sylvester Williams hadn't (or maybe even if he had,) all we'd be hearing now is he's ideally suited to our style of defense, head and shoulders above all other picks, none of the others fit our team nearly as well, blah, blah, blah. Werner would be telling us how his first word was, "halbwildes Pferd," and, implausible as that is, half our fans would believe it. If we'd drafted Lacy instead of Ball the Broncos fan consensus would be he's more versatile and less worn, and those Balls were probably sour anyway.

I don't mean to single us out; I don't follow every team, but it's the same everywhere. Oakland spent its first round pick on a guy who'd be dead if he hadn't played his college ball 5 minutes from the finest medical facilities on Earth, but I bet all their MBs are certain he'll make the next Pro Bowl. Somehow, EVERY team manages to get it's 7 top targets EVERY year, EACH uniquely talented and skilled for their team and their team alone. Wow, what are the odds of 32 teams having such an amazingly good half-century streak? And, um, we just won't talk about what half their last dozen first round picks are doing now.... ;)

Okay, just had to get that out of my system; good luck and best wishes to all our rookie and other players, and here's hoping they have some new jewelry next February. :salute:

Northman
05-12-2013, 10:27 AM
Yes, nothing better than telling your draft pick that he sucks. That always works out well.

BroncoJoe
05-12-2013, 11:32 AM
It must really suck to have nothing but negative thoughts all the time.

OrangeHoof
05-12-2013, 11:38 AM
Jerry Glanville did a prank in training camp where he went up to a low draft choice qb and asked him where he went to college.

Rookie: "Iowa State"
Glanville (mock surprise): Iowa State? Did you say Iowa State? I wanted the quarterback from Iowa! Hey Chuck, Chuck! (waves over the quarterback coach) Chuck, this guy says he's from Iowa State. I didn't want the guy from Iowa State. I wanted the guy from Iowa. 'Don't take the guy from Iowa State,' I told you. He's no good. Get me the guy from Iowa...
Chuck (to the rookie): Didn't you tell me you were from Iowa?
Rookie: "uhh..."
Glanville: I don't believe it. We made a huge mistake! (to the rookie). I'm sorry son. We made a big mistake. We didn't mean to draft you. We wanted the guy from Iowa.
Rookie (now looking absolutely crestfallen): "..."
Glanville then grins and grabs his shoulder and tells him they were just kidding and the rookie lets out a nervous grin.

No, the qb did not survive camp.

Simple Jaded
05-12-2013, 12:51 PM
"Yeah he sucks, the worst passer l've ever seen and it was a totally reach to move back into the first round to draft him. But, Broncos fans are stupid and I need to do something to make them forget that I totally ****** up a perfectly good QB situation"-- that's the post draft article I'm still waiting to see.

Poet
05-12-2013, 01:24 PM
Joel, your utter disdain for the draft confuses me. You've admitted that, indirectly or directly that ; you don't watch college; you clearly hate the process of the draft; you want the players selected to fit what you deem to be a need; you also want that player to be the best player on the board. You can never be happy with a draft. Unless I crank open a time machine and pick you Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, John Elway, Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders and John Randle, you will not be happy. I am not trying to attack your posts. I'm trying to dissect the information that they convey and apply it to this thread. You tell me if I am successful.


If every team out there loves their draft, and certain teams keep having better drafts than others, than those teams have more credibility when they spout how much they love their draft.Few teams rarely get their 'top seven.' Players fluctuate up and down the board for a myriad of reasons. Trades, medical issues, character issues, coaching changes, draft philosophies and even depth of position can make an impact on a player's stock. Hence why when players are given a grade, they're put on a big board. One team may grade a guy an 8 out of 10 and then the next best player at that position is a 7.9 out of ten. The grades are so close that you essentially got the same player. At least in your eyes. The context of how players are taken is matters, and good sir you really don't understand those concepts when they're applied. That's where your disconnect is.

It then comes down to nothing but selection and production. The players you select must produce down the road. The teams that draft well tend to do so consistently. Their system and methods continue to produce quality players, whether their starters, role players, or what not. So a really bad team can take a gamble on a player and have it turn out well. Then a really good team can take a safe pick and have it blow up in their fact. But over the course of time, that good drafting team flourishes because of it's picks.

So for instance, in 2008 my Bengals took Keith Rivers. He was the best LB coming out of college, incredibly smart, good in coverage, fantastic tackler and a leader. He was a safe pick. Everyone knew he was never going to be a huge playmaker, but his production would be very good and he should be a cornerstone of the defense. In that same draft, the Titans took a gamble on Chris Johnson. They got laughed at for that pick. Most people questioned it. Now right there is a terrific example of what should 'not' happen. Rivers SHOULD have produced and Chris Johnson should have imploded.


But overall, which style of drafting do you think is better? Which one is going to consistently produce better players and a better roster?

Apply the context of the draft, the variables of the draft, and everything else I discussed to this thread. Instead of focusing on 'we say we love our guys but there really were players we wanted more,' focus on how well the team has done under Elway. Enjoy the how and the why of Denver's drafting process.

You don't understand the big picture of drafting. You either zoom in or zoom out with too much extremity. It's either "every team says they love their draft," on the macro level, or "we would have rather had this guy," on the micro level.

Drafts build teams for years and years. This isn't so much about getting stud players as it is enhancing your ability to build a team. Of course you need elite players, but you're making the mistake that most fans commit about the draft.

Simple Jaded
05-12-2013, 01:32 PM
I think you got it wrong King, from what I can gather the only players worth a shit are foreigners, Japan, Germany, Wlaugh and such. Apparently they're so good they laugh and snicker at Super Bowl teams.

UnderArmour
05-12-2013, 01:45 PM
Just once I'd like a post-draft article with one/both those titles. ;) Don't get me wrong, I hope all our rookies have long successful Broncos careers. I know no reason they can't, and don't think our scouts idiots.

It's just that the annual OTA lovefest about how we got our top seven targets, each of whom has dreamed of being a Bronco—and ONLY a Bronco—from the womb, always makes me chuckle and stretches my credulity well past the breaking point. We need only look at past drafts to see anyone predicted booms or busts from ANY teams particular draft class is only making an educated guess. All the background and additional data on our new players' college careers is great and informative, but the gushing almost makes me pity people setting themselves up for disappointment.

Let's face it, if Werner had been available at our pick and Sylvester Williams hadn't (or maybe even if he had,) all we'd be hearing now is he's ideally suited to our style of defense, head and shoulders above all other picks, none of the others fit our team nearly as well, blah, blah, blah. Werner would be telling us how his first word was, "halbwildes Pferd," and, implausible as that is, half our fans would believe it. If we'd drafted Lacy instead of Ball the Broncos fan consensus would be he's more versatile and less worn, and those Balls were probably sour anyway.

I don't mean to single us out; I don't follow every team, but it's the same everywhere. Oakland spent its first round pick on a guy who'd be dead if he hadn't played his college ball 5 minutes from the finest medical facilities on Earth, but I bet all their MBs are certain he'll make the next Pro Bowl. Somehow, EVERY team manages to get it's 7 top targets EVERY year, EACH uniquely talented and skilled for their team and their team alone. Wow, what are the odds of 32 teams having such an amazingly good half-century streak? And, um, we just won't talk about what half their last dozen first round picks are doing now.... ;)

Okay, just had to get that out of my system; good luck and best wishes to all our rookie and other players, and here's hoping they have some new jewelry next February. :salute:

But because we took Ball over Lacy, we gained insight into our how front office evaluates players. It's entirely possible that even if Werner had been on the board, we could have traded back. Remember, it was just last year that we passed on several of the media's "first round grade" DTs to trade back and take Derrick Wolfe instead. Two years ago we took Von Miller, a player that was seemingly more suited for a 3-4, and turned him into a weapon in our defense. This is a front office that will take productive players/leaders with its own evaluation criteria rather than be strayed by media grades and their over-hyped projections.

...And it's not the same everywhere. Several front offices do buy the media hype. Several front offices will pass on their high graded players because of financial commitments on their rosters. Had it not been for the financial obligations to Sanchez, the Jets probably would have taken Geno Smith in the first round. They were -forced- to draft him when he fell to their second pick despite being tethered to Sanchez for another year. Thankfully, I don't think we have one of these front offices that allows outside pressures to force our hand in the draft process.

Also, props for acknowledging Houston as the city with the best health care in the world.

Northman
05-12-2013, 02:30 PM
Joel, your utter disdain for the draft confuses me. You've admitted that, indirectly or directly that ; you don't watch college; you clearly hate the process of the draft; you want the players selected to fit what you deem to be a need; you also want that player to be the best player on the board. You can never be happy with a draft. Unless I crank open a time machine and pick you Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, John Elway, Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders and John Randle, you will not be happy. I am not trying to attack your posts. I'm trying to dissect the information that they convey and apply it to this thread. You tell me if I am successful.


If every team out there loves their draft, and certain teams keep having better drafts than others, than those teams have more credibility when they spout how much they love their draft.Few teams rarely get their 'top seven.' Players fluctuate up and down the board for a myriad of reasons. Trades, medical issues, character issues, coaching changes, draft philosophies and even depth of position can make an impact on a player's stock. Hence why when players are given a grade, they're put on a big board. One team may grade a guy an 8 out of 10 and then the next best player at that position is a 7.9 out of ten. The grades are so close that you essentially got the same player. At least in your eyes. The context of how players are taken is matters, and good sir you really don't understand those concepts when they're applied. That's where your disconnect is.

It then comes down to nothing but selection and production. The players you select must produce down the road. The teams that draft well tend to do so consistently. Their system and methods continue to produce quality players, whether their starters, role players, or what not. So a really bad team can take a gamble on a player and have it turn out well. Then a really good team can take a safe pick and have it blow up in their fact. But over the course of time, that good drafting team flourishes because of it's picks.

So for instance, in 2008 my Bengals took Keith Rivers. He was the best LB coming out of college, incredibly smart, good in coverage, fantastic tackler and a leader. He was a safe pick. Everyone knew he was never going to be a huge playmaker, but his production would be very good and he should be a cornerstone of the defense. In that same draft, the Titans took a gamble on Chris Johnson. They got laughed at for that pick. Most people questioned it. Now right there is a terrific example of what should 'not' happen. Rivers SHOULD have produced and Chris Johnson should have imploded.


But overall, which style of drafting do you think is better? Which one is going to consistently produce better players and a better roster?

Apply the context of the draft, the variables of the draft, and everything else I discussed to this thread. Instead of focusing on 'we say we love our guys but there really were players we wanted more,' focus on how well the team has done under Elway. Enjoy the how and the why of Denver's drafting process.

You don't understand the big picture of drafting. You either zoom in or zoom out with too much extremity. It's either "every team says they love their draft," on the macro level, or "we would have rather had this guy," on the micro level.

Drafts build teams for years and years. This isn't so much about getting stud players as it is enhancing your ability to build a team. Of course you need elite players, but you're making the mistake that most fans commit about the draft.


I didnt read all that King but i agree with you 100%.

LawDog
05-12-2013, 02:43 PM
I need an apology from someone for the time I wasted clicking on then reading this thread...

Poet
05-12-2013, 02:45 PM
I didnt read all that King but i agree with you 100%.

In retrospect, I have no idea why I even TYPED all of that.

TXBRONC
05-12-2013, 03:00 PM
I need an apology from someone for the time I wasted clicking on then reading this thread...

You have my sincerest apologies that you wasted your time LD. :sad:

SR
05-12-2013, 03:05 PM
In retrospect, I have no idea why I even TYPED all of that.

Because you know how to form an argument and surround it with actual relevant information. You don't babble. You make your point and support it with facts. People here could learn a thing or three from well structured arguments like your post. Dumbass.

TXBRONC
05-12-2013, 03:13 PM
In retrospect, I have no idea why I even TYPED all of that.

Why did type all that? Probably because you we're trying to reason with an obtuse person. OTOH maybe his full metal retardedness is rubbing off on you. Beyond that I have no other psycological insights I can give at this time. I suggest you eat two strips of bacon and call me in the morning.

Joel
05-12-2013, 08:16 PM
Joel, your utter disdain for the draft confuses me. You've admitted that, indirectly or directly that ; you don't watch college; you clearly hate the process of the draft; you want the players selected to fit what you deem to be a need; you also want that player to be the best player on the board. You can never be happy with a draft. Unless I crank open a time machine and pick you Jerry Rice, Jim Brown, John Elway, Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders and John Randle, you will not be happy. I am not trying to attack your posts. I'm trying to dissect the information that they convey and apply it to this thread. You tell me if I am successful.
Sorry, you were not successful; evidently I'm not conveying my position well enough. I'll try again, as concisely as possible: ALWAYS anything is almost always wrong. Not just in drafts; pretty much life in general.

There is no one-size-fits-all panacea. Every draft pick should be evalutated on both talent AND team need, but one prioritized, and WHICH one depends on the teams situation and the draft class. With a top 5 pick, ignoring a bunch of likely HoFers to fill a need with mediocrity is a mistake; with the #30 pick, ignoring needs to reach for likely HoFers when none are left is ALSO a mistake.

Focus on talent with top picks, because virtually ALL that drafts talent is available, and cellar dwellers need but sorely lack a franchise player. The only thing they have lots of is holes, too many to fill in one draft, but enough a likely HoFer will improve them pretty much ANYWHERE. Focus on need with picks late in the first, because the top talent's already gone and contenders only need a few more pieces of the championship puzzle. They likely already have a great player at the Best Player Lefts position, but in the few places they DON'T even a late first round pick could win them a title.

Neither need NOR talent is the exclusive focus, but everyone save .500 teams should tilt toward one or the other. EITHER can be the right priority depending on where a team falls on the spectrum. And both can build for the future rather than just one season; part of a contenders needs are star players who may retire or become cap casualties in the next few years. When we drafted Os we were filling a need, or at least trying.

That's as short as I can make it, but not this threads subject. Really.


If every team out there loves their draft, and certain teams keep having better drafts than others, than those teams have more credibility when they spout how much they love their draft.Few teams rarely get their 'top seven.' Players fluctuate up and down the board for a myriad of reasons. Trades, medical issues, character issues, coaching changes, draft philosophies and even depth of position can make an impact on a player's stock. Hence why when players are given a grade, they're put on a big board. One team may grade a guy an 8 out of 10 and then the next best player at that position is a 7.9 out of ten. The grades are so close that you essentially got the same player. At least in your eyes. The context of how players are taken is matters, and good sir you really don't understand those concepts when they're applied. That's where your disconnect is.

It then comes down to nothing but selection and production. The players you select must produce down the road. The teams that draft well tend to do so consistently. Their system and methods continue to produce quality players, whether their starters, role players, or what not. So a really bad team can take a gamble on a player and have it turn out well. Then a really good team can take a safe pick and have it blow up in their fact. But over the course of time, that good drafting team flourishes because of it's picks.
Sure teams that draft well have more credibility when they say they love their draft—but ALL teams SAY they love their draft, whether they draft a couple Pro Bowlers per year or haven't picked one since before the merger. I can only hear the Raiders and Titans pat themselves on the back for yet another masterful draft so many times before it gets comical. A lot of these guys know they blew it, but can't go out there and admit it to the media (not to mention their fans and the draft picks in question.) So the emperor is decked to the nines and only shivering because May is so frigid.


So for instance, in 2008 my Bengals took Keith Rivers. He was the best LB coming out of college, incredibly smart, good in coverage, fantastic tackler and a leader. He was a safe pick. Everyone knew he was never going to be a huge playmaker, but his production would be very good and he should be a cornerstone of the defense. In that same draft, the Titans took a gamble on Chris Johnson. They got laughed at for that pick. Most people questioned it. Now right there is a terrific example of what should 'not' happen. Rivers SHOULD have produced and Chris Johnson should have imploded.

But overall, which style of drafting do you think is better? Which one is going to consistently produce better players and a better roster?
I grew up in Houston; you don't have to tell me Bud Adams is an idiot who occasionally gets some luck he considers typical genius. The guy fired a coach for losing consecutive AFCCGs to the Steel Curtain. I don't like reaches, at least not early. Let's call them what they are: Gambles. It's fine to gamble in the 4th or later on a guy with good measurables but some red flags; ino big a loss if they bust. However, 2nd and 3rd round picks are hard to get, and 1st rounders very hard; they're investments to be placed in likely starters, not guys who have an outside chance at the HoF but probably won't survive their first camp.

As a rule I dislike reaches and gambles, but every rule has an exception. That's a nuance, not semantics; huge difference. Dysert's a gamble, but not really a reach with the final rounds #28 pick; if he's a bust, which of the 4 guys drafted after him were better? If he doesn't make it past camp he doesn't even cost us a roster spot.


Apply the context of the draft, the variables of the draft, and everything else I discussed to this thread. Instead of focusing on 'we say we love our guys but there really were players we wanted more,' focus on how well the team has done under Elway. Enjoy the how and the why of Denver's drafting process.
I'm not panning or praising this draft; it's far too soon for that. But this ain't my first rodeo, and hearing everyone annually praise the flawless drafting of future first ballot HoFers who've never played a pro down isn't impressive, only amusing. Let's see what they've got before we condemn or canonize them; until then, talk is cheap.


You don't understand the big picture of drafting. You either zoom in or zoom out with too much extremity. It's either "every team says they love their draft," on the macro level, or "we would have rather had this guy," on the micro level.
Every team DOES say they love their draft, every year, even the ones who draft cluelessly annually, and it's absurd. THAT is all I'm saying in this thread; it's not some subtle attack on our draft or unorthodox suggestion of what we should've done. I just think it's funny to hear everyone gushing about how we magically got the seven best players in the whole draft. Again. Despite having heard it so many times before and knowing the ACTUAL track record too well. The draft's a crap shoot; if a team gets three starters and one Pro Bowler out of one draft they've done better than most.

That, by the way, speaks volumes about how refined and perfected current NFL drafting is; grading on a curve doesn't validate the guy who gets 100, it indicts everyone who doesn't.

Also, I can't recall EVER saying anything like "this draft sucks; we should've taken this guy." The closest was after our last AFCCG when I was irate we didn't grab a MLB as insurance on Wilson, or a real DT, but I didn't consider whether that draft had any good ones (though the Ravens took Ngata right after we drafted Cutler, and Houston took DeMeco Ryans with the second rounds #1 pick.) When I posted NFL.coms draft grades on our guys I was ASKED who I would've taken, and made an educated guess based on other options: That's it. I have NO posistion for or against Williams other than wishing him success since he's a Bronco.


Drafts build teams for years and years. This isn't so much about getting stud players as it is enhancing your ability to build a team. Of course you need elite players, but you're making the mistake that most fans commit about the draft.
No, I'm DESCRIBING the mistake most fans, and a shocking number of GMs, make about the draft. A 4-12 team aping a 12-4 teams draft strategy just because the latter won the Super Bowl is like starting a scrub QB and over-the-hill D because Baltimore won a SB doing that. Quick, let's trade Manning for Flacco! :tongue:

Drafts SHOULD build teams for years to come; too often they don't, because 10-6 teams draft the Best Player Left and call him the Best Player Available, then wonder why they don't get any better. Or 6-10 teams insist they MUST do something about their awful QB/LT/C/RB/WR/DT/DE/LB/CB/FS and blow their shot at a guy they can build around for the next decade, then wonder why they get all these high picks but never have any decent players. We see less of that these days now that everyone's decided everyone should "always" go BPA, the but that only exacerbates the first problem.

I don't hate the draft, I hate that many people paid to draft bungle it badly relying on conventional wisdom that was unwise when novel. That MOST bungle it and one MUST win anyway makes it no less bungled.

All that said, this thread is NOT (and I can't emphasize this enough) another stab at parsing draft philosophies, else I'd have posted it in the Draft & FA forum. Maybe I should've just written that satirical article about the guy drafted by a team he's hated since childhood. Yeah, that's what'll solve the problem: More subtlety....

SR
05-12-2013, 08:18 PM
Talking In Circles 101 by Joel

TXBRONC
05-12-2013, 08:41 PM
Talking In Circles 101 by Joel

Didn't you know that Joel knows more than Elway and most if not all the GMs in football.

SR
05-12-2013, 08:50 PM
Didn't you know that Joel knows more than Elway and most if not all the GMs in football.
I get that impression

Joel
05-12-2013, 08:50 PM
But because we took Ball over Lacy, we gained insight into our how front office evaluates players. It's entirely possible that even if Werner had been on the board, we could have traded back. Remember, it was just last year that we passed on several of the media's "first round grade" DTs to trade back and take Derrick Wolfe instead. Two years ago we took Von Miller, a player that was seemingly more suited for a 3-4, and turned him into a weapon in our defense. This is a front office that will take productive players/leaders with its own evaluation criteria rather than be strayed by media grades and their over-hyped projections.

...And it's not the same everywhere. Several front offices do buy the media hype. Several front offices will pass on their high graded players because of financial commitments on their rosters. Had it not been for the financial obligations to Sanchez, the Jets probably would have taken Geno Smith in the first round. They were -forced- to draft him when he fell to their second pick despite being tethered to Sanchez for another year. Thankfully, I don't think we have one of these front offices that allows outside pressures to force our hand in the draft process.
Valid points, though I'm not sure how many GMs really by the media hype; they're just often constrained by other factors like the one you noted with the Jets. Even when the talking heads are right in general they don't have the level of detailed first hand knowledge NFL GMs and scouts have of their teams design, goals, obligations, limitations and needs. If GMs were willing to trust ESPN on their draft picks, why pay scouts?

I'm just annually amused by the spectacle of 32 GMs, and many fans, crowing about their latest perfect draft after the sheer mass of past drafts when they did the same thing over guys who were mostly busts. Remember the '07 draft when we traded just right to get in the PERFECT position for the EXACT quality players we needed? Whatever happened to those four very special guys so good they made us so much better than our half dozen natural picks would've? That was a great draft, too, to hear our GM tell it at the time. If you listen to NFL GMs no team has EVER had a bad draft. ;)


Also, props for acknowledging Houston as the city with the best health care in the world.
Well, I grew up there, and the Medical Center is just unparalleled in its quality and quantity of healthcare. The first succesful artificial heart and first US heart transplant were both performed at Methodist Hospital, but a dispute with Michael DeBakey over the former drove Denton Cooley all the way across the street to St. Lukes. Doctors like that were the ones who reattached D.J. Haydens inverior vena cava to his heart and gave him a 5% chance of surviving the night, despite their skill and the fact the Medical Center's only a short walk, let alone ambulance ride, from the U of H campus on Cullen.

No way that kid should be playing football next year, maybe ever. I mean, I was born at Memorial Hermann and turned out OK, but I didn't have the largest vein in my body severed from my heart.

Joel
05-12-2013, 08:53 PM
Why did type all that? Probably because you we're trying to reason with an obtuse person. OTOH maybe his full metal regardedness is rubbing off on you. Beyond that I have no other psycological insights I can give at this time. I suggest you eat two strips of bacon and call me in the morning.
One of your exceptional intellect should've long ago realized my metal regardedness is unmatchablable. ;)

TXBRONC
05-12-2013, 08:56 PM
Valid points, though I'm not sure how many GMs really by the media hype; they're just often constrained by other factors like the one you noted with the Jets. Even when the talking heads are right in general they don't have the level of detailed first hand knowledge NFL GMs and scouts have of their teams design, goals, obligations, limitations and needs. If GMs were willing to trust ESPN on their draft picks, why pay scouts?

I'm just annually amused by the spectacle of 32 GMs, and many fans, crowing about their latest perfect draft after the sheer mass of past drafts when they did the same thing over guys who were mostly busts. Remember the '07 draft when we traded just right to get in the PERFECT position for the EXACT quality players we needed? Whatever happened to those four very special guys so good they made us so much better than our half dozen natural picks would've? That was a great draft, too, to hear our GM tell it at the time. If you listen to NFL GMs no team has EVER had a bad draft. ;)


Well, I grew up there, and the Medical Center is just unparalleled in its quality and quantity of healthcare. The first succesful artificial heart and first US heart transplant were both performed at Methodist Hospital, but a dispute with Michael DeBakey over the former drove Denton Cooley all the way across the street to St. Lukes. Doctors like that were the ones who reattached D.J. Haydens inverior vena cava to his heart and gave him a 5% chance of surviving the night, despite their skill and the fact the Medical Center's only a short walk, let alone ambulance ride, from the U of H campus on Cullen.

No way that kid should be playing football next year, maybe ever. I mean, I was born at Memorial Hermann and turned out OK, but I didn't have the largest vein in my body severed from my heart.

Before you criticize me misspelling words I suggest you learn the difference between by and buy. ;)

shank
05-12-2013, 09:05 PM
Holy shit

Joel
05-12-2013, 09:17 PM
Before you criticize me misspelling words I suggest you learn the difference between by and buy. ;)
I'm not the one telling people how stupid they are. There's a difference between missing one key and hitting two extra ones, but I DO swap homophones when sleep deprived; probably bedtime.


You go full metal retard every time you post. My ideas about the draft weren't developed by Madden 2008.
Nor were mine. I've repeatedly said where I got my draft ideas; if you choose to ignore that for the sake of contrariness or obstinance, have fun. Anyway, off to bed; if you ever manage an objection to my arguments rather than person, do let me know.

Simple Jaded
05-12-2013, 11:31 PM
Someone who doesn't even follow the draft or college football is explaining the difference between nuance and semantics as it applies to the college draft? And I thought I was arrogant.

TXBRONC
05-13-2013, 06:41 AM
I'm not the one telling people how stupid they are. There's a difference between missing one key and hitting two extra ones, but I DO swap homophones when sleep deprived; probably bedtime.


Nor were mine. I've repeatedly said where I got my draft ideas; if you choose to ignore that for the sake of contrariness or obstinance, have fun. Anyway, off to bed; if you ever manage an objection to my arguments rather than person, do let me know.

I've ignored nothing. You said yourself that from Madden 2008 or whatever version of it may be that you found out that NFL only teams are allowed 7 picks. Those were you're words not mine.

SR
05-13-2013, 07:41 AM
You go full metal retard every time you post. My ideas about the draft weren't developed by Madden 2008.

Lets not overuse this before it even catches on.

TXBRONC
05-13-2013, 08:23 AM
Lets not overuse this before it even catches on.

Fair enough.

Joel
05-13-2013, 09:39 AM
Lemme say this one more time: This is NOT a thread about how teams should draft. It's a thread about each team annually and loudly declaring all its draftees the greatest thing since sliced bread, while each draftee gushes about the amazing luck that he just happened to be drafted by the team for whom he's always dreamed of playing.

Someone who doesn't even follow the draft or college football is explaining the difference between nuance and semantics as it applies to the college draft? And I thought I was arrogant.
If you insist we discuss that, I never pretended to know who's as good as media/agents claim. That always carries risk, or Ryan Leaf would be in Canton, not prison. As far as scouting IS reliable, my view is:

1) Good teams picking late in each round, when the best talent is long gone, should fill current/imminent holes that prevent championships, and
2) Bad teams picking early in each round, when all the best guys ARE available, should grab franchise players to build around when they aren't getting high picks anymore.

That doesn't tell us who's who, only which of them to take IF we know who's who.

I don't presume to say you ARE arrogant, but online character judgements on, psychoanalysis of and assigning hidden motives to someone barely known is arrogant BEHAVIOR. That's why I try hard to resist such impulses, but ya'll sure don't make it easy. Seriously, I don't claim to be smarter than anyone here, but constantly hear "I'm so much smarter than you because you're arrogant." Anyone see a problem with that? :rolleyes:

Slick
05-13-2013, 09:53 AM
Some of our draftees aren't going to make the club. I agree, but the fluff and speculation are all we have during this time of year. Look at the bright side,Joel, at least we won't have to read an article about how Champ says the new defensive coordinator is going to be more aggressive.

Joel
05-13-2013, 09:55 AM
I've ignored nothing. You said yourself that from Madden 2008 or whatever version of it may be that you found out that NFL only teams are allowed 7 picks. Those were you're words not mine.
And since conceded the real draft has no limit, but the maximum number of draft picks is not a whole philosophy. I got THAT from The Hidden Game of Football, as stated MANY times; here's hoping reading those words yet again grants you some comprehension of them. But that's OK, keep insultingly talking down to me, saying I have no reading comprehension and declaring yourself smarter, all to prove how arrogant I am.

*Sigh* I gotta stop letting trolls draw me into personal arguments; my apologies for falling for it again, and I'll try to do better.

Joel
05-13-2013, 09:58 AM
Some of our draftees aren't going to make the club. I agree, but the fluff and speculation are all we have during this time of year. Look at the bright side,Joel, at least we won't have to read an article about how Champ says the new defensive coordinator is going to be more aggressive.
Good points, the last especially so.

Ravage!!!
05-13-2013, 11:23 AM
Like I said... just another version of Zam.

SR
05-13-2013, 12:50 PM
Like I said... just another version of Zam.

Martyritaville.

Chef Zambini
05-13-2013, 01:18 PM
a mixture of reality from both sides of the discussion fulfills the reality.
The draft is an infusion of talent.
the teams that do it well, seem to also be the teams that are also doing well, (the chargers a seperate issue)
is it that these teams just make BETTER picks?
or is it that the BETTER TEAMS are more successful at DEVELOPING their talent ?

BB and the PATS will always be at the forefront of the chicken-egg debate, when it comes to talent vs. coaching
The chargers always drafted great talent, but an arrogant GM always felt he could dump a player wanted his second $$$ contract and draft his replacement.
Our broncos seem to be willing to be positive about their selections and work hard to justify their actions and hopefully we have added players that at the very least want to justify our confidence and contribute to a winning culture.

Poet
05-13-2013, 05:15 PM
Sorry, you were not successful; evidently I'm not conveying my position well enough. I'll try again, as concisely as possible: ALWAYS anything is almost always wrong. Not just in drafts; pretty much life in general.

Hey buddy, if you can find a time where I said you should always do this, you'd have a valid point. But seeing how I have not once said that, that paragraph you just typed was ultimately worthless. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. The rule is still the rule, however.


There is no one-size-fits-all panacea. Every draft pick should be evalutated on both talent AND team need, but one prioritized, and WHICH one depends on the teams situation and the draft class. With a top 5 pick, ignoring a bunch of likely HoFers to fill a need with mediocrity is a mistake; with the #30 pick, ignoring needs to reach for likely HoFers when none are left is ALSO a mistake.

Absolutely, and when you evaluate the draft, you will more often find that BPA is the better way to go. You're arguing theory and I'm arguing that my theory works better in application. Not to be rude, but Joel, I'm 'winning' right now because the reality of the situation sides with me. Especially when you factor in that teams can have so many needs that their board is wide open. The Ravens could have taken Cyprien, Teo, Allen, and a slew of other players that they deemed to be the best. Guess what, those also filled needs. You seem to think that BPA is some sloppy drafting style. Joel, it's not.


Focus on talent with top picks, because virtually ALL that drafts talent is available, and cellar dwellers need but sorely lack a franchise player. The only thing they have lots of is holes, too many to fill in one draft, but enough a likely HoFer will improve them pretty much ANYWHERE. Focus on need with picks late in the first, because the top talent's already gone and contenders only need a few more pieces of the championship puzzle. They likely already have a great player at the Best Player Lefts position, but in the few places they DON'T even a late first round pick could win them a title.

The joy of an early pick is that you get dibs on the most talented and 'best' players available. I'm not sure what you wanted to accomplish here?


Neither need NOR talent is the exclusive focus, but everyone save .500 teams should tilt toward one or the other. EITHER can be the right priority depending on where a team falls on the spectrum. And both can build for the future rather than just one season; part of a contenders needs are star players who may retire or become cap casualties in the next few years. When we drafted Os we were filling a need, or at least trying.

That's as short as I can make it, but not this threads subject. Really.

No, the focus of the draft is getting players who can help you win. To do this, you take players who you think will develop into guys who can validate their roster spot. Joel, you typically want those guys to be good at their jobs, so you would then take the best player on the board. Again, there's a reason why Jarvis Jones was taken by a 3-4 team and not a 4-3 team. Some teams were not in love with Tavon Austin because they like bigger Wideouts. There's a ton of criteria that goes into this, and certainly need is one of them. Again, most teams use BPA. Until you can actually refute that point, I'm not sure what you're arguing.



Sure teams that draft well have more credibility when they say they love their draft—but ALL teams SAY they love their draft, whether they draft a couple Pro Bowlers per year or haven't picked one since before the merger. I can only hear the Raiders and Titans pat themselves on the back for yet another masterful draft so many times before it gets comical. A lot of these guys know they blew it, but can't go out there and admit it to the media (not to mention their fans and the draft picks in question.) So the emperor is decked to the nines and only shivering because May is so frigid.

Exactly, all teams say they love their draft. That's part of the business and this does not actually validate your point. What do you actually want them to say, that they suck at their job? Hello Mr. NFL Owner, you're damn near a billionaire and you typically have great business sense. You pay me a lot of money and I am now saying that the last six to eight months of work I have done sucks. I got manhandled on draft board positioning, I took a punter in the first round, and the commissioner bitch-slapped me when I told him I was going to re-draft Walter Payton.

What you're proposing really amounts to the GM going "Fire me, baby. I had a good run...FOR MY BANK ACCOUNT!" What you ignore is the fact that teams like the Ravens, Bengals, Packers and the Steelers go "Yeah, we really do love this draft. See you in the playoffs, biiiiiiitch."



I grew up in Houston; you don't have to tell me Bud Adams is an idiot who occasionally gets some luck he considers typical genius. The guy fired a coach for losing consecutive AFCCGs to the Steel Curtain. I don't like reaches, at least not early. Let's call them what they are: Gambles. It's fine to gamble in the 4th or later on a guy with good measurables but some red flags; ino big a loss if they bust. However, 2nd and 3rd round picks are hard to get, and 1st rounders very hard; they're investments to be placed in likely starters, not guys who have an outside chance at the HoF but probably won't survive their first camp.

As a rule I dislike reaches and gambles, but every rule has an exception. That's a nuance, not semantics; huge difference. Dysert's a gamble, but not really a reach with the final rounds #28 pick; if he's a bust, which of the 4 guys drafted after him were better? If he doesn't make it past camp he doesn't even cost us a roster spot.

Joel, if you were a 'draft guy', you would know that drafting for need usually leads to reaching. This is my favorite part about debate. I love it when we take our arguments and apply them to reality.

If I'm sitting there and there are several guys who could qualify for BPA, I have more options. If you're sitting there looking at need, you probably have less options. If I pick 21th and the BPA could be the safety, OLB, WR or TE, I got options. If you're biggest need is safety, and the third best player on that list is the safety, you got less options. So if I pull a Cincinnati and say "**** it, give me the TE that should have been off the board eight picks ago," I feel pretty good. If you turn around draft a guy who is a worse player than the one candidates because he fills a bigger need...you're doing the league a favor.



I'm not panning or praising this draft; it's far too soon for that. But this ain't my first rodeo, and hearing everyone annually praise the flawless drafting of future first ballot HoFers who've never played a pro down isn't impressive, only amusing. Let's see what they've got before we condemn or canonize them; until then, talk is cheap.

Most people are either excited about the picks, or excited about a good drafting PROCESS that tends to work out well. You can have an amazing draft and all your players can become alcoholics or break their necks. You still drafted well. You can also have ten picks, wiff on nine and walk out with Marcus Allen. Now we can get into a great argument about which draft is or is not better. I'm just laying down the reality of the situation.



Every team DOES say they love their draft, every year, even the ones who draft cluelessly annually, and it's absurd. THAT is all I'm saying in this thread; it's not some subtle attack on our draft or unorthodox suggestion of what we should've done. I just think it's funny to hear everyone gushing about how we magically got the seven best players in the whole draft. Again. Despite having heard it so many times before and knowing the ACTUAL track record too well. The draft's a crap shoot; if a team gets three starters and one Pro Bowler out of one draft they've done better than most.

That, by the way, speaks volumes about how refined and perfected current NFL drafting is; grading on a curve doesn't validate the guy who gets 100, it indicts everyone who doesn't.

Again, EVERY team says they love their draft. It's how the business works. It's not really a reflection of the process of running a draft. It's validating your picks to your fans so they buy tickets and jerseys. Business. When the Raiders say their draft is awesome, I laugh. When the Packers say they love their draft, the rest of the NFC North cries.

You're also completely wrong about the curve by the way. The guy who gets the 100 on the curve did well. The guy who got a legitimate 88% on the test was still really good and was almost excellent. That's a loser's mentality that neither you or I subscribe to in our real lives. Thank god.


Also, I can't recall EVER saying anything like "this draft sucks; we should've taken this guy." The closest was after our last AFCCG when I was irate we didn't grab a MLB as insurance on Wilson, or a real DT, but I didn't consider whether that draft had any good ones (though the Ravens took Ngata right after we drafted Cutler, and Houston took DeMeco Ryans with the second rounds #1 pick.) When I posted NFL.coms draft grades on our guys I was ASKED who I would've taken, and made an educated guess based on other options: That's it. I have NO posistion for or against Williams other than wishing him success since he's a Bronco.

Oh Joel, you must have missed it when Montee Ball was picked. A lot of really good posters rolled their eyes and made the 'wanking off' gesture. I was upset with the Eifert pick until I realized that I was wrong. A lot of the posters here were irate with the Webster pick. The notion that every fan, or even the majority of the fans go 'tralalalalalaa, this draft was perfect" does not work.



No, I'm DESCRIBING the mistake most fans, and a shocking number of GMs, make about the draft. A 4-12 team aping a 12-4 teams draft strategy just because the latter won the Super Bowl is like starting a scrub QB and over-the-hill D because Baltimore won a SB doing that. Quick, let's trade Manning for Flacco! :tongue:

This is your death knell. The Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers are perennially top five teams in the NFL. They always seem to have a dearth of pro-bowl and all-pro players. Their starters who aren't studs are typically very good and fulfill the needs of their coaches and their schemes. They have an ability to let guys walk in free agency and instantly replace them.

They can do this because of their drafting. Ozzie Newsome just spanked the rest of the NFL in terms of a draft. He replaced all of his departed starters with guys who have first and second round talent. So Joel, if those 4-12 teams were actually good enough in terms of having front office guys who like keeping their jobs, they WOULD imitate Newsome. Oh wait, everyone does, they're just not as good as he is.

That guy over there is moving his cart with a strange stone that moves quickly. He called it...the wheel, and said it's round...We move our cart with our bodies, and it sucks. Maybe we should get...a......round thing...called...THE WHEEL!!?!!?!?!?

SCIENCE!!!!


Drafts SHOULD build teams for years to come; too often they don't, because 10-6 teams draft the Best Player Left and call him the Best Player Available, then wonder why they don't get any better. Or 6-10 teams insist they MUST do something about their awful QB/LT/C/RB/WR/DT/DE/LB/CB/FS and blow their shot at a guy they can build around for the next decade, then wonder why they get all these high picks but never have any decent players. We see less of that these days now that everyone's decided everyone should "always" go BPA, the but that only exacerbates the first problem.

I don't hate the draft, I hate that many people paid to draft bungle it badly relying on conventional wisdom that was unwise when novel. That MOST bungle it and one MUST win anyway makes it no less bungled.

All that said, this thread is NOT (and I can't emphasize this enough) another stab at parsing draft philosophies, else I'd have posted it in the Draft & FA forum. Maybe I should've just written that satirical article about the guy drafted by a team he's hated since childhood. Yeah, that's what'll solve the problem: More subtlety....

That would mean that the 10-6 team either took a bust or they were wrong in their evaluation. If you use a wrench to fix a car when you needed a screwdriver, you don't burn the wrench.

Joel, I managed to mix in enough about the teams talking about their drafts to validate the thread. I did this to keep the thread on track.

Because I'm just that nice of a ******* guy.

TXBRONC
05-13-2013, 06:22 PM
Hey buddy, if you can find a time where I said you should always do this, you'd have a valid point. But seeing how I have not once said that, that paragraph you just typed was ultimately worthless. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. The rule is still the rule, however.



Absolutely, and when you evaluate the draft, you will more often find that BPA is the better way to go. You're arguing theory and I'm arguing that my theory works better in application. Not to be rude, but Joel, I'm 'winning' right now because the reality of the situation sides with me. Especially when you factor in that teams can have so many needs that their board is wide open. The Ravens could have taken Cyprien, Teo, Allen, and a slew of other players that they deemed to be the best. Guess what, those also filled needs. You seem to think that BPA is some sloppy drafting style. Joel, it's not.



The joy of an early pick is that you get dibs on the most talented and 'best' players available. I'm not sure what you wanted to accomplish here?



No, the focus of the draft is getting players who can help you win. To do this, you take players who you think will develop into guys who can validate their roster spot. Joel, you typically want those guys to be good at their jobs, so you would then take the best player on the board. Again, there's a reason why Jarvis Jones was taken by a 3-4 team and not a 4-3 team. Some teams were not in love with Tavon Austin because they like bigger Wideouts. There's a ton of criteria that goes into this, and certainly need is one of them. Again, most teams use BPA. Until you can actually refute that point, I'm not sure what you're arguing.




Exactly, all teams say they love their draft. That's part of the business and this does not actually validate your point. What do you actually want them to say, that they suck at their job? Hello Mr. NFL Owner, you're damn near a billionaire and you typically have great business sense. You pay me a lot of money and I am now saying that the last six to eight months of work I have done sucks. I got manhandled on draft board positioning, I took a punter in the first round, and the commissioner bitch-slapped me when I told him I was going to re-draft Walter Payton.

What you're proposing really amounts to the GM going "Fire me, baby. I had a good run...FOR MY BANK ACCOUNT!" What you ignore is the fact that teams like the Ravens, Bengals, Packers and the Steelers go "Yeah, we really do love this draft. See you in the playoffs, biiiiiiitch."




Joel, if you were a 'draft guy', you would know that drafting for need usually leads to reaching. This is my favorite part about debate. I love it when we take our arguments and apply them to reality.

If I'm sitting there and there are several guys who could qualify for BPA, I have more options. If you're sitting there looking at need, you probably have less options. If I pick 21th and the BPA could be the safety, OLB, WR or TE, I got options. If you're biggest need is safety, and the third best player on that list is the safety, you got less options. So if I pull a Cincinnati and say "**** it, give me the TE that should have been off the board eight picks ago," I feel pretty good. If you turn around draft a guy who is a worse player than the one candidates because he fills a bigger need...you're doing the league a favor.




Most people are either excited about the picks, or excited about a good drafting PROCESS that tends to work out well. You can have an amazing draft and all your players can become alcoholics or break their necks. You still drafted well. You can also have ten picks, wiff on nine and walk out with Marcus Allen. Now we can get into a great argument about which draft is or is not better. I'm just laying down the reality of the situation.




Again, EVERY team says they love their draft. It's how the business works. It's not really a reflection of the process of running a draft. It's validating your picks to your fans so they buy tickets and jerseys. Business. When the Raiders say their draft is awesome, I laugh. When the Packers say they love their draft, the rest of the NFC North cries.

You're also completely wrong about the curve by the way. The guy who gets the 100 on the curve did well. The guy who got a legitimate 88% on the test was still really good and was almost excellent. That's a loser's mentality that neither you or I subscribe to in our real lives. Thank god.



Oh Joel, you must have missed it when Montee Ball was picked. A lot of really good posters rolled their eyes and made the 'wanking off' gesture. I was upset with the Eifert pick until I realized that I was wrong. A lot of the posters here were irate with the Webster pick. The notion that every fan, or even the majority of the fans go 'tralalalalalaa, this draft was perfect" does not work.




This is your death knell. The Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers are perennially top five teams in the NFL. They always seem to have a dearth of pro-bowl and all-pro players. Their starters who aren't studs are typically very good and fulfill the needs of their coaches and their schemes. They have an ability to let guys walk in free agency and instantly replace them.

They can do this because of their drafting. Ozzie Newsome just spanked the rest of the NFL in terms of a draft. He replaced all of his departed starters with guys who have first and second round talent. So Joel, if those 4-12 teams were actually good enough in terms of having front office guys who like keeping their jobs, they WOULD imitate Newsome. Oh wait, everyone does, they're just not as good as he is.

That guy over there is moving his cart with a strange stone that moves quickly. He called it...the wheel, and said it's round...We move our cart with our bodies, and it sucks. Maybe we should get...a......round thing...called...THE WHEEL!!?!!?!?!?

SCIENCE!!!!



That would mean that the 10-6 team either took a bust or they were wrong in their evaluation. If you use a wrench to fix a car when you needed a screwdriver, you don't burn the wrench.

Joel, I managed to mix in enough about the teams talking about their drafts to validate the thread. I did this to keep the thread on track.

Because I'm just that nice of a ******* guy.

Well done. Btw Newsome did deal Denver a death knell. :tsk:

TXBRONC
05-13-2013, 06:25 PM
Hey buddy, if you can find a time where I said you should always do this, you'd have a valid point. But seeing how I have not once said that, that paragraph you just typed was ultimately worthless. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. The rule is still the rule, however.



Absolutely, and when you evaluate the draft, you will more often find that BPA is the better way to go. You're arguing theory and I'm arguing that my theory works better in application. Not to be rude, but Joel, I'm 'winning' right now because the reality of the situation sides with me. Especially when you factor in that teams can have so many needs that their board is wide open. The Ravens could have taken Cyprien, Teo, Allen, and a slew of other players that they deemed to be the best. Guess what, those also filled needs. You seem to think that BPA is some sloppy drafting style. Joel, it's not.



The joy of an early pick is that you get dibs on the most talented and 'best' players available. I'm not sure what you wanted to accomplish here?



No, the focus of the draft is getting players who can help you win. To do this, you take players who you think will develop into guys who can validate their roster spot. Joel, you typically want those guys to be good at their jobs, so you would then take the best player on the board. Again, there's a reason why Jarvis Jones was taken by a 3-4 team and not a 4-3 team. Some teams were not in love with Tavon Austin because they like bigger Wideouts. There's a ton of criteria that goes into this, and certainly need is one of them. Again, most teams use BPA. Until you can actually refute that point, I'm not sure what you're arguing.




Exactly, all teams say they love their draft. That's part of the business and this does not actually validate your point. What do you actually want them to say, that they suck at their job? Hello Mr. NFL Owner, you're damn near a billionaire and you typically have great business sense. You pay me a lot of money and I am now saying that the last six to eight months of work I have done sucks. I got manhandled on draft board positioning, I took a punter in the first round, and the commissioner bitch-slapped me when I told him I was going to re-draft Walter Payton.

What you're proposing really amounts to the GM going "Fire me, baby. I had a good run...FOR MY BANK ACCOUNT!" What you ignore is the fact that teams like the Ravens, Bengals, Packers and the Steelers go "Yeah, we really do love this draft. See you in the playoffs, biiiiiiitch."




Joel, if you were a 'draft guy', you would know that drafting for need usually leads to reaching. This is my favorite part about debate. I love it when we take our arguments and apply them to reality.

If I'm sitting there and there are several guys who could qualify for BPA, I have more options. If you're sitting there looking at need, you probably have less options. If I pick 21th and the BPA could be the safety, OLB, WR or TE, I got options. If you're biggest need is safety, and the third best player on that list is the safety, you got less options. So if I pull a Cincinnati and say "**** it, give me the TE that should have been off the board eight picks ago," I feel pretty good. If you turn around draft a guy who is a worse player than the one candidates because he fills a bigger need...you're doing the league a favor.




Most people are either excited about the picks, or excited about a good drafting PROCESS that tends to work out well. You can have an amazing draft and all your players can become alcoholics or break their necks. You still drafted well. You can also have ten picks, wiff on nine and walk out with Marcus Allen. Now we can get into a great argument about which draft is or is not better. I'm just laying down the reality of the situation.




Again, EVERY team says they love their draft. It's how the business works. It's not really a reflection of the process of running a draft. It's validating your picks to your fans so they buy tickets and jerseys. Business. When the Raiders say their draft is awesome, I laugh. When the Packers say they love their draft, the rest of the NFC North cries.

You're also completely wrong about the curve by the way. The guy who gets the 100 on the curve did well. The guy who got a legitimate 88% on the test was still really good and was almost excellent. That's a loser's mentality that neither you or I subscribe to in our real lives. Thank god.



Oh Joel, you must have missed it when Montee Ball was picked. A lot of really good posters rolled their eyes and made the 'wanking off' gesture. I was upset with the Eifert pick until I realized that I was wrong. A lot of the posters here were irate with the Webster pick. The notion that every fan, or even the majority of the fans go 'tralalalalalaa, this draft was perfect" does not work.




This is your death knell. The Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers are perennially top five teams in the NFL. They always seem to have a dearth of pro-bowl and all-pro players. Their starters who aren't studs are typically very good and fulfill the needs of their coaches and their schemes. They have an ability to let guys walk in free agency and instantly replace them.

They can do this because of their drafting. Ozzie Newsome just spanked the rest of the NFL in terms of a draft. He replaced all of his departed starters with guys who have first and second round talent. So Joel, if those 4-12 teams were actually good enough in terms of having front office guys who like keeping their jobs, they WOULD imitate Newsome. Oh wait, everyone does, they're just not as good as he is.

That guy over there is moving his cart with a strange stone that moves quickly. He called it...the wheel, and said it's round...We move our cart with our bodies, and it sucks. Maybe we should get...a......round thing...called...THE WHEEL!!?!!?!?!?

SCIENCE!!!!



That would mean that the 10-6 team either took a bust or they were wrong in their evaluation. If you use a wrench to fix a car when you needed a screwdriver, you don't burn the wrench.

Joel, I managed to mix in enough about the teams talking about their drafts to validate the thread. I did this to keep the thread on track.

Because I'm just that nice of a ******* guy.

Well done. Btw Newsome didn't spank Denver. :tsk:

SR
05-13-2013, 06:43 PM
King, that was domination on a grand scale

Simple Jaded
05-13-2013, 08:13 PM
Lemme say this one more time: This is NOT a thread about how teams should draft. It's a thread about each team annually and loudly declaring all its draftees the greatest thing since sliced bread, while each draftee gushes about the amazing luck that he just happened to be drafted by the team for whom he's always dreamed of playing.

If you insist we discuss that, I never pretended to know who's as good as media/agents claim. That always carries risk, or Ryan Leaf would be in Canton, not prison. As far as scouting IS reliable, my view is:

1) Good teams picking late in each round, when the best talent is long gone, should fill current/imminent holes that prevent championships, and
2) Bad teams picking early in each round, when all the best guys ARE available, should grab franchise players to build around when they aren't getting high picks anymore.

That doesn't tell us who's who, only which of them to take IF we know who's who.

I don't presume to say you ARE arrogant, but online character judgements on, psychoanalysis of and assigning hidden motives to someone barely known is arrogant BEHAVIOR. That's why I try hard to resist such impulses, but ya'll sure don't make it easy. Seriously, I don't claim to be smarter than anyone here, but constantly hear "I'm so much smarter than you because you're arrogant." Anyone see a problem with that? :rolleyes:

A, I am arrogant. I didn't mean to imply that accused anyone of such a thing.

B, I never accused you of claiming that you smarter than anyone. However, now that you mention psychoanalysis, imo you might be too smart for the game of football, honestly. I think you're completely full of shit and really, really smart all at the same time. The kind of guy that gets outta the shower to take a piss, not because you think it's gross, but because that's not the showers intended purpose. This is why is struggle with you explaining nuance/semantics of a game you don't follow.

SR
05-13-2013, 09:19 PM
A, I am arrogant. I didn't mean to imply that accused anyone of such a thing.

B, I never accused you of claiming that you smarter than anyone. However, now that you mention psychoanalysis, imo you might be too smart for the game of football, honestly. I think you're completely full of shit and really, really smart all at the same time. The kind of guy that gets outta the shower to take a piss, not because you think it's gross, but because that's not the showers intended purpose. This is why is struggle with you explaining nuance/semantics of a game you don't follow.

I piss in the shower.

Ravage!!!
05-13-2013, 10:00 PM
Not too smart for football. Just doesn't know how to watch it without thinking he's smarter than everyone else watching it.