|
Who would you rather have drafting for the Chiefs?
(https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=270140)
Who would you rather have drafting for the Chiefs?
Dorsey, Reid and Co., or... The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet
|
Stupid poll until we actually get a draft in.
Go back to DC. |
I'll let you know in May
|
I'd rather have ***** drafting than risk some of the idiots on here having input.
|
Nostradamus or Miss Cleo
|
If CP wins do we get a pick in the draft?
The 5th round pick is traditionally selected by a poll from the website Chiefs planet |
I read a top secret e-mail from Dorsey that states the Chiefs will select Geno Smith if still available in round three.
|
ya, I would rather have guys who are actually scouting the players and having people to evaluate them as their full time job....yeah.
|
The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet? No.
But the wisdom of some select posters at ChiefsPlanet is a more interesting question. |
Quote:
Quote:
Between the real pros and the crowd, it's a closer call for me than I would have initially thought. But I'll go with the pros. Between the pros and a few "CP pros", it's no contest. |
Quote:
|
Quit being a douche, jAz
|
Herm?
|
I/you can do better than Pioli. Dorsey/Reid remains to be seen~
|
****...YES CP...all...day...long. CP track record: Awesome. Chiefs track record: dogshit. Is this REALLY in question?
Posted via Mobile Device |
I don't think it would be hard to beat this...and this is only round 1
Spoiler!
|
We'd probably end up with a few decent players, but we'd severely overpay for every one of them.
|
Soren Petro talks about the draft and fans saying I'd be better than these guys, and after a player taken later, fans come out and say, I liked him, that was my guy, like Russell Wilson.
So he says, every year the day of the draft write down who you would take right before the Chiefs draft, for every pick, and keep a log of your actual picks, you'll be surprised that you won't just have great draft after great draft. Sometimes the Chiefs will do better than you, sometimes you might draft better, but it won't be as often as you'd think. |
Yeah, we would be dealing with Mark Sanchez and Vernon Ghoulston instead of Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey...
kinda fail all the way around imo....lol |
In the "Alternate Reality" Chiefs game that Rainman set up four years ago, every planeteer that participated has so far done better than the real Chiefs. I expect that will continue.
|
damn straight.
Posted via Mobile Device |
Quote:
Posted via Mobile Device |
Quote:
|
For those who voted to trust "The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet", the results of this poll suggest you too should rather have "Dorsey, Reid and Co." running the draft. So there's that. :)
|
Hhmmmmmm... two guys who get paid around 5 mil a piece per year and were each selected for only 32 available positions in the world vs guys who spend half their time watching youtube highlights and the other half in poop threads.
Very tough call, although there is the "Fat Scott" factor which does pose a serious challenge on how dumb an NFL big shot can be...but since we have two with equal power (basically, don't care what they told the media) I am definitely going with Andy Dorsey's opinion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:clap: |
Collective wisdom eh?
|
If Dorsey/Reid go QB at 1, I don't give a **** who they select with rounds 2-7, but I'll trust them on it.
If they don't go QB at 1, then I want a do-over, this time with Chiefs Planet making that pick. And then Dorsey/Reid can have the rest of the draft because again, I don't give a flying **** about 2-7 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/wp-...uste-Rodin.jpg |
Look, we do have some excellent football minds here. Members offer up some great takes on team issues, scheme, personnel, etc. But none of us are getting paid for our opinions by one of the 32 best groups in the world when it comes to professional football. We can watch highlight films all we want and evaluate guys, but the fact is that we simply don't have the resources, time or knowledge to scout players the way that the pros do. This is their job...not a hobby or a time killer. I can look up youtube tutorials on how to rebuild my engine, but when it comes down to it, I want someone that gets paid for the job and practices it professionally every day.
|
Quote:
We (minus the true fans) don't worry over contract size or bonus money. We want a winner. I'd argue our "opinions" are more objective than the team's... |
Quote:
EDIT: Not only that, but as fans, we have the luxury of not only looking at the team today, but in 3 years, 5 years, even 10 years. People employed by the team are thoroughly focused on today and if they're thinking about the future at all, it's all about keeping themselves employed. |
I'm convinced the large fail ratio among scouts/Gms is due to overanalysis. The problem is the teams have too much info and too much time. The more info you receive the more likely you are to overvalue things that have nothing to do with football. Hackoli was great at doing this, as are alot of other GMs.
The game is played on the field - and what happens on the field is all that matters. It doesn't take much info or observation to identify a player - But when it's your fulltime job maybe you start assigning too much value to things that have nothing to do with football. The concept of thin-slicing comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-slicing Someone with only a few minutes to perform an evaluation has a much more intuitive view of things. |
Eric DeCosta
|
Don't get a big head over this Sorter, but after seeing the dudes posts about football, I'd probably take Sorters opinion over most anyone.
|
Quote:
For the most part, you have a completely cohesive group here which all has the same thought. Of course, the longer discussion goes on, the more the pre-existing belief is reinforced. Those who may not hold the same opinion are quickly labeled, stereotyped, ridiculed, and ostracized. Most of the "ink" around here could be characterized as pressure to conform, or to leave. Of particular interest is the fallacy of recent draft failures. Nothing about Geno Smith is related to the Chiefs' past draft failures. He is only seen as worthy of the #1 overall simply because the old strategy failed, it's got little to do at its root with his virtue as a player. You can easily see this by looking at how sources outside this forum rate him as a middle or late first round pick (or possibly not one) in most (other seasons') drafts. The groupthink here is reinforcing the fallacious idea that "We need a new plan because we sucked at executing the previous plan" |
It has nothing to do with We as the Chiefs. It was to do with Everyone. Every team that has gone that route has failed, save an anomaly here and there.
|
Milkman
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As I stated before, we can't really judge that plan when we've done such an awful job of even executing what we'd say we were trying to do. There's also the fallacies that (a) we have to get a QB this year, in the first round, or we're doomed to decades more failure and (b) we have to get one this year at all. We could, regrettably if we must, build and get one another time. It's better, IMO, to wait for a QB class that isn't the worst in 10 or more years, than to pick someone a round too high just to satisfy panic/reaction. JMO |
Quote:
But yes, it has to be the right QB, of course. It's been shown that the first round is the best place or the most favorable place to get the right QB, because said Qb is more talented. Obviously, there are anomalies to the rule, but they are few and far between. |
Quote:
Sure, there's been a significant run of 1st round QBs winning super bowls over the last decade, no one disputes that. But if you look at who they were - Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, etc. - nobody had doubts that those guys were first round picks. These were consensus top of the first round, trade future first round picks for, kind of guys. There was never any doubt about their talent. Even Joe Flacco, who it seems like I remember slipped a bit, was never going to get out of the first, and he'd be a first any year. We don't have that this year. We have a group of guys who are probably 2nd round talent most years, who will have their value falsely inflated by the current dynamics of the league and the desperation of our team. We shouldn't wash out the true data - we shouldn't build a stereotype around any QB in the first round when (a) most of them do not turn out, even in the first round and (b) there is a VERY significant drop off in number of super bowls won by QBs drafted in the first the last ten years, if you drop out the really exceptional examples - which clearly there are none of available to us this year. |
Joe Flacco was a second round graded QB he didn't slip, he was drafted above where he was slotted. . There are two Qb's this year who have first round grades. Yes, it's not early first at this point, but it's a first.
Most first round Qb's don't turn out? Do most LT's? Or Dt's? |
Quote:
The whole idea is hilariously stupid. |
Quote:
Granted Pioli set the bar pretty low. Maybe John Dorsey will be the one who makes the real Chiefs better than our typical teams. My team is kind of weak compared to some of the others. Rainman is dominating right now with Russel Wilson. I drafted Sanchez and it didn't work, so now probably going with Geno. |
Quote:
The lone exception? Tim Tebow. |
We can't complain, we aren't a GM, we don't know shit. Can't complain about officials, they're paid, too smart.
|
I didn't even pay attention to Geno Smith until that game against Baylor.
I saw that and was like "Whoa, holy shit, a gold-toof dawg be descendin' from da heavens." Then I found this awesome thread on CP about all his jive-throwin' ways and was like "roll anutha blunt." |
Quote:
|
The first game I saw was the Pinstripe Bowl. I though he looked kinda like Vince Young out there. We need Vince Young.
|
Quote:
|
Option for "3 year old who didn't get her barbie mansion for Christmas" is missing.
|
Quote:
If we peel off those which are significantly special examples like Peyton and Eli to try to normalize things, I don't think we see the correlation we typically hear about. Brady was a low round pick, but we can't really count that as normalized either, because he was essentially a winning lottery ticket. I agree that it's a bit of an argument from silence. The Brady super bowls cloud the numbers for the last 10 or 15 years, and trying to normalize beyond the super-elite super-minority clouds it further. Here are all the 1st round QBs since 2000. Chad Pennington Michael Vick David Carr Joey Harrington Patrick Ramsey Carson Palmer Byron Leftwich Kyle Boller Rex Grossman ^ Eli Manning * Philip Rivers Ben Roethlisberger * J.P. Losman Alex Smith Aaron Rodgers * Jason Campbell Vince Young Matt Leinart Jay Cutler Jamarcus Russell Brady Quinn Matt Ryan Joe Flacco * Matt Stafford Mark Sanchez Josh Freeman Sam Bradford Tim Tebow Cam Newton Jake Locker Blaine Gabbert Christian Ponder Andrew Luck Robert Griffin III Ryan Tannehill Brandon Weeden Apologies if I missed anything. There we have 30-some guys, and only 4 have won Super Bowls in the 12 contested since then. So the success rate of these guys, almost all of whom were generally accepted first round picks, is about 1 in 10. Other than a Manning, we have only Roethlisberger, Flacco, and Rodgers among 1st rounders winning Super Bowls. And those guys were all middle-late first, weren't they? Outside of a few no-brainer choices, the picture isn't very clear. That's all I am pointing out. |
Quote:
But yes, there are alot of them and the success rate is 1 and 10. But look at what it is for 2-UDFA. It's astronomically lower. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We need to ban ALL the trolls, CLOSE registration and lock this forum from outsiders until the draft is over. The only way we can get through this without LOSING OUR ****ING MINDS is by huddling together in one corner for warmth and support until the storm subsides. And if Geno isn't OURS...WE DRINK. http://radgeek.com/gt/2007/02/07/JonestownKoolAid.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you look at the well-traveled draft value chart, the #1 overall is worth 3,000, and #33 is worth about one sixth of that. So, if you take someone whose true value in most years is as the first pick of round 2, you're paying 6 times sticker, in a way. You also have to look at opportunity cost. You could have, instead of vaporizing 2,500 points in that system, collected something up to two middle of the first round picks. #15 and #16 would be of a similar score to #1. What the team lining up in week 1 looks like is all that matters of course, but I think people see taking a late first guy at #1 overall as no big deal because he's a QB. That's a very expensive proposition. It's not really any different than if we traded two first round picks from our usual middle draft position and took a late first guy. If it works out, maybe you look like a genius, but you should be doing far, far better for your money 9 times out of 10 |
Quote:
But the moral is that the majority of them flame out and set the franchise back 3-4 years. It's just a fact. Maybe it's acceptable risk, maybe it isn't, but we underrate the risk. |
Quote:
|
You're stuck in the 90's with that thinking, to an extent. Rookie Qb's don't come into the league the way the used too.
Whether it be the new rules, college, whatever. 14 of the last 15 first round QB's are starters in teh league right now. If anything, it's shown that taking a Qb in the first round is less risk than it once was. Especially with the new wage scale. Whoever you pick in teh first sets you back. I don't understand how a QB does it anymore. Tyson Jackson set the Chiefs back, Glenn Dorsey set the Chiefs back etc. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
By squandering draft value, whether actual or potential, we're burning picks that could be used to bolster the team. We're putting all our eggs in a basket we fully acknowledge we paid several times face value for. |
And if you're picking a guy in the first based on the position he plays being one of the lower bust positions, well, I dunno that that woudl be a really good idea.
|
How the hell is it not obvious that HotCarl isn't BlackBob's mult at this point?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And to that extent, would you rather overpay for a Qb, or a Guard, or 34DE? |
Quote:
Of course Jackson and Dorsey set us back, those were bad picks. A bust hurts equally no matter what position it is. The problem there wasn't that we picked defensive ends instead of QBs, it's that we picked poor defensive ends. If we had gotten two guys worthy of high first round picks, that would have been huge for us. We'd still be without a QB, but we wouldn't be saying "We won 2 games last year", we'd be saying "We're an inch away, if only we can find a QB." |
And this thought that only a drafted Qb is gonna get 3 years is crap.
Wherever we decide to get a Qb this offseason, will get a chance. It's not going to be a year, it will be 2 at minimum. |
Quote:
If we consistently draft for maximum draft value, draft players who survive in the league, we raise the talent level on the team, and either we hit on our QB picks, or we have draft ammo to move up sometime for a QB that's worth a high first, because we have enough talent to forego a pick and trade it away. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
With both of those guys on the team, we STILL spent the #11 overall on Dontari Poe. This whole "drafting a bad QB sets you back years" is a ****ing BULLSHIT premise. It has absolutely no logical merit. |
So we are essentially back to "only draft a guy if he's a sure thing"
|
Quote:
Ignore the fools. |
Quote:
Posted via Mobile Device |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.