ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Who would you rather have drafting for the Chiefs? (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=270140)

jAZ 02-17-2013 09:54 PM

Who would you rather have drafting for the Chiefs?
 
Dorsey, Reid and Co., or... The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet

Hammock Parties 02-17-2013 09:55 PM

Stupid poll until we actually get a draft in.

Go back to DC.

BossChief 02-17-2013 09:56 PM

I'll let you know in May

RyFo18 02-17-2013 09:59 PM

I'd rather have ***** drafting than risk some of the idiots on here having input.

Fairplay 02-17-2013 10:01 PM

Nostradamus or Miss Cleo

TribalElder 02-17-2013 10:02 PM

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

Fairplay 02-17-2013 10:03 PM

I read a top secret e-mail from Dorsey that states the Chiefs will select Geno Smith if still available in round three.

Bump 02-17-2013 10:04 PM

ya, I would rather have guys who are actually scouting the players and having people to evaluate them as their full time job....yeah.

Reaper16 02-17-2013 10:06 PM

The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet? No.

But the wisdom of some select posters at ChiefsPlanet is a more interesting question.

jAZ 02-17-2013 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump (Post 9411650)
ya, I would rather have guys who are actually scouting the players and having people to evaluate them as their full time job....yeah.

I've said over and again that it's pretty stupid, IMO, for people to become so wound up with personal certainty about their opinions of a player when they have done, at most - 1/100th of the work to evaluate a draft.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 9411652)
The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet? No.

But the wisdom of some select posters at ChiefsPlanet is a more interesting question.

... however, I'm a pretty big fan of the ideas beyond "Wisdom of Crowds". And while ChiefsPlanet doesn't provide all of the proper conditions for crowds to be wise, I'd rather go off the entire group than one or two "experts".

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.

NJChiefsFan 02-17-2013 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 9411652)
The collective wisdom of ChiefsPlanet? No.

But the wisdom of some select posters at ChiefsPlanet is a more interesting question.

While CP has it's own egos, if this scenario actually did happen I think most posters would take this serious enough to really lean upon the more well-versed scouting(relatively speaking) guys here. I honestly would take this place over *****. I am not saying that for this Front Office group. With ***** you can say that because honestly HOW could it get worse. Most people here were all for both Berry and Houston(at his spot in the 3rd). I don't think we could have done worse.

RealSNR 02-17-2013 10:54 PM

Quit being a douche, jAz

Pitt Gorilla 02-17-2013 10:57 PM

Herm?

hometeam 02-17-2013 11:13 PM

I/you can do better than Pioli. Dorsey/Reid remains to be seen~

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-18-2013 12:33 AM

****...YES CP...all...day...long. CP track record: Awesome. Chiefs track record: dogshit. Is this REALLY in question?
Posted via Mobile Device

HolyHat 02-18-2013 12:42 AM

I don't think it would be hard to beat this...and this is only round 1

Spoiler!

HotCarl 02-18-2013 06:37 AM

We'd probably end up with a few decent players, but we'd severely overpay for every one of them.

Messier 02-18-2013 07:00 AM

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.

oldandslow 02-18-2013 07:08 AM

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

wazu 02-18-2013 07:16 AM

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.

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-18-2013 09:10 AM

damn straight.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-18-2013 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9411988)
We'd probably end up with a few decent players, but we'd severely overpay for every one of them.

does it hurt your brain when you read curious george to start your day?
Posted via Mobile Device

Rausch 02-18-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldandslow (Post 9412000)
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

My record is only about 50/50 but that's much better than KC has done since 2001...

jAZ 02-18-2013 10:08 AM

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. :)

COchief 02-18-2013 10:12 AM

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.

TEX 02-18-2013 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9412134)
My record is only about 50/50 but that's much better than KC has done since 2001...

Yep.

htismaqe 02-18-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ (Post 9412147)
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. :)

You're so much smarter than everybody else.

:clap:

Red Beans 02-18-2013 10:20 AM

Collective wisdom eh?

RealSNR 02-18-2013 10:25 AM

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

tooge 02-18-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wazu (Post 9412001)
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.

wht thread is that? I'l love to see it

Messier 02-18-2013 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooge (Post 9412305)
wht thread is that? I'l love to see it

Me too. I wonder if it goes round by round, the day of the draft right before the Chiefs pick.

Rausch 02-18-2013 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ (Post 9412147)
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. :)

...

http://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/wp-...uste-Rodin.jpg

Strongside 02-18-2013 12:02 PM

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.

Rausch 02-18-2013 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside (Post 9412346)
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.

The only positive I'd give the BB over Scouts/Gm/Owner/HC would be that our only concern is making the team better.

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...

htismaqe 02-18-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9412353)
The only positive I'd give the BB over Scouts/Gm/Owner/HC would be that our only concern is making the team better.

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...

Yep.

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.

B_Ambuehl 02-18-2013 03:46 PM

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.

Sorter 02-18-2013 03:51 PM

Eric DeCosta

O.city 02-18-2013 03:52 PM

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.

HotCarl 02-18-2013 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl (Post 9412990)
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.

Thin slicing is definitely going on here, but Groupthink, or rather Genothink here is just a textbook example of that phenomenon.

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"

O.city 02-18-2013 05:18 PM

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.

BoneKrusher 02-19-2013 08:08 PM

Milkman

Hammock Parties 02-19-2013 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl
Someone with only a few minutes to perform an evaluation has a much more intuitive view of things.

And Dick Haley knew RIGHT AWAY Cassel was a piece of shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl
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.

Yes, but that pre-existing belief is based on our gut reaction to what we saw from Geno initially. Almost everything since then has reinforced it. He doesn't have many warts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl
He is only seen as worthy of the #1 overall simply because the old strategy failed,

This is also wrong. In fact some of us don't give a shit about what the Chiefs did previously. Mostly what people care about is that all the players we might draft instead of Geno are utter garbage value for a #1 pick.

HotCarl 02-19-2013 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9413264)
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.

But there are a few fallacies there.

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

O.city 02-19-2013 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417060)
But there are a few fallacies there.

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

Did you just form this opinion? Cause I swear it's the same one we've heard since 1990.


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.

HotCarl 02-19-2013 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417068)
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

But this is a selection bias. We're selectively ignoring contrary examples.

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.

O.city 02-19-2013 08:45 PM

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?

htismaqe 02-19-2013 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9417046)
Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl
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.


This is just his really eloquent and snarky way to say, AGAIN, that we're all participating in group-think like lemmings.

The whole idea is hilariously stupid.

wazu 02-19-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooge (Post 9412305)
wht thread is that? I'l love to see it

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...=204569&page=5

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.

htismaqe 02-19-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417206)
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?

14 of the last 15 first round QBs are starting.

The lone exception?

Tim Tebow.

O.city 02-19-2013 08:46 PM

We can't complain, we aren't a GM, we don't know shit. Can't complain about officials, they're paid, too smart.

Hammock Parties 02-19-2013 08:49 PM

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."

htismaqe 02-19-2013 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9417229)
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."

ROFL

htismaqe 02-19-2013 08:51 PM

The first game I saw was the Pinstripe Bowl. I though he looked kinda like Vince Young out there. We need Vince Young.

wazu 02-19-2013 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9417236)
The first game I saw was the Pinstripe Bowl. I though he looked kinda like Vince Young out there. We need Vince Young.

They are practically the same guy.

Exoter175 02-19-2013 08:57 PM

Option for "3 year old who didn't get her barbie mansion for Christmas" is missing.

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417206)
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?

Fair enough, for the sake of argument let's say Flacco is a contrary example. You'd also have Brees you could add to this group.

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.

O.city 02-19-2013 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417272)
Fair enough, for the sake of argument let's say Flacco is a contrary example. You'd also have Brees you could add to this group.

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.

Ironic because the top Qb's this year are hailed as middle late first round grades. :D


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.

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417279)
Ironic because the top Qb's this year are hailed as middle late first round grades. :D

There you go, we should trade down until we get into the 20s. :eek:

Hammock Parties 02-19-2013 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9417236)
The first game I saw was the Pinstripe Bowl. I though he looked kinda like Vince Young out there. We need Vince Young.

STOP THIS MADNESS

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

O.city 02-19-2013 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417288)
There you go, we should trade down until we get into the 20s. :eek:

You seem to have this idea that a guy has to be drafted where he is slotted or graded.

Brock 02-19-2013 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417272)

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.

Basically all you're pointing out here is that there are more than a few QBs who should have been selected earlier than they actually were.

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417292)
You seem to have this idea that a guy has to be drafted where he is slotted or graded.

It's not generally a good idea to overpay for things.

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

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 9417319)
Basically all you're pointing out here is that there are more than a few QBs who should have been selected earlier than they actually were.

There are three or four of those out of 30+, yes. Certainly.

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.

Brock 02-19-2013 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417323)
It's not generally a good idea to overpay for things.

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

Nobody cares about imaginary points. You don't win anything by playing an imaginary game of value. If you have the chance to lock up a potentially elite QB for little dollars, you do it.

O.city 02-19-2013 09:18 PM

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.

htismaqe 02-19-2013 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417343)
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.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 9417338)
Nobody cares about imaginary points. You don't win anything by playing an imaginary game of value. If you have the chance to lock up a potentially elite QB for little dollars, you do it.

If there was one for the taking, I'd be in favor of it. If we were drafting #15, any of these guys would seem like good value. If we could trade down to 10 or so, any of the leading names would be fine choices.

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.

O.city 02-19-2013 09:21 PM

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.

Hammock Parties 02-19-2013 09:22 PM

How the hell is it not obvious that HotCarl isn't BlackBob's mult at this point?

Brock 02-19-2013 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417360)
If there was one for the taking, I'd be in favor of it. If we were drafting #15, any of these guys would seem like good value. If we could trade down to 10 or so, any of the leading names would be fine choices.

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.

The best prospects will be gone by 10 or 15. Wake up.

O.city 02-19-2013 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417360)
If there was one for the taking, I'd be in favor of it. If we were drafting #15, any of these guys would seem like good value. If we could trade down to 10 or so, any of the leading names would be fine choices.

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.

So is the price for potentially getting a franchise QB.



And to that extent, would you rather overpay for a Qb, or a Guard, or 34DE?

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417343)
14 of the last 15 first round QB's are starters in teh league right now.

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.

You're counting plenty of guys in that stat like Blaine Gabbert that prove my point more than yours.

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."

O.city 02-19-2013 09:27 PM

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.

HotCarl 02-19-2013 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417368)
So is the price for potentially getting a franchise QB.



And to that extent, would you rather overpay for a Qb, or a Guard, or 34DE?

We don't have to overpay for anything. We can draft players who are the best value at the time we make the selection.

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.

Brock 02-19-2013 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9417373)
The problem there wasn't that we picked defensive ends instead of QBs, it's that we picked poor defensive ends.

The problem with all those other teams wasn't that they were picking QBs, it's that they picked the wrong one.

htismaqe 02-19-2013 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417391)
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.

Tyson Jackson has gotten 4. Glenn Dorsey has gotten 5.

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.

O.city 02-19-2013 09:37 PM

So we are essentially back to "only draft a guy if he's a sure thing"

htismaqe 02-19-2013 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417435)
So we are essentially back to "only draft a guy if he's a sure thing"

WE aren't.

Ignore the fools.

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-19-2013 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9417206)
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?

And I'll admit it; I NEVER viewed Flacco as a qb that could win a ring. Lesson learned and overall philosophy reinforced: DRAFT THE ****ING QB.
Posted via Mobile Device


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.