NFL Draft NFL Draftology: The Safest Pick Myth - Page 2

**The Franchise** · 01-30-2009, 06:17 PM

http://www.walterfootball.com/nfldraftology378.php

Every year you hear about, "Who is the safest player in the Draft? ... Should this team make the safe pick? ... You do not want to invest millions in a player who is not safe."

Quite frankly, I am getting sick of it. This does not make any sense to me, and I will tell you why later on. I am a big believer that in order to know where you are going, you have to know where you have been. So how did this "safe pick" philosophy come to be?

Well I think over the years as the NFL Draft has become increasingly popular, the busts of the draft have hit the media and draftnik windshield like a huge fly. Ryan Leaf, Heath Schuler, Tony Mandarich, Steve Emtman, Lawrence Phillips, Rae Carruth, Jeff George, Aundray Bruce, Robert Gallery, Mike Williams, the other Mike Williams... the list goes on and on.

Teams remember the busts, forget all of the stars and players who turned out to be solid starters in the league, see the money paid to the top pick and think: "Make the SAFE pick so you don't turn out with a bust."

Robert Gallery was revered by everyone to be the safest pick in the 2004 NFL Draft. Everyone loved him and thought there was no way he was going to bust in the league. Two short arms, a lacking nasty demeanor, and about five years later, here we are.

I think this is a terrible philosophy. Why should teams be scared when they draft a player? I do not understand it at all. If I am a general manager, I attack this draft with confidence; not a conservative mindset.

There is certainly something to be said for not drafting players who are risks, but the bottom line is every player in the draft is somewhat of a risk because they are not professionals yet. You do not know what can happen. Maybe a player has a crazy divorce and loses all self-confidence. Maybe a player has some sick knee injuries no doctor saw coming and was just a case of bad luck. Maybe the personnel around that player really hurt his confidence. Maybe the coaching staff is terrible. And so on.

Here is my philosophy which absolutely shatters the "safe pick myth": MAKE THE BEST PICK.

Period. End of discussion. End of debate. End of argument. I would love for someone to come up to me face-to-face and try to debate me with this philosophy. I would love for someone to say, "You know, maybe you should draft the third- or fourth-best player for this football team rather than the best one."

The bottom line is if a player has character issues, then he isn't the best pick. If a player has serious injury concerns, then he isn't the best pick. If the player has work ethic concerns, then he isn't the best pick.

I am sick of the media and some draftniks not having a clue with what they are talking about with the "safe pick myth." It is a myth. There is something to be said for not wanting to invest in a player with a risky personality or skill set, but if that is true, then is that player the best pick for the football team? Absolutely not.

Now, some players are more risky than others and I understand that, but my perception of the NFL Draft is you need to take the best value on the board in terms of a draft pick for your football team. This encompasses everything I have discussed in my NFL Draftology.

Teams will always make mistakes. We need to accept this to a certain extent. Teams do not get four to five impact players out of the draft every year, which is almost statistically impossible to do.

In the end, if you have one player on the draft board and he is the "safest" pick, but not the best pick, then you have some serious explaining to do.

beach tribe · 01-31-2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

No pick is safe that's the damn point.

TRUTH. The risk is the same with every position.

Although......the reward is not.

Mecca · 01-31-2009, 01:59 AM

It just blows my mind how many posters on this forum will say anything to try to validate not picking a QB.

Mecca · 01-31-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

TRUTH. The risk is the same with every position.

Although......the reward is not.

This is a forum were there was a thread about if Will Shields and a Pro Bowl QB are equal in value, ponder that.

ChiefsCountry · 01-31-2009, 02:34 AM

Dont forget about this gem:

Quote:

HEre's my positon chart:

DE, OT, DT, G/C, QB, LB, S, WR, CB, HB, TE, FB, K/P.

You get great big guys up front and it makes everyone else better

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=151

Mecca · 01-31-2009, 02:36 AM

Only on Chiefsplanet can you find a person that thinks guards and centers are more important than quarterbacks.

milkman · 01-31-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Dont forget about this gem:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=151

I have reached the inevitable conclusion that average Chiefs fans are incredibly stupid.

Danman · 01-31-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

That article summed it up perfectly and the 1st 2 posts are immediately talking about safe picks, I wish stupidity was something people could be banned for.

You can't fix stupid

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

How could Leonard Davis be considered anything less than a monumental bust. He was the #2 mother****ing pick and he's an above average guard.

He's a disappointment, but he's not a bust. He's certainly not a monumental bust. Neither is Robert Gallery.

Anyone who starts in the league for a decade is not a bust no matter where they are taken. Junior Siavii was a bust. Greg Hill was a bust. Todd Blackledge was a bust. Those are guys who couldn't make it in the league.

Gallery and Davis are solid contributers, even if they aren't the stars.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-31-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

He's a disappointment, but he's not a bust. He's certainly not a monumental bust. Neither is Robert Gallery.

Anyone who starts in the league for a decade is not a bust no matter where they are taken. Junior Siavii was a bust. Greg Hill was a bust. Todd Blackledge was a bust. Those are guys who couldn't make it in the league.

Gallery and Davis are solid contributers, even if they aren't the stars.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 01-31-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

He's a disappointment, but he's not a bust. He's certainly not a monumental bust. Neither is Robert Gallery.

Anyone who starts in the league for a decade is not a bust no matter where they are taken. Junior Siavii was a bust. Greg Hill was a bust. Todd Blackledge was a bust. Those are guys who couldn't make it in the league.

Gallery and Davis are solid contributers, even if they aren't the stars.

God ****.

Marcellus · 01-31-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

God ****.

You know, you have expressed that a solid above average QB would be worthy the 3rd pick. How good does a #3 pick QB have to be to not be a bust? Is Kerry Collins a bust at #5? He has had a solid career.

Chiefnj2 · 01-31-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Chiefs fans are the dumbest mother****ers in the entire NFL. Wanting to emulate a team that never did anything, constantly reacting out of fear rather than acting.

Which team are they trying to emulate?

Molitoth · 01-31-2009, 12:11 PM

What a terrible article.

patteeu · 01-31-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ted

Wow, this guy really went "full reerun". Those 3 qualities are pretty much the very definition of a "safe" pick!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

He's a disappointment, but he's not a bust. He's certainly not a monumental bust. Neither is Robert Gallery.

Anyone who starts in the league for a decade is not a bust no matter where they are taken. Junior Siavii was a bust. Greg Hill was a bust. Todd Blackledge was a bust. Those are guys who couldn't make it in the league.

Gallery and Davis are solid contributers, even if they aren't the stars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molitoth

What a terrible article.

Three very good posts, IMO.

chiefzilla1501 · 01-31-2009, 03:20 PM

If you read the article, you'll see that the writer makes a bold point but fails to back it up.

His premise is that making a safe pick is stupid. But then he basically implies that it's not worth the risk to take a good player who has character issues. Passing on a talented player for character concerns is playing it safe, buddy.

Which means that succeeding in the draft is a mix of taking chances and minimizing risks. And deciding on the best player is based on who has the most upside coupled with who has the least risk. And I think most good teams are ones that find a balance between the two.

01-30-2009, 06:17 PM
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $2065047	NFL Draftology: The Safest Pick Myth http://www.walterfootball.com/nfldraftology378.php Every year you hear about, "Who is the safest player in the Draft? ... Should this team make the safe pick? ... You do not want to invest millions in a player who is not safe." Quite frankly, I am getting sick of it. This does not make any sense to me, and I will tell you why later on. I am a big believer that in order to know where you are going, you have to know where you have been. So how did this "safe pick" philosophy come to be? Well I think over the years as the NFL Draft has become increasingly popular, the busts of the draft have hit the media and draftnik windshield like a huge fly. Ryan Leaf, Heath Schuler, Tony Mandarich, Steve Emtman, Lawrence Phillips, Rae Carruth, Jeff George, Aundray Bruce, Robert Gallery, Mike Williams, the other Mike Williams... the list goes on and on. Teams remember the busts, forget all of the stars and players who turned out to be solid starters in the league, see the money paid to the top pick and think: "Make the SAFE pick so you don't turn out with a bust." Robert Gallery was revered by everyone to be the safest pick in the 2004 NFL Draft. Everyone loved him and thought there was no way he was going to bust in the league. Two short arms, a lacking nasty demeanor, and about five years later, here we are. I think this is a terrible philosophy. Why should teams be scared when they draft a player? I do not understand it at all. If I am a general manager, I attack this draft with confidence; not a conservative mindset. There is certainly something to be said for not drafting players who are risks, but the bottom line is every player in the draft is somewhat of a risk because they are not professionals yet. You do not know what can happen. Maybe a player has a crazy divorce and loses all self-confidence. Maybe a player has some sick knee injuries no doctor saw coming and was just a case of bad luck. Maybe the personnel around that player really hurt his confidence. Maybe the coaching staff is terrible. And so on. Here is my philosophy which absolutely shatters the "safe pick myth": MAKE THE BEST PICK. Period. End of discussion. End of debate. End of argument. I would love for someone to come up to me face-to-face and try to debate me with this philosophy. I would love for someone to say, "You know, maybe you should draft the third- or fourth-best player for this football team rather than the best one." The bottom line is if a player has character issues, then he isn't the best pick. If a player has serious injury concerns, then he isn't the best pick. If the player has work ethic concerns, then he isn't the best pick. I am sick of the media and some draftniks not having a clue with what they are talking about with the "safe pick myth." It is a myth. There is something to be said for not wanting to invest in a player with a risky personality or skill set, but if that is true, then is that player the best pick for the football team? Absolutely not. Now, some players are more risky than others and I understand that, but my perception of the NFL Draft is you need to take the best value on the board in terms of a draft pick for your football team. This encompasses everything I have discussed in my NFL Draftology. Teams will always make mistakes. We need to accept this to a certain extent. Teams do not get four to five impact players out of the draft every year, which is almost statistically impossible to do. In the end, if you have one player on the draft board and he is the "safest" pick, but not the best pick, then you have some serious explaining to do.
Posts: 92,316

01-31-2009, 01:59 AM	#17
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-722950	It just blows my mind how many posters on this forum will say anything to try to validate not picking a QB.
Posts: 115,380

01-31-2009, 02:36 AM	#20
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-722950	Only on Chiefsplanet can you find a person that thinks guards and centers are more important than quarterbacks.
Posts: 115,380

01-31-2009, 12:11 PM	#28
Molitoth Mahomes Fanboi Join Date: Apr 2004 Casino cash: $154969	What a terrible article.
Posts: 20,299

01-31-2009, 03:20 PM	#30
chiefzilla1501 In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2008 Casino cash: $-1775503	If you read the article, you'll see that the writer makes a bold point but fails to back it up. His premise is that making a safe pick is stupid. But then he basically implies that it's not worth the risk to take a good player who has character issues. Passing on a talented player for character concerns is playing it safe, buddy. Which means that succeeding in the draft is a mix of taking chances and minimizing risks. And deciding on the best player is based on who has the most upside coupled with who has the least risk. And I think most good teams are ones that find a balance between the two.
Posts: 51,674

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode