Chiefs sign Zach Thomas

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Well it does.

At least to teams that care about winning.

No, it doesn't. That's pretty clear throughout history, actually.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No, it doesn't. That's pretty clear throughout history, actually.

Pretty clear by what? The massive volume of non-pass rushing LB's drafted in the top 5?

You're right about one thing - history is VERY clear on this subject.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Pretty clear by what? The massive volume of non-pass rushing LB's drafted in the top 5?

You're right about one thing - history is VERY clear on this subject.

If positional value were all that mattered, no QB would make it past the first round.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

If positional value were all that mattered, no QB would make it past the first round.

When did I say that positional value is ALL that mattered? Talk about moving the goalposts.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

When did I say that positional value is ALL that mattered? Talk about moving the goalposts.

I'm amazed that you don't catch the irony of your own comment. It's the whole point.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'm amazed that you don't catch the irony of your own comment. It's the whole point.

There was nothing ironic about my comment at all. You mischaracterized my statements, AGAIN, and now you're being deliberately obtuse in an effort to deflect away from it.

You're the one that wants to speak in absolutes, not me.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There was nothing ironic about my comment at all. You mischaracterized my statements, AGAIN, and now you're being deliberately obtuse in an effort to deflect away from it.

You're the one that wants to speak in absolutes, not me.

I quoted your statements. I did not mischaracterize them. You're the person with the ridiculous take on positional value and Curry, not me. You post against Curry at #3 and you post against O-line at #3. So, other than QB, what's there to take at #3?

Just as an example, Kiper's Big Board (as of 4/9) has Crabtree, Orakpo, Pettigrew and Maclin as the only players besides Curry that are not QB or OL in his top 10.

Not one of them is a top 10 pick in a lot of years. Which one of them is your choice for the #3 pick?

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By View Post
Other than kicker or punter, position shouldn't mean a damned thing.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No, it doesn't. That's pretty clear throughout history, actually.

So then guards are picked as often as QB's in the top 5?

I agree with most of your points, though I haven't read through the entire thread. But a smaller difference in value doesn't mean there isn't any.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by bdeg

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By View Post
Other than kicker or punter, position shouldn't mean a damned thing.

So then guards are picked as often as QB's in the top 5?

I agree with most of your points, though I haven't read through the entire thread. But a smaller difference in value doesn't mean there isn't any.

I agree that teams take position into account. My initial point to htismaqe was that this was an unusual year and it shouldn't hold water this season. Naturally, instead of actually responding to that, he changed the argument to "winning teams" instead of remaining focused on one specific season.

The reality is that all teams value somewhat differently. That's why the Raiders drafted a kicker as high as they did, for example. However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

[bdeg]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

Unfortunately true, I know it can be aggravating. Sometimes people just want to take one point about a prospect and assume that that one factor makes the decision black and white, when 90% of the time it's in the grey and other factors have to be taken into acccount.

ILB's don't usually go in the top 5, but whether you(I guess meaning "everyone else") like it or not this top 5 does suck, especially for us.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I agree that teams take position into account. My initial point to htismaqe was that this was an unusual year and it shouldn't hold water this season. Naturally, instead of actually responding to that, he changed the argument to "winning teams" instead of remaining focused on one specific season.

The reality is that all teams value somewhat differently. That's why the Raiders drafted a kicker as high as they did, for example. However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

EVERY year is unusual when it comes to certain players or positions. You NEVER throw out historical context. EVER.

You want to talk about being blatantly stubborn - how about insisting that Curry is worth the #3 overall pick despite 20 years of evidence to the contrary...