Top 5 Pick Success Rate

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Again, a passing of the buck.

You think that we're new to this tactic here?

It's called deflection, and it's all you ever do.

You don't say why you oppose one of these players. You offer no substantive reason why they may not succeed, you merely make a series of claims with absolutely no evidence to support them.

There may well be evidence to make such an argument, but without it, your argumentative style is the equivalent of a vagrant shouting from a milk crate.

Here's a simple lesson that was obviously never taught to you

Claim+evidence-counterargument+refutation=Argument

All you do right now is make claims. Hell, even that is a bit of a stretch.

Wow! If you weren't completely wrong, I'd feel bad about myself. Let's try it again, genius, and I'll type in easy, separated points just for you.

1.) I don't care who the Chiefs take at #3, or even if they use the pick rather than trading it.

2.) I trust that Pioli will have done his due diligence and will choose appropriately.

3.) I can understand why some people want to take Stafford/Sanchez.

4.) I can understand why some people DON'T want to take Stafford/Sanchez.

5.) The value of a blown pick at QB is NOT greater than the value of a successful pick at another position just because you could have drafted that other position successfully at a lower position. The reason is that the value of a bust is zero if it's a complete washout and nearly zero if it's just a crap player, and the negative impact of such a bust can be significant.

6.) I think it's moronic to attack people just because they don't like these QBs.

[Rigodan]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Wow! If you weren't completely wrong, I'd feel bad about myself. Let's try it again, genius, and I'll type in easy, separated points just for you.

1.) I don't care who the Chiefs take at #3, or even if they use the pick rather than trading it.

2.) I trust that Pioli will have done his due diligence and choose appropriately.

3.) I can understand why some people want to take Stafford/Sanchez.

4.) I can understand why some people DON'T want to take Stafford/Sanchez.

5.) The value of a blown pick at QB is NOT greater than the value of a successful pick at another position just because you could have drafted that other position successfully at a lower position. The reason is that the value of a bust is zero if it's a complete washout and nearly zero if it's just a crap player, and the negative impact of such a bust can be significant.

6.) I think it's moronic to attack people just because they don't like these QBs.

Ya this has to be Pioli Zombie

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

Ya this has to be Pioli Zombie

No, it's not. Feel free to have someone who runs the board verify it.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Wow! If you weren't completely wrong, I'd feel bad about myself. Let's try it again, genius, and I'll type in easy, separated points just for you.

1.) I don't care who the Chiefs take at #3, or even if they use the pick rather than trading it.

2.) I trust that Pioli will have done his due diligence and will choose appropriately.

3.) I can understand why some people want to take Stafford/Sanchez.

4.) I can understand why some people DON'T want to take Stafford/Sanchez.

5.) The value of a blown pick at QB is NOT greater than the value of a successful pick at another position just because you could have drafted that other position successfully at a lower position. The reason is that the value of a bust is zero if it's a complete washout and nearly zero if it's just a crap player, and the negative impact of such a bust can be significant.

6.) I think it's moronic to attack people just because they don't like these QBs.

So, to summarize, you have no opinion on who we should take at three, other than appealing to authority (a classic logical fallacy) but all you do is argue why we shouldn't take a QB at three.

You also offer no possibility in your list of chance that a pick at QB might succeed. There is a tacit admission that failure is the only option for a QB prospect, and yet you wonder why we think that your points are guided by fear?

I also love the Leonard Davis/Robert Gallery argument.

"Well he sucked as a tackle, so we'll just move him to a position we can find in the fifth round while paying him 50 million bucks."

I personally, think it's moronic to bash these QBs, assuming that they will bust without looking at them as prospects.

But hey, in the last week I've heard that Stafford is dumb, me-first, arrogant, aloof from his teammates, and not a leader. Yet scouts gush that he has great intangibles with a high football IQ and is a leader.

I've also heard that Mark Sanchez is a rapist, a series of racial slurs (thanks CoMo), stupid for hiring his brother as an agent (when that's a 1/4 truth at best), selfish, and that he's not as good as JD Booty.

Sorry if I'm looking for a higher standard of proof on why these guys will definitely blow.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

So, to summarize, you have no opinion on who we should take at three, other than appealing to authority (a classic logical fallacy) but all you do is argue why we shouldn't take a QB at three.

You also offer no possibility in your list of chance that a pick at QB might succeed. There is a tacit admission that failure is the only option for a QB prospect, and yet you wonder why we think that your points are guided by fear?

Logic is obviously not your strong point. Defending the reasonableness of the "Not Sanchez" crowd requires me to point out why/how they're being reasonable. It doesn't require me to blow Sanchez.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I also love the Leonard Davis/Robert Gallery argument.

"Well he sucked as a tackle, so we'll just move him to a position we can find in the fifth round while paying him 50 million bucks."

Are you truly this stupid, or is it just an act? Leonard Davis didn't become a great tackle, but he's become a Pro Bowl guard. If Sanchez fails at QB, will he become a great running back? That you use a player who's become a Pro Bowl caliber guy as an example of a bust makes me question whether you actually do have any football knowledge at all. I may have insulted my dog with that earlier comparison.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I personally, think it's moronic to bash these QBs, assuming that they will bust without looking at them as prospects.

But hey, in the last week I've heard that Stafford is dumb, me-first, arrogant, aloof from his teammates, and not a leader. Yet scouts gush that he has great intangibles with a high football IQ and is a leader.

Feel free to go back and look at my posts. I've never talked about Stafford regarding any of this stuff. Hell, I don't recall saying much about him other than noting his accuracy problems.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I've also heard that Mark Sanchez is a rapist, a series of racial slurs (thanks CoMo), stupid for hiring his brother as an agent (when that's a 1/4 truth at best), selfish, and that he's not as good as JD Booty.

The rapist stuff is idiotic. The racial stuff is idiotic. The question about what hiring his brother demonstrates is valid, but because it goes to decision making, not because of arrogance or any of that nonsense. I've never commented on any selfishness (unless you want to call coming out before his coach thinks he's ready selfish), and Booty beat him out so that's a perfectly valid opinion for someone to have put forth.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Sorry if I'm looking for a higher standard of proof on why these guys will definitely blow.

The irony being that you don't require any standard of proof for arguments in the other direction.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Leonard Davis didn't become a great tackle, but he's become a Pro Bowl guard.

How many playoff wins has Leonard Davis participated in, by chance? There's a reason you don't draft OG and hand them $40-60M. You need that money for other positions and if you have that money wrapped up in a G, you can't afford a DE, or QB, or OT that you need to get over the hump.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How many playoff wins has Leonard Davis participated in, by chance? There's a reason you don't draft OG and hand them $40-60M. You need that money for other positions and if you have that money wrapped up in a G, you can't afford a DE, or QB, or OT that you need to get over the hump.

See, this is just another red herring. How many playoffs wins has Ryan Leaf guided the Chargers to? Few people dispute that the QB position is the most important position on a football team. That doesn't mean any particular QB is a good or bad pick at any point on a draft board.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

See, this is just another red herring. How many playoffs wins has Ryan Leaf guided the Chargers to? Few people dispute that the QB position is the most important position on a football team. That doesn't mean any particular QB is a good or bad pick at any point on a draft board.

Talk about red herrings...

I'm not sure how to even respond. That just didn't make much sense, sorry.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The rapist stuff is idiotic. The racial stuff is idiotic. The question about what hiring his brother demonstrates is valid, but because it goes to decision making,.

Except for the fact that his brother was only an adviser and he has a real sports agent, but don't let your lack of knowledge of the facts skew you from making a dumbass statement.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Except for the fact that his brother was only an adviser and he has a real sports agent, but don't let your lack of knowledge of the facts skew you from making a dumbass statement.

Actually I think you have that backwards, and the real agent is just advising and his brother is his agent, but I could be wrong.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Except for the fact that his brother was only an adviser and he has a real sports agent, but don't let your lack of knowledge of the facts skew you from making a dumbass statement.

And here you go again with your stupidity. I said it was a valid question. I never claimed that the responses on either side were right or wrong.

But being a complete idiot and jumping on innocuous statements made by others seems to be what you do best.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

And here you go again with your stupidity. I said it was a valid question. I never claimed that the responses on either side were right or wrong.

But being a complete idiot and jumping on innocuous statements made by others seems to be what you do best.

It's not a valid question if the question raised is completely erroneous.

He's represented by the same people (Dunn) who represent Carson Palmer, Matt Hasselbeck, and a slew of other NFL QBs.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's not a valid question if the question raised is completely erroneous.

He's represented by the same people (Dunn) who represent Carson Palmer, Matt Hasselbeck, and a slew of other NFL QBs.

So his brother is a liar?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/allt...hez-agent.html

UPDATE: Nick Sanchez confirmed the arrangement to LA Times reporter Gary Klein. He does have some experience in the sports world, as his firm represented the Angels in their fight with Anaheim over the Los Angeles name issue. David Dunn, an experienced agent who represents Carson Palmer, will be retained as an adviser.