3rdand12 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happens to them all. or as some 20th century wag amended "the race is not always won by the swift nor the battle won by the strong but that's the way to bet" sometimes favorites lose and long shots win and information is never complete and you hope your guy is better at gathering and interpreting the information than the other guys. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Sam Bradford: the Rams still drafting ahead if the Bills 3 years after he's drafted, with stats worse than Fitz. But the Rams did back into the playoffs once. PTR Clearly proves Sherman is right and gms don't think for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Sometimes you post things that make me shake my head so many times that I don't even know where to start..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Does this assclown think he's the only player to be drafted lower than he thinks he should have been drafted? Didn't Thurman have a chip on his shoulder his entire career? And what about Tom Brady's draft position? I don't remember either one of them whining like a spoiled child. They just went out and proved that the "experts" were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Not everyone is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Does this assclown think he's the only player to be drafted lower than he thinks he should have been drafted? Didn't Thurman have a chip on his shoulder his entire career? And what about Tom Brady's draft position? I don't remember either one of them whining like a spoiled child. They just went out and proved that the "experts" were wrong. um no, that's kind of his point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Touché Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I don't agree completely. I don't think GM's and scouts read or care one bit what draft gurus think or what media hype a player has. They would be fools to base their evaluations on that stuff. I just think that the process is a little bit less than a crap shoot. There are still more first rounders that make it than fourth rounders. But as he pointed out there are lots of first round busts. To me it is all a probability equation and at least until the new CBA took effect a money issue. If you trade down and get extra picks you get more chances to find a good player and pay less for them - significantly less with the prior CBA. This keeps your roster young and hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Yeah all the GM's in the NFL are watching ESPN saying "I keep hearing his name, we can't place him as a second round talent". I think he's got it wrong. The analyst get their hype from getting information out of the teams. +1 Teams get most their player analyses from their scouts. They don't care much who's getting hyped by Kiper on ESPN. If thought Kipe was a good talent evaluator, they would hire him. They trust their own scouts more. Sherman is just bitter that he got drafted in the 5th round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Seattle's Bruce Irvin is another great example of finding players in the draft that fit their system. Everyone on TSW called him 'The Next Maybin' when he was drafted in the first round last year, but he finished the year with 8 sacks and had one more in the post season. Really? Everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 His argument fails because the the correlation between starts and draft position surely drops off from the first to the seventh round. So it's no that its a sham top to bottom, it's that some underwhelming college players are drafted late and exceed predations and vice versa for hyped players. Frankly the guys a moron and shut up and play football and lay off the PEDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 His argument fails because the the correlation between starts and draft position surely drops off from the first to the seventh round. So it's no that its a sham top to bottom, it's that some underwhelming college players are drafted late and exceed predations and vice versa for hyped players. Frankly the guys a moron and shut up and play football and lay off the PEDs. The angle underdiscussed here is I don't doubt that a great agent can get guys to move a bit in the draft by manufacturing competition for them ajd helping create a perception thats might be better than reality..... but were not talking a 4th rounder bumping to top 15 or something, and everyone has one of those guys working for them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 His argument fails because the the correlation between starts and draft position surely drops off from the first to the seventh round. So it's no that its a sham top to bottom, it's that some underwhelming college players are drafted late and exceed predations and vice versa for hyped players. Frankly the guys a moron and shut up and play football and lay off the PEDs. Well clearly his arguement is over stated. But the example you use to counter it is also biased: the higher you're drafted, the more the team is committed (including financially) to playing you; I have to believe if Bradford were a 7th rounder making league minimum, he'd be facing serious competition for his position, and potentially would no longer be the starter by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Well clearly his arguement is over stated. But the example you use to counter it is also biased: the higher you're drafted, the more the team is committed (including financially) to playing you; I have to believe if Bradford were a 7th rounder making league minimum, he'd be facing serious competition for his position, and potentially would no longer be the starter by now. 2012: 3,700 yards, 60%, 21 tds and 13 picks - QBR 51 and passed rating 82 Very fitz like but he's only 25. And you neglect that the guy that went #1 also earned more chances based on likely having more raw potential - not just cause your stuck with him. If a guy has a better arm I'm more likely to try and let him work it out. There's some reason to believe he will continue to grow while the 7th rounder has a lower ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Well it's not really a revelation that the NFL draft is an inexact science. the bills have contributed heavily to its inexactness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) 2012: 3,700 yards, 60%, 21 tds and 13 picks - QBR 51 and passed rating 82 Very fitz like but he's only 25. And you neglect that the guy that went #1 also earned more chances based on likely having more raw potential - not just cause your stuck with him. If a guy has a better arm I'm more likely to try and let him work it out. There's some reason to believe he will continue to grow while the 7th rounder has a lower ceiling. So you're saying the draft is a perfect assessor of raw potential, and the time one is given to succeed in the nfl should be perfectly aligned with draft order ? Edited February 16, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) So you're saying the draft is a perfect assessor of raw potential, and the time one is given to succeed in the nfl should be perfectly aligned with draft order ? I will argue that if a team took a guy #1 overall it's because they think he has more chance to succeed and higher potential than mr irrelevant. I will not argue that teams are perfect in this assessment, or that nothing else goes into it (injuries, off field issues for instance) but generally speaking yes I think that first rounders do get more chances for reasons that include not just stubbornness/pride/money but also because the qb at 1 has special qualities that teams are seeking that the qb taken at 238 are less likely to possess. There can obviously be exception to any rule of thumb (jamarcus for instance proving that his lack of work ethic, affinity for gambling, utter disaster on field play and dabbling in drugs quickly cancel out one of the strongest arms around, or Tom Brady physically looking like a completely different player a few years later)... Bradford hasn't been a train wreck so he's still got some leash left. But I hardly call that a sham, but merely an inexact process. Edited February 16, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 As opposed to a Sam Bradford, QB who suffers a pair of major injuries to his throwing shoulder, 2nd of which requires surgery and ends his last season in college. Yet being the "chosen" goes #1 overall and signs the richest rookie contract in history, with a guaranteed $50 million, that could grow to as much as $86 million. And after 3 years in NFL?: "still needs time to develop" Two head coaches, three offensive coordinators, a revolving door oline, no real receiving threats outside the off-injured Amendola. Bradford has been set up to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 I will argue that if a team took a guy #1 overall it's because they think he has more chance to succeed and higher potential than mr irrelevant. I will not argue that teams are perfect in this assessment, or that nothing else goes into it (injuries, off field issues for instance) but generally speaking yes I think that first rounders do get more chances for reasons that include not just stubbornness/pride/money but also because the qb at 1 has special qualities that teams are seeking that the qb taken at 238 are less likely to possess. There can obviously be exception to any rule of thumb (jamarcus for instance proving that his lack of work ethic, affinity for gambling, utter disaster on field play and dabbling in drugs quickly cancel out one of the strongest arms around, or Tom Brady physically looking like a completely different player a few years later)... Bradford hasn't been a train wreck so he's still got some leash left. But I hardly call that a sham, but merely an inexact process. Um yeah I didn't use the word "sham". I said biased, its right there in the post of mine you quoted. I even said Sherman's position is over stated. If you want to obect over shermans use of the word sham, try tweeting him. Two head coaches, three offensive coordinators, a revolving door oline, no real receiving threats outside the off-injured Amendola. Bradford has been set up to fail. And put that same guy in there , 7th rounder, negligible costs to getting rid of, probably gone by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Um yeah I didn't use the word "sham". I said biased, its right there in the post of mine you quoted. I even said Sherman's position is over stated. If you want to obect over shermans use of the word sham, try tweeting him. And put that same guy in there , 7th rounder, negligible costs to getting rid of, probably gone by now. Obviously there's some bias. Humans are inherently biased on everything they do. Sherman's statement is so far overstated that its passed ridiculous on the scale. If projecting how 1 guy on an 11 man unit playing with different coaches, schemes, talent around him etc.... Projects to playing against a totally different level of talent in a different system with a million in his pocket and taking a much bigger beating were easy.... Well.... We could all be gms. And if there was a player drafted in the 7th coming off an injured 2nd season putting up those numbers in just his 3rd year (ie trending upwards), with a new HC, new OC etc... Poor offensive talent around him.... He'd be a hot commodity. I think it would be easy to make an argument that Bradford's contract is the thing hurting him most, not whats saving him. Edited February 16, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts