thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 How does it indicate incompetence? The organization (as did every team in the NFL) was aware of his shoulder problem and the probable need to address it through surgery some time in the future. It just so happened that during an OTA session he felt pain in the shoulder area so the team decided to structurally fix the problem sooner rather than later. That was the smart thing to do. The team drafted a player who they rated very highly. The exhibition of incompetence would have been for the team tobypass on a player who was a versatile lineman who fit their scheme because there was a delay in him getting on the field in his inaugural year. Any GM in the league who refused to select a more talented player for a less talented player because of a delay in getting on the field in the player's rookie year should be fired for incompetence and a lack of perspective. The GM, more than anyone else in the organization, has to take a wider perspective in roster building. To do otherwise is an act of short term expediency and an act lacking in wisdom. This is, IMO, absolutely correct.
BarleyNY Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Still going on about this?Apparently. I clicked on it looking for an update on Lawson, but, sadly, I'm drawn to continuing it myself. Trying to resist........ Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!
eball Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Any GM in the league who refused to select a more talented player for a less talented player because of a delay in getting on the field in the player's rookie year should be fired for incompetence and a lack of perspective. The GM, more than anyone else in the organization, has to take a wider perspective in roster building. To do otherwise is an act of short term expediency and an act lacking in wisdom. Beautifully stated!
John from Riverside Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 This is, IMO, absolutely correct. I agree with this 100 percent as well To the naysayers....was there someone on the board at 19 that could have provided the potential impact that Shaq Lawson would for THIS team in the long term. We are not talking about fricken Aaron Maybin here.......who got thrown around by TE's and was a one trick pony speed rusher. Shaq Lawson did EVERYTHING well in college.
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 I agree with this 100 percent as well To the naysayers....was there someone on the board at 19 that could have provided the potential impact that Shaq Lawson would for THIS team in the long term. We are not talking about fricken Aaron Maybin here.......who got thrown around by TE's and was a one trick pony speed rusher. Shaq Lawson did EVERYTHING well in college. Well, to be fair, Myles Jack was easily my pick at the time. I didn't dislike the Shaq pick, but to think that he could be the same level of player as Myles Jack long-term would be folly IMO.
BarleyNY Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Any GM in the league who refused to select a more talented player for a less talented player because of a delay in getting on the field in the player's rookie year should be fired for incompetence and a lack of perspective. The GM, more than anyone else in the organization, has to take a wider perspective in roster building. To do otherwise is an act of short term expediency and an act lacking in wisdom. That's a big overstatement. Yes, the overall production of a player rather than immediate production is far more important, but a pre-existing injury does have an effect on a player's value. Your statement also assumes that an equivalent talent wasn't available. I'd argue that there was so you misstated the actual choice the Bills had. It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson. Whaley & Co. are going to be judged by how well Lawson and their other picks and FAs work out. But the reality is that no GM knows for certain which players will bust and which will be high performers. Every draft pick and every dollar spent is an odds based risk-reward gamble. A healthy Lawson at 19 would have been an excellent risk-reward proposition, but Lawson with a torn labrum at 19 wasn't nearly as good due to his pre-existing injury reducing his total expected production. If you view the situation as "Wait and see how Lawson works out in the long run." then it's easy to push the injury aside and push off making a judgement for a few years. But if the question is "Is it likely that the Bills maximized their draft capital with the Lawson pick?" then the answer is pretty clearly "No, they could've and should've done better." That's not a doom and gloom view. Nor does it mean that all is lost. It doesn't even mean that Lawson won't be a good or even great player. It just means that the Bills took a bigger chance on him than they should have. That opens up Whaley and the organization to some degree of criticism, which is fair. It doesn't paint an entire picture and shouldn't be used as such any more than it should be glossed over and explained away as insignificant. It is certainly a piece of the bigger picture though. Edited June 13, 2016 by BarleyNY
John from Riverside Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Well, to be fair, Myles Jack was easily my pick at the time. I didn't dislike the Shaq pick, but to think that he could be the same level of player as Myles Jack long-term would be folly IMO. Even with Myles Jack's knee concerns? To me there is something to be said about "upper body injury vs lower body injury" when your talking about longevity of a player An example......DE Bowers was a hot prospect when he came into the league....save for knee concerns. What is he doing now?
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Even with Myles Jack's knee concerns? To me there is something to be said about "upper body injury vs lower body injury" when your talking about longevity of a player An example......DE Bowers was a hot prospect when he came into the league....save for knee concerns. What is he doing now? He looked absolutely fine at his pro day and will be on the field in week 1. That's good enough for me given how special a player he was at UCLA. Easily my #1 prospect in the draft.
John from Riverside Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 He looked absolutely fine at his pro day and will be on the field in week 1. That's good enough for me given how special a player he was at UCLA. Easily my #1 prospect in the draft. I could see how someone would feel that way I personally dont given the position and the degenerative injury but....Reggie Ragland has ticker issue.....so I could see someone feeling the same way about that
What a Tuel Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) That's a big overstatement. Yes, the overall production of a player rather than immediate production is far more important, but a pre-existing injury does have an effect on a player's value. Your statement also assumes that an equivalent talent wasn't available. I'd argue that there was so you misstated the actual choice the Bills had. It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson. Whaley & Co. are going to be judged by how well Lawson and their other picks and FAs work out. But the reality is that no GM knows for certain which players will bust and which will be high performers. Every draft pick and every dollar spent is an odds based risk-reward gamble. A healthy Lawson at 19 would have been an excellent risk-reward proposition, but Lawson with a torn labrum at 19 wasn't nearly as good due to his pre-existing injury reducing his total expected production. If you view the situation as "Wait and see how Lawson works out in the long run." then it's easy to push the injury aside and push off making a judgement for a few years. But if the question is "Is it likely that the Bills maximized their draft capital with the Lawson pick?" then the answer is pretty clearly "No, they could've and should've done better." That's not a doom and gloom view. Nor does it mean that all is lost. It doesn't even mean that Lawson won't be a good or even great player. It just means that the Bills took a bigger chance on him than they should have. That opens up Whaley and the organization to some degree of criticism, which is fair. It doesn't paint an entire picture and shouldn't be used as such any more than it should be glossed over and explained away as insignificant. It is certainly a piece of the bigger picture though. You say this "Yes, the overall production of a player rather than immediate production is far more important, but a pre-existing injury does have an effect on a player's value.", and this " I'd argue that there was so you misstated the actual choice the Bills had. It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson." and then I think you completely miss the point. The point was that Whaley, the GM of the Buffalo Bills did not think there was equivalent talent or that the injury equated to enough production lost to take him down on the draft board. Whether that winds up being true, or not time will tell. Then you go on to say "It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson". "But the reality is that no GM knows for certain which players will bust and which will be high performers." You are effectively saying that you ranked and rated at least a few players at the same or equivalent level as Lawson, and yet Whaley who has had leagues more access to these players can't possibly know for sure, and couldn't have possibly had Lawson ranked above the others? Why? Because of some consensus somewhere? Shouldn't the Bills be utilizing this book of sure things, since GM's certainly can't tell right? Either way, I am glad Whaley isn't making short term decisions on the whims of fans who want to see a 1st round pick start the first 6-8 games although they likely hoped it would wait until the offseason. I trust that the value Whaley got in Lawson will be enough to warrant the missed time, and if it isn't then Whaley will be rightly criticized for his draft picks. Edited June 13, 2016 by What a Tuel
JohnC Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) You say this "Yes, the overall production of a player rather than immediate production is far more important, but a pre-existing injury does have an effect on a player's value.", and this " I'd argue that there was so you misstated the actual choice the Bills had. It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson." and then I think you completely miss the point. The point was that Whaley, the GM of the Buffalo Bills did not think there was equivalent talent or that the injury equated to enough production lost to take him down on the draft board. Whether that winds up being true, or not time will tell. Then you go on to say "It wasn't: lesser, uninjured player vs. Lawson. It was: effectively equivalent talent vs, Lawson". "But the reality is that no GM knows for certain which players will bust and which will be high performers." You are effectively saying that you ranked and rated at least a few players at the same or equivalent level as Lawson, and yet Whaley who has had leagues more access to these players can't possibly know for sure, and couldn't have possibly had Lawson ranked above the others? Why? Because of some consensus somewhere? Shouldn't the Bills be utilizing this book of sure things, since GM's certainly can't tell right? Either way, I am glad Whaley isn't making short term decisions on the whims of fans who want to see a 1st round pick start the first 6-8 games although they likely hoped it would wait until the offseason. I trust that the value Whaley got in Lawson will be enough to warrant the missed time, and if it isn't then Whaley will be rightly criticized for his draft picks. A point that isn't acknowledged by those who are uncomfortable with the Lawson selection is that everyone was aware of his medical history prior to the draft. So teams had an ample opportunity to consult with their medical staff regarding the long term prognosis. My understanding is that the procedure that he eventually would have to undergo was likely to correct his shoulder problem. Overall, this wasn't much of a medical risk as people are making it out to be. The bottom line is that it is not unreasonable to take a calculated risk for a talented player. If you find it crippling to take a well researched risk in a business that risks are part of the environment then it is recommended that you find another field of endeavor. If Lawson with an impaired shoulder played well enough to be a highly regarded college player then how high does he project as a prospect playing with a healthy shoulder? Just something to consider. Edited June 13, 2016 by JohnC
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 "If you find it crippling to take a well researched risk in a business that risks are part of the environment then it is recommended that you find another field of endeavor. " it's not about being "crippled" by risk. it's about being smart and playing the odds. it's about the meaning of "well researched". as high an upside as miles jack had in most teams eyes, his known injury dropped his draft number greatly. yet the bills felt differently about this pick. I suspect it relates to the analytics thread that should, as an issue of importance to this organizations success, be at the top of the forum. interestingly it has dropped from sight. analytics be damned. gut feelings and instincts by perpetual losers are the path to success.
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) "If you find it crippling to take a well researched risk in a business that risks are part of the environment then it is recommended that you find another field of endeavor. " it's not about being "crippled" by risk. it's about being smart and playing the odds. it's about the meaning of "well researched". as high an upside as miles jack had in most teams eyes, his known injury dropped his draft number greatly. yet the bills felt differently about this pick. I suspect it relates to the analytics thread that should, as an issue of importance to this organizations success, be at the top of the forum. interestingly it has dropped from sight. analytics be damned. gut feelings and instincts by perpetual losers are the path to success. Comparing the two situations is folly. Myles Jack dropped because of the increased likelihood that he could eventually need career-threatening surgery (though I definitely would've taken him anyway). Shaq Lawson needed a surgery that has a 90% success rate for the general population (though I realize that, in your opinion, it's tantamount to removing the Shah's spleen), and would be a short-term issue. Edited June 13, 2016 by thebandit27
Dorkington Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 I'm glad we've reached consensus that Shaq is a bust.
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Comparing the two situations is folly. Myles Jack dropped because of the increased likelihood that he could eventually need career-threatening surgery (though I definitely would've taken him anyway). Shaq Lawson needed a surgery that has a 90% success rate for the general population (though I realize that, in your opinion, it's tantamount to removing the Shah's spleen), and would be a short-term issue. you made the comparison. in your infinite wisdom, you would have taken jack at 19 instead of 36 where the market (and very likely a good number of analysts) ultimately valued him. serious injury or not, you clearly felt the benefits outweighed the risks. it's very closely analogous to the calculus involved in valuing this injured player that the bills actually did pick. Edited June 13, 2016 by birdog1960
John from Riverside Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 you made the comparison. in your infinite wisdom, you would have taken jack at 19 instead of 36 where the market (and very likely a good number of analysts) ultimately valued him. serious injury or not, you clearly felt the benefits outweighed the risks. it's very closely analogous to the calculus involved in valuing this injured player that the bills actually did pick. ?
GG Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 you made the comparison. in your infinite wisdom, you would have taken jack at 19 instead of 36 where the market (and very likely a good number of analysts) ultimately valued him. serious injury or not, you clearly felt the benefits outweighed the risks. it's very closely analogous to the calculus involved in valuing this injured player that the bills actually did pick. You've been asked multiple times to quantify the risk. But why do that when you can bloviate nonsense.
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 you made the comparison. in your infinite wisdom, you would have taken jack at 19 instead of 36 where the market (and very likely a good number of analysts) ultimately valued him. serious injury or not, you clearly felt the benefits outweighed the risks. it's very closely analogous to the calculus involved in valuing this injured player that the bills actually did pick. I'm 100% convinced that you have no idea what discussion is occurring here if that's what you believe
Recommended Posts