birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Well, to be fair, Myles Jack was easily my pick at the time. are you retracting this comment then? does that not imply that you believe you knew better than at least 17 nfl teams and their staffs? You've been asked multiple times to quantify the risk. But why do that when you can bloviate nonsense. here's a metric: no other team took him before buffalo did at 19. i'm not an analyst. what should a torn labrum and missing all of training camp and several months of a rookies first year be valued at? don't know but it's clearly worth something. there's probably several algorithms that quantitate that risk. I doubt the bills used any algorithm. if you disagree and believe they did, tell me why. what Brandon recently said doesn't support an analytic approach to the question. Edited June 13, 2016 by birdog1960
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 are you retracting this comment then? does that not imply that you believe you knew better than at least 17 nfl teams and their staffs? Absolutely not. Myles Jack would've been my pick. Does it mean I know better? No. What it means (and I'm no longer shocked that I have to explain such things, for the record...thanks for that) is that I place a higher value on how impactful I believe Myles Jack can be if indeed he can avoid the career-threatening surgery that even he admits he's likely to need at some point. The difference between Jack and Shaq (which you clearly do not understand with your Shah comparison and refusal to retract such lunacy) is that Shaq will miss time in the short-term, but is all-but-certain to return to full capacity. Jack is unlikely to miss any time in the short-term, but is likely to need career-threatening surgery. They aren't even close to making the same decision, and no, I'm not the guy that likened them to each other; that was you. Are we all clear now?
JohnC 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. The Bills did play the odds with Lawson. They not only thoroughly examined Lawson they consulted with their medical staff. What more could they have done? Ultimately they made a judgment based on the information they had. I'm not trying to be impolite but I don't understand your position. You are acting as if the organization simply made a gut decision when that was far from the case. If how they handled this case doesn't exemplify the concept of doing your do diligence then I don't know what does.
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Absolutely not. Myles Jack would've been my pick. Does it mean I know better? No. What it means (and I'm no longer shocked that I have to explain such things, for the record...thanks for that) is that I place a higher value on how impactful I believe Myles Jack can be if indeed he can avoid the career-threatening surgery that even he admits he's likely to need at some point. The difference between Jack and Shaq (which you clearly do not understand with your Shah comparison and refusal to retract such lunacy) is that Shaq will miss time in the short-term, but is all-but-certain to return to full capacity. Jack is unlikely to miss any time in the short-term, but is likely to need career-threatening surgery. They aren't even close to making the same decision, and no, I'm not the guy that likened them to each other; that was you. Are we all clear now? clear as mud. jack was a projected top 5. he fell 30+ spots by the nfl market, real life calculus. yet your calculus results in him being taken almost 20 spots earlier. so my conclusion is that you, like the bills and your average loser stock picker, believes he has some magical ability to beat the pack in such decisions. what other conclusion can be drawn? enlighten me... while lawson's injury may represent less long term risk, it certainly represented some short term risk which was likely underestimated by the bills. the fulfillment of that risk has some significant negative draft value adjustment associated with it. do you not even concede that?
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 clear as mud. jack was a projected top 5. he fell 30+ spots by the nfl market, real life calculus. yet your calculus results in him being taken almost 20 spots earlier. so my conclusion is that you, like the bills and your average loser stock picker, believes he has some magical ability to beat the pack in such decisions. what other conclusion can be drawn? enlighten me... while lawson's injury may represent less long term risk, it certainly represented some short term risk which was likely underestimated by the bills. the fulfillment of that risk has some significant negative draft value adjustment associated with it. do you not even concede that? Well, it's awfully hard to "enlighten" someone when they're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Jack fell because there are concerns about his long-term health. My position is that because his level of play portended all-pro ability, the upside of his on-field ability outweighs the potential long-term complication of his knee injury. Of course, I actually looked at the relevant data regarding players coming back from microfracture surgery, whereas I'm sure you haven't. Here it is, in case you care: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2016/teams-dont-know-jack For your information, my "calculus" also had guys like Chris Jones and Tyler Boyd going about 20 spots earlier, and it had guys like Robby Anderson, Elandon Roberts, Keyarris Garrett, and a bevy of other guys you've never heard of getting drafted in the top 4 rounds, whereas that didn't happen. I also think that guys like Keanu Neal, Will Fuller, and Kenny Clark had no business going as high as they did. Guess what? It doesn't make me right at this point, and it also doesn't make me wrong. What it really seems like you want to argue is whether or not the Bills will be right in the long-term, and that's patently absurd, since we won't know for a few years. As to negative valuation on Shaq due to injury, it depends on whether you have a short-term, microwave-style mentality toward building a team. If you do, then yes, you'll want to de-value a guy that might miss games in his rookie year, but also might not if things work out properly and he can have the surgery during his first offseason. However, if you build a team the smart way, and are looking to accumulate the best players for the long-term success of the team, then you're going to evaluate what a guy can do for your team over a 5-10 year period, and make your selection based on that. Sounds to me like you're more concerned over what happens in the first 4-6 weeks of 2016 than you are over the next decade. That's your prerogative. Me? I believe that the upside of what a stud EDGE defender will give you over the next 5 years is far more valuable than the downside of his missing 4-6 games, which is why I don't get as upset about Shaq's shoulder as some do.
birdog1960 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Well, it's awfully hard to "enlighten" someone when they're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Jack fell because there are concerns about his long-term health. My position is that because his level of play portended all-pro ability, the upside of his on-field ability outweighs the potential long-term complication of his knee injury. Of course, I actually looked at the relevant data regarding players coming back from microfracture surgery, whereas I'm sure you haven't. Here it is, in case you care: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2016/teams-dont-know-jack For your information, my "calculus" also had guys like Chris Jones and Tyler Boyd going about 20 spots earlier, and it had guys like Robby Anderson, Elandon Roberts, Keyarris Garrett, and a bevy of other guys you've never heard of getting drafted in the top 4 rounds, whereas that didn't happen. I also think that guys like Keanu Neal, Will Fuller, and Kenny Clark had no business going as high as they did. Guess what? It doesn't make me right at this point, and it also doesn't make me wrong. What it really seems like you want to argue is whether or not the Bills will be right in the long-term, and that's patently absurd, since we won't know for a few years. As to negative valuation on Shaq due to injury, it depends on whether you have a short-term, microwave-style mentality toward building a team. If you do, then yes, you'll want to de-value a guy that might miss games in his rookie year, but also might not if things work out properly and he can have the surgery during his first offseason. However, if you build a team the smart way, and are looking to accumulate the best players for the long-term success of the team, then you're going to evaluate what a guy can do for your team over a 5-10 year period, and make your selection based on that. Sounds to me like you're more concerned over what happens in the first 4-6 weeks of 2016 than you are over the next decade. That's your prerogative. Me? I believe that the upside of what a stud EDGE defender will give you over the next 5 years is far more valuable than the downside of his missing 4-6 games, which is why I don't get as upset about Shaq's shoulder as some do. so for you, lawson's injury had no effect on his draft position, nor, in retrospect should it have. at least you are honest. would you concede that would be a solid minority opinion among nfl gm's and scouts? this is exactly the magical thinking that leads the bills to go against the grain so often with predictably bad results. this one might be different. even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. Edited June 13, 2016 by birdog1960
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 this is exactly the magical thinking that leads the bills to go against the grain so often with predictably bad results. this one might be different. even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. What's the magical thinking that leads to a medical professional comparing spleen surgery (over 30 years ago) to labrum surgery today? I'm not sure what it's called precisely but the phrase "you're and idiot" comes to mind.
thebandit27 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 so for you, lawson's injury had no effect on his draft position, nor, in retrospect should it have. at least you are honest. would you concede that would be a solid minority opinion among nfl gm's and scouts? this is exactly the magical thinking that leads the bills to go against the grain so often with predictably bad results. this one might be different. even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. I have no idea if it would or wouldn't be a minority opinion. I suppose we could look back to recent years to see about injured player's draft statuses, and see that guys like Todd Gurley went in the top 10. Then there's guys like: Jason Verrett - torn ACL - 25th overall (SD) Dominique Easley - torn ACL - 30th overall (NE) Karl Joseph - torn ACL - 14th overall (Oak) and there are others. And I still don't understand why you think it's some supposed "magical thinking". It's about as simple as it gets: teams draft for the long-term, not for the first 4-6 games.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 And I still don't understand why you think it's some supposed "magical thinking". It's about as simple as it gets: teams draft for the long-term, not for the first 4-6 games. And you'll never get a straight answer because that would require someone to have intellectual honesty while discussing the topic. That's not in bird's bag of tricks.
K-9 Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 so for you, lawson's injury had no effect on his draft position, nor, in retrospect should it have. at least you are honest. would you concede that would be a solid minority opinion among nfl gm's and scouts? this is exactly the magical thinking that leads the bills to go against the grain so often with predictably bad results. this one might be different. even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. How is that germane to the issue? I mean other than, "Whaley and the Bills are idiots because all the other GMs that passed on Lawson and they are all smart." It doesn't mean jack schit what any other GM or scout felt about Lawson. What matters is what the Bills felt about him. Period. From the few scouts I have access to, they all agree he was a legit top 15 player, regardless. From that, one can deduce that the entire scouting community sees him as a solid starter in this league. I get it though, the Bills took a calculated gamble on the shoulder holding up until after the season and lost. And of course, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!! GO BILLS!!!
BarleyNY Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 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. I can only call it like I see it. The general consensus in the scouting community was that there were still prospects on the board with grades similar to Lawson's. If I were to have taken a chance on a prospect with injury concerns at 19 it'd have been an elite prospect like Jack. I could certainly have seen the argument for him. He was universally considered a top 5 prospect. I never saw Lawson put nearly in that class. I get that Whaley is a professional GM, but thats a cop out. NFL GMs make mistakes every single year and some are easy to see when they are made. I don't buy the "Lawson was such a great value that he was worth pick 19 even though he would miss significant time his rookie season" arguement. Not at all. He was the best prospect at his position that I thought had a chance to make it to the Bills at 19. He was in a block of similarly rated prospects that wasn't likely to make it much beyond the early to mid 20s and he plays a premium position. I didn't think he'd make it to 19 due to expectation that most of the block of players he was rated in would be gone by 19. So I was very happy that he was one of the few that made it to 19 as he fills a huge need, but I didn't see him as a player that fell out of his range. Whaley's comments regarding the injury post selection and pre surgery are telling. It's clear that the team knew about the torn labrum, but hoped he could play with it in 2016. That points to the Bills talking themselves into selecting an injured player because he was a quality prospect who filled a gaping need. People - including Fortune 500 CEOs and NFL GMs - talk themselves into convenient, but risky solutions every single day. It's the only thing that makes all of the facts line up in this case. Edited June 14, 2016 by BarleyNY
3rdand12 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Don't think anyone's "freaking out". But it sure doesn't look good on the organization. Reeks of incompetence. well , it is little stinky
BillsBytheBay Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Do the rams look foolish for taking Gurley? Let's see what we have in Shaq before we bust out the pitch forks and torches. If he doesn't pan out, well than it was a bad pick and his injury didn't matter. If he ends up a perennial pro bowler, than it was a good pick and the injury didn't matter.
BADOLBILZ Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Do the rams look foolish for taking Gurley? They ranked 28th in scoring offense and LAST in yards gained in the NFL last year. So much for the impact of a "franchise" running back. Spending high picks or big money on franchise backs is like sitting in a rocking chair.........it makes you feel like you are doing something but gets you nowhere. So yeah, in terms of ACTUAL produc-for-the-buc......or perhaps moreso in this case, the pick.......they look foolish.......which is nothing new for them.
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) How is that germane to the issue? I mean other than, "Whaley and the Bills are idiots because all the other GMs that passed on Lawson and they are all smart." It doesn't mean jack schit what any other GM or scout felt about Lawson. What matters is what the Bills felt about him. Period. From the few scouts I have access to, they all agree he was a legit top 15 player, regardless. From that, one can deduce that the entire scouting community sees him as a solid starter in this league. I get it though, the Bills took a calculated gamble on the shoulder holding up until after the season and lost. And of course, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!! GO BILLS!!! yes. because the bills have been right so many times recently when everyone else in the league was wrong... it's germane in that whaley and the bills repeatedly act like the cat that ate the canary only to end up looking like the cat that took a dump on the carpet. hmmm, top 15 went at 19. jack, top 5 went at 36. a knee that can be played on short term is worth 30 spots. a shoulder that can't 4. the average nfl career is 3.3 years i believe. these numbers are germane. make perfect sense. once again seat- of - the pants decision making is not a common trait among successful nfl franchises. it's a ubiquitous trait of desperate, perennial losing franchises that can't seem to recognize the fault. Edited June 14, 2016 by birdog1960
K-9 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 yes. because the bills have been right so many times recently when everyone else in the league was wrong... it's germane in that whaley and the bills repeatedly act like the cat that ate the canary only to end up looking like the cat that took a dump on the carpet. hmmm, top 15 went at 19. jack, top 5 went at 36. a knee that can be played on short term is worth 30 spots. a shoulder that can't 4. the average nil career is 3.3 i believe. these numbers are germane. make perfect sense. once again seat- of - the pants decision making is not a common trait among successful nfl franchises. it's a ubiquitous trait of desperate, perennial losing franchises that can't seem to recognize the fault. Seat of the pants? Your total lack of appreciation for the sheer number of man hours involved is staggering. And even then it is a 50/50 proposition. If you are ever inclined, look at all the players drafted by every team over the last 40 years,and you will see just how close all teams are in their respective draft success. No matter how much you want to make it an exact science or believe that nobody is worse than us, it just isn't so. GO BILLS!!!
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Seat of the pants? Your total lack of appreciation for the sheer number of man hours involved is staggering. And even then it is a 50/50 proposition. If you are ever inclined, look at all the players drafted by every team over the last 40 years,and you will see just how close all teams are in their respective draft success. No matter how much you want to make it an exact science or believe that nobody is worse than us, it just isn't so. GO BILLS!!! most, if not all jobs involving evaluation and judgment are inexact. same in my job and likely yours. that makes the spectrum of quality levels attained in that evaluation process even more obvious and important. the outcomes almost always speak for themselves.
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 yes. because the bills have been right so many times recently when everyone else in the league was wrong... it's germane in that whaley and the bills repeatedly act like the cat that ate the canary only to end up looking like the cat that took a dump on the carpet. hmmm, top 15 went at 19. jack, top 5 went at 36. a knee that can be played on short term is worth 30 spots. a shoulder that can't 4. the average nfl career is 3.3 years i believe. these numbers are germane. make perfect sense. once again seat- of - the pants decision making is not a common trait among successful nfl franchises. it's a ubiquitous trait of desperate, perennial losing franchises that can't seem to recognize the fault. I wonder if it has anything to do with Jack's much higher risk of never playing again if the knee buckles compared to Lawson's 92% probability of being better and stronger than while in college.
BarleyNY Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 most, if not all jobs involving evaluation and judgment are inexact. same in my job and likely yours. that makes the spectrum of quality levels attained in that evaluation process even more obvious and important. the outcomes almost always speak for themselves. Over a large sample size and/or in the long term, that is correct. Results of any small sample can vary widely from the expected result, however. For example, it's fair to judge a Hold 'Em player who calls 2-to-1 odds on an inside straight draw after the turn. Sure, it might happen to work out in that particular case, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. It's fair to judge it as a poor move even before the river card gets flipped over. In fact, the result of that one instance is meaningless with regard to judging the strategy. Sometimes the right move doesn't work out and sometimes the wrong one does.
Recommended Posts