BADOLBILZ Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I don't have an issue with hindsight as long as its applied consistently and both the failures and successes are accounted for. Your disciple FireChan tried to dismiss my argument as hindsight while supporting yours, which is why I called it out. Accusing ME....of all people on TSW......of predicating my opinion on hindsight......now THAT is funny.......that's your thing, stick with funny.......but football takes? No. Just no. Disciple? He veered out of his area of expertise.........said a few dumb things that he knows can be dissected........so now he wants to spray the thread down. Going postal.
FireChan Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 bird of a different feather? I prefer kindred spirit.
Bill from NYC Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 Fair enough take. My argument is that he's done a lot more good things than missing on some draft picks. Our roster is loaded with talent - would you agree with that? I'm not sure what the connection is between you being a Clemson fan and Ragland is (unless you meant Lawson) but - what sucks is Ragland won't have the opportunity to show what he can or can't be in the NFL. I'm surprised at your depiction of Whaley because he seems like one focused guy doing prudent things. Whether they manifest themselves into good things is yet to be determined. Of course our loyalty is always with the Bills but if I believe Whaley is doing a good job - I want him to stay. No my friend, Crimson Tide fan. The title game this year (which I mistakenly thought would be fairly easy) was one of the highlights of my sports watching life. That's why I specifically mentioned Kujo. I have seen almost every game he played in, and I'm saying he was the 4th or 5th best blocker on the Tide. I posted this way back when. Where we disagree is I don't think most of his actions are prudent, specifically the trades and the McCoy contract.
Niagara Bill Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I posted this in the Ragland thread, but I suppose it belongs here... The rookie injuries are bad luck, but Whaley has been really short-sighted with a lot of moves and these types of injuries shouldn't be so crippling. We never seem to have a back-up plan and have been put in bad situations by a lack of depth. Jeff Tuel started a game at QB. When Kyle Williams and Aaron Williams went down with injury, it was the theme of the season. No one stepped up and dominated in those roles because we had no depth to fill those spots. Our current WR depth is questionable, and I don't know who Whaley could possibly blame for that. I'm still on the fence with Whaley, but I feel like he needs to be better prepared. Even though he is a great player, the decision to move up to get Watkins looks more like a Detroit Lions move every year. I don't know how a team with no depth can afford to be throwing 1st round picks out the window, and that is a prime example of the nearsightedness I'm referring to. I support these comments. When you trade up you lose the percentage of numbers....12 picks gives you are far bigger chance to find 5 players to help your team than picking 6 times.
machine gun kelly Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 Whaley tried to sign both Spiller and Byrd. Can you rectify why Woods was the 4th or 5th WR off the board even though he was so "pro-ready?" FC- I know he tried to resign them, he placed a reasonable value and another team placed a higher value on them and it did not pay off. That can be a credit to Whaley stating he saw a decent fit for these players, but not over paying for them.
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I support these comments. When you trade up you lose the percentage of numbers....12 picks gives you are far bigger chance to find 5 players to help your team than picking 6 times. I simply detest this school of thought. The draft is about talent evaluation. I hate the idea that you just boil it down to a numbers game.
Kemp2Warlick Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I simply detest this school of thought. The draft is about talent evaluation. I hate the idea that you just boil it down to a numbers game. I agree
FireChan Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 FC- I know he tried to resign them, he placed a reasonable value and another team placed a higher value on them and it did not pay off. That can be a credit to Whaley stating he saw a decent fit for these players, but not over paying for them. Not true in Spiller's case. We only rescinded our offer because Chip Kelly called trying to trade everyone for a box of tape.
Maury Ballstein Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 .but football takes? No. Just no. Says the guy who prefers Duke Williams and Gilleslie over AW and McCoy. Funny stuff "take" master.
metzelaars_lives Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 (edited) Jeff Tuel was a third string QB. Who holds the GM accountable for the third string QB being forced into action? Does anyone know who the third string QB is on any team in the NFL? Would you lambast the Packers' GM if Rodgers got hurt and then the great Brett Hundley got hurt and then the guy behind Brett Hundley had to play? Edited August 12, 2016 by metzelaars_lives
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 (edited) Says the guy who prefers Duke Williams and Gilleslie over AW and McCoy. Funny stuff "take" master. Not sure Badol has ever said Gilleslie is better than McCoy. He criticises McCoy for laving plays on the field and uses Gillislee as an example that there were holes there made by the line that even a late season street FA pickup could turn into touchdowns because he just hits the hole. To claim he has said Gillislee is better or that he "prefers" him is to misunderstand his argument. And I should say at this point that I do not agree with Badol on McCoy. Jeff Tuel was a third string QB. Who holds the GM accountable for the third string QB being forced into action? Does anyone know who the third string QB is on any team in the NFL? Would you lambast the Packers' GM if Rodgers got hurt and then the great Brett Hundley got hurt and then the guy behind Brett Hundley had to play? Well when Rodgers got hurt the other year the Packers third string was Scott Tolzien and he was so bad they pulled him and put Matt Flynn who they re-signed days earlier in. Edited August 12, 2016 by GunnerBill
Jauronimo Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 Accusing ME....of all people on TSW......of predicating my opinion on hindsight......now THAT is funny.......that's your thing, stick with funny.......but football takes? No. Just no. He veered out of his area of expertise.........said a few dumb things that he knows can be dissected........so now he wants to spray the thread down. Going postal. The Carolina Panthers selected Kony Ealy later in that SECOND round........a 6'4"..275#...34.5" armed DE who ran a 4.7 40 and had everything you want in a pass rushing DE except a little polish. They did so even though their own DL was pretty damn good too and they probably had more holes on their roster to fill than the Bills. Ealy has operated as a reserve but racked up 9 sacks in two seasons and had an MVP like breakout performance in the Super Bowl. That right there, well that's hindsight. Picking players who could have been had years after the draft. And as for disciple, see the second definition. What is it about that word that upsets you and Chan? Going postal? By all means, dissect away. This should be fun. You are out of your depth. dis·ci·ple dəˈsīpəl/ noun a personal follower of Jesus during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles. synonyms: apostle, follower "the disciples of Jesus" a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.
Ronin Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 Well, like a lot of things around here, if you say them often enough a good portion of the followers will believe they are facts rather than opinions. That should be the subtitle/motto to TSW right there.
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I'm surprised you think I'm being serious. I guess when I called me and BADOL "kindred spirits" upthread it went right over your head. In any case, it's a philosophical argument. The Panthers, at the time, took a higher potential physical "freak" even though they could have drafted another player at a position of need. Whether it pays off or not does not come into question. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Most draft picks, on the whole, don't work out. Give me a guy who can be dominant over a guy pro-ready who won't see much improvement. You see this exact same thing in basketball. 19 year old physical freaks ALWAYS get drafted before 22-23 year old college stars who can dribble and shoot much better. This from arguably the second most analytical sport in the world. To me, that lends credence to the argument, irrespective of not having the numbers in front of me. I agree it is largely a philosophical question. Badol has a very clear philosophy of how he wants to draft and it is not the often parroted NFL "Best player available" which is why I think he takes a lot of heat for it. It is an adaptation of that theory based on "best Quarterback available" and then "highest ceiling available" in the early rounds. I understand his argument for it but I am not personally a fan of wedding myself to it. I don't think there is anything wrong with taking guys who you think can be solid long term starters able to contribute early in Rounds 2 and 3 of the draft. I want more than that with my 1st rounder.... but in the 2nd and 3rd I think you have to be flexible to either approach.
John from Riverside Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I support these comments. When you trade up you lose the percentage of numbers....12 picks gives you are far bigger chance to find 5 players to help your team than picking 6 times. unless they all suck..... I can see both sides of this though
YattaOkasan Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 unless they all suck..... I can see both sides of this though If these 12 guys that you draft each only have 5% chance of being a star then you have a better shot with 1 player thats 50/50 being a star.
John from Riverside Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 If these 12 guys that you draft each only have 5% chance of being a star then you have a better shot with 1 player thats 50/50 being a star. but you dont just need stars.....your trying to fill out a roster cheaply with guys that wont fall off a cliff in production. as we have seen....injuries happen
Tenhigh Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 If these 12 guys that you draft each only have 5% chance of being a star then you have a better shot with 1 player thats 50/50 being a star. I'm not a big probability guy, isn't saying that a drafting a 5% guy means that 1 out of every 20 is a star? So you have a 60% chance of having a star if you draft 12 players at that level? And then 1 that's 50/50 is only 50%, right?
YattaOkasan Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I'm not a big probability guy, isn't saying that a drafting a 5% guy means that 1 out of every 20 is a star? So you have a 60% chance of having a star if you draft 12 players at that level? And then 1 that's 50/50 is only 50%, right? They all need to be assessed individually. They have 95% chance of failing. Taken to the 12th power (not multiplying by 12) gives a 54% chance that they all fail. So you have 46% chance that at least one is a star.
Recommended Posts