Royale with Cheese Posted April 24 Posted April 24 2 minutes ago, warrior9 said: I would consider Kelce the Chiefs #1. Yes, you do. We don’t have Kelsey at TE, yet. Again if we had a dominate #1 or a Kelce… I’d be all for the worthy pick. We don’t have that. Travis Kelce at age 34 is not an elite or dominant playmaking TE anymore. The Chiefs scored 23 ppg last year as an offense last year and in the playoffs. We also have Kincaid entering his prime years while Kelce is starting to decline.
warrior9 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Travis Kelce at age 34 is not an elite or dominant playmaking TE anymore. The Chiefs scored 23 ppg last year as an offense last year and in the playoffs. We also have Kincaid entering his prime years while Kelce is starting to decline. He isn’t Kelce yet. He can be. He isn’t yet. I agree on kelce but to look at his numbers in the play offs.
section122 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 30 minutes ago, warrior9 said: You're not doing it because you said speed speed speed and it's UTTERLY false. The best WR's in this league other than ONE don't run below a 4.4 Your speed claim is inaccurate. I didn't even talk about Worthy at all in my previous post. Again, what did you think of Quentin Johnstone coming out of TCU? Why do you keep bringing up johnston? Hes 6'4 and ran in the 4.5s. He and worthy are completely opposite style receivers. 1
Brandon Posted April 24 Posted April 24 1 minute ago, Roundybout said: I need him so bad you guys I just don't see why any of those top 10 or so would trade out of the pick if he's that good. Chicago, in particular, with that 9th pick looks like a prime landing spot to go along with a rookie QB. It's going to cost a fortune. 1 1
warrior9 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 6 minutes ago, Brandon said: I don't care whether he is or not. He's averaging 80 catches for over 1,000 yards in his first three seasons in the league. If that's a #2, I can still live with that. He won’t because he can’t get off the line. He is not Davanta off the line. Davanta is special off the line which is why he’s having a good few years. 1 minute ago, section122 said: Why do you keep bringing up johnston? Hes 6'4 and ran in the 4.5s. He and worthy are completely opposite style receivers. Evaluation of talent bubba.
Royale with Cheese Posted April 24 Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, warrior9 said: He isn’t Kelce yet. He can be. He isn’t yet. I agree on kelce but to look at his numbers in the play offs. If Kelce was so dominant in the playoffs, how did KC only score 23 ppg? Why was the offense not just humming?
section122 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 1 minute ago, warrior9 said: Evaluation of talent bubba. I dont understand is it some sort of gotcha? Johnston had a lot of detractors last year. Also every single talent evaluator misses on people. 1
warrior9 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said: If Kelce was so dominant in the playoffs, how did KC only score 23 ppg? Why was the offense not just humming? That’s what their O did all year… think you’re proving my point? It’s not about speed speed speed.
26TrapDraw Posted April 24 Posted April 24 7 minutes ago, Roundybout said: I need him so bad you guys That’s fine and that’s your prerogative but I need him to play for Buffalo. 2
Dillenger4 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 This thread is drivel. Beane moving into the top 10 is likely not happening. I can see a move up to 20, maybe, but even that is questionable. Unless it's for a stud DE, CB. Go get Ayouk. 2
BillsVet Posted April 24 Posted April 24 11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Travis Kelce at age 34 is not an elite or dominant playmaking TE anymore. The Chiefs scored 23 ppg last year as an offense last year and in the playoffs. We also have Kincaid entering his prime years while Kelce is starting to decline. Taylor, are you down on Travis already? I guess that wouldn't be unexpected. Maybe Kincaid is your man now...that would definitely make the season interesting!
Dillenger4 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: If Kelce was so dominant in the playoffs, how did KC only score 23 ppg? Why was the offense not just humming? Are you for real? Are you "Real with Cheese"? They won the SB for christ sake. 2
Thurman#1 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, Beck Water said: WR, no. Receiver, yes. I don't know if you've noticed, but "#1 receiver" seems to be a bit like the term "franchise QB" we used to bruit around all the time when we didn't have one. It means different things to different people and folks argue about it without clarifying what it means to them or the chap they're talking with. Even changing it from receiver to wide receiver it's still a bit questionable. Was Kelce still a #1 last year? With 984 yards and 5 TDs? He sure was for a long time, but the Chiefs won last year and I myself don't see a #1 on that 2023 Chiefs roster anywhere. Having a terrific TE really does help your odds. They're really productive, but much cheaper. That's probably why we grabbed Kincaid last year, to attempt following KC (and the Pats dynasty) in not needing a #1 WR if you have a terrific TE and a great QB who can spread things around. Was Edelman a true #1? I mean, he had three years over a thousand yards. An excellent receiver? Yeah. But a true #1? I say no. One of the best slots of all time? Yup, but again .... In 2018, New England's last title year, Edelman had 850 yards, Josh Gordon was second on the team with 720 and Gronk third with 682. The three combined for 12 TDs. Where was their #1? You don't need one, you just don't. Having one can really help, particularly if you're not overpaying. But you don't need one. Fair enough, though, that the term #1 is unclear. You're dead right about that. 2
Royale with Cheese Posted April 24 Posted April 24 3 minutes ago, warrior9 said: That’s what their O did all year… think you’re proving my point? It’s not about speed speed speed. The point was actually having a real #1. Also, KC also won the Super Bowl with speed speed speed as well when they had Hill and Hardman. So they proved you can with both ways. 2 minutes ago, Dillenger4 said: Are you for real? Are you "Real with Cheese"? They won the SB for christ sake. You missed the point. The point was you can win a SB without having an elite #1 WR. It was just proven. 2
BarleyNY Posted April 24 Posted April 24 10 minutes ago, Brandon said: I just don't see why any of those top 10 or so would trade out of the pick if he's that good. Chicago, in particular, with that 9th pick looks like a prime landing spot to go along with a rookie QB. It's going to cost a fortune. That’s exactly the issue. It’s gonna hurt, but I am still expecting it to happen.
Dillenger4 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: The point was actually having a real #1. Also, KC also won the Super Bowl with speed speed speed as well when they had Hill and Hardman. So they proved you can with both ways. You missed the point. The point was you can win a SB without having an elite #1 WR. It was just proven. Ok, sorry - didn't read the whole thing. I agree 100%. I like the new rumour of Bills moving up for Jared Verse. Now that makes sense! 1
dave mcbride Posted April 24 Posted April 24 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Have more modern papers looking at more modern data found anything different? The answer of course is that they have not. They've universally found the same thing. Massey and Thaler themselves updated that paper in 2013 and found that the same biases towards overconfidence continue. FiveThirtyEight did a study in 2016. Again, much the same thing. The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective. It goes on and on. This has been a busy area for analysis and there just hasn't been much disagreement in modern studies. Teams have adjusted their behavior a bit due to analytics, but they're still making the same mistakes. The Pats aren't relevant here. Massey-Thaler (and all the rest) don't say that if you don't make massive trade-ups you will have excellent drafts. Since teams follow this strategy in overwhelming numbers, the idea is ridiculous. What they say is that if you don't follow their advice you are very likely to do worse than you would have. Not that if you do follow their advice you're guaranteed to draft very well. Teams are better evaluators now? Based on what? That's is at best very questionable. The draft isn't a crapshoot. But it really is still very difficult to predict who'll do well in pro football. Where's all the data that these great evaluators of today have raised the levels of success in first-rounders over the years since Massey-Thaler? The 538 analysis covers players drafted in 1990 or later and who retired before 2013, so that doesn't really refute my point. And it says this: "No surprises here: The higher the draft pick, the longer a player will stick around in the NFL. First-rounders last a year longer than second-rounders, and the same goes for second-rounders compared with third-rounders. The gaps between rounds narrow slightly in the latter half of the draft, but a seventh-round pick like Mr. Irrelevant, the last pick of the NFL draft, can expect a career just under half as long as the average first-rounder. This is evidence that teams are getting better talent in earlier rounds." https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-hard-to-tell-how-good-nfl-teams-are-at-the-draft/ Edited April 24 by dave mcbride
nedboy7 Posted April 24 Posted April 24 2 hours ago, CaptnCoke11 said: Did you consult your crystal ball? Joe Marino's take on XW has convinced me his is not our guy.
FireChans Posted April 24 Posted April 24 12 minutes ago, Brandon said: I just don't see why any of those top 10 or so would trade out of the pick if he's that good. Chicago, in particular, with that 9th pick looks like a prime landing spot to go along with a rookie QB. It's going to cost a fortune. We would hate for the Cody Ford’s and Boogie Basham’s to go swindle some other teams out of their money. 1
Recommended Posts