Dawgg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Put some more smiley faces in your post please. It's better than what you did. My claim has been proved, but yours don't. No problem, I didn't take any of your posts seriously and just treat them as jokes. And you don't have anything to say about using mock drafts to compare NFL draft to America Idiol? See, an instance example to show your point is a joke. 688440[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nice use of the English language. Must I provide a bunch of links showing Williams projected higher than Bush and Young projected higher than Lienart? 688444[/snapback] No, what you did wrong is to use merely Six mock drafts to claim Whitner would be drafted after #15. Now, you seem to understand that using mock drafts to justify real draft picks is stupid and keep quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Put some more smiley faces in your post please. 688447[/snapback] No problem. As long as your posts can keep people smiling like good jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No, what you did wrong is to use merely Six mock drafts to claim Whitner would be drafted after #15. 688449[/snapback] I used it to get a consensus that Whitner was not project very high and probably would have been available if we traded down. I've seen little to refute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I used it to get a consensus that Whitner was not project very high and probably would have been available if we traded down. I've seen little to refute that. 688462[/snapback] Consensus doesn't mean correctness, this is the second time I tell you this. NFL draft is not a beauty contest, consensus means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Consensus doesn't mean correctness, this is the second time I tell you this. NFL draft is not a beauty contest, consensus means nothing. 688463[/snapback] So we have to be 100% correct? Absolutley perfect and if we are not we should just be sheople? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 So we have to be 100% correct? Absolutley perfect and if we are not we should just be sheople? 688466[/snapback] No, we have to base on right data. As I said, none of the mock drafts is written by real football scouts or based on real draft boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Personal insults aside, did you read my post? http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=688430 I'd appreciate a response, rather than watch your childish arguments with Scraps. What is your response? No problem. As long as your posts can keep people smiling like good jokes. 688452[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No, we have to base on right data. As I said, none of the mock drafts is written by real football scouts or based on real draft boards. 688470[/snapback] But nobody has the right data since that would require 100% perfect knowledge of every franchise. Hence no discussion is allowed in syhuanville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I want to take you back to 2001. The Bills were coming off an 8-8 year and had new coaches and new management. The management purged the entire roster leaving plenty of holes on both sides of the ball. But one of the most glaring needs on that roster was a left tackle. The Bills' offensive line was arguably the worst unit in football. Bills QBs simply couldn't sit in the pocket for maybe 2 seconds. The consensus top OT on the board was a guy by the name of Kenyatta Walker. When it came time to make their selection at 14, Kenyatta Walker was sitting there, ripe for the taking. Fans of TBD were going nuts, screaming his name and imagining the day they would don his jersey. To their dismay, the Bills did not take him. Realizing this team had too many holes to fill, the Bills traded down 7 spots from 14 to 21 with the Bucs in and aquired their 2nd rounder (51st overall). The Bills had targeted Clements all along. He was the #1 corner in the draft and they gambled that he would be there, knowing full well that he very well might not be. In fact, mocks had Clements going earlier, as high as 17. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...ockdraft_april/ http://espn.go.com/nfl/s/pfw/2001mockdraft2.html http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/archive/2001/mock.html Did the Bills have their panties up in a wad? Were they shuddering at the thought of losing out on the player they had rated so highly? Why not just PLAY IT SAFE and take Nate Clements at 14? Afterall, if he's good it won't matter where he was picked. Right???? WRONG. That risk paid off bigtime and allowed the Bills to draft Travis Henry. Say what you want about Travis, but while he was in a Bills uniform, he was a beast. Not to mention trading him yielded a 3rd round pick which allowed the team in turn to trade up to draft John McCargo. When you are a playoff caliber team, you play it safe and target very specific players who will help you win a championship. When you are a small market team coming off a 5-11 season, you simply MUST maximize the value out of your draft picks and be versatile. 688430[/snapback] Excellent 3000 word dissertation on why two players are better than one. Of course it completely and utterly misses the point of my posts throughout this entire thread. My entire point is that King's work is shoddy. He strongly asserts that Whitner would be there at 15. He weakly backs it up. I have no comment on player vs player. I don't know enough about any of the players to make this commentary so I won't. You feel strongly that you know enough about these players to write long posts regarding their respective value. Good for you. Maybe you'll be a GM someday. P.S. (and off topic) Five years letr TD and his wonderful philosophy got us exactly stojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 But nobody has the right data since that would require 100% perfect knowledge of every franchise. Hence no discussion is allowed in syhuanville. 688476[/snapback] Then why based on any incorrect data to make claims? You are welcome to express your opinions, but using incorrect data to back your arguments is simply stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I will say this, syhuang... mock drafts are not a necessarily a good indicator of mapping specific players to specific teams. But that does not render mock drafts useless. Mock drafts are good for projecting the general range of picks at which a player will go. For example: In general, the consensus among mock drafts was that AJ Hawk would go somewhere between 5-7. In general, the consensus among mock drafts was that Ernie Sims would go somewhere from 8-12. They are very useful in determining where in the draft a player is supposed to go -- not to the team and pick #, but on a more qualitative basis. Whitner, by virtually all accounts, was after the top 10 and in many cases on or after pick 15. No, we have to base on right data. As I said, none of the mock drafts is written by real football scouts or based on real draft boards. 688470[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Then why based on any incorrect data to make claims? 688479[/snapback] Is that even a sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Is that even a sentence? 688484[/snapback] No more to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Are you aware that a gamble never gives you 100% odds? Well if you are, please let me know because I'm in. Jokes aside, the whole point of this is that there are times when a gamble is worth taking. There are times in which a gamble is not worth taking. King uses his sources around the league to state that the gamble was worth taking IN HIS OPINION. Clearly, the Bills brass felt otherwise. I agree with King. If this Denver trade was indeed an option, a team coming off a 5-11 season like the Bills should not be focusing in on one player. Excellent 3000 word dissertation on why two players are better than one. Of course it completely and utterly misses the point of my posts throughout this entire thread. My entire point is that King's work is shoddy. He strongly asserts that Whitner would be there at 15. He weakly backs it up. I have no comment on player vs player. I don't know enough about any of the players to make this commentary so I won't. You feel strongly that you know enough about these players to write long posts regarding their respective value. Good for you. Maybe you'll be a GM someday. P.S. (and off topic) Five years letr TD and his wonderful philosophy got us exactly stojan. 688478[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No more to say? 688489[/snapback] Sorry, I don't speak Syhuangese. Please rephrase in English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Sorry, I don't speak Syhuangese. Please rephrase in English. 688492[/snapback] Do you want to waste time on this? Ok, in your last post, you had "No its because......", it should be "it's because......". Do you want more examples? Make sure you're using English first. Nice comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No more? Ok, let's see if you have anything more to say about using mock drafts to justify draft picks. ==================================================== Then why to base on incorrect data to make claims? You are welcome to express your opinions, but using incorrect data to back your arguments is simply stupid. ===================================================== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=688483 No more? Ok, let's see if you have anything more to say about using mock drafts to justify draft picks. ==================================================== Then why to base on incorrect data to make claims? You are welcome to express your opinions, but using incorrect data to back your arguments is simply stupid. ===================================================== 688510[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=688483 688527[/snapback] In this post, you still emphasize consensus, which means nothing for real draft. As I said, NFL draft is not a beauty contest, it's about professional scouting. Besides, the consensus of mock drafts has nothing to do with the consensus of NFL teams. Mock drafts are good for projecting the general range of picks at which a player will go. This statement is wrong, none of the mock drafts is written by real football scouts or based on real draft boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts