Get to Know the 2020 QB Prospects

[charleytolar]

22 minutes ago, big2033 said:

 

Then you're talking out of your ass.

 

So stop preaching when you can't prove it overall. One or two moves doesn't prove anything. Both sides have anecdotal evidence ... it's a wash.

 

I know it's frustrating. But you can't prove overall what you're saying is true so move on.

What can you prove? Nothing. The most certain evidence is that more tries gets you more wins... within reason. The deck IS stacked. There is no certainty but you wouldn't want to give up your 1st selection for a bunch of 4ths just to have more picks. The draft is an educated guess.

[charleytolar]

59 minutes ago, big2033 said:

 

NO ... because there's just as much data that can prove moving up works ... Patrick Mahomes for example.

Why does your anecdote count as data but mine does not? 

[big2033]

7 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

Why does your anecdote count as data but mine does not? 

 

It doesn't ... I'm not trying to prove anything either way ... you are.

 

They cross each other out. So only data can support the idea you're trying to put forth. 

 

So ... where is the data?

Edited November 12, 2019 by big2033

[big2033]

6 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

What can you prove? Nothing. The most certain evidence is that more tries gets you more wins... within reason. The deck IS stacked. There is no certainty but you wouldn't want to give up your 1st selection for a bunch of 4ths just to have more picks. The draft is an educated guess.

 

What data do you have Charlie ... if you can't prove it either way stop talking about it.

[big2033]

11 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

Just for the fun of it, I scanned the draft day trades of first-rounders. Here is what I gathered

 

the 7th pick for the 12th

the 10th for the 15th

the 14th for the 27th and 2019 1st (Marcus Davenport)

the 16th for the 22nd

the 18th for the 27th

the 22nd for the 25th (Titans)

 

Most of these also cost the moving up team a mid-round selection.

 

Obviously a sacrificed draft selection can have no impact.

 

Charlie ... this doesn't say anything overall to support your idea.

[big2033]

19 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

What can you prove? Nothing. The most certain evidence is that more tries gets you more wins... within reason. The deck IS stacked. There is no certainty but you wouldn't want to give up your 1st selection for a bunch of 4ths just to have more picks. The draft is an educated guess.

 

Your theory is flawed unless you can prove that all drafts picks (from round 1-7) are equal in terms of talent.  

 

They're not. Overall, the higher the round the better the talent.

 

Again you're going to need to dive deep on this, you're using your own personal ideas and trying to prove it's fact.

Edited November 12, 2019 by big2033

[SleepingTitan]

On 10/17/2019 at 12:36 PM, Titans279 said:

The problem with this logic is that there are obviously way more QBs picked outside the top five. There are more who fail so the success rate is still even lower than picking one in the top 5.

The chances a QB will be a franchise guy drop dramatically even the lower you pick in round 1. They are even lower for round 2.

 

This is the result just looking at the guys drafted in the past 20 years and counting who was a hit or miss. 

 

Once you get to round 6 and 7 it’s literally just Brady out of like 100 prospects in the last 20 years. 

I'd like to stick with Tannehill or just a "good not great" QB and roll dice in middle rounds for a few years until we get lucky. Cause high draft picks bust too. Other positions are easier to predict in the top as they rely on raw athleticism, technique and strength of competition more (not as much between the ears.)

[Nash]

On 11/11/2019 at 6:28 PM, AussieTitanFan08 said:

 

Just don't see Adoree being traded and especially not just to bring in a rookie to replace him.

We just faced the 2 fastest corners in the league.. I'd say Adoree held his man down most of the game.. has anyone looked at the film to determine who he covered and was it press man??

[charleytolar]

14 hours ago, big2033 said:

 

Your theory is flawed unless you can prove that all drafts picks (from round 1-7) are equal in terms of talent.  

 

They're not. Overall, the higher the round the better the talent.

 

Again you're going to need to dive deep on this, you're using your own personal ideas and trying to prove it's fact.

You mis-represent my argument! This is exactly why I am opposed to regularly giving up 2nds and 3rds to move up to target someone specifically. I'm not going to look them all up again but IIRC we have give up half a dozen 2nds, 3rds and 4ths (three in the Conklin trade alone!) to move up to target players in the Webster-Robinson era

 

It's the regular practice I'm opposed to. J-Rob has picked up the habit

 

I've never advocated trading down regularly... like the picture you try to paint. I've advocated staying put. I'm cautious about trading UP because it comes at a price. I'm more comfortable about trading DOWN because it comes with a reward and there are almost always equal or better players taken later than your selection. Of course, you have to have an eye for talent. J-Rob is way better than Webster on that front.

 

When we beat Belichick to Harold Landry, what did he do? He traded down I do believe. I've heard rumors that he wanted Landry, but I don't remember any that he tried to trade UP to get him.

 

Our draft this past year was SOLID. We had one pick, seemingly our original pick, in every round save the David Long pick, I think, where we appear to have  moved BACK a few spots in that round and LOOK WHO WE GOT... in the Sixth Round! WAY BETTER THAN KEVIN DUDD who was a 2-1 pick. I know you'll accuse me of cherry-picking but you have Dudd is from the same era, by the same GM, and not from some bygone era. I could have used Bishop Sankey or Jerome Poutassi....

[big2033]

55 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

You mis-represent my argument! This is exactly why I am opposed to regularly giving up 2nds and 3rds to move up to target someone specifically. I'm not going to look them all up again but IIRC we have give up half a dozen 2nds, 3rds and 4ths (three in the Conklin trade alone!) to move up to target players in the Webster-Robinson era

 

It's the regular practice I'm opposed to. J-Rob has picked up the habit

 

I've never advocated trading down regularly... like the picture you try to paint. I've advocated staying put. I'm cautious about trading UP because it comes at a price. I'm more comfortable about trading DOWN because it comes with a reward and there are almost always equal or better players taken later than your selection. Of course, you have to have an eye for talent. J-Rob is way better than Webster on that front.

 

When we beat Belichick to Harold Landry, what did he do? He traded down I do believe. I've heard rumors that he wanted Landry, but I don't remember any that he tried to trade UP to get him.

 

Our draft this past year was SOLID. We had one pick, seemingly our original pick, in every round save the David Long pick, I think, where we appear to have  moved BACK a few spots in that round and LOOK WHO WE GOT... in the Sixth Round! WAY BETTER THAN KEVIN DUDD who was a 2-1 pick. I know you'll accuse me of cherry-picking but you have Dudd is from the same era, by the same GM, and not from some bygone era. I could have used Bishop Sankey or Jerome Poutassi....

 

I don't care what you feel we should do. ESPECIALLY IN HINDSIGHT.

 

I want you to prove that moving up is not a sound strategy for a team overall as you suggest. If you can't prove it, stop acting like you can.

 

You keep writing a bunch of stuff but won't admit you don't have the info that actually matters.

 

Show me a chart that shows routinely trading up is a detriment. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by big2033

[charleytolar]

1 hour ago, big2033 said:

 

I don't care what you feel we should do. ESPECIALLY IN HINDSIGHT.

 

I want you to prove that moving up is not a sound strategy for a team overall as you suggest. If you can't prove it, stop acting like you can.

 

You keep writing a bunch of stuff but won't admit you don't have the info that actually matters.

 

Show me a chart that shows routinely trading up is a detriment. 

Hindsight  your ass!

 

I criticized the Conklin trade within minutes of it being made. In fact, I've expressed reservations about most of these trade ups long before anyone hit the field. How is that "hindsight"?

 

The move the Belichick made was not in hindsight. Actually it was probably foresight. With Landry gone, he likely figured that one of the guys he liked would be available a bit later so why not get an extra chip?

 

Moving up is fine selectively. Moving down is fine selectively. Over-reliance on it is not good. We have done it in every one of J-Rob's drafts save the last one. We also did it before J-Rob and it has impacted the roster.

 

The info that matters is players and the success or failures of their careers AND the lost or gained opportunity from moving up or down-- not some chart.

 

A big factor is who is driving the bus. J-Rob has a pretty good eye for talent-- especially in the later round values. 

 

His biggest "investment" is Conklin who may or may not be headed for a second contract with us. Will you take a one stat chart?!

[ctm]

The Titans traded up for both Evans and Landry.  According to @charleytolar, JRob must be stupid.

 

You decide?

[charleytolar]

1 minute ago, ctm said:

The Titans traded up for both Evans and Landry.  According to @charleytolar, JRob must be stupid.

 

You decide?

You are not interested in the topic really so just leave. Where did I ever say J-Rob was stupid?

 

Evans and Landry have finally shown, but would we have been worse off with the four others I suggested who play similar positions or others holes we needed to fill-- which we lost the opportunity to do by giving up picks.

 

Belichick seems to understand that no one player is so important; dang, rumors are that he wants to prove it by extending his legacy without Tom Brady.

[big2033]

1 hour ago, charleytolar said:

Hindsight  your ass!

 

I criticized the Conklin trade within minutes of it being made. In fact, I've expressed reservations about most of these trade ups long before anyone hit the field. How is that "hindsight"?

 

The move the Belichick made was not in hindsight. Actually it was probably foresight. With Landry gone, he likely figured that one of the guys he liked would be available a bit later so why not get an extra chip?

 

Moving up is fine selectively. Moving down is fine selectively. Over-reliance on it is not good. We have done it in every one of J-Rob's drafts save the last one. We also did it before J-Rob and it has impacted the roster.

 

The info that matters is players and the success or failures of their careers AND the lost or gained opportunity from moving up or down-- not some chart.

 

A big factor is who is driving the bus. J-Rob has a pretty good eye for talent-- especially in the later round values. 

 

His biggest "investment" is Conklin who may or may not be headed for a second contract with us. Will you take a one stat chart?!

 

There you go. And staying put is fine selectively.

 

Now shut up.

 

In the end, it comes down to who you pick and why you pick them. Period. The rest is just your opinion on who you thought we could've gotten. Hindsight.

 

You have no concrete argument either way. Just endless whining because you didn't like it.

Edited November 13, 2019 by big2033

[charleytolar]

Just now, big2033 said:

 

There you go. Now shut up.

 

In the end, it comes down to who you pick and why you pick them. Period. The rest is just your opinion on who you thought we could've gotten. Hindsight.

Dang. You are stupider than I thought. I have belabored that this is not just hindsight; it is Management Practice. You can apply hindsight which "humanizes" the cost; we could have had some fine contributors that we NEED with those picks we gave up. We could have had Darius Leonard instead of Rashaan Evans; would that have been so terrible? We seem to be jealous of the roster that Chris Ballard is building and Leonard is his.

 

In fact, if you had any integrity, you'd go back and find the post about the Conklin trade up and selection and read my criticism there within some minutes not years of the announcement! I doubt you do or will because it will finally make you shut up .... and you don't want to do that!

 

I've done that before so I shall not do it again. If you have any real concern for the truth, go for it. Otherwise just shut up with your lame mis-representation of what I've said.