Jump to content

Name Your Top 5 *Drafting* GMs Sans JRob


tgo

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Let's say there is a "credit spectrum" from 1-10. Where on that spectrum do you think the Tannehill acquisition falls? I say 7.  Same question for @oldschool@japan. Let's see if we're less far apart than we think.

 

5 at best because Jrob didn't acquire him with the idea Tannehill was some diamond in the rough who could be rehabilitated into a franchise QB. He hit the lottery plain and simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 521
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just did a quick analysis on 3 guys from my list:    Drafted Since 2016   Mickey Loomis (Best Drafting GM in Football, IMO) :  All Pro/Pro Bowl: 4 Starter: 15  

Man this thread is wild. How can the same person simultaneously believe a GM should hang onto more picks and not trade up because they are stronger in mid rounds, but that their drafting of Henry wher

You seem to have no context regarding how often this happens in the NFL. You could use this argument to say any good drafting team misjudged player values: Alvin Kamara in the 3rd, Trey Hendrickson in

Posted Images

Just now, oldschool said:

 

5 at best because Jrob didn't acquire him with the idea Tannehill was some diamond in the rough who could be rehabilitated into a franchise QB. He hit the lottery plain and simple.

He didn't know he was getting a 2k running, back to back league leading RB when he took Henry either. Why is the allocation of credit so different to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Let's say there is a "credit spectrum" from 1-10. Where on that spectrum do you think the Tannehill acquisition falls? I say 7.  Same question for @oldschool@japan. Let's see if we're less far apart than we think.

 

I'd 4 or 5.  To me, the immediate restriction of RT's role as well as the details of the trade discussions, factor in.  This was a trade for a high end veteran backup.  Not a young prospect you want to be the guy (like Jax trading for Brunell back in the day, Seattle trading for Hasselbeck).

 

With Henry, he gets a higher level of credit because he made the pick and actually used his lack of use as a grievance against Mularkey (along with the Mariota related stuff).  Say an 8.  Only because he then turned around and spent FA money on Lewis and briefly had Henry on the trading block.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

He didn't know he was getting a 2k running, back to back league leading RB when he took Henry either. Why is the allocation of credit so different to you?

 

He drafted Henry with a 2nd rounder which is a premium pick. you expect to get significant contributors and multi year starters in the 2nd round. Apples to Oranges...

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

 

I'd 4 or 5.  To me, the immediate restriction of RT's role as well as the details of the trade discussions, factor in.  This was a trade for a high end veteran backup.  Not a young prospect you want to be the guy (like Jax trading for Brunell back in the day, Seattle trading for Hasselbeck).

 

With Henry, he gets a higher level of credit because he made the pick and actually used his lack of use as a grievance against Mularkey (along with the Mariota related stuff).  Say an 8.  Only because he then turned around and spent FA money on Lewis and briefly had Henry on the trading block.

So if I'm interpreting you correctly, the intent behind the acquisition is worth nearly as much as the decision to acquire the player? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Let's say there is a "credit spectrum" from 1-10. Where on that spectrum do you think the Tannehill acquisition falls? I say 7.  Same question for @oldschool@japan. Let's see if we're less far apart than we think.

7 sounds reasonable.  He's the GM with complete control as Bud likes to say.  He gets the credit and the negatives that come with that....

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

So if I'm interpreting you correctly, the intent behind the acquisition is worth nearly as much as the decision to acquire the player? 

 

Intent matters.  For example, he drafted Henry to replace Murray and be the lead back.  He drafted Davis to be the #1 WR.  Jonnu was drafted to replace Walker, etc. etc.

 

As a general rule. intent is a factor as it sets the expected ROI.  Positional value is a factor.  The results are a factor too.  

 

The grade for Tannehill would have been higher if he had initiated the trade and then had an open QB competition (which is what he should have done). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

 

Intent matters.  For example, he drafted Henry to replace Murray and be the lead back.  He drafted Davis to be the #1 WR.  Jonnu was drafted to replace Walker, etc. etc.

 

As a general rule. intent is a factor as it sets the expected ROI.  Positional value is a factor.  The results are a factor too.  

 

The grade for Tannehill would have been higher if he had initiated the trade and then had an open QB competition (which is what he should have done). 

Intent only matters to the nerds on this and other sites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, big2033 said:

What, what I miss? You guys get caught in the Charlier loop again? LOL.

 

 

Pretty much.  But he’s nitpicking, complaining about not drafting Henry until the last of our second rounders.

 

As far as the Tannehill thing goes, a 6 seems right.  Acquired him as a hedge if/when Mariota imploded while giving you enough time to find the next guy in the draft.  Obviously Tannehill exceeded expectations and rendered that point null.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, japan said:

Like Brees recovering from the gruesome throwing shoulder injury was luck for the Saints?  This whole argument is silly.  The handful of posters on this site are the only people around the NFL who aren't giving Robinson credit for brining Tannehill in.

The Saints signed him because their doctors said he had recovered. Their "luck" in this matter was that the Dolphins doctors rejected his shoulder...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, japan said:

Intent only matters to the nerds on this and other sites. 

So if you were GM, you'd draft players with no intent on how they would fit or contribute to the football team.... Lord, help him!

 

Your War Room would have Dart Boards not Draft Boards?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BudsOilers said:

 

Intent matters.  For example, he drafted Henry to replace Murray and be the lead back.  He drafted Davis to be the #1 WR.  Jonnu was drafted to replace Walker, etc. etc.

 

As a general rule. intent is a factor as it sets the expected ROI.  Positional value is a factor.  The results are a factor too.  

 

The grade for Tannehill would have been higher if he had initiated the trade and then had an open QB competition (which is what he should have done). 

I can buy that intent matters to some degree but you don't think you're giving it too much weight? I keep bringing up Henry because even though he spent a high pick on him and intended for him to be good, I HIGHLY doubt even he intended to draft a guy that would lead the league in rushing back to back season including a 2k season. I get that one was brought in with the intention of being a back up and the other to be an eventual starter but he got WAY more than he bargained for in both cases.

 

I just see giving Robinson credit for Henry but not Tannehill is splitting hairs that don't need to be split.  I would also argue that J-Rob didn't acquire Tannehill purely to sit on the bench. He could've easily cheaped out and gotten some rando to sit behind Mariota but he shelled out the 4th for Tannehill because he expected Ryan to play at some point (possibly for good stretch) due to injury or performance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

So if you were GM, you'd draft players with no intent on how they would fit or contribute to the football team.... Lord, help him!

 

Your War Room would have Dart Boards not Draft Boards?

The intent does matter to some degree but it should be heavily overshadowed by the results because it's the results that win you games IMO. Intentions are also difficult to quantify and even confirm; the best we can do is speculate. Results often come with quantifiable data. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

I can buy that intent matters to some degree but you don't think you're giving it too much weight? I keep bringing up Henry because even though he spent a high pick on him and intended for him to be good, I HIGHLY doubt even he intended to draft a guy that would lead the league in rushing back to back season including a 2k season. I get that one was brought in with the intention of being a back up and the other to be an eventual starter but he got WAY more than he bargained for in both cases.

 

I just see giving Robinson credit for Henry but not Tannehill is splitting hairs that don't need to be split.  I would also argue that J-Rob didn't acquire Tannehill purely to sit on the bench. He could've easily cheaped out and gotten some rando to sit behind Mariota but he shelled out the 4th for Tannehill because he expected Ryan to play at some point (possibly for good stretch) due to injury or performance. 

 

Clearly, we don't agree and that's fine. 

 

Henry was drafted with the intent to be the #1 RB in 2017/2018 as Robinson rightfully knew that Murray had tread on the tire.  45 is a good spot in today's NFL to draft a starting RB so positional value was good.

 

Tannehill, on the other hand, was the experienced backup veteran QB/hedge against Mariota getting hurt (safe bet) because Robinson's prior efforts to have an adequate backup failed miserably when they had must win games to make the playoffs.  Add in that Tannehill and his agent initiated the discussions and the Titans immediately did not allow for any kind of competition reinforces that he was brought in to replace/upgrade Gabbert.  Yes, everything turned out great because Tannehill is an excellent QB but it took Mariota nearly sabotaging the season to even get him on the field. As such, my 4/5 grade is more than fair. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...