Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Dirty Sanchez will be drafted after the 15th pick in the first. I see him as this drafts Aaron Rogers but Rogers has more talent. Right now I see the Lions drafting him with the #1 draft pick they got for Williams or Miami trading up to draft him.. You can forget about Miami trading up for him- they took Henne in the 2nd last year and also have John Beck. As of now, Gak, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. At the time, yes obviously 1st rounders look like they have more talent then 2nd or 3rd round guys, but there's Pro Bowlers from every round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 You can forget about Miami trading up for him- they took Henne in the 2nd last year and also have John Beck. As of now, Gak, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. At the time, yes obviously 1st rounders look like they have more talent then 2nd or 3rd round guys, but there's Pro Bowlers from every round. Dude, there is no opportunity to agree to disagree in this discussion. You can't agree to disagree with facts. That's like saying I agree to disagree with whether or not the sun is hot. There is talent in every round of the draft. The guys wouldn't be drafted if there were not. HOWEVER, there is statistical PROOF that as each round progresses, there is less and less talent on the whole. Will there be an abberation here and there? Absolutely. Will there be superstars in later rounds who, INDIVIDUALLY, may be better than most of the first rounders? Sure, but not often. The simple FACTS are that better players are that collectively, better players are drafted in the first round, and the talent diminishes collectively as the draft progresses. There is no opportunity to agree to disagree with these facts. Otherwise, the draft order wouldn't matter, there wouldn't draft pick values for trades, and there would be complete chaos within the draft. Teams would forego all their picks in the first three or four rounds so that they could have the entire seventh round of the draft to themselves. That's just effing retarded and you know it. Are there good/great players in later rounds? Yes. Is there an inverse relationship between overall talent level of the players drafted as compared to the round in which they were drafted? Undeniably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Dude, there is no opportunity to agree to disagree in this discussion. You can't agree to disagree with facts. That's like saying I agree to disagree with whether or not the sun is hot. There is talent in every round of the draft. The guys wouldn't be drafted if there were not. HOWEVER, there is statistical PROOF that as each round progresses, there is less and less talent on the whole. Will there be an abberation here and there? Absolutely. Will there be superstars in later rounds who, INDIVIDUALLY, may be better than most of the first rounders? Sure, but not often. The simple FACTS are that better players are that collectively, better players are drafted in the first round, and the talent diminishes collectively as the draft progresses. There is no opportunity to agree to disagree with these facts. Otherwise, the draft order wouldn't matter, there wouldn't draft pick values for trades, and there would be complete chaos within the draft. Teams would forego all their picks in the first three or four rounds so that they could have the entire seventh round of the draft to themselves. That's just effing retarded and you know it. Are there good/great players in later rounds? Yes. Is there an inverse relationship between overall talent level of the players drafted as compared to the round in which they were drafted? Undeniably. I'm not disagreeing with his facts. I'm disagreeing with the fact that he thinks that trading out of the first is a dumb idea. For this franchise, it is not. The facts are that Angelo doesn't exactly prove his worth in the first round. To pick up 2 more second rounders + a 3rd would be huge, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GakMan23 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'm not disagreeing with his facts. I'm disagreeing with the fact that he thinks that trading out of the first is a dumb idea. For this franchise, it is not. The facts are that Angelo doesn't exactly prove his worth in the first round. To pick up 2 more second rounders + a 3rd would be huge, IMO. What your actually saying is that you want to take a statically lesser chance at getting an impact player, proven by statical facts, then having a mathimatically proven odds advantage at finding the next gem in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Hey Lucky you are missing the point about moving down though. Just because you move up does not mean that you will land a superstar. Of course you "should have a better percentage" of getting one since the said player is being taken that high because of talent. The point is that by moving down you can get a little bit lesser talent but multiple guys to help fill multiple holes. Where the #18 pick may get us a good/great DE we could trade it away and pick up a 2nd and 3rd. Were we can still get a good G and a good WR still. Of course all of this is hypothetical because you do have your Ryan Leafs every year but in the same hand you have your Tom Bradys every year as well. Hopefully you understand where we are coming from better now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Hey Lucky you are missing the point about moving down though. Just because you move up does not mean that you will land a superstar. Of course you "should have a better percentage" of getting one since the said player is being taken that high because of talent. The point is that by moving down you can get a little bit lesser talent but multiple guys to help fill multiple holes. Where the #18 pick may get us a good/great DE we could trade it away and pick up a 2nd and 3rd. Were we can still get a good G and a good WR still. Of course all of this is hypothetical because you do have your Ryan Leafs every year but in the same hand you have your Tom Bradys every year as well. Hopefully you understand where we are coming from better now. Exactly. That's all I'm trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Hey Lucky you are missing the point about moving down though. Just because you move up does not mean that you will land a superstar. Of course you "should have a better percentage" of getting one since the said player is being taken that high because of talent. The point is that by moving down you can get a little bit lesser talent but multiple guys to help fill multiple holes. Where the #18 pick may get us a good/great DE we could trade it away and pick up a 2nd and 3rd. Were we can still get a good G and a good WR still. Of course all of this is hypothetical because you do have your Ryan Leafs every year but in the same hand you have your Tom Bradys every year as well. Hopefully you understand where we are coming from better now. the mega gozilla post was from a period in 2004 prior to the draft when talk on the board was to trade down or out of the first round. i completely realize that moving up doesn't give you a lock on a superstar, but.... what those facts showed at that time was the difference in the number of very good to excellent players was greater than even moving down 10 spots in the first round. can you imagine the difference from that top 10 compared to later round picks? so for me, i would look at moving UP in the draft, not every year certainly because the talent is not always there, to get these higher quality players rather than sitting tight or moving down like we always do and have a half dozen picks in the 6th and 7th round who we ultimately cut anyway. the fact is angelo has done extremely poor drafting anywhere on the first day of the draft. so maybe his M.O. needs a change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Isn't that quite damning? The facts are that Angelo doesn't exactly prove his worth in the first round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Isn't that quite damning? It may be damning, but it's no logical reason for trading down. Could you imagine the loser mentality of a GM to think that? I shudder... LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 There is another way to look at it. If you trade down, and in turn get multiple picks, each pick may have a lesser % of hitting, but you do in fact have more opportunities to hit. Consider gambling. You go to the horse track, and look at the odds for each horse. If you spread your money around picking several horses who may not have the same odds as the favorite, are you an idiot? Personally, what I can't stand is to discuss mock drafts that incorporate the idea of trading down right now, when there is too much up in the air. At the same time, we have a lot of holes, so if we wanted to trade down, picking up extra picks, I question whether that is simply stupid or not. Putting all your eggs in one basket is not always the answer. Picks in round one may have better odds of success than picks after, but I wonder how much that is offset when you are able to grab extra picks in those "after" rounds. I never took stats in college, but just wonder if your odds w/ those extra picks are really less than the odds w/ just that 1st pick. No argument the odds are greater when comparing a 1st against a 2nd, but how does that % change when you factor more than one pick against the one. Lets say you dropped out of the 1st round, and picked up a 2nd, 3rd and 4th (just throwing it out there). Are you so sure the odds of hitting on a player w/ that 1st are so greater than the odds of hitting on the 2nd, 3rd OR 4th? What your actually saying is that you want to take a statically lesser chance at getting an impact player, proven by statical facts, then having a mathimatically proven odds advantage at finding the next gem in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think that is fan reasoning vs GM reasoning. No GM is going to say, "I suck drafting in the 1st, so get me out of that round". Fans may say that, but not the GM. However, many GMs will trade down using other reasoning. It may be damning, but it's no logical reason for trading down. Could you imagine the loser mentality of a GM to think that? I shudder... LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think that is fan reasoning vs GM reasoning. No GM is going to say, "I suck drafting in the 1st, so get me out of that round". Fans may say that, but not the GM. However, many GMs will trade down using other reasoning. Other reasoning is great, if there is a method to the madness. More 2nd's and 3rd's increase your odds of hitting on a keeper and is also more cap friendly. You can also throw, lack of faith in the 1st rounder you have to choose from. If it's to stockpile late round picks like last year, I will simply vomit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 No argument there. It is one thing to try to stockpile 2nd and/or 3rd round picks, but another entirely to stock pile 6th and 7th round picks. Other reasoning is great, if there is a method to the madness. More 2nd's and 3rd's increase your odds of hitting on a keeper and is also more cap friendly. You can also throw, lack of faith in the 1st rounder you have to choose from. If it's to stockpile late round picks like last year, I will simply vomit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 No argument there. It is one thing to try to stockpile 2nd and/or 3rd round picks, but another entirely to stock pile 6th and 7th round picks. And therein lies the problem. Too many late round guys simply don't pan out. Trade out of the first? Fine. I don't like the idea a lot, but it's not too bad if you get a few 2nd rounders, maybe a few 3rd rounders. As already stated, this is probably done with cap considerations in mind - in my opinion this is probably the driving factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 And therein lies the problem. Too many late round guys simply don't pan out. Trade out of the first? Fine. I don't like the idea a lot, but it's not too bad if you get a few 2nd rounders, maybe a few 3rd rounders. As already stated, this is probably done with cap considerations in mind - in my opinion this is probably the driving factor. You find a lot of teams trying to use that strategy to save cap space after the "elite" blue chip players have been drafted. It will be more difficult to find trading partners to do this as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 You find a lot of teams trying to use that strategy to save cap space after the "elite" blue chip players have been drafted. It will be more difficult to find trading partners to do this as a result. Good afternoon Pix, I sent you an email on your comcast one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Good afternoon Pix, I sent you an email on your comcast one. Gotcha, sent reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danimal99 Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 You find a lot of teams trying to use that strategy to save cap space after the "elite" blue chip players have been drafted. It will be more difficult to find trading partners to do this as a result. I also believe like others have mentioned. This draft is top heavy in talent after about #15-20. Just another reason why it will be difficult for teams to find a trading partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.