|
excidium posted:Trading for an established player is even worse IMO. With the rookie wage scale you're losing that opportunity for a relatively cheap player and instead paying most likely a premium for that established player. Unless that player is still on a team-friendly deal it's going to hurt your long term cap. Look at any draft and see how many rookies succeed. The average playing life in the NFL is 3 years, and many of those players spend those 3 years as permanent backups. It's a lot harder to hit in the draft than it seems which makes the times where GMs hit so well kind of extraordinary. In addition, many of those rookies who do pan out don't really do much early on. We're just now seeing production out of Linval Joseph, and for the first two years of his contract his second round pick looked like it would have been spent better moving up in the first. For every GM that gets 3-4 good players from a draft there's probably 20-25 others that miss hard on all but a pick or two. There's nothing wrong with trading for established players using draft picks, and I'm saying this as a guy who only really cares about the draft.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Doltos posted:Those LSU receivers are going to make some team pretty happy. I agree, though if I had to pick between the two I'd run with Landry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I agree, though if I had to pick between the two I'd run with Landry. Same. Landry has ~intangibles~ while ODB has ~pretty good at football despite measurements~
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
LSU's Jeremy Hill just declared, even though I think a week or so ago he was returning. Guess he got a good grade from the evaluations or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
If the Panthers can pick someone up like DeAndre Hopkins at 28 then you need to absolutely draft a receiver in the first round. Trust me from experience...last first round wide receivers own. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Kirios posted:If the Panthers can pick someone up like DeAndre Hopkins at 28 then you need to absolutely draft a receiver in the first round. Trust me from experience...last first round wide receivers own. They're good and serviceable. If you want a true #1 that will light the league on fire you almost exclusively have to take him in the top 5 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
That seems like a rather vague qualifier and one that undercuts a lot of talent that goes beyond serviceable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Doltos posted:They're good and serviceable. If you want a true #1 that will light the league on fire you almost exclusively have to take him in the top 5 though. 1996 - Marvin Harrison #19 1998 - Randy Moss #21 2001 - Reggie Wayne #30 2005 - Roddy White #27 2007 - Dwayne Bowe #23 2009 - Percy Harvin #22 2010 - Demaryius Thomas #20 Good and serviceable, these guys
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:1996 - Marvin Harrison #19 -Had Peyton throwing to him -Fell because of character issues -Had Peyton throwing to him -Okay -Hasn't lit the league on fire -Had concerns over what position he would play in the pros, character issues, etc. -Has Peyton throwing to him
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:1996 - Marvin Harrison #19 Well let's look at it. Are all those guys good? Yes. Are all those guys serviceable as well? Yes. Not calling any of them bad, but this list is better: 2011 - AJ Green #4 2011 - Julio Jones #6 2007 - Calvin Johnson #2 2004 - Larry Fitzgerald #3 2003 - Andre Johnson #3 The five arguably best WRs in the league are all top ten picks, and only one of them is outside the top 5. Edit: Also Moss was far and away a top 5 pick until he fought a bunch of white dudes and got shot down by Notre Dame, then smoked a bunch of pot and got cut by Florida State. Everyone knew about his talent but no one wanted to take the risk. Doltos fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Which one would that be? Andre Johnson? It's only because he is old. E: Ohhhh top 5 pick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Doltos posted:They're good and serviceable. If you want a true #1 that will light the league on fire you almost exclusively have to take him in the top 5 though. Are you willing to put any of the receivers in that echelon this year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Well let's look at it. Are all those guys good? Yes. Are all those guys serviceable as well? Yes. Not calling any of them bad, but this list is better: They're not serviceable. Harrison, Moss, and Wayne will all be in the Hall of Fame. Of course drafting in the top five is better. But to claim you're only going to get "good, serviceable" talent out of late first round wideouts is hyperbole. There are a ton of flameouts in the top ten almost every year. It's high risk and high reward. Also adding asterisks to where someone drafted is kind of silly. It's moving the goalposts. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Well let's look at it. Are all those guys good? Yes. Are all those guys serviceable as well? Yes. Not calling any of them bad, but this list is better: What is "true #1" supposed to even mean? A guy who draws and beats double teams? Able to transform small plays into big games? Cause the majority of the ones listed plus guys like Brandon Marshall, Alshon Jeffrey, Vincent Jackson, Jordy Neslon, or Dez Bryant certainly seem capable of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
warheadr posted:LSU's Jeremy Hill just declared, even though I think a week or so ago he was returning. Guess he got a good grade from the evaluations or whatever? Maybe he finally did something so reprehensible that Les Miles wouldn't let him back on the team. Hard to imagine that that could be though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
DangerKat posted:What is "true #1" supposed to even mean? A guy who draws and beats double teams? Able to transform small plays into big games? Cause the majority of the ones listed plus guys like Brandon Marshall, Alshon Jeffrey, Vincent Jackson, Jordy Neslon, or Dez Bryant certainly seem capable of it. A bunch of things go into it. For what it's worth, Dez was also supposed to be a top 10 pick before his character issues dropped him to. Regardless, a #1 is a do it all Possession/Speed/Short Game/Long Game/Open Field Game who demands double teams and can make any catch while running any route. Many of those guys you listed have a short coming that guys like Fitz, Green, Megatron, and Andre Johnson don't have. Nail Rat posted:They're not serviceable. Harrison, Moss, and Wayne will all be in the Hall of Fame. Of course drafting in the top five is better. But to claim you're only going to get "good, serviceable" talent out of late first round wideouts is hyperbole. There are a ton of flameouts in the top ten almost every year. It's high risk and high reward. I think you're offended by what serviceable means. Megatron is serviceable. So is AJ Green. They fulfill their function, as does Wayne, Harrison, Moss, etc. Moss is also one of the best WRs of all time and I'm hardly saying that you can only get WRs like that in the top 5. Hell, look at Jerry Rice. Top ten has plenty of flameouts, but currently the top tier can do anything WRs are all top 5 or top 10 picks. Sorry, but the list is right there. And adding asterisks is what everyone does to every draft. You have to look at the context as to why guys go in a certain spot. Kirios posted:Are you willing to put any of the receivers in that echelon this year? Watkins and Lee perhaps. Lee will drop but Watkins looks like an undersized top tier WR. I could see him going top ten and doing very well in the league.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
In their respective drafts the top 5 in receptions this season were picked at: 205 (Garcon) 195 (Antonio Brown) 3 (Andre Johnson) 232 (Edelman) 120 (Marshall) Yards is a bit more skewed towards high picks but only has two top 5 picks in the leaders (Green and Calvin).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Were you higher on Hopkins or Watkins coming out? What makes one superior to the other? They're extremely similar in size. Is it just the 40 yard dash (Watkins is expected to run in the low 4.4s....Hopkins ran in low to mid 4.5 IIRC?) I just remember in 2012 Hopkins looking like the clear superior receiver when they were on the field at the same time - I'm curious as to why Watkins is considered so much better than him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Last year was kind of odd for WRs. I thought Keenan Allen or Justin Hunter would be the surefire first WRs taken, then Allen got hurt and Hunter looked underwhelming compared to how popular Patterson was getting. Hopkins' knocks were that he was kind of skinny, not overwhelmingly fast, and caught the ball weird. That's kind of the main difference between him and Watkins, as Watkins looks very fast, stout, and catches the ball with his arms extended. He's just a bit short so it's hard to compare him to a guy like AJ Green who does all that and is 6'4-6'5ish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Someone else can help out on the comparisons aspect, as I don't follow Clemson but rather USC, so I know some enough about Tigers players each season to get by. Watkins was hampered by a few issues in 2012, from some suspension to injuries if I remember right. He was amazing as a true freshman in 2011 (first-team AA, shattered a bunch of Clemson records, etc) and bounced back this past season to put up some more amazing numbers. He's also blazing fast. Hopkins was very good at Clemson and all three years he got better each season, but 2012 was far and away his best year (about 500 yds and 13 TD's better than 2011) in part I think because of Watkins being less-than-himself all season and partly just being one of those guys who puts it all together one year and goes nuts. But since 2011 I've felt Watkins has always been the best offensive player for Clemson and side-by-side the better receiver, in my own opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Doltos posted:A bunch of things go into it. For what it's worth, Dez was also supposed to be a top 10 pick before his character issues dropped him to. Regardless, a #1 is a do it all Possession/Speed/Short Game/Long Game/Open Field Game who demands double teams and can make any catch while running any route. Many of those guys you listed have a short coming that guys like Fitz, Green, Megatron, and Andre Johnson don't have. I think I just fundamentally disagree with what sounds to me like there only being 5 "true #1". Even with the qualifications you listed, players like Marshall, Bryant, White, and Wayne would for sure fit that bill and I think Neslon and Thomas aren't far off. You can build a passing offense around all of them and that should be the most important thing to look at. And I get your point about context of guys falling but my disagreement is that finding a "true #1" out of the top 5 would be an exception.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Clemson also used Watkins as kind of a Swiss army knife, like giving him direct snaps or putting him at RB and he pretty much excelled in those roles too. (He was also a great returner.) Hopkins is not without talent, but I think Watkins has a much higher ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
DangerKat posted:I think I just fundamentally disagree with what sounds to me like there only being 5 "true #1". Even with the qualifications you listed, players like Marshall, Bryant, White, and Wayne would for sure fit that bill and I think Neslon and Thomas aren't far off. You can build a passing offense around all of them and that should be the most important thing to look at. And I get your point about context of guys falling but my disagreement is that finding a "true #1" out of the top 5 would be an exception. Yeah that's definitely the situation with the argument. Maybe my qualifier came off awkwardly but I'm sitting here wondering how the hell you can compare White and Wayne to Calvin Johnson. Marshall is the only one who comes close and he doesn't have nearly the deep threat of any of those guys I listed. There are 32 '#1's in the league who all fill different play styles and roles. Only a few of them are what I consider a 'true' #1, which I described in a previous post. Of those few, all of them were top 10 selections. I think you can find a #1 anywhere and really you can find a #1 player for any position anywhere in the draft. But if you were to make a mold of a perfect WR or QB or DE or anything, you have an idea of what a player should be to be considered that 'perfect' player. Most often you do not find that guy anywhere outside the top 10, as the top 10 is almost exclusively filled with the best athletes. Yes you can build a passing offense around any of those guys everyone listed, but I feel like you can build any type of offense around my list and get guaranteed results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Jerry Rice #16 overall 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Jerry Rice #16 overall Doltos posted:I think you're offended by what serviceable means. Megatron is serviceable. So is AJ Green. They fulfill their function, as does Wayne, Harrison, Moss, etc. Moss is also one of the best WRs of all time and I'm hardly saying that you can only get WRs like that in the top 5. Hell, look at Jerry Rice. Edit: Also the draft back then was super unscientific and the scouts involved didn't have nearly the same technology that we have access to. I doubt many front offices even saw Rice play before the draft. And again, he dropped due to his 40 time, no one was questioning his ability. If he came out this year with the same measurements, he'd drop way farther than the 16th spot. Doltos fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Intruder posted:The Falcons I mean, Julio Jones is a monster and was a huge part of really taking a shot at their window, but they just prematurely shortened their window because there's zero depth on that team and Atlanta is really really good at high round drafting so they likely gave up a lot. The browns giving up draft picks for a sure thing makes more sense, but most GMs can't admit they suck at player evals and no NFL team has had the balls to decide to fire all of their scouts and trade away all their picks every year for sure things as a cost cutting/cool idea. It would work fine in theory, but I think we're still at the point where we're overvaluing high picks and that's going to adjust back to reality. Miami made, I thought, a pretty good deal last year, but Deon Jordan probably hasn't owned his draft position yet. Too early to tell, but a first and a second to get into a theoretical higher tier of first isn't so bad. The Saints trading for Ingram was bad, and I think two firsts for any first is almost instantly sounding like a very high risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Eh, regardless, "true #1" talk is just as annoying as "elite QB" talk
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Eh, regardless, "true #1" talk is just as annoying as "elite QB" talk And both are a distance 2nd/3rd to which QB the Texans must draft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Doltos posted:And both are a distance 2nd/3rd to which QB the Texans must draft. You're right, change thread title to "Is Reggie Wayne a true #1?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Intruder posted:You're right, change thread title to "Is Reggie Wayne a true #1?" 2014 NFL Draft: The Texans MUST take Watkins NO LEE THANK YOU
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Great, well we have established that the best players tended to be drafted earlier but not always. Valuable insights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Great, well we have established that the best players tended to be drafted earlier but not always. Valuable insights. Also to be at the top level of your position you have to be taken in the top 5, don't forget that Also sorry for talking about the #1 overall pick in the draft thread, what an embarrassing mistake
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Great, well we have established that the best players tended to be drafted earlier but not always. Valuable insights. It was a benign statement that got blown up. I didn't think I'd rock the boat by saying it but oh well. Intruder posted:Also to be at the top level of your position you have to be taken in the top 5, don't forget that You missed the point of the argument and most of the argument I suppose. The #1 talk between you, bhsman, and whatever other Texans posters have taken up 90% of this thread but I'm not complaining. It's good filler until actual draft stuff happens. Maybe you shouldn't complain about #1 WR talk?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Doltos posted:You missed the point of the argument and most of the argument I suppose. The #1 talk between you, bhsman, and whatever other Texans posters have taken up 90% of this thread but I'm not complaining. It's good filler until actual draft stuff happens. Maybe you shouldn't complain about #1 WR talk? I don't mind the #1 WR talk, it's when it devolves into "It's impossible to get a #1 receiver outside the top 5 and this list of guys taken outside the top 5 you've provided doesn't count" and it becomes a discussion on whether Reggie Wayne or Marvin Harrison or Jordy Nelson is worthy of the label and you're no longer even talking about the guys in this year's draft. Anyway, I'll drop it
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I don't mind the #1 WR talk, it's when it devolves into "It's impossible to get a #1 receiver outside the top 5 and this list of guys taken outside the top 5 you've provided doesn't count" and it becomes a discussion on whether Reggie Wayne or Marvin Harrison or Jordy Nelson is worthy of the label and you're no longer even talking about the guys in this year's draft. Yeah you keep missing the point so I'd drop it. That'd be for the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Yeah you keep missing the point so I'd drop it. That'd be for the best.  Same old Doltos
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Intruder posted:
Sorry buddy, can't let a passive-aggressive last word statement followed by you 'dropping the argument' go past me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Okay so in a change of pace from both of those topics, who would be the most likely to want to trade up to the #1 overall spot? I don't necessarily think the Texans should trade down, but it's an interesting proposition since they've got a number of spots they could fill with more picks. It'd be best if they stayed in the top 5/6 or so to make sure they don't trade their way out of all of their BPA at the positions of need, but I am not sure any of the other top 6 teams are really jumping to leapfrog one another, are they?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Okay so in a change of pace from both of those topics, who would be the most likely to want to trade up to the #1 overall spot? I don't necessarily think the Texans should trade down, but it's an interesting proposition since they've got a number of spots they could fill with more picks. It'd be best if they stayed in the top 5/6 or so to make sure they don't trade their way out of all of their BPA at the positions of need, but I am not sure any of the other top 6 teams are really jumping to leapfrog one another, are they? I'd say the Browns but they're surprisingly hard to fleece into trading up. The Jets on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Okay so in a change of pace from both of those topics, who would be the most likely to want to trade up to the #1 overall spot? I don't necessarily think the Texans should trade down, but it's an interesting proposition since they've got a number of spots they could fill with more picks. It'd be best if they stayed in the top 5/6 or so to make sure they don't trade their way out of all of their BPA at the positions of need, but I am not sure any of the other top 6 teams are really jumping to leapfrog one another, are they? How far down should they be willing to trade? How far down can you trade and still get one of Bridgewater/Bortles/Manziel? Or do you just roll the dice with Mettenberger or Boyd or *shudder* McCarron? I guess it comes down to "Do you NEED to draft a QB in the first?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:42
|
|