|
Does anyone watch enough Ivy League football to have any info on Jeff Mathews? That OptimumScouting guy was pretty drat high on him, from those tweets.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Alouicious posted:Does anyone watch enough Ivy League football to have any info on Jeff Mathews? That OptimumScouting guy was pretty drat high on him, from those tweets. His CBS profile http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1760436/jeff-mathews quote:With former Delaware Blue Hen Joe Flacco guiding the Ravens to Super Bowl glory, the timing may never be better for an FCS QB to establish himself as one of the top passers of his respective class. The likeliest candidate to accomplish this is Mathews, whose strong, accurate arm pops off tape, already making him a hot name in scouting circles. Sounds like the Shrine Game will be his one big chance to stand out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Alouicious posted:Does anyone watch enough Ivy League football to have any info on Jeff Mathews? That OptimumScouting guy was pretty drat high on him, from those tweets. Draft Breakdown has a bunch of videos on him: http://draftbreakdown.com/ Also nicely organized by Shrine Game/Senor Bowl invitees atm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I guess the biggest issue I have with this line of thinking is that it implies that prospect success is based solely on smart scouting. To me, luck is a factor. Players succeed and fail for many different reasons, from scouting to system to coaching to environment to just bad luck (injuries, non-football issues, etc). Scouting is not an exact science, and it is not the same as drafting. Some teams may draft better or claim to scout better, but when you actually look at the results, this isn't necessarily the case, since teams draft the "right" guy about 50% of the time compared to the next guy. Even the good teams. Trading for more picks implies that a smart GM knows that his ability to evaluate talent doesn't guarantee success and so he will maximize his chances of getting strong talent by buying himself more opportunities. You seem to be ignoring that I never said trading down is bad, just that the goon mentality that trading down every time is the right thing is a flawed outlook. My point is simply that the situations in the draft are fluid and trading up and down are equally valid given the situation. quote:By your logic, teams shouldn't bother to keep strong depth around since stockpiling strong back-ups just for the sake of having depth is an implication that you don't trust your starters to stay healthy or play well all season. You didn't actually expect this statement to be taken seriously, right? I mean, if you are just trolling me, you can say so, but statements like this don't help you give the impression you are constructing a logical argument. One has nothing to do with the other. quote:Additionally it's pretty telling that pundits and armchair experts can predict with a high degree of accuracy who the top 32/64 players are with regard to the draft without attending every game or watching hundreds of hours of footage. Some teams may have better information than others, but come May they're all pretty much looking at the same guys. What is also telling is how often we can tell who the reaches are with our limited knowledge. AJ Jenkins and Stephen Hill both west before Alshon Jeffrey, and Trestman traded up to get Jeffrey when he slipped. Was that the wrong decision? After all, we should always trade down to acquire more picks and we can always find better value that way. quote:Hard to argue that the Packers are doing a better job than the Pats, given that the latter team is in its third consecutive AFC championship game despite tons of injuries and a slapdash group of receivers while the Packers backed into the playoffs and a first round exit as a result of a terrible defensive unit. This is just the homer in you talking. I suspect the Packers have been much better drafting over the past four years. I'd still place the Patriots in the top five, but they are completely different scenarios. I mean, if the Pats had to play the 49ers instead of the Colts, do you think they'd be in the NFC Championship game right now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
I think you're overrating the Packers' drafts the past 2 years. They've been below average since Schneider left for Seattle and McKenzie left for Oakland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Toymachine posted:I think you're overrating the Packers' drafts the past 2 years. They've been below average since Schneider left for Seattle and McKenzie left for Oakland. You may be right. Now that I think about it, I can't name any of their draft picks in the last two years except for Cobb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Sataere posted:You may be right. Now that I think about it, I can't name any of their draft picks in the last two years except for Cobb. And Lacy, but yeah. The Rodger-less Packers really revealed themselves to be a pretty bad team in all three phases other than the phoenix-like return of Crosby
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I just want to know why I'm not allowed to say that trading down a bunch is overrated!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Sataere posted:You may be right. Now that I think about it, I can't name any of their draft picks in the last two years except for Cobb. I was going to say this was flat out wrong but after looking back at the last two drafts I guess the only definite hits the Packers really had are Eddie Lacy, Casey Hayward, Nick Perry, and David Bakhtiari. Huh. Edit: I mean if a rookie tackle is, "Not a drive killing tire fire," I call that a hit. Its why I haven't given up on Jordon Mills. VVVVV DupaDupa fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
DupaDupa posted:I was going to say this was flat out wrong but after looking back at the last two drafts I guess the only definite hits the Packers really had are Eddie Lacy, Casey Hayward, Nick Perry, and David Bakhtiari. Huh. Bakhtiari was surprisingly good, but not actually that good. Hayward is great but only played three games this year. Perry sometimes shows up. The Packers are wasting Aaron Rodgers, and I can't complain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
DupaDupa posted:I was going to say this was flat out wrong but after looking back at the last two drafts I guess the only definite hits the Packers really had are Eddie Lacy, Casey Hayward, Nick Perry, and David Bakhtiari. Huh. Why do you think the Packers have been so relatively bad recently well Past 2 years. They always have injuries on that defense. It's just that their 6th string linebackers and secondary used to always show up and play at least serviceable football for them. Now they are getting those injuries and having their 6th string linebackers and secondary suck. I mean they are in the North. So they pretty much have a free ticket to the playoffs, as Aaron Rodgers always beats the Bears, and the Lions always find a way to gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Sataere posted:You seem to be ignoring that I never said trading down is bad, just that the goon mentality that trading down every time is the right thing is a flawed outlook. My point is simply that the situations in the draft are fluid and trading up and down are equally valid given the situation. I don't disagree that there are times when trading up may be a good move, but you always pay a hefty long-term price for short-term benefit. I think the Falcons' trade for Julio Jones was absolutely the correct "win now" move at the time, but now they are paying the price with a team that is talent-depleted. quote:You didn't actually expect this statement to be taken seriously, right? I mean, if you are just trolling me, you can say so, but statements like this don't help you give the impression you are constructing a logical argument. One has nothing to do with the other. It's a standard reductio ad absurdum and no I don't think it's outrageous in this context. You have to plan for failure at all stages of the game, from scouting to drafting to signing players and building depth. Teams shouldn't try and sign two starting QBs, but they also are not well-served operating as though their QB will always be healthy. Likewise GMs should trust their scouting, but should not operate as though their scouting is any better than any other team's scouting, nor as though good scouting means a 100% success rate. quote:What is also telling is how often we can tell who the reaches are with our limited knowledge. AJ Jenkins and Stephen Hill both west before Alshon Jeffrey, and Trestman traded up to get Jeffrey when he slipped. Was that the wrong decision? After all, we should always trade down to acquire more picks and we can always find better value that way. Sometimes this is true--Travis Frederick was a "reach" in the 2013 draft that had as good a rookie season as any OL drafted (so even our limited knowledge fails us in that context). It's difficult to discuss reaches within a scouting context though, since reaching for a player only implies something about their value relative to the draft and context, not the actual player value--a "reach" player can be a perfectly capable starter for a period of time and yet still be a poor draft choice for their output relative to their draft position. Ponder was a reach, but he was a better QB than the QB taken before him (Gabbert), and had the Vikings not taken him, Kaepernick and Dalton would still not have been available. So whether he was a reach in the first round or correctly chosen in the second round has no bearing on his ability, only the price paid. quote:This is just the homer in you talking. Given that I am neither a fan of the Packers nor the Patriots (and in fact have a strong dislike for both teams), this is very, very unlikely. quote:I suspect the Packers have been much better drafting over the past four years. I'd still place the Patriots in the top five, but they are completely different scenarios. I mean, if the Pats had to play the 49ers instead of the Colts, do you think they'd be in the NFC Championship game right now? Given that the Patriots finished ahead of the 49ers in total DVOA for the season, yes I do think they'd have a good chance to be in the NFC Championship game. And no, as other posters have pointed out, the Packers haven't had a host of great drafts recently or I'd wager their defense would have been stronger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
As I said above, I don't think the Packers are any better at drafting pick-for-pick than any other team (this includes the Raiders). They just collected a lot of picks, and then got very lucky when they hit on ARod. Now, they're seeing the same effects that the Colts saw during the Peyton era: sustained success reduces the amount of talent flowing into the franchise, and the team has to localize, focus strengths on building around the franchise QB. Long term, this turns the team into a shell around the star QB. I think my point here is that drafting an MVP caliber QB really makes everything else look better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I don't disagree that there are times when trading up may be a good move, but you always pay a hefty long-term price for short-term benefit. I think the Falcons' trade for Julio Jones was absolutely the correct "win now" move at the time, but now they are paying the price with a team that is talent-depleted. And I have never denied there is an inherent cost or risk towards doing this. However, Atlanta might have been in a better position if they had done a better job in free agency. quote:It's a standard reductio ad absurdum and no I don't think it's outrageous in this context. You have to plan for failure at all stages of the game, from scouting to drafting to signing players and building depth. Teams shouldn't try and sign two starting QBs, but they also are not well-served operating as though their QB will always be healthy. Likewise GMs should trust their scouting, but should not operate as though their scouting is any better than any other team's scouting, nor as though good scouting means a 100% success rate. I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my statement in order to make your point with that. Getting as many impact players and building depth are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, for as well as the Patriots have done, if Brady goes down, they are hosed. As it is, their record likely isn't as good as it is if they don't have a cupcake schedule in one of the weaker divisions in football. quote:Sometimes this is true--Travis Frederick was a "reach" in the 2013 draft that had as good a rookie season as any OL drafted (so even our limited knowledge fails us in that context). It's difficult to discuss reaches within a scouting context though, since reaching for a player only implies something about their value relative to the draft and context, not the actual player value--a "reach" player can be a perfectly capable starter for a period of time and yet still be a poor draft choice for their output relative to their draft position. Ponder was a reach, but he was a better QB than the QB taken before him (Gabbert), and had the Vikings not taken him, Kaepernick and Dalton would still not have been available. So whether he was a reach in the first round or correctly chosen in the second round has no bearing on his ability, only the price paid. And I think we all agree that reaching for a quarterback is the worst decision a franchise can make. It never works out well for the reaching team and always sets that franchise back. quote:Given that I am neither a fan of the Packers nor the Patriots (and in fact have a strong dislike for both teams), this is very, very unlikely. We can agree to disagree on this. And you aren't a Patriots fan? For some reason, I thought you were. Who is your team?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
He's a Cowboys fan and to a lesser extent I think also a Texans fan
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
How the gently caress did I not know that. I am usually really good at recognizing the regulars. It's that damned hoodie avatar throwing me off!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Intruder posted:He's a Cowboys fan and to a lesser extent I think also a Texans fan A terrible and self loathing creature to be sure. I say as a Chiefs fan. poo poo. TheChirurgeon posted:Sometimes this is true--Travis Frederick was a "reach" in the 2013 draft that had as good a rookie season as any OL drafted I'm curious about this, who are some other reaches who did well? More historically than 2013
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:
I think Eric Weddle was considered a pretty big reach since San Diego traded a lot to Chicago to move up in the early 2nd round and grab him
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
If your team does not regularly draft special teamers and cut third-round picks because it has no room (hello, Belichick) then your team is acceptable at drafting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my statement in order to make your point with that. Getting as many impact players and building depth are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, for as well as the Patriots have done, if Brady goes down, they are hosed. As it is, their record likely isn't as good as it is if they don't have a cupcake schedule in one of the weaker divisions in football. I just think that your line of reasoning doesn't hold up, and has absurd consequences. It's also worth noting that when Tom Brady actually did go down for a season, the Patriots weren't hosed. They did miss the playoffs, but they also went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB. quote:And I think we all agree that reaching for a quarterback is the worst decision a franchise can make. It never works out well for the reaching team and always sets that franchise back. I suppose, though this misses my point--If the Vikings take Ponder in round 2, he's not a reach but he still sucks just as badly. Intruder posted:He's a Cowboys fan and to a lesser extent I think also a Texans fan ding Grittybeard posted:A terrible and self loathing creature to be sure. It is surprisingly hard to find this information because you're looking for an article where someone lists "players about whom I or someone else was wrong in the draft," which people don't like to write as much as "BIGGEST REACHES" or "BEST STEALS" or "HUGEST BUSTS." Off the top of my head, these guys were called reaches by one or more news outlets: - Le'Veon Bell - Julio Jones - Bruce Irvin - Russell Wilson - Jason Pierre-Paul - Chris Johnson - Josh Sitton TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I just think that your line of reasoning doesn't hold up, and has absurd consequences. It's also worth noting that when Tom Brady actually did go down for a season, the Patriots weren't hosed. They did miss the playoffs, but they also went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB. Travis Frederick was a widely panned pick and that dude is turning out to be a beast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Travis Frederick was a widely panned pick and that dude is turning out to be a beast. Yeah, I had already mentioned him. He was not only a solid 16-game starter at a position where the Cowboys were a total dumpster fire last year, but the pick that the Cowboys got from the 49ers turned into Terrence Williams, who played very well and will likely be the starting #2 WR for the Cowboys next year. Additionally, Frederick was projected as a 2nd rounder so I'm not certain taking him at 31 was ever that big a reach, but I think that there are inherent problems with round-based analyses of the draft (example: Drew Brees, taken #32 overall, was a second rounder by those standards). I'd rather see analysis done based on groups of 5, 10, or 15 selection spots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Travis Frederick was a widely panned pick and that dude is turning out to be a beast. Dudes got a killer beard; A beard that was worthy of a 1st round pick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:- Le'Veon Bell
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Atticus Finch posted:Was he a reach? I remember everyone went nuts after his combine and he was projected to be the first RB off the table and that ended up being not far off. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/photos/1304/big-reaches-in-2013-draft/3/ http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1620659-biggest-reaches-of-the-2013-nfl-draft/page/2 Lacy and Ball were still on the board when Bell came off, which I think is primarily why he was considered a reach. I agree that he had a good season once he finally made it to the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Why trade up when you could get kaep, Russell or Tom in the late rounds. Maybe move up in the forth round to pick up Navarro or Sherman if your desperate for all pros. In summary, good players some how emerge after round 1. In fact trading up sucks cause big draft classes are cool. Only trade up for rg3 and Julio jones
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I just think that your line of reasoning doesn't hold up, and has absurd consequences. It's also worth noting that when Tom Brady actually did go down for a season, the Patriots weren't hosed. They did miss the playoffs, but they also went 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB. That was a very different team. And my line of reasoning is simply that trading up or down is not inherently good or bad. It is all situational. I would argue that Frederick was not a reach because the decision was inherently a good one. The only problem with looking at it from that perspective is that all decisions would be based on hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I just want to know why I'm not allowed to say that trading down a bunch is overrated! And yes, sometimes it's a team's only way to get something they really want. Interestingly, though, that is probably part of the reason teams that trade up tend to get the short end. The team trading down knows the team trading up really wants what they have, and that's a strong negotiating position. If, say, the Texans were DESPERATE to trade down this year to build depth and none of the other 31 teams were that interested you might see the reverse happen, but for various reasons things tend to go the other way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Sataere posted:That was a very different team. And my line of reasoning is simply that trading up or down is not inherently good or bad. It is all situational. I would argue that Frederick was not a reach because the decision was inherently a good one. The only problem with looking at it from that perspective is that all decisions would be based on hindsight. Congratulations you've argued your position to the point of nothing or anything is good or bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
f1av0r posted:Congratulations you've argued your position to the point of nothing or anything is good or bad This is how all my arguments end. Has the combine happened yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/photos/1304/big-reaches-in-2013-draft/3/ Ball isn't that good, Bell showed much more than him or Lacy leading up to the draft. It makes sense because Bell is a workout warrior. Either way, any of those backs being taken in the second wasn't a reach. Irvin and JPP shouldn't be considered either. JPP was a solid top 15 talent and Irvin rose mightily right before the draft. Julio Jones was also a guy who was seen as a top 10 pick for a while but his buzz simmered during his last college season for not being all world. He was just really freaking good so people weren't talking about him as much as other guys. More than a few guys on this board alone pegged Russell Wilson as one of the best QBs in the draft, but no one was sure where he'd be taken due to his height. I thought 2nd-3rd was a fair grade for him as he was passing behind the biggest o-line in the country and he did pretty much everything right. I mean this is the problem with hindsighting the draft. There is so many people covering the draft at any given time that there's bound to be many outlets that think X player is a reach while X player is a steal. I disagree with almost all of those "reaches" in the SI article, but there's bound to be a hundred some people who would disagree with me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Sataere posted:This is how all my arguments end. Has the combine happened yet? I think rich can beat his old 40 time this year
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Ball isn't that good, Bell showed much more than him or Lacy leading up to the draft. It makes sense because Bell is a workout warrior. Either way, any of those backs being taken in the second wasn't a reach. I agree that calling these guys reaches, particularly with the benefit of hindsight is absurd, which is why I listed them. The play of a guy is almost completely independent of where he is drafted; only the expectations and pay change. So the point of listing these guys is not "in hindsight these guys were good" but to say that a player is a bad choice because he "may possibly have been available later" or "seems less likely to work out as much as other player at same position" (when history shows that this is a crapshoot) is as ridiculous as hindsighting. I will argue all day long that the Cowboys were better off with Frederick than any defensive player they might have taken since the center position was a trainwreck and no one defensive player was going to save our dumpster fire defense. I think the biggest mistake that most people make is thinking that teams have good information about what other teams are after. Teams largely have no idea after the earliest picks and that's when they start worrying about whether a player they like will be available later on. I'm more of the mind that if you get the guys you want, then some minor "reaching" isn't a bad thing. I liked Wilson before the draft but his size meant he was going to fall and I wouldn't have been surprised to see him taken in the 6th or 7th round (this would have been a mistake but predicting the way the draft will go is not the same as predicting the best choices).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I think the biggest mistake that most people make is thinking that teams have good information about what other teams are after. Teams largely have no idea after the earliest picks and that's when they start worrying about whether a player they like will be available later on. I'm more of the mind that if you get the guys you want, then some minor "reaching" isn't a bad thing. That really is it. We're just not privy to the inner going ons so anything that looks like a reach to us may in fact be a savvy pick. I think teams have a good idea up until the fourth round. We've all seen the Jerry Jones draft board. Teams take clusters of players in each position and assign round grades to them. Then when their pick comes up, they look at their board and see who would help the most out of those guys who are left. I think once the fourth round hits, there's so many odd or unpredictable picks happening that there will be a glut of players on everyones draft boards and predicting who is gonna take who becomes impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I'm curious about this, who are some other reaches who did well? More historically than 2013 Tim Tebow
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the sentiment nationally was, but in Houston a lot of people considered Duane Brown a pretty big reach at the time
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Intruder posted:I'm not sure what the sentiment nationally was, but in Houston a lot of people considered Duane Brown a pretty big reach at the time I did too and thought they took a lame duck third rounder in the first. Which LT were you guys transitioning from at the time? I was sweating the crap out of those late round picks too because I thought everyone between us and the Cowboys wanted Kenny Phillips.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I think the biggest mistake that most people make is thinking that teams have good information about what other teams are after. Teams largely have no idea after the earliest picks and that's when they start worrying about whether a player they like will be available later on. I'm more of the mind that if you get the guys you want, then some minor "reaching" isn't a bad thing. Yep I remember getting all Mad at people here for laughing at the Browns for that one Chuck Klosterman article when he was in their draft room. People were laughing at them for like watching ESPN to see what other teams were gonna do. Like what do we think they have spies in the Jaguars and Titans draft rooms secretly texting them like the Departed or some poo poo grahhh
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
I for one believe there are actually spies all over the league but they're more worried about scouting the other team than bugging a draft war room. That being said, the ABA owners used to 100% no joke bug each other's draft war rooms so I can believe that it still happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Doltos posted:I did too and thought they took a lame duck third rounder in the first. Which LT were you guys transitioning from at the time? I was sweating the crap out of those late round picks too because I thought everyone between us and the Cowboys wanted Kenny Phillips. Chester Pitts I believe e: No Pitts was a guard, nevermind. It was Ephraim Salaam
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:53
|
|