|
Doltos posted:No it's not and no amount of posting Isiah Pacheco while ignoring the 20 other late round RBs that bust around him will change this ignorant opinion No one is claiming that late round rbs are immune to busting. The point is that it is easier, relative to other positions, to get starters in the later rounds.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
wandler20 posted:Bad teams drafting TE/off ball LB/S/RB in the top 10 is how bad teams stay bad. I agree! Well except for safety. I think an actual elite safety is vastly underrated by the market. But those prospects are rare and far between. Most safeties should not be drafted that high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say a 1st round RB is a waste, but it probably is if the RB in question can't catch/run some receiver stuff, and the counterexample people always bring up (McCaffrey) is indicative of this fact
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
xbilkis posted:Generally speaking, I agree positional value stuff shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule — if you get a great player at any position with basically any pick, it's at least a good return on your investment, even if it's less likely to be the optimal return on your investment if it's not a "premium position." If you're looking at an RB/IOL/TE/LB/S with a round 1 grade versus a WR/EDGE with a day 2 grade, yeah, sure, go ahead and grab the prospect you're higher on. I think the thing about "value" and the like is that like, for an TE1 or RB1 to ever even be considered taken in the top 10 picks means they are probably above average and outlier prospects for their position For example in 2020 no one was seriously thinking about taking Cole Kmet in the first round, and if they were definitely not considering it in the top 10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
xbilkis posted:Generally speaking, I agree positional value stuff shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule — if you get a great player at any position with basically any pick, it's at least a good return on your investment, even if it's less likely to be the optimal return on your investment if it's not a "premium position." If you're looking at an RB/IOL/TE/LB/S with a round 1 grade versus a WR/EDGE with a day 2 grade, yeah, sure, go ahead and grab the prospect you're higher on. Yeah this is a good post. And obviously there’s a spectrum like you are getting at. If for whatever reason an entire draft class was 5 clones of Saquon and then 200 clones of Milhouse, obviously it’s okay to draft a RB in the top 5 because they are so much better than Milhouse. But that the question posed by that hypothetical talent distribution basically never exists in actual draft classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Also like every team has different needs and values different archetypes of players differently. Like if I was a team that played a bunch of 12/13 personnel but only had one TE or zero TE's of note, but did have one pretty good reciever I might draft the TE prospect if I didn't think they would last to my next pick and I couldn't trade back and I thought there was a decent enough dropoff from TE1 to TE2 or TE2 to 3 etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:26
|
|
|
Quiet Feet posted:I'm gonna drink a lot of margaritas during the 1st round and then completely check out on the rest and that's all the thought anyone should put into the draft. Thanks buddy what a profound statement to make in the thread where people care about the draft xbilkis posted:But it's insane to act like "positional value" is a made-up concept, or that it shouldn't be used at all to inform your decision making when there is plenty of data to back up the notion that drafting a QB/WR/DE/OT in the top 10 has historically produced a better return (with significantly higher upside) than drafting a TE or RB. Obviously every class is different and each individual pick has the potential to defy the larger trend, but there's such a high level of uncertainty with any draft pick that it's almost hubristic to think you can accurately identify the outlier-level TE/RB/G prospects who end up legitimately being worth a top 10 pick. It is a made-up concept. It was specifically made up for the draft. There's nothing in any football playbook anywhere, hopefully, that says some positions don't matter as others. It's a complete rejection of the idea of positions in general. The only position immune to it is QB because of the usage factors. Everything else is highly dependent on the guy around you. Ornery and Hornery posted:No one is claiming that late round rbs are immune to busting. Again, pure hearsay. You can't say that and be right with zero proof. Every position finds starters in the later rounds. Every, single, one. The Chief's offense has 1 first rounder on it. You're still ignoring how football is played rather than the stats result. Yards and TDs aren't gained equally no matter how much the numbers look the same. You would all make terrible GMs. This isn't Madden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:27
|
|
|
Doltos posted:
lol who is applying to be an NFL GM? You say this multiple times every year and it's meaningless, we're posting our opinions on an old rear end message board for fun, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
We’d all make wonderful unpaid interns which is essentially the current ceiling
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
I’m going to be the patriots GM but we are keeping it hush hush for now
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:lol who is applying to be an NFL GM? You say this multiple times every year and it's meaningless, we're posting our opinions on an old rear end message board for fun, nothing more. The positional value opinion is bad without any sense of knowing a thing about how a football team works. It sucks rear end and I'm going to point it out when people state it like they're smarter than NFL GMs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
I’d be way better at drafting than hall of fame coach Bill Belly-Chex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:51
|
|
|
Doltos posted:The Chief's offense has 1 first rounder on it. Sounds like they're making good calls wrt positional value then
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Doltos posted:The positional value opinion is bad without any sense of knowing a thing about how a football team works. It sucks rear end and I'm going to point it out when people state it like they're smarter than NFL GMs. Actually you are bad and it’s dumb to assume NFL GMs are infallible. This literal subforum was literally a decade ahead of the greater NFL market when it came to the idea that you should not draft RBs high nor give them huge contracts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:Sounds like they're making good calls wrt positional value then So no offensive positions besides QB matter in the first round. Alright everyone shape your drafts again we've cut out OL and WRs to go with TEs and RBs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:Actually you are bad and it’s dumb to assume NFL GMs are infallible. I mean you spend every draft thread yelling random claims without ever doing any work behind it. I'm going to trust NFL GMs more than a subforum that only drafted OL in goon drafts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:56
|
|
|
Gim? What’s a Gim?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:57
|
|
|
Clyde Edwards Helaire was a first round pick on the Chiefs offense and I think all Chiefs will tell you that was a terrible draft pick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:lol who is applying to be an NFL GM? You say this multiple times every year and it's meaningless, we're posting our opinions on an old rear end message board for fun, nothing more. I'll have you know that I take posting incredibly seriously. Whenever I make a bad post I punch myself in the dick out of frustration for letting the forums down. With that said, I'm in a perpetual state of horrific pain as a result of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Clyde Edwards Helaire was a first round pick on the Chiefs offense and I think all Chiefs will tell you that was a terrible draft pick. To be fair he was awful and should have never been a first round pick. It's not the positions fault that the Chiefs saw him barely being relevant on the most high powered NCAA offense in history with 1 in the box and thought that they had to have him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
Doltos posted:It is a made-up concept. It was specifically made up for the draft. There's nothing in any football playbook anywhere, hopefully, that says some positions don't matter as others. It's a complete rejection of the idea of positions in general. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:02
|
|
|
Market rates are set up and skewed heavily to favor past precedent. In a perfect world all of those would be similar numbers but I hardly fault the actual value of a position with one assigned by billionaires against the world's weakest union.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
Also here's a quote from an actual NFL coach saying his actual NFL GM wouldn't draft a specific position with a top 10 pick https://twitter.com/JeffsBearsTakes/status/1587870803030425603
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Yeah LBs are more valuable than OL. ???
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
a neat cape posted:Yeah LBs are more valuable than OL. The LB franchise tag figure is based on the salary of the highest paid players at the position, who are all edge rushers
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
All 4 teams in the conference championship round had a really good hb and tightend. Probably should value those positions more lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
xbilkis posted:Also here's a quote from an actual NFL coach saying his actual NFL GM wouldn't draft a specific position with a top 10 pick But then he went ahead and took a guard in the top 10 so I guess those positional value claims are more flexible than we think
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
Metapod posted:All 4 teams in the conference championship round had a really good hb and tightend. Probably should value those positions more lol I think there's a pretty easy argument to make that NFL teams generally speaking should place a greater value on high-end talent at "non premium positions", yeah. I'm posting at people who are acting like the basic concept of positional value is a thing online nerds made up though
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
xbilkis posted:I think there's a pretty easy argument to make that NFL teams generally speaking should place a greater value on high-end talent at "non premium positions", yeah. I'm posting at people who are acting like the basic concept of positional value is a thing online nerds made up though Where again did I say online nerds made up the concept of positional value? I said it was invented for the draft. IE coaches hopefully aren't going up to players and telling them their positions aren't that impactful compared to others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:17
|
|
|
Doltos posted:So no offensive positions besides QB matter in the first round. Alright everyone shape your drafts again we've cut out OL and WRs to go with TEs and RBs. This is how the Packers have operated since like 2011 and everyone gets mad at them for it. Even going back to 2005 the only non-QB offensive players to be drafted in the first were offensive tackles Bryan Bulaga and Derek Sherrod. One was pretty decent for a long while, the other sucked and was out of the league before his rookie contract was even up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
Metapod posted:All 4 teams in the conference championship round had a really good hb and tightend. Probably should value those positions more lol Only one of those starters was a first round pick. Andrews (3rd) Kelce (3rd) Pacheco (7th) CMC (1st) Kittle (5th) LaPorta (2nd) Montgomery (3rd)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Only one of those starters was a first round pick. The best one was a first round pick*. This also implies that they're undervalued, not that they're easily found later on. To prove that you'd have to run every position drafted against some variable you want to set like yards or AV or PFF rating or whatever and even that ignores actual impact instead of statistical output.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Only one of those starters was a first round pick. Lol at intentionally saying Montgomery instead of Gibbs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Lol at intentionally saying Montgomery instead of Gibbs. He out touched and out produced Gibbs so what's the argument? 3rd rounder out produces first round talent. Even if you include him it's like 2/8. Not great pal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:He out touched and out produced Gibbs so what's the argument? 3rd rounder out produces first round talent. Even if you include him it's like 2/8. Not great pal. Mont did touch the ball more than Gibbs (by 1) Gibbs out produced him buy a lot (5.4 yards per touch vs 4.8). 2/8 and all would have been home run picks in the first with their production
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:50
|
|
|
T’Vondre Sweat Khristian Boyd They will make a team very, very happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:55
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Mont did touch the ball more than Gibbs (by 1) Gibbs out produced him buy a lot (5.4 yards per touch vs 4.8). 2/8 and all would have been home run picks in the first with their production Just going to ignore that costly turnover by Gibbs. The play that ended up being the turning point in the game and cost his team a chance to go to the Super Bowl?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Just going to ignore that costly turnover by Gibbs. The play that ended up being the turning point in the game and cost his team a chance to go to the Super Bowl? Yes I'm going to ignore 1 play out the 100s of good ones he did that helped the lions have their best season ever lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
can't believe a first round pick loving fumbled a football...
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Metapod posted:Yes I'm going to ignore 1 play out the 100s of good ones he did that helped the lions have their best season ever lol Gibbs is a good player but they got just as much production out of a third round cast off this season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 02:02
|
|